proposed pay overhaul for the police
Discussion
Performance-related pay - f
king ridiculous. It's bad enough already having to hit monthly targets for detections. WTF happened to being proactive and preventing crime? We're not in sales, you can't measure performance in the same way. I caught a burglar last month red-handed - a laptop stuffed up his jumper, jewellery in his back pockets. It was a top result. We got everything back to the aggrieved and put a scroate on remand. Does this count towards my monthly target? No it doesn't. Why? Because burglaries are handled by CID, so they get the detection. 
Performance-related pay would be a very, very bad thing.
king ridiculous. It's bad enough already having to hit monthly targets for detections. WTF happened to being proactive and preventing crime? We're not in sales, you can't measure performance in the same way. I caught a burglar last month red-handed - a laptop stuffed up his jumper, jewellery in his back pockets. It was a top result. We got everything back to the aggrieved and put a scroate on remand. Does this count towards my monthly target? No it doesn't. Why? Because burglaries are handled by CID, so they get the detection. article said:
This system does not reward expertise and discourages officers from developing much-needed specialist skills, such as tackling violent and gang-related crime," the report said.
"It also fails to reward officers who do the most difficult or dangerous roles, such as emergency response work."
So they propose increasing pay for specialists and increasing pay for response officers? Sounds good to me, I'm sure the government will back that... oh, hang on..."It also fails to reward officers who do the most difficult or dangerous roles, such as emergency response work."
Performance-related pay would be a very, very bad thing.
Chief officers already have performance related pay. If their force meets the relevant targets set by the Home Office, large bonuses are available.
Performance related pay in the lower ranks will cause the service to collapse.
Some roles that are valuable to policing and do not touch the sorts of targets that the Home Office will expect will not be taken up as there will be no reason for an officer to foresake the opportunity to earn the extra cash. Some areas of policing are difficult to quantify in terms of performance and the measure is somewhat subjective by the supervisor in charge of that officer. Take police divers for instance.
If you don't get on with your supervisor, then there is every chance that your performance will be marked down to a lower level affecting your pay. That is clearly wrong.
Australia has performance related pay in that those who work the night shifts get a bonus pay over those who take the 9-5 shifts. There are also gratuities to those who do specialist roles.
That does not happen as such here although firearms officers in the UK do get extra allowances called special priority payments because they carry out a demanding and sometimes more dangerous role. Neighbourhood Specialist officers also get enhanced pay because of their responsibilities looking after the welfare and work of PCSO's.
Performance related pay in the lower ranks will cause the service to collapse.
Some roles that are valuable to policing and do not touch the sorts of targets that the Home Office will expect will not be taken up as there will be no reason for an officer to foresake the opportunity to earn the extra cash. Some areas of policing are difficult to quantify in terms of performance and the measure is somewhat subjective by the supervisor in charge of that officer. Take police divers for instance.
If you don't get on with your supervisor, then there is every chance that your performance will be marked down to a lower level affecting your pay. That is clearly wrong.
Australia has performance related pay in that those who work the night shifts get a bonus pay over those who take the 9-5 shifts. There are also gratuities to those who do specialist roles.
That does not happen as such here although firearms officers in the UK do get extra allowances called special priority payments because they carry out a demanding and sometimes more dangerous role. Neighbourhood Specialist officers also get enhanced pay because of their responsibilities looking after the welfare and work of PCSO's.
Surely the problem is not performance related pay as such, but how to measure that performance. Paying someone according to how well they do their job seems obvious, it's how to measure it that is difficult. In the public sector traditionally it was done by having annual increments - however this has three problems. (1) in most jobs it's hard to imagine that most people continue to improve indefinitely (2) it can be considered age discrimination and (3) not everyone's performance continues to improve with experience, some are just timeservers and some are borderline competent, others get to a point where they're pretty good at the job & are valuable employees but just aren't going to go any further. I'm not having a dig at the police here, it happens everywhere but in the public sector it is less likely that people are performance managed out.
Having said that, the points raised by other posters about the appropriateness of targets are valid and I would be suspicious of the government's ability to introduce a scheme that actually works.
In most jobs I think a scheme that rapidly accelerates someone to a market rate for the job (say 2-3 years, but in more complex jobs could be longer) is fair, after this annual increases would be basically inflationaery, but there should be an annual bonus entitlement based on individual and employer performance. Although the problem with applying this to the police might be lack of promotion opportunities (which is how people in most jobs get their big pay increases) and the difficulty in setting a market rate where the state is the only employer.
Having said that, the points raised by other posters about the appropriateness of targets are valid and I would be suspicious of the government's ability to introduce a scheme that actually works.
In most jobs I think a scheme that rapidly accelerates someone to a market rate for the job (say 2-3 years, but in more complex jobs could be longer) is fair, after this annual increases would be basically inflationaery, but there should be an annual bonus entitlement based on individual and employer performance. Although the problem with applying this to the police might be lack of promotion opportunities (which is how people in most jobs get their big pay increases) and the difficulty in setting a market rate where the state is the only employer.
Edited by saxmund on Monday 21st January 12:51
I have said it before on other threads, the government simply do not realise the motivational aspects of performance related pay.
When you put someone's job on the line, or risk their mortgage by losing out on pay this consciously and subconsciously affects employees not to do their job better, give 'customers' more satisfaction, or anything else apart from focussing on precisely the target that is put to them. Indeed, when this is done the other factors suffer.
If a police officer realises halfway through a week he is not going to meet his target for X, then what will happen to the case paperwork that needed to be completed?
It is going to be rushed so he can get back do doing X. That doesnt help anyone. All that happens if the defence solicitor paid for by the state realises the loophole in the statement/paperwork, they contact the CPS or at a preliminary hearing the case is dropped. So, the state pays a police officer for ultimately wasted work, the court employees get paid, the CPS get paid, and the Legal Aid solicitor gets paid. Thats a lot of peoples wages - as well as someone who may be guilty walking away scott free.
After it has been rushed, and he is back on the beat he then knows he has to step up performance of X. But what if he can't do that, as there isnt enough X out there to do!? The borderline situations where discretion would be applied are out the window - PC Plod has a mortgage to pay... and God forbid that he is part of the 1% of unscrupulous Anti-Vonhosens out there who might want to construct or lean on evidence in order to make a case stick. Putting that fact that PC Plod may not clear enough to pay his bills only puts pressure on that...
When you put someone's job on the line, or risk their mortgage by losing out on pay this consciously and subconsciously affects employees not to do their job better, give 'customers' more satisfaction, or anything else apart from focussing on precisely the target that is put to them. Indeed, when this is done the other factors suffer.
If a police officer realises halfway through a week he is not going to meet his target for X, then what will happen to the case paperwork that needed to be completed?
It is going to be rushed so he can get back do doing X. That doesnt help anyone. All that happens if the defence solicitor paid for by the state realises the loophole in the statement/paperwork, they contact the CPS or at a preliminary hearing the case is dropped. So, the state pays a police officer for ultimately wasted work, the court employees get paid, the CPS get paid, and the Legal Aid solicitor gets paid. Thats a lot of peoples wages - as well as someone who may be guilty walking away scott free.
After it has been rushed, and he is back on the beat he then knows he has to step up performance of X. But what if he can't do that, as there isnt enough X out there to do!? The borderline situations where discretion would be applied are out the window - PC Plod has a mortgage to pay... and God forbid that he is part of the 1% of unscrupulous Anti-Vonhosens out there who might want to construct or lean on evidence in order to make a case stick. Putting that fact that PC Plod may not clear enough to pay his bills only puts pressure on that...
The way the police service is going is terrible. I just think this is a big stick to try to keep the rising discorde down. It is suspicious that in another article they are saying that PCO's should have power of arrest, where will it stop?
I am all for paying what someone is worth but this is not the way. We need a police force that bangs up criminals who we all see day in day out, but they are hamstrung by those who wring their hands everytime someone in liberty or some such expresses concern over some scrote who claims harrasment regardless of his guilt. They should be targeted correctly by a chief constable who is elected to serve us not a political master. If every chief was elected do you think they would concentrate on what their voters want, not some politician who only wants to meet targets that they want hitting that don't matterto the rest of us?
If they are not careful the police will turn on the goverment and we will be in the position of even more lawlessness
I am all for paying what someone is worth but this is not the way. We need a police force that bangs up criminals who we all see day in day out, but they are hamstrung by those who wring their hands everytime someone in liberty or some such expresses concern over some scrote who claims harrasment regardless of his guilt. They should be targeted correctly by a chief constable who is elected to serve us not a political master. If every chief was elected do you think they would concentrate on what their voters want, not some politician who only wants to meet targets that they want hitting that don't matterto the rest of us?
If they are not careful the police will turn on the goverment and we will be in the position of even more lawlessness
Surely this idea is not that much different to deciding that 50% of people should have degrees.
What we will end up with is more and more police officers qualified to deal with the most complex issues and cases but no one with the age and experience of years on the beat to deal with domestic cases, or reporting to an individual that a loved one has died.
Let alone the other issues raised in this thread which are all valid.
What we will end up with is more and more police officers qualified to deal with the most complex issues and cases but no one with the age and experience of years on the beat to deal with domestic cases, or reporting to an individual that a loved one has died.
Let alone the other issues raised in this thread which are all valid.
It's all a load of carefully timed hogwash to coincide with the march on Wednesday.
Until you have a fair and honest appraisal system (my force has no system of any kind
) any attempt at PRP will be a lottery.
You also need open and transparent selection procedures based on, you've guessed it, appraisal, not the ability to write a good essay.
The idea has been bandied about since Sheehy in 1993.
It's funny how it resurfaces this week.
Until you have a fair and honest appraisal system (my force has no system of any kind
) any attempt at PRP will be a lottery.You also need open and transparent selection procedures based on, you've guessed it, appraisal, not the ability to write a good essay.
The idea has been bandied about since Sheehy in 1993.
It's funny how it resurfaces this week.
Well, it wouldn't be like the Labour Govt to try and discredit plod this week... Must be a co-incidence.
I suspect though with performance related pay we'll just see a substantial war on the middle class motorist who will pay the fine and "hit those targets".
As it has been said above that CC are on performance related pay, I think we can see why they issue fecking stupid edicts to the plod on the ground....
I suspect though with performance related pay we'll just see a substantial war on the middle class motorist who will pay the fine and "hit those targets".
As it has been said above that CC are on performance related pay, I think we can see why they issue fecking stupid edicts to the plod on the ground....
DucatiGary said:
Chrispy Porker said:
It's funny how it resurfaces this week.
does seem odd tbh, alot of anti police spin doing the rounds at the moment, looks like the government are screing you guys propperly (by PR and negotiation)
.Jasandjules said:
Well, it wouldn't be like the Labour Govt to try and discredit plod this week... Must be a co-incidence.
I suspect though with performance related pay we'll just see a substantial war on the middle class motorist who will pay the fine and "hit those targets"
As it has been said above that CC are on performance related pay, I think we can see why they issue fecking stupid edicts to the plod on the ground....
I can only speak for my force, but that's a pretty misguided thought. Only a very small minority of officers are on traffic units. The rest of us are not measured on roads policing in any way whatsoever. Nick a DIC? That's nice, you've got a traffic file to build. No detection. £60 EFPN for speeding? See above. Nicked someone for driving without due care after an injury RTC? Great work, but it does nothing at all for your stats. I suspect though with performance related pay we'll just see a substantial war on the middle class motorist who will pay the fine and "hit those targets"
As it has been said above that CC are on performance related pay, I think we can see why they issue fecking stupid edicts to the plod on the ground....
Traffic officers have targets (dunno what they are though), Scameras are civvies. You're average uniformed officer round my way gets zero recognition and a lot of paperwork for reporting a traffic offence. We deal with bad driving as and when we see it, and that's the way it should be.
I agree with the comments on getting what you measure, but what about this discussion in the light of the payrise situation?
I didn't realise that, for the first 10 years of their service, BiBs get automatic pay increments no matter what their payrise might be. So, even if the payrise agreed by the government was zero, BiBs would still get a payrise through their annual increment.
So all this debate about "only getting 1.9%" or whatever it is, isn't quite accurate. They're only getting an extra 1.9% on top of whatever they would get anyway, just for being there.
Now I may be alone in this, but I've never heard of anything like this in the private sector.
I didn't realise that, for the first 10 years of their service, BiBs get automatic pay increments no matter what their payrise might be. So, even if the payrise agreed by the government was zero, BiBs would still get a payrise through their annual increment.
So all this debate about "only getting 1.9%" or whatever it is, isn't quite accurate. They're only getting an extra 1.9% on top of whatever they would get anyway, just for being there.
Now I may be alone in this, but I've never heard of anything like this in the private sector.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff