Police Pension Destroyed
Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:23 PM
- kebabish likes this
Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:56 PM
I can't afford to get injured if I want to get to 60 still policing
- Fatass likes this
Posted 08 September 2012 - 05:17 PM
Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:07 AM
They did it because of 'financial need' so that's why I'm doing it.
I can't afford to get injured if I want to get to 60 still policing
Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:29 AM
Posted 09 September 2012 - 08:14 PM
They want you to do 5 or 10 years, get a meagre pension and move onto another job unable to claim your police pension until 68.
Sad day for policing, in one day I lost about 45K in lump sum and have to work another 3 years for the same benefit while paying 33% more for it. I am one of the lucky ones I know people who have had 12 extra years put on.
still who needs experienced motivated officers who dedicate their entire career to serving the public?
Posted 10 September 2012 - 07:52 AM
Don't suppose anyone is aware of this or has a link... To the ruling
I can't locate it
Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:23 AM
Really feel for those with diminished pensions as my Dad is in a similar boat with his private plan and has had to revise his thoughts re retirement.
Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:35 AM
As they did get us some concessions.
Let's hope the teachers, and others that can take industrial action, can put pressure on them to change the plans.
Posted 10 September 2012 - 11:21 AM
Posted 10 September 2012 - 05:36 PM
Posted 10 September 2012 - 06:27 PM
Posted 10 September 2012 - 06:50 PM
Posted 10 September 2012 - 08:14 PM
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook. I think I will follow suit. I've just finished weekend nights. Minimum staffing 9 we had 5 on so none stop all weekend. A knifepoint robbery, theft of cars, a pursuit, a scene and 2 packages to name a few jobs meant as usual no break. Anyway have a read for yourself:
Quoted from the link,....
The Police Regulations 2003 (as ammended) state that every officer should be given a mealbreak and the time allowed depends on the length of the shift that you work
They key word in there is should. We are at the moment routinely being told buy supervision and the comms room we cannot ref. Sometimes for outstanding immediate (grade 1) calls, but also often because there are too many high (grade 2) calls on the open list awaiting attendance. This is often driven by dispatchers who have a tendency to flap like a good'un if there are a number of calls on the open list, and has been prevalent over the Olympic period where we have been operating with numbers on section so low that they are often described as dangerous at other times (ie: when denying A/L requests)
Posted 10 September 2012 - 11:18 PM
- BurgerBag likes this
Posted 10 September 2012 - 11:28 PM
The Police Regulations 2003 (as ammended) state that every officer should be given a mealbreak and the time allowed depends on the length of the shift that you work:
Less than 6 hours 30 minutes
6 or more hours but less than 7 35 minutes
7 or more hours but less than 8 40 minutes
8 or more hours but less than 9 45 minutes
9 or more hours but less than 10 50 minutes
10 or more hours 60 minutes
Where the Regulations are more favourable than the Working Time Directives the most beneficial to the employee apply and so the Police Regulations apply.
The only time that you can be required to forego a break is if there is an exigency of duty.
This means something urgent, pressing and unforeseen. This might include a major incident requiring significant resources. It does NOT include a 999 call. 999 calls whilst urgent and possibly pressing are not unforeseen and are normal business for the police.
Sufficient resources should be provided to enable officers to answer 999 calls and take breaks. It should only be in exceptional circumstances that you do not get a break NOT a regular occurence.If officers do not get breaks they can take the organisation to an Employment Tribunal.
There have been two interesting cases that are applicable to the police that have been won by employees.In North Wales a custody sergeant had no opportunity to take a break as there was no provision by the organisation to provide cover to allow them to do so. His inspector told him to take a break within the custody suite as and when he could. An Employment Tribunal ruled that the custody sergeant must be provided with a break and that break should be away from the workplace. i.e. outside of the custody suite.
A British Airways employee was advised by their manager to take a break as and when they could during their shift.
The employee regularly had no opportunity to take a break. An employment Tribunal ruled that this was unacceptable and it was for the employees managers to organise a time and cover for a break to be taken.Employment Tribunal cases are not binding on other Employment Tribunals in the same way as Courts are.
Nonetheless, these two cases are very applicable to Custody and response within Surrey Police and give a clear idea as to what is acceptable regarding breaks.Surrey Police Federation are currently working with the senior management to ensure that custody and response staff receive their statutory breaks.
Posted 11 September 2012 - 09:49 AM
And they are trying to reduce these!
Posted 13 September 2012 - 04:24 PM
There no doubt the pension what we are going to get is a pale shadow of the current schemes but taking that aside and looking at it from a product point of view it is still a very good scheme in terms of what else is currently available
in terms of regulation working time directives its down to individuals to know what they are entitled to and to stop bending over to make the job work, its also a reflection on the poor standard of first and second line supervisors i they dont look after their staff again only those who toe the corporate line get promoted
We cant keep blaming everyone else for the current problems /changes if as individuals we dont stand up for our own rights, the police service has never in my time involved been such a true reflection of society with more and more officers wanting everything but its for someone else to get it for them
yes the Federation has many faults however before blaming them for everything individuals need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves, What am i doing to preserve our terms and conditions,protect our pensions and our welfare ?
Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:18 PM
One thing the fed could do, or does that i dont know about is produce a leaflet on officers rights. Not something dry and complex like most things produced by any organisation but a clear layout of exactly what we can get and what we should not accept.
I recently claimed for food i had to buy on an op where we were on for 16 hours with no food. People thought i was mad. But i got paid. If everyone claimed they might stop leaving us hanging out there with no food to eat for unending shifts.
- carlos the jackal likes this
Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:10 AM
Posted 14 September 2012 - 07:51 AM
They won't, because they are not effected by the changes.
And they want a nice cushy job in civvy street, so have no interest in rocking the boat.
Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:49 AM
Erosion of police officers terms and conditions , lack of support for the socalled front line, right to make officers redundant, fixed term contracts, poor equipment, unsafe staffing levels none of these affect any member of ACPO
As gripper said ACPO members are on to a good thing they know it so why would we expect them to rock the boat by doing whats right for the rank and file
Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:54 PM
What happens next... Hillsborough report this week which couldn't be more damning towards him possible criminal charges being mooted in some of the more hysterical reports about police actions.
- morse likes this
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users