Would you treat staff like this?
Discussion
I do work for a number of police forces and security services in telecoms analysis and have been in contact for a few months with a current police detective who I've done some work for.
In the course of our encounter he's mentioned that he's applied for a temporary promotion to detective sergeant on another team. I've spoken to him again today and he's said he's due to start the new job on Monday and was told it was 3 earlies at 8-4, 3 lates at 2-11 and then 3 rest days where he intends to have a long "weekend" in his camper so this job was perfect for him. He's found out today that the job actually can't function with him working 8-4 and instead needs him to work 7-3 as opposed to the 8-4 on the advert. Not an enormous difference but one which will require him to now purchase a second car as he currently commutes via train but the first train from his town leaves at 7am. Probably not a deal breaker but I'm sure knowing that information before applying may have influenced the decision as to if this was the correct role for him.
It then gets worse. He's also found out today upon receiving a rota that he's expected to work nights instead of lates 12 times per year in order to work in a riot van working the night time economy of a local city. So a career detective with all the continuous professional development required for that role also needs to don a uniform to do pub fights whilst his robberies, burglaries and assaults are stacking up back in the CID office. Unfortunately the nights always fall on the last day before rest days so that also means he's spending the first of his rest days sleeping rather than heading away in the camper for his rest days. None of this was on the job description within the advert and had it been he says he wouldn't have applied. What's baffling me though is he's saying his force are still forcing the move through instead of accepting they've made a mistake and omitted some fundamental parts of the role within the job description. The cynic in me does note that the omission appears to be the parts of the role which are a bit rubbish and would probably be a barrier to getting a qualified, strong investigator to apply as they'd have better opportunities elsewhere.
My question is, would you manage a situation in the same way or am I a particularly soft boss for thinking I'd never force a point when it's my mistake. Nor could I from a legal point of view I think? Strategically I'd also never want someone in a role who doesn't want it and I'd certainly never put a highly trained person in a role that doesn't utilise those skills.
In the course of our encounter he's mentioned that he's applied for a temporary promotion to detective sergeant on another team. I've spoken to him again today and he's said he's due to start the new job on Monday and was told it was 3 earlies at 8-4, 3 lates at 2-11 and then 3 rest days where he intends to have a long "weekend" in his camper so this job was perfect for him. He's found out today that the job actually can't function with him working 8-4 and instead needs him to work 7-3 as opposed to the 8-4 on the advert. Not an enormous difference but one which will require him to now purchase a second car as he currently commutes via train but the first train from his town leaves at 7am. Probably not a deal breaker but I'm sure knowing that information before applying may have influenced the decision as to if this was the correct role for him.
It then gets worse. He's also found out today upon receiving a rota that he's expected to work nights instead of lates 12 times per year in order to work in a riot van working the night time economy of a local city. So a career detective with all the continuous professional development required for that role also needs to don a uniform to do pub fights whilst his robberies, burglaries and assaults are stacking up back in the CID office. Unfortunately the nights always fall on the last day before rest days so that also means he's spending the first of his rest days sleeping rather than heading away in the camper for his rest days. None of this was on the job description within the advert and had it been he says he wouldn't have applied. What's baffling me though is he's saying his force are still forcing the move through instead of accepting they've made a mistake and omitted some fundamental parts of the role within the job description. The cynic in me does note that the omission appears to be the parts of the role which are a bit rubbish and would probably be a barrier to getting a qualified, strong investigator to apply as they'd have better opportunities elsewhere.
My question is, would you manage a situation in the same way or am I a particularly soft boss for thinking I'd never force a point when it's my mistake. Nor could I from a legal point of view I think? Strategically I'd also never want someone in a role who doesn't want it and I'd certainly never put a highly trained person in a role that doesn't utilise those skills.
I have 16 years of Policing experience and this is fairly common but there are some important things to say:
The police are amazing with flexibility around personal lives. They are compelled to review any reasonable adjustments to working conditions. They're also very good at accepting them. Such as parenting issues.
He would have good grounds to say he can't come in for 7 but could for 8. Unless this is an incident response role (core uniform) where you must be in for the set hours. It doesn't sound like it though from your post.
In relation to the 12 nights. This is part of the stupid (in my view) decision that ALL officers must be able to perform front line duties. The reason I think it's stupid is the police is a big organisation, you've thousands of specialist cops not on the front line and all with their own important work. It's not MORE important than front line but it's not LESS important either. And it's just misguided.
Anyway I'd recommend your friend to go to the federation and a trusted supervisor and HR to politely put in a adjusted working application. The 12 nights thing can usually be avoided relatively easy - that's probably just demonstrating that you have up to date knowledge and you can do this in other ways.
The police are amazing with flexibility around personal lives. They are compelled to review any reasonable adjustments to working conditions. They're also very good at accepting them. Such as parenting issues.
He would have good grounds to say he can't come in for 7 but could for 8. Unless this is an incident response role (core uniform) where you must be in for the set hours. It doesn't sound like it though from your post.
In relation to the 12 nights. This is part of the stupid (in my view) decision that ALL officers must be able to perform front line duties. The reason I think it's stupid is the police is a big organisation, you've thousands of specialist cops not on the front line and all with their own important work. It's not MORE important than front line but it's not LESS important either. And it's just misguided.
Anyway I'd recommend your friend to go to the federation and a trusted supervisor and HR to politely put in a adjusted working application. The 12 nights thing can usually be avoided relatively easy - that's probably just demonstrating that you have up to date knowledge and you can do this in other ways.
I’ll speak with him soon and see how it pans out. I’ve 20 years experience in the old bill myself and left as tempt supt to move to the NCA before starting the business I’m in now. In all that time if any of my staff used a specially trained detective to go to pub fights instead of detecting things I’d have gone berserk.
What I find fascinating is all of those leaders will have gone through the police CVF for their boards and not one of them would have given their management of this as an example of their inspirational leadership. They could have taken ownership of this, admitting the mistake and found a positive from it. Instead they’re forcing their way through. Shocking really.
What I find fascinating is all of those leaders will have gone through the police CVF for their boards and not one of them would have given their management of this as an example of their inspirational leadership. They could have taken ownership of this, admitting the mistake and found a positive from it. Instead they’re forcing their way through. Shocking really.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
OP, why are you bothered?
If your mate is happy, leave him alone. If he wants/needs advice, surely have a Federation rep is where you should be pointing to?
Thought it was quite obvious from my posts. He’s not happy. I’m invested as I’ve a professional relationship with him and I’ve also previously been a senior leader in the police where I was directly involved in these type of decisions. Even discounting those things already clearly pointed out in my previous posts, I wanted to discuss it. If your mate is happy, leave him alone. If he wants/needs advice, surely have a Federation rep is where you should be pointing to?
redrabbit29 said:
In relation to the 12 nights. This is part of the stupid (in my view) decision that ALL officers must be able to perform front line duties. The reason I think it's stupid is the police is a big organisation, you've thousands of specialist cops not on the front line and all with their own important work. It's not MORE important than front line but it's not LESS important either. And it's just misguided.
I would beg to differ on this point. Western societies systematic specialisation of roles and vocations and omission of wider ranging experience particularly in professional and managerial classes, and especially so if the job is non creative or abstract, is contributing to creating a people that don't understand the world outside their own bubbles. The results are everything from reduced mental flexibility to understanding or empathy for that (or who) are different. This is part of a broader issue of insular life experiences affecting everything today.I don't know how commonplace it is today but the Japanese had an idea where management would spend a day on the production line. I don't know much about policing but can easily imagine how mucking in with the lads brings benefits difficult to measure in our target-driven culture.
Back on topic though... As for the way they've gone about it the less said the better, but the shocking ineptness behind it - something you think anyone with a functional brain should have prevented - may speak of exactly what Im withering on about.
sebdangerfield said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
OP, why are you bothered?
If your mate is happy, leave him alone. If he wants/needs advice, surely have a Federation rep is where you should be pointing to?
Thought it was quite obvious from my posts. He’s not happy. I’m invested as I’ve a professional relationship with him and I’ve also previously been a senior leader in the police where I was directly involved in these type of decisions. Even discounting those things already clearly pointed out in my previous posts, I wanted to discuss it. If your mate is happy, leave him alone. If he wants/needs advice, surely have a Federation rep is where you should be pointing to?
Apologies if that isn't the case, but you can't fix it for him and he's a grown man. I don't want to cause a fight, so I'll leave this thread.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Fair enough. But ultimately it's not your responsibility or any of your business. You come across to me anyway, as interfering in other people's affairs.
Apologies if that isn't the case, but you can't fix it for him and he's a grown man. I don't want to cause a fight, so I'll leave this thread.
Please don’t apologise, you’ll not cause a fight and you definitely don’t need to announce your disengagement in the discussion.Apologies if that isn't the case, but you can't fix it for him and he's a grown man. I don't want to cause a fight, so I'll leave this thread.
To clarify for others though if it’s not clear, my OP doesn’t mention anywhere I’ve expressed an opinion to him nor given advice, because I haven’t. It also states he’s changing roles which implies It’s highly unlikely I’ll not see him again. In any case my question was, “would you treat your staff like this?” Because I’m interested in a discussion around an appalling mismanagement of staff and specialist skills and not so I can return to a grown adult client who’s climbed to the rank of detective sergeant so I can tell him how best to react to the situation he’s in with his employer.
None of this has surprised me.
My wife is a serving officer and was recently placed in custody as part of being promoted to sergeant. Any work/life balance through a flexible working pattern and suitable location went completely out of the window.
It took far more desk bashing by her and the fed before ANY compromise was found. We are still left with a very compromised arrangement.
My wife is a serving officer and was recently placed in custody as part of being promoted to sergeant. Any work/life balance through a flexible working pattern and suitable location went completely out of the window.
It took far more desk bashing by her and the fed before ANY compromise was found. We are still left with a very compromised arrangement.
Doesn't surprise me.
A very good friend of mine is a DC for the Met and it's the same story there.
The place is full of idiotic, nonsensical rules.
No-one can question anything done by a senior, even if it falls into the above category, because rank.
No-one can question anything done by a subordinate, because there's a high chance it'll be seen as bullying.
No-one can question anything done by an equal, as it'll be ineffective and the senior responsible for mediating won't care; and if they do care, someone will just go off for 6 months on stress. Whilst posting on FB every day showing their breaks away, days out, etc.
The place sounds dreadful. It's civil service at the end of the day - so dossing and inactivity is the name of the game.
A very good friend of mine is a DC for the Met and it's the same story there.
The place is full of idiotic, nonsensical rules.
No-one can question anything done by a senior, even if it falls into the above category, because rank.
No-one can question anything done by a subordinate, because there's a high chance it'll be seen as bullying.
No-one can question anything done by an equal, as it'll be ineffective and the senior responsible for mediating won't care; and if they do care, someone will just go off for 6 months on stress. Whilst posting on FB every day showing their breaks away, days out, etc.
The place sounds dreadful. It's civil service at the end of the day - so dossing and inactivity is the name of the game.
Teddy Lop said:
I would beg to differ on this point. Western societies systematic specialisation of roles and vocations and omission of wider ranging experience particularly in professional and managerial classes, and especially so if the job is non creative or abstract, is contributing to creating a people that don't understand the world outside their own bubbles. The results are everything from reduced mental flexibility to understanding or empathy for that (or who) are different. This is part of a broader issue of insular life experiences affecting everything today.
I don't know how commonplace it is today but the Japanese had an idea where management would spend a day on the production line. I don't know much about policing but can easily imagine how mucking in with the lads brings benefits difficult to measure in our target-driven culture.
Back on topic though... As for the way they've gone about it the less said the better, but the shocking ineptness behind it - something you think anyone with a functional brain should have prevented - may speak of exactly what Im withering on about.
I can see both sides of it but the 12 day thing I was referring to when I replied isn't related to management. It's "standard" officers such as Detective Constables/Sergeants stopping their day job to go back to another team which they would have worked on years ago and is more mainstream.I don't know how commonplace it is today but the Japanese had an idea where management would spend a day on the production line. I don't know much about policing but can easily imagine how mucking in with the lads brings benefits difficult to measure in our target-driven culture.
Back on topic though... As for the way they've gone about it the less said the better, but the shocking ineptness behind it - something you think anyone with a functional brain should have prevented - may speak of exactly what Im withering on about.
As an example:
A surveillance DC who is trained in mobile foot surveillance and works on Organised Crime being taken off their ususual duties for the day to go back into a marked Police car to respond to domestic incidents, shopliftings etc.
I think it's a misuse of resources and does little to benefit anyone.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff