Now the Police want to WFH?

The Police get loads of Paperwork, WFH on Police linked PC's will push the productivity, to give them more time on the Streets.
I'm Hampshire too, yes we know our police, if you sign up for information you get a monthly news Letter as well.

Hear, hear Doodledog flexibility, on all sides, is the key.

Doodledog

I often worked from home long before Covid, and was able to manage my time to ensure that I was there for students when they needed me, could attend meetings (before Zoom or Teams were around) give lectures and so on. I found it more efficient, however, to do a lot of admin and research from home. When I work now, it is 100% from home, using Zoom and logging into the University system to access documents and upload my own. At home I might have put a load of washing in, or collected the children from school, but I wasn't constantly interrupted by colleagues, phone calls and students 'dropping in' with queries that could be answered by email. If someone needed to see me, they could leave a message on email and I would get back to them by telephone, or arrange a face to face meeting the next day. I was always very contactable, but I didn't need to be on the premises every day to achieve that.

With suitable management, there is no reason why flexibility should lead to inefficiency. If people know that they are expected to meet targets and will be answerable if they fail, why does it matter if they are doing admin at 4.00 when the children get in, or at 9.00pm when they are in bed? It seems perverse to insist that tasks are completed at a time when it is most inconvenient, instead of when they can be fitted around family life. What is sacred about the nine to five?

I am pleased that more people now have the opportunity to WFH (it was quite unusual when I did it in the 90s). We so often hear about how children need mothers at home, but when those mothers (or fathers) try to arrange things so they can have quality time with their families they are castigated - often by the very people who also complain about both working parents and benefit claimants. Just what are parents meant to do? If they work they are wrong. If they claim benefits they are scroungers. If they work and also try to be there outside of school time they are 'annoying'. It does look like they are being set up to fail.

As for mental health issues - people are all different. What might be stressful for me (so bad for my MH) could be something that others thrive on. Nobody can decide what others should do for the best where that is concerned. Galaxy has said that commuting is stressful for her. I don't work well in a busy office with lots of distractions. A friend of mine prefers noise to silence. Probably most parents will work better if they know that they can go to the Nativity play and to parents' evenings, and if they have the sort of job that can be flexible, why on earth is that a bad thing?

The ability to log into a work IT system was a game changer. I wonder whether those who criticise WFH have ever used that facility and understand that it makes absolutely no difference whether something is recorded onto a system from an office or a kitchen table, or between 9 and 5 or later in the evening.

Some people have jobs that don't lend themselves to WFH, but that shouldn't stop the rest of us from doing so where appropriate.

Great response, I completely agree

Sir Robert Peel would be turning in his grave if he could see how his police force have turned out.

I often worked from home long before Covid, and was able to manage my time to ensure that I was there for students when they needed me, could attend meetings (before Zoom or Teams were around) give lectures and so on. I found it more efficient, however, to do a lot of admin and research from home. When I work now, it is 100% from home, using Zoom and logging into the University system to access documents and upload my own. At home I might have put a load of washing in, or collected the children from school, but I wasn't constantly interrupted by colleagues, phone calls and students 'dropping in' with queries that could be answered by email. If someone needed to see me, they could leave a message on email and I would get back to them by telephone, or arrange a face to face meeting the next day. I was always very contactable, but I didn't need to be on the premises every day to achieve that.

With suitable management, there is no reason why flexibility should lead to inefficiency. If people know that they are expected to meet targets and will be answerable if they fail, why does it matter if they are doing admin at 4.00 when the children get in, or at 9.00pm when they are in bed? It seems perverse to insist that tasks are completed at a time when it is most inconvenient, instead of when they can be fitted around family life. What is sacred about the nine to five?

I am pleased that more people now have the opportunity to WFH (it was quite unusual when I did it in the 90s). We so often hear about how children need mothers at home, but when those mothers (or fathers) try to arrange things so they can have quality time with their families they are castigated - often by the very people who also complain about both working parents and benefit claimants. Just what are parents meant to do? If they work they are wrong. If they claim benefits they are scroungers. If they work and also try to be there outside of school time they are 'annoying'. It does look like they are being set up to fail.

As for mental health issues - people are all different. What might be stressful for me (so bad for my MH) could be something that others thrive on. Nobody can decide what others should do for the best where that is concerned. Galaxy has said that commuting is stressful for her. I don't work well in a busy office with lots of distractions. A friend of mine prefers noise to silence. Probably most parents will work better if they know that they can go to the Nativity play and to parents' evenings, and if they have the sort of job that can be flexible, why on earth is that a bad thing?

The ability to log into a work IT system was a game changer. I wonder whether those who criticise WFH have ever used that facility and understand that it makes absolutely no difference whether something is recorded onto a system from an office or a kitchen table, or between 9 and 5 or later in the evening.

Some people have jobs that don't lend themselves to WFH, but that shouldn't stop the rest of us from doing so where appropriate.

Thanks for posting that Elegran.

This applies to the MET. Not many, if any, support staff work solely from home. They do blended working and their time is spilt between home and office. They are now being asked to go to the office more, in some cases that will mean full time.
But don't muddy the waters by looking at fact. There are some archaic, misinformed opinions about WFH on here. "I heard it in the playground" is rarely a reliable source

Sorry, "Most posters" should have been "Some posters" - I started by replying to a few posts, and posted without changing those words.

It pays to read the exact words of those who are most closely involved. Some words in highlighted in darker print by me - they are the words which most posters are either ignoring or have not read, and they give a slant on the arguments. The comments in brackets are also mine. Media reports and public reaction misunderstand both sides of the question, the union's and the Met's.

"The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) . . . said it showed the depth of feeling after managers reversed an existing agreement on blended working that allowed staff to work from home part of the week. (so some staff have been working from home already but are being asked to now commute.)

The PCS said the policy 'disproportionately impacts' women, part-time workers and those with disabilities. (that is, people who work better from home than they would if they had to commute have been asked to travel in to work.)

PCS general secretary Fran Heathcote said: "Our members are not bobbies on the beat . (They are desk-based non-beat staff. It doesn't mean an end to police on the beat, whatever the situation is at the moment.)

"They are desk-based civilians who work from home just as productively as if they were in the office, but without the stress and cost of a daily commute."

A Met spokesperson said PCS members include staff who are not desk-only, such as frontline police community support officers (PCSOs) and crime scene officers . (ie They are support officers who visit the community or crime scenes, not bobbies on the street, but they are not working at a desk either.)

"Our policy doesn't end working from home, we have given staff and officers in support roles the ability to work from home *up to two days a week*" . Not all week.

I never see a police officer.
Is that progress?

David49

I remember when every large village had a police house, the constable used to tour the smaller surrounding villages on his bike. He knew exactly who was doing what and any problems were swiftly dealt with.

Now the entire south of the county has one daytime police station, closed at night, it’s called progress.

We only have a police station in market towns. They close at 5pm. We get the occasional car patrol in the villages. If you can call somewhere with a population of 10K and growing a village.

DD3 works from home for 2-3 days per week. She is expected to go to the office twice weekly. She believes this is a reasonable split. It does enable her to collect the children from school if necessary whilst I’m otherwise engaged with health appointments. She is a single parent public servant and can on occasion work at least 60 hours per week (unpaid with limited time off in lieu).

As a civil servant in the past we were given up to 3 days WFH to write staff reports, depending on the number of staff. It meant no interruptions so reports were written more quickly and with confidentially in mind.

I’ve no objection to WFH to improve the speed of admin.

I can’t see that active policing of burglary etc. can be done from home. However such things as computer crime, scams etc.have to be done from an office. Team work here is vital so togetherness and immediacy is of prime importance.

Galaxy

I think it is quite complicated though, I would say one of the biggest impacts on my mental health is commuting into work, and I would also say it is absolutely not my obligation to prop up the profits of shops, cafes, etc in city centres.
I think however there is considerable benefit in discussing work face to face with colleagues.

Yes, lots of pros and cons and it doesn’t work for everyone, but for me, it worked well for both me and my employer, targets/deadlines always met and not having to commute after years of doing so was utter bliss!

I think WFH is best as a mixed week ie sometimes in and sometimes at home and to try and get "Best of both worlds".

Its called "blended working" and the dispute is on "how much" as the particular issue triggering this news piece was wanting no WFH for some staff.

I think it is quite complicated though, I would say one of the biggest impacts on my mental health is commuting into work, and I would also say it is absolutely not my obligation to prop up the profits of shops, cafes, etc in city centres.
I think however there is considerable benefit in discussing work face to face with colleagues.

Jaxjacky

We have named PC’s and PCSO’s on the beat locally, their mobile numbers are freely available too, it’s a Hampshire wide initiative.
A lot of admin can be done at home across many business establishments now, it was a good 70% of my last job and my previous one in the 90’s.

Thats good. Its also in line with one of the governments 6 targets

4) Putting police back on the beat with a named officer for every community and 13,000 additional officers, PCSOs and special constables

Wyllow3

Rosie51

For the sake of accuracy it should be made clear it's police staff not police officers who are threatening to strike. It's actually illegal for police officers to strike, one of only a very few groups (prison officers and the armed services being the others) so prohibited. Might explain why they don't get big pay awards?

Absolutely it isnt affecting police on the street or not and as I referenced just a bit upthread people are WFH already the dilute is how much.

Thank you Wyllow, bit of a knee jerk reaction from me following on from HMRC and Civil Servants WFH!

Nevertheless, and this is another topic, I don’t think WFH is without serious failings- the MH advantages of getting out of the house, the social advantages of the workplace (camaraderie, group identity) the spin off from reduced footfall in town and city centres, the extra expense of heating your home during what used to be considered the working day, the pressure on space in the average home, as not everybody has a dedicated space to use as their study, the pressures on particularly women to somehow combine WFH, childcare and all the domestic “stuff”.
I could go on, but I’d better not!

We have a PCSO, but the local town council pays for him, not the regular police.

To be honest, I'm not sure where our local police work because there isn't a police station for miles.

We have named PC’s and PCSO’s on the beat locally, their mobile numbers are freely available too, it’s a Hampshire wide initiative.
A lot of admin can be done at home across many business establishments now, it was a good 70% of my last job and my previous one in the 90’s.

RosiesMaw2

^Hate Crime and isn’t subjective and it is a crime^
By definition non criminal hate incidents are not hate crime
They are what it says on the tin. Non criminal.
Any incident where a crime has not been committed, but where it is perceived by the reporting person or any other person that the incident was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: a person's race or perceived race. a person's religion or perceived religion
I am not saying it is morally right, it may be entirely repugnant, but “perceived by the reporting person as motivated by prejudice” most certainly IS subjective by definition and not within the remit of our police force.

Sorry Rosie I clearly didn’t read your original comment properly.

GrannyIvy

WFH annoys me. Look at how many dads are now at the school pick as they can WFH and childcare their kids!!!! Mums too!! They go out running and off for the their well-being mental health walks, Oh and take laptop and hog tables in cafes. …. What a nonsense this all is. Get them back in the office to interact with colleagues much better for their mental health and work productivity.

Sorry that’s my opinion!!! I hear them talking about it in the school playground. The world continues to go bonkers !!!

No police ever seen in my little town. Illegal parking everywhere. No traffic wardens either do they WFH 🤷‍♀️

I’ve worked from home in three different roles across the years.

Many WFH roles are project or admin based, work which can be done at almost any hour of the day, so long as deadlines are met.

As for productivity, for most people WFH, it’s much higher. For me, I was at my laptop ready to work with a hot cuppa around 7:45am, I didn’t take coffee breaks, I wasn’t interrupted by passing staff. We had team catches for 30 minutes every day at 8:45am and full team meetings once a week.

I normally took 30 minutes for lunch and finished up around 6pm

Ditto my daughter who works from home 4 out of 5 days each week, she starts around 8:30am, 20 mins lunch break, often not finishing up until after 6:00pm.

Rosie51

For the sake of accuracy it should be made clear it's police staff not police officers who are threatening to strike. It's actually illegal for police officers to strike, one of only a very few groups (prison officers and the armed services being the others) so prohibited. Might explain why they don't get big pay awards?

Absolutely it isnt affecting police on the street or not and as I referenced just a bit upthread people are WFH already the dilute is how much.

For the sake of accuracy it should be made clear it's police staff not police officers who are threatening to strike. It's actually illegal for police officers to strike, one of only a very few groups (prison officers and the armed services being the others) so prohibited. Might explain why they don't get big pay awards?

Hate Crime and isn’t subjective and it is a crime
By definition non criminal hate incidents are not hate crime
They are what it says on the tin. Non criminal.
Any incident where a crime has not been committed, but where it is perceived by the reporting person or any other person that the incident was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: a person's race or perceived race. a person's religion or perceived religion
I am not saying it is morally right, it may be entirely repugnant, but “perceived by the reporting person as motivated by prejudice” most certainly IS subjective by definition and not within the remit of our police force.