Keep Calm and Carry on

It’s been ten days since the PAT announced its judgement on the recommendations contained within Winsor One, yet we still await news from the Home Office as to whether the Home Secretary plans to ratify it.

The PAT is part of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) process and both we (the Staff Side) and the Official Side entered it knowing that the decision of the PAT is binding on us both. To try and renege on that position now would be viewed as  petulance on our part because the decision hasn’t gone our way and also deal a fatal blow to the PNB process, something we have long fought to preserve for fear of having imposed upon us a far less independent alternative. Sadly though as we found out when Jacqui Smith refused to ratify a previous PAT decision in 2008/9 the Home Secretary isn’t bound by it. You will of course remember that 25,000 of us marched through Westminster to protest against Mrs Smith’s decision and rather ironically the then shadow Home Secretary Theresa May was one among many in the Tory party who voiced their concern about this and vowed that it wouldn’t happen on their watch.

Well in fairness it hasn’t happened yet, but her delay in rubber stamping the latest PAT decision does tend to indicate that she believes there to be another option other than ratification!

Given the content of the judgement I’d be gobsmacked if she doesn’t ratify it. What more does she want? There is little or nothing within it to bring any comfort to serving police officers of any rank and certainly none within the Federated ranks. Moreover the imminent publication of Winsor Two gives this government another opportunity to bestow yet more pain upon us. So anything Ms May is not entirely happy about within the judgement can soon be corrected.

I’ve seen and heard a lot of criticism of the Federation in the last 10 days and fully understand the sense of anger and betrayal felt by all our members and appreciate why we have become a target. We’ve been criticised for using the word ‘disappointed’ because that doesn’t adequately portray the true sense of real anger felt. Again I understand that but do you not think that as serving police officers who will all be affected by these changes that we too feel those same emotions. Moreover many working within the Federation have invested a huge amount of their lives in trying to build and present a powerful case to counter Winsor’s on our behalf. Imagine how let down and frustrated they feel that the strong and reasoned arguments they have put forward have been so resoundingly rejected.  It would be easy for us all to use highly emotive language to convey our sense of grievance at this time, but as your staff association our role is to try and tread a line between representing our member’s immediate anger and our best interests for the future.

We will, in the very near future, be giving all our members an opportunity to meet with and hear from the MPF officers. This will provide an opportunity for those that wish to vent at us but more productively it will also be a chance for there to be an exchange of views as to what we can do differently in the future both as individuals and as a collective to lessen the impact of  these changes.  Further details of these meetings will be published soon on this and the MPF websites.

My message to those who currently directing all their fury and vitriol in the direction of the Federation, is that it would be far more productive if you focused it on those who are actually responsible for inflicting this misery upon us all. Contact your MP and tell them what impact these regulation changes will have upon you and your family.

A perfect example of hasty reaction as opposed to well thought through action is the renewed call for us to pursue the right to strike. This is of course a debate that has been raging within the police service to varying degrees since the 2007/8 pay dispute and the Federation do have an overwhelming mandate to seek industrial rights in the absence of binding arbitration.

The uncomfortable truth of the matter is though that even if this was now actively pursued and we were successful in achieving what we asked for, it is unlikely to become a reality for many years to come. The Government would undoubtedly contest our claim on the basis of it not being in the national interest and a lengthy battle through the courts is almost inevitable.

But before we get to that point we in the Met Federation have always believed that you (we) need to know what the long term consequences would be should we achieve increased industrial rights. Personally I’ve always been able to see the merits of pursuing the case, if only to demonstrate to this and future administrations just how angry we are about the way we are being treated. But increasingly, as the worldwide economic crisis has taken effect I’ve become less convinced that having the right to withdraw our labour would on balance be a good thing. We need to be very careful what we wish for and make these decisions with our eyes wide open. Along with the right to strike would come their right to make you redundant. Many, probably the majority, reading this would I believe be reluctant to exercise their right to strike. All the evidence is that right now Police Authorities and in the future the Police and Crime Commissioners, up and down the country wouldn’t be so reticent about putting police officers out of work.

Most of us I’m sure will know someone who has recently been made redundant. Ask them would they trade the right to work for the right to strike? I suspect I know what the answer would be!

Now is not the time for empty gestures or rash words. We are as angry as you all are. But you elect us to represent you in a constructive and professional manner and to think longer term. Our job is of course to ensure that the collective anger of our members is heard now by the right people but we know from experience that they will not listen if we use overly emotive words or are seen to be making hollow threats.

Lots has changed in our world in the last week or so and I suspect we haven’t yet seen the last of it  but as the title of this piece says at present we just need to ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’ until we can identify a means by which we can effectively build  and present our case.

Your views on this or any other article on the site are always welcome. Please send them to me on the   ‘contact’  link

Regards

Perry Oliver

General Secretary
Met IBB