19th January 2023
Here is a striking (ahem) paradox.
One one hand: police officers cannot strike.
And on the other hand: it is almost impossible to sack a police officer.
One would think that an occupation which had such near-absolute job security would also be one where the workers had ready access to taking industrial action.
But no.
*
Police officers have not been able to strike since the Police Act of 1919, which in turn followed the (fascinating) police strike of 1918-19.
Since then police officers have been represented nationally by the Police Federation, rather than the more conventional trade unions that represent other emergency and front line workers.
The Police Federation is very good at protecting its members.
Successive governments have been supportive of the police generally and avoid upsetting the Police Federation in particular .
Indeed, when the then home secretary Theresa May in 2014 dared to criticise the Police Federation there was that rare thing: a genuine sense of political shock.
(I think this may be the only speech by a serving cabinet minister that has ever made my jaw drop.)
But her sentiment did not last long, and during her subsequent premiership she showed little interest in police reform.
The police also maintain (mutually) good relations with the media, and – as the Leveson Inquiry indicated – the police are an important source of content for the press.
And so perhaps the prohibition on striking has never been really tested because there has never been a need to do so.
What more power would the Police Federation want?
What would be gained by threatening to go on strike?
Indeed when in 2013 the possibility of being able to go on strike was put to a vote of federation members, less than half of police officers voted one way or the other.
*
Yet every so often there is an example of how difficult it is to dismiss police officers.
For conduct which in other occupations and professions would lead to instant dismissal or disqualification, there is often the appearance that nothing is taken that seriously.
This week there has come to light the horrific case of David Carrick, but there are numerous other instances.
There seems to be, looking from the outside, structural problems within the police generally, and within the Metropolitan police in particular, that mean that violent and dishonest police officers have too much job security.
Of course, the nature of policing means that officers should have due protection from vexatious and malicious complaints.
But the level of current protection seems far too high to be explained just by the perils of policing a resentful public.
*
Today the leader of the opposition suggested a substantial overhaul, such as when the Royal Ulster Constabulary was converted into the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
This would have to be more than a mere change of name.
But it is unlikely to ever be done, for in power governments since 1919 have almost always had an interest in not upsetting the police.
Perhaps the test will be if the Police Federation holds another poll, and a majority of its members take an interest and vote on whether to have the right to strike.
For that would point to real power slipping of the police in respect of policy.
But in the meantime, we have that striking paradox: the workers with some of the strongest employment protections have the fewest rights to take industrial action.
**
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
Thank you. At last. I was told over 30 years ago that the problem with the police (all of them, not just the Met) was the Feds. Now can we have a good hard look at them.
But.
There is a suspicion that the move to graduate entry to make Policing a profession, will bring with it a professional body and a renewed right to withhold services.
One of the really disappointing things about May was she said some promising things – but didn’t carry them through.
She also did some pretty appalling things – and I was never sure whether it was her initiative or she was just toeing the party line.
Having spoken to police officers over the years, many seemed appalled by the Police Federation but couldn’t see an alternative.
I do think, however, the Police Federation is only part of the underlying problem (maybe even a symptom rather than the cause) of the culture – the seige mentality which makes them protect their own.
If there is a clean-out, will that limit the power of the Federation?
I doubt it, but we can hope.
By some accounts cities etc in the USA have this in a worse and distributed form.
I beg to disagree. The paradox you posit is surely not a real one. One would expect the police to be interested in striking only if their seemingly cast iron job security were threatened or broken. Then they might want to have the right to strike. But what could they gain from striking under the current dispensation? They’d lose a straight political fight with a government of any colour and someone might draw attention to their extraordinarily generous pension arrangements. We all know lots of ex-police who’ve retired in their late middle age on full pensions having joined as school-leavers and are cheerfully embracing new careers.
Many professions – lawyers, doctors, dentists etc – have independent regulatory bodies to discipline and prevent them from practising. Perhaps the police needs a similar body.
It’s not impossible to sack a police officer, both regulation 42 and regulation 62 of the police (conduct) regulations 2020 provide the authority to do so.
Interestingly, Reg 62 provide ‘fast track’ procedures which are chaired by Chief Constables, despite the NPCC wrongly asserting that they don’t have the power to sack officers . Many officers are sacked each year.
Misconduct procedures obviously apply retrospectively, they would not have prevented the appalling offending of Carroll or Couzens. The problem lies with vetting processes, not misconduct.
I’m reading everywhere that it needs to be easier to sack officers, however all that making the dismissal of officers ‘easier’ would do is remove the protections afforded by an independent process, away from people who sacrifice the employment law protections that most citizens enjoy, which as a consequence leaves them unable to take meaningful redress.
The urgent review of misconduct procedures for police is, in my view, a dishonest power grab by chief officers.
“It’s not impossible to sack a police officer, both regulation 42 and regulation 62 of the police (conduct) regulations 2020 provide the authority to do so.”
Hence why I was careful to say “almost”.
There is a perception though that police officers find it relatively easier than people in other professions to resign before they face disciplinary charges or questions about their conduct.
And that those charges and concerns lose all effect on resignation.
A recent Chief Constable of North Wales indulged in all sorts of odd behaviour although not anything criminal as far as I am aware, but he had resigned and was on his oceangoing yacht (its size may have been exaggerated by the Welsh media) before questions were raised about, for example:
The mounted unit he formed for use in Snowdonia when quad bikes would seem to have been a better and cheaper option by far for patrolling the area than the horses he bought.
Local farmers use quad bikes when out visiting their flocks of sheep.
And then there was the insistence that police officers routinely patrolling the likes of the mean streets of Criccieth at high summer should go dressed for a drugs raid on an inner city crack den.
Criccieth, don’t laugh, is regularly one of the warmest places on the Cambrian Coast and it was quite something to see officers on foot, heavily perspiring, dressed all in black, in stab vests and wearing black Afrika Korps caps.
The Chief Constable had gotten the funding for what he wanted, and clearly put his officers through a lot of discomfort and yet it was only after he had left post that folk started, in public at least, to ask if his judgement was at fault.
I wonder what the Police Federation thought about the uniforms.
Mind you, there is no legal maximum working temperature whether you are on the beat or in an office so complaints about the dress code, if made would have carried little weight.
I imagine that whoever received his requests for funding felt they were not competent to challenge his professional assessments of the force’s needs.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Mind you, a recent Mayor of London, an elected politician, whatever did happen to him, did acquire three pre-owned mobile water cannon that the Metropolitan Police never wanted or used so it’s not all a one way trade, by any means.
Please note I have amended the comments policy so that derailing comments, even if not irksome, will not be published.
Please do not use a post about [x] as a vehicle to make comments about [y].
Again, as with irksome comments, my discretion is absolute and final, so please don’t whinge. I take great pride in the standard of comments on this blog.
The performance and activities of policemen/women is more a function of their reasons for joining in the first place.
Recruiting as many officers as possible works counter to the employment of the right people.
The officers in control of recruitment and training should hesitate before employing and more in depth checks seem to be needed.
Is the right to strike or not the issue?
In my opinion the power and influence of the Police Federation with the UKG is going to be stronger than ever once the new bills sharply restricting public speech and protest and banning strike action are passed.
The Mafia Don is an absolute ruler but only because he has a band of loyal henchmen to enforce his will and break legs when needed so in a symbiotic way they are very well treated, as will be the UK police by the Tories.