Hampshire

« SULTANS OF SPIN | Main | THE POINTLESSNESS OF CURRENT ANTI-DRUGS POLICY »

August 20, 2008

SUPPORTING TPOs IN FIRST APPOINTMENTS

Several Trainee Probation Officers who qualify this year and expect to take up posts in October will be faced with demanding and expensive journeys to work. Many have been allocated posts in the north of the Area, despite living in Southampton and Portsmouth. They are being told they must stay in these posts for two years minimum. They face daily commutes of 100 miles – at their own expense.

Firstly, where the ‘two years’ comes from is unclear, but what is clear is the first paragraph in the codes of employment which states:

‘All job vacancies, whether as new appointments to the Hampshire Area of the National Probation Service, transfers or promotions, are likely to offer some opportunity to a candidate which is not present in their current position. This may be financial, developmental or of special interest. Therefore on that basis, opportunity to apply for any position should not be denied to any applicant who meets the mandatory criteria (e.g. CQSW/Dip Social Work for Probation Officer posts), regardless of personal factors, e.g. race, gender, age, sexual orientation or degree of physical ability. (Paragraph 1, Diversity Policy, Strategy and Codes of Employment for Service Delivery and Employment of Staff)’

That seems fairly clear: if a staff member sees a job opportunity and they wish to apply it would be a breach of the codes of employment to block an applicant. This is about equal opportunities, about diversity and these are not subservient to the catch-all of ‘operational reasons’ which these days gets lazily wheeled out when management have no other rationale. Why does management never give as much attention to life-work balance?

Secondly, we recognise there may be recruitment and retention issues in the north of the area. There is a means of tackling these issues - through Market Forces Supplements which are intended precisely for this type of situation - they are payable where market pressures have otherwise prevented the Probation Board from being able to recruit or retain sufficiently qualified or experienced employees at the normal salary for a job of that weight.

Additional payments may not ease the stress of long commutes, but they will at least not oblige staff to spend thousands of pounds annually just to get to work. As this Area was able to pay management consultants £96,000 for advice which was well within the wit of HPA, we would argue that urgent attention should be given to paying market forces supplements in the North, rather than passing the financial burden onto staff alongside the strain of undertaking daily round trips up to 100 miles. HPA should support staff in positive financial ways – interest free loans are not the solution – a market forces supplement may well be the fair way of balancing the needs and interests of employer and employee.

Equal opportunities cannot mean that a situation is tolerable where many employees receive thousands of pounds in subsidised travel while others are forced into situations where they must fork out thousands to get to work. Hampshire is one of the largest probation areas in the country and we need a strategy that provides a level of support that is coherent and fair. It took HPA a long time to come to terms with the costs of travelling across water and opportunities for career development; now that HPA sees it as operationally necessary to require staff to travel great distances across land it should cover the high costs involved – by investing in staff.

Posted by Hampshire at August 20, 2008 06:57 PM

Comments

Post a comment