Nov 2000 Volume 81 Number 11 "serving the protectors"

OLYMPICS - a show of police skills

The Olympics has again highlighted the breadth of police officer involvement in the wider community.

The Olympics has provided an opportunity for police at many levels to show their competence in many areas. The planning for the event - nationally and within the state - was obviously a major task. In SA, our members were directly involved with the torch relay and soccer. The planning team tried to ensure that every possible contingency was covered.

Looking at the media reports of the local events, police didn’t noticeably feature, which was part of the goal. Of course, those of us in the job could see them in all sorts of roles - unobtrusive and efficient. The security runners, the static guards and motorcycle escorts and security team all very much showed the type of group cohesion, planning and competence the new SAPOL Leadership and Efficiency Medal is designed to promote.

Away from the formal policing aspects, recent issues of the Police Journal have highlighted those members who, through their wider community contacts, have developed skills that are utilized in varied ways. Coaches, selectors, umpires, event and discipline co-ordinators and, of course, the dulcet tones of the swimming commentator - what a show of member diversity.

The diversity of members’ involvement and their efficiency and competence reflects positively on the police profession. It also highlights why police officers are a sought-after commodity in many fields.

Tenure

A necessary human-resource tool or an abusive control mechanism designed to reduce worker flexibility? There is little doubt in my mind that the use of a tenure policy saves organizations a lot of time. Whether it’s good for overall corporate health is another matter.

The concept of tenure has been a source of vexation during the whole of my 10 years on the Police Association committee. In the early days it was amazing how - given that so few areas had tenure - it consumed much time, drew emotional energy and created pain and confusion. In those days it applied to special CIB areas and the country. After a while the country tenure was modified basically to allow continuity of service within a town simply because it had appeared to become an administrative nightmare and one of inefficiency.

In the CIB areas it was often linked to purported concepts of anti-corruption needs. No one really believed that, and it was often seen to be a tool of cronyism.

Tenure disappeared for a while, and there was calm in the land. Then it was re-engineered and has come back with a vengeance and is added to virtually all PIDS. The arguments for tenure are around cost and organizational efficiency. An organization, it can be argued, could expect people to stay put for two years. This might be reasonable in an organization where service from HR to the workers includes meaningful career guidance and the organization has a specialist focus. SAPOL’s move to tenure has coincided with no career guidance and very open moves to a generic workforce rather than a specialist base.

What might the cost savings really be? Certainly in the country there are associated transport costs, but is there a significant number of members who want to move on a whim? It would seem to me that most would like to stay put for two years or more, but life changes and needs have to be reconsidered. Those who do move within short periods are usually driven by changed personal circumstances that have created an imperative for the move, or a changed organizational landscape where a position has unexpectedly become free.

I would doubt whether there was any real cost analysis done on this issue. I also suspect the indirect costs of increased leave usage and employee disassociation and dissatisfaction might be substantial.

The tenure policy will become a weeping sore and a point of unnecessary limitation on the mobility of workers in an increasingly mobile world. Flexibility to some is a one-way street. Attempts at applying tenure fairly will further reduce the standing of SAPOL’s HR service to members.

But wait. Didn’t the Police Association provide comment on the tenure policy, and surely this means we have some ownership on it? It is true that PASA responded to a draft policy and recommended some changes that were taken up by the employer? This is very different from agreeing to the concept. PASA knows the historical pain associated with tenure policies of any type and is opposed to them unless there are clearly identified needs. Nothing that came to me over tenure convinced me that a broad tenure policy was needed or was to be more than a simple and convenient management-control tool.

Consider how many organizations you know that have a tenure policy. The age old question of police management - are we streets ahead or behind the rest?

PASAweb   Index & Search   Top of Page   Comments   Email to Editor

The Police Journal Online is an official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 2000  The Police Association of South Australia sustance