# Improved Access/Hiring for Ex-Service Members



## bossi (10 Nov 2004)

This caught my eye, since it's something I've advocated before
(i.e. streamlined application process for Toronto Police Service, for starters ...)
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/10/npol10.xml

*Wanted: high-fliers for the top police jobs*
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 10/11/2004)

*Retired Army officers and others in comparable jobs will be able to join the police at senior ranks, including chief constable, under Government reforms published yesterday.*

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said he intended to remove a requirement that all police recruits start as a constable and spend specified amounts of time at lower ranks before promotion.


Pc Michael Wearing on patrol in Welling, where the neighbourhood initiative was launched yesterday 

As well as former military figures, top police jobs could be open to high-fliers in the probation service, Customs and Excise and financial crime investigators, and business executives with particular management skills.

A White Paper published yesterday said the police were "unusual if not unique" in developing all senior staff from among those who join at the bottom rung. 

"In a changing labour market, and against a requirement for more specialist skills and managerial experience at every level, this risks denying the service access to some of the people it needs," it added.

While the proposal was seen as a radical departure, it actually recalls a tradition: until the 1930s, it was common for the Armed Forces to supply chief constables. 

It is also planned to encourage black and Asian people to join at senior ranks.

The White Paper - Building Communities, Beating Crime - marks the second stage of Mr Blunkett's police reform programme following moves to drive up standards in the 42 forces in England and Wales.

It aims to put more officers on the beat so people can see and communicate with them. One idea is for people to be able to contact a neighbourhood policeman by mobile phone. A non-emergency police number is also to be introduced by the end of 2006.

Mr Blunkett's aim was "to go back to a time when I was young, when you expected the police to be part of the community and the community to be part of policing". 

This relationship, which has fractured over the years, would be restored through a so-called "copper's contract" setting out 10 commitments from the police to the public, including making them "feel safer"and be "treated better". If people were unhappy with the "service", they could complain through their councillors, triggering action by the police to rectify matters.

The Home Office also plans more community support officers (CSOs) - auxiliaries without the powers of constables - from about 4,000 today to 25,000 by 2008, and wants to give them powers to detain and search suspects as well as issue on-the-spot fines.

Jan Berry, the chairman of the Police Federation, said the enhanced role for CSOs would add to uncertainty over roles. It raised the question: "What is a police officer today?"

Police chiefs were more supportive of the proposals, which are intended to make them more accountable for their decisions. But Chris Fox, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, questioned whether the funding was available to make it work and feared interference.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, called the package "little more than a tax-funded PR exercise".


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Nov 2004)

bossi said:
			
		

> This caught my eye, since it's something I've advocated before
> (i.e. streamlined application process for Toronto Police Service, for starters ...)



So are you saying that ex-military members should have a bit of an advantage over civvy applicants wrt certain parts of the application process? What purpose would that serve, as I don't see a lot of linkage between the two organizations that is useful to real police work, other than in a very small number of cases such as EOD etc.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Nov 2004)

Have to disagree Whiskey, I think there is a large correlation of the two....eg. discipline under fire[pressure], obeying orders, ethics, pride,  have had lethal force options in their hands before,etc......
Me thinks we need more ex's in corrections.


----------



## Donut (10 Nov 2004)

I know at least a half-dozen retired or RFC/RSS NCO's, especially Cbt Arms, who have gotten head-hunted by the the Vancouver PD, Corrections, Sherriffs, etc here in BC, and at least a dozen more reservists for whom the deciding factor in their hiring was probably CF experience.

We are one of the few organizations that has any kind of formal command and leadership training scheme, and that's one of the key things they look for.

My spouse is a detective with the VPD, hired about 9 years ago, and the four things they were looking for were:
Post secondary education,
A second language,
A dedication to the community (ie volunteer time)
and...
Formal Leadership Training and Experience (what the Brits so quintly called called Man Management)

I'm pretty sure I know what makes the difference.  The same is true for most public-safety professions, and for a lot of corporate sector work as well.


DF


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Nov 2004)

Bruce, I think that's a balance of convenience argument. I agree that bringing some of those experiences to the table as an applicant is helpful, but you know that police training is substantially orientated in a different direction than military training, especially army training. So is police work. I guess that's why police services obtain some of their specialized training from the armed forces. But on the whole, giving ex-military members an advantage over other applicants as a matter of policy is unfair because it devalues other skills that are just as important to policing, such as the skills pointed out by ParaMedTech. In addition, the evolving nature of police work is becoming highly specialized, requiring professional training in sciences, engineering and of course social psychology/criminology. [notice I didn't put law.]     

So in summation: military experience is, and should only be, one of number of factors in the mix, and in no way should be a deciding factor. Police recruits are already very well trained in firearms, weapons and physical contact methods, and will continue to be so.  Everything that they do has to withstand the scrutiny of a court, so I would argue the most important characteristic of a good police officer [besides a sense of humour], is the ability to pay attention to tedious detail. That takes self discipline which can be learned from other sources besides the military.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Nov 2004)

Whiskey,
That article was not saying" your ex-military-your in"....what it is saying is that the service you have done is going to be taken into account. Nowhere did I read"military only" or you can skip the tests cause you served.
...and to get back to the article they are not talking about entry-level constables here, its the managers that this applies to.   Think about someone we know "over there" right now.....do you not think that he has learned a ton more "emergency planning" and reaction to the WTF factor than promoting a front-line police officer?  Now I'm definitely not insulting our police but there is many who will go through there whole career[god willing] and never even unholster their pistol. So I look at that article as an "about time" scenario,  in that, the things we do, but don't get a nice signed and crested sheet of paper for, are recognized.


----------



## bubba (11 Nov 2004)

hey bruce,i agree it's about time were getting some reconition for are service.when i tested in peel 12 yrs ago the cop told me being in the army has no bearing on being a cop.i tested in guelph to be a guard,not for me.how ya like doin life four days aweek.haha ;D


----------



## bossi (11 Nov 2004)

The Toronto police service, specifically, is experiencing a crisis due to a hiring spree several years ago.  Now, all the police officers hired back then are coming up on early retirement eligibility ... and they're jumping at the chance to get the heck out of Dodge (i.e. they've had enough of being a target).  Combine this with the unfortunate circumstances whereby too many applicants were more interested in a high-paying job (as opposed to serving the public ...)

Ex-military (ESPECIALLY infantry) are a "semi-skilled" labour pool, inasmuch as good soldiers are disciplined, already have practical ROE experience in dangerous situations, and sometimes you'll find soldiers who believe it's their duty to protect people who can't protect themselves.  In a nutshell, prime candidates to be police officers.

Furthermore, the article does indeed mention more senior positions - a good leader is a good leader, no matter where he/she is employed (and for that matter, many civvie police forces are absolute disasters when it comes to "know and promote the welfare of your ... whatever" - unfortunately, the psychological profile of far too many "old school" police is that of the village bully who pursued his lust for power by putting on a badge).

I apologise for not having my textbooks at my fingertips, thus I can't provide proper academic attribution
(i.e. I know how much it offends some members, however I claim the defence of "necessity" ... chuckle!)

Okay - enough  ranting and raving for today - got to get going.


----------



## bubba (11 Nov 2004)

that's okay bossi i forgive ya bye.by the way i have some buddies that are cops in ont and what they say about the pc hiring policies in the 90's is kinda biting them in the ass now.but remember google searcher's that's just hearsay.


----------



## enfield (11 Nov 2004)

By the same logic, then, a police officer could move laterally into the military. An inspector could become a Company Commander, a police sergeant become a section commander, an RCMP supervisor could become a Brigade Commander. Same thing, no?

There are too many specialist skills involved in both types of work. Many qualities and general skills are transferrable, but the hard skills, the qualifications, are not. I would never have much faith in a Capt, Lt, or Sgt who had never done a section attack or dug a trench, and I doubt a police constable would be particularly inspired by a supervisor who had never done a traffic stop or responded to a domestic dispute.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Nov 2004)

Quote,
I would never have much faith in a Capt, Lt, or Sgt who had never done a section attack or dug a trench,

So if you get, say an ice storm/flooding callout you won't work for any Navy/Air force guys?
Quote,
and I doubt a police constable would be particularly inspired by a supervisor who had never done a traffic stop or responded to a domestic dispute.

Probably not if the supervisor was actually going to respond to the calls, which he won't be.


----------



## enfield (12 Nov 2004)

Monkhouse,
I would say that dealing with an ice storm, or other disaster relief, is a grey area that our indvidual combat arms skills usually do not usually apply too (major exceptions being Engineers), but that we are called on to do due to the overall nature of our organization. In that specific example, it would likely not make a difference who was in charge at most levels, although I would tend to believe that an officer/NCO with experience with the units they were working with would be preferable. For example; A Naval officer/NCO may not have experience dealing with soldiers and coordinating land-based units in a terra firma environment. A highly skilled fighter pilot may not be the best qualified to organize work parties of soldiers in a complex domestic op. This is, afterall, why we generally seperate our forces by their environment, in recognition of the differing demands inherent in each area.

I think part of the strength of the military command system is that generally the people lower down have some faith that the people giving them commands have done it before. I know that my platoon commander sweated through Phase training and did his share of section attacks, I know my sergeant dug more trenches I ever will, I know that my 2i/c has and can clean a C6 to perfection, etc. This is obviously not always the case, and applies mostly to NCO/junior officers, but its something I've always respected in the military chain of command. I can speak from experience that when receiving orders/direction from someone, while I have always carried them out, it is the leaders with experience and skill that I respect, follow, and am inspired by.

I realize the police system is very different, but I see the same principle holding true. A police supervisor, while not actually respondong to the call, would be expected (by the constables below him and the authorities above him) to understand the SOPs officers follow in such situation, the legal framework, the background, and have an idea of what such situations are like. He may be expected to review the officers performance, read and understand the report, answer to higher-ups for the officers performance, explain what happened in a particular situation to others, and be able to enforce the law. 

I think we should respect the training and experience required in each field, as well as recognizng the cross-over potential for many skills. However, there is the worthwhile question: At what level does a leader no longer need to know or have experience in the skills/duties of those he/she commands? One example I'm thinking of is the first NATO commander in Bosnia was a USN Admiral. That Admiral was, by definition, at no point in his career qualified to command a Platoon, Battalion, Battery, Squadron or Division, nor is it likely he was ever qualified on a single land weapons system, but he was qualified to lead IFOR... where did the disconnect occur?
Comments?
Cheers,
Enfield


----------



## Lance Wiebe (12 Nov 2004)

There are some jobs in an Infantry Battalion that can be filled by someone who has never dug a trench.  Adjutant would be one example, Transport another.  I'm sure that the police forces have similar situations, where a "leader" can do a job without necessarily having a Law Enforcement diploma.  I don't think anyone is saying that these people should ever become detachment commanders, or shift commanders, but there are, apparently, jobs that can be done outside the established realms.

I have followed with some interest what is happening in several NATO countries, where civilian firms have been hired to teach driver courses, communications, even weapon handling.  It seems to be working, despite my initial doubts.  Police forces are also starting to think "outside the box", we're going to have to do the same thing......


----------

