 |
The Sheltered Housing Network Supporting All Involved in The Provision of Sheltered and Supported Housing |
THE HARROW CASE - SHN Comment
THE HARROW CASE - SHN Comment
|
|
|
THE
HARROW CASE - COMMENT FROM SHN (8th September 2003)
The
case of the nine wardens employed by the London Borough of Harrow who won
compensation for being ‘on-call’ could indeed have major implications for
people who are required by their employers to remain on standby after completing
their hours of work. It is
not uncommon for wardens / scheme managers required to 'live in' at the
sheltered housing schemes where they are employed to be expected to respond to
‘out of hours emergencies’. Far
to frequently such staff (who are normally contracted to work a basic 37 hour
week or less) are then required to make them selves available at evenings and
weekends should any ‘emergencies’ arise. But these ‘on-call’ hours are
seldom recognised as such. The view
sometimes held is that staff are at home and able to carry on their normal
lifestyle without their privacy being disturbed unless an emergency arises.
Although such emergency call outs are not frequent and it may be true
that resident staff are not called upon very often, the mere fact of being
‘the first point of call’ can in itself interfere with everyday living.
In
some instances (as in the case of the Harrow wardens) during their standby time
staff are told that they cannot leave the sheltered housing scheme.
This intrudes on the ability to partake of outside activities and could
lead to social isolation (as cited by the Harrow wardens at the employment
tribunal). In one instance, I heard
from a resident scheme manager who was contracted to work 20 hours a week but
told she was not allowed to be away from the sheltered scheme for more than 15
hours in any one week. The issue of
how to provide an adequate response to sheltered housing residents who call for
assistance during out of hour’s periods is one that causes a dilemma for many
organisations. The Sheltered
Housing Network has supported providers, staff and residents in addressing the
issues associated with this and to set up a realistic and sustainable service. But the ‘on-call’ scenario is, I would
suggest, the tip of the ice burg. Being
required to live with the very people that you provide services to has far more
reaching implications. There are
the pressures brought to bare on family members such as being disturbed when the
alarm goes off in the early hours, being approached by tenants with ‘messages
for the warden’, being expected not to bring the organisations name into
disrepute – even though they are not employed by them.
At a workshop I ran during the 2002 CIH Sheltered Housing conference,
participants were moved by an account given by the son of a ‘resident
warden’ as to the stress and discomfort he was put through by tenants.
One could also argue that the requirement to ‘live in’ discriminates
against those who are qualified to do the job but whose family circumstances do
not fit the accommodation on offer. Resident staff are often paid less than their non-resident counterparts. The reason given is that they receive ‘free’ accommodation (there is of course no such thing) or that their rent is subsidised. This only penalises resident staff further as it can affect their pension rights and have an adverse affect on their credit status. Resident staff are also precluded from any ‘right to buy’ opportunities and lose out further because they are less likely to be in a position to buy a property elsewhere. They therefore become excluded from opportunities to get onto the property ladder. In lite of how property prices have risen in recent years, this could lead to resident staff having to take what is offered in the way of housing when they retire. Ray Sawyer-James |
|
|