A
personal account of over 40 years’ experience in the residential
child service in the United Kingdom, based on involvement in the
services as a practitioner and manager.
Names and places have been changed for obvious reasons.
"Work
as Required"
Care
staff at Pink House in early 1964 did not have a work rota. The
only thing we knew for certain was that we had one day a week off.
We usually began at 7a.m. and worked until at least 6p.m. and did
on average 80 hours a week.
“Right,
boys, line up”, called Mr. Spoones, the Housemaster of Elms
House, as the evening meal ended.
The
boys were going upstairs to the recreation room. There was not much
there by way of activities, a small snooker table, a few tables
and chairs and a radio. The evenings for both boys and staff could
be long, tedious and trying.
There
were usually two or three of us in the dining hall at the end of
the meal. We knew we would probably not all be needed for the rest
of the evening but we didn’t know which of us it would be
until Laurie Spoons gave us the nod.
And
nod it was. Laurie was a very taciturn man. As we stood around the
hall Laurie would nod his head in our general direction and flick
his index finger at someone and through his thumb over his right
shoulder.
“Do
you mean me, Mr. Spoons?” I asked hesitatingly.
“Yes
you .. bugger off!” he would snap back.
It
was hard to organise free time with such a haphazard system. It
was also difficult to retain staff.
In
the Spring of ’64 a new member of staff, Steve Salt, joined
us. He had only been in post a week when he said, to no one in particular,
in the staff room at break.
“Why
the hell haven’t we got a rota?”
“They
won’t give us one”, a number of us replied.
“Well,
there’s more of us than there are of them, let’s go
and demand one”, insisted Steve.
“Yer
and while we are about it”, he added, “let’s join
the Union”.
Next
week four of us went to see the Superintendent.
“You
want what?” he asked incredulously.
“Don’t
you realise that in a job like this, you have to accept that circumstances
can be unpredictable. That’s one of the reason most staff
have accommodation here. Not many jobs would provide such a perk,
accommodation right in the heart of a big city”.
“We
think, Mr. Bumble, that it is only right, in these modern times,
that staff should have a rota and a fixed working week”, replied
Steve.
“Well,
I am in charge here and I have to tell you all that things are not
changing. Your contracts state that you will work ‘as required’
and that remains in force”, answered Mr. Bumble.
“Well,
in that case I’m sorry to tell you, but on next Bank Holiday
Monday residential staff who are members of the Union will not be
at work”, responded Steve.
“Members
of the Union, and how many would that be?” scoffed the Superintendent.
“All
but one of the staff,” came the answer.
“Oh,
oh well, I must consult with my bosses. Good bye, gentlemen”,
answered a clearly startled Mr. B. as showed us to his office door.
The
next day Steve told us that the Superintendent wished to meet us
again .
“Come
in, gentlemen, come in. I have had conversations with the Council
members and they tell me that they thought we had a rota in place.
So I’m pleased to tell that from next month there will be
a new 50-hour a week rota”.
.
We were in seventh heaven. A rota and a 50-hour week, and all after
one meeting, Steve was a hero.
In
1968 it was recommended “that every effort be made to achieve
staffing ratios calculated on the basis of a working week not exceeding
45 hours” but few employers took this as more than pious exhortation.
On
12 July 1972 it was agreed that with effect from 1 October 1972
staff should not be required to work more than 45 hours a week.
But
in 1964 it was to be another eight years before a defined working
week was in force. No wonder, then, that some of the staff recruited
were of dubious character.
Two
extreme cases come to mind during my time at Pink House. The first
involved a member staff who was arrested one day in a nearby park
for attempting to sexually molest children. It transpired that he
had got his job by giving the addresses of friends as his references
and then writing them himself under assumed names. He had been a
patient at a secure hospital, following previous offences, and used
a false name on release to get his job.
In
the second case a young man was working as a new housefather when
he had a road traffic accident. It transpired that he was in fact
an absconding inmate of the youth offender institution known as
Borstal. I suppose working in a Remand Home under a false name was
a good cover.
The
vast majority of care staff, however, were genuine people with a
commitment, though not necessarily the skill, to doing positive
work with and for young people, thus their willingness to work long
hours, which had been to a degree exploited by employers anxious
to keep down the cost of residential care.
Giving
staff proper working hours was a significant step on the way towards
recognising that residential child care is professional task not
just an exercise in do-gooding from well presumably intentioned
individuals.
