Govt grasping the 'bloated redudancy payments' nettle?
Discussion
Well, well, well.
It looks like the days of 3 yrs+ redundancy payouts for redundant civil servants is on the way out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
Just need new legislation outlawing strike action on the basis of pay disputes, and we're all set for some real change.
It looks like the days of 3 yrs+ redundancy payouts for redundant civil servants is on the way out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
telegraph said:
Under existing Whitehall rules, some civil servants are entitled to severance payouts worth as much as six years’ salary. Ministers want to shrink those packages to bring them in line with the private sector, where workers who are made redundant typically receive the equivalent of a few months’ or even weeks’ pay.
Treasury figures suggest that more than 600,000 jobs will be lost in the public sector over the next five years as almost £100 billion is cut from public spending.
Ministers have identified the traditionally high cost of laying off staff as a major obstacle to enacting their plans for cuts and improving efficiency.
Some ministries have “pools” of several hundred workers who do not have allocated jobs but who are not sacked because of the cost.
Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, is drawing up plans to reduce the generosity of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. The Government is prepared to amend the law to force through the changes.
This will put the cat among the pigeons.Treasury figures suggest that more than 600,000 jobs will be lost in the public sector over the next five years as almost £100 billion is cut from public spending.
Ministers have identified the traditionally high cost of laying off staff as a major obstacle to enacting their plans for cuts and improving efficiency.
Some ministries have “pools” of several hundred workers who do not have allocated jobs but who are not sacked because of the cost.
Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, is drawing up plans to reduce the generosity of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. The Government is prepared to amend the law to force through the changes.
Just need new legislation outlawing strike action on the basis of pay disputes, and we're all set for some real change.
Edited by johnfm on Monday 5th July 16:36
mondeoman said:
Contracts cna be rewritten when there is no money in the pot to pay them these gold-plated pay-offs.
Who they gonna sue and where will the money come from if they win?
Cloud Cuckoo Land methinks
Would you be happy for you employer to rewrite your contract without your consent?Who they gonna sue and where will the money come from if they win?
Cloud Cuckoo Land methinks
I'm sure someone who fully understands these things will be along shortly but it might not be that simple but:
"(Reuters) - A High Court judge has dealt a "final blow" to plans by the previous Labour government to cut civil service redundancy pay, a union said on Friday.
The Public and Commercial Services union said the decision by Mr Justice Sales to quash an amendment was vindication of its decision to oppose what it described had been a "grossly unfair" and unlawful change to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.
The new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition would now have to enter negotiations with the PCS if it wanted to change the scheme in future, the union added.
...
Both sides were given a few weeks to reach an agreement on the terms of an order to quash the amendment, but failed to do so, and the case went back to court for a final hearing on June 9, with the judge confirming the union had been right to oppose the cuts on Friday, it added. "The ruling confirms that a government cannot simply change redundancy rights which have already accrued for civil servants without agreement by the unions," Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, who acted for PCS, said in a statement.
full article
Edited by Fittster on Monday 5th July 18:01
Fittster said:
mondeoman said:
Contracts cna be rewritten when there is no money in the pot to pay them these gold-plated pay-offs.
Who they gonna sue and where will the money come from if they win?
Cloud Cuckoo Land methinks
Would you be happy for you employer to rewrite your contract without your consent?Who they gonna sue and where will the money come from if they win?
Cloud Cuckoo Land methinks
I'm sure someone who fully understands these things will be along shortly but it might not be that simple but:
"(Reuters) - A High Court judge has dealt a "final blow" to plans by the previous Labour government to cut civil service redundancy pay, a union said on Friday.
The Public and Commercial Services union said the decision by Mr Justice Sales to quash an amendment was vindication of its decision to oppose what it described had been a "grossly unfair" and unlawful change to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.
The new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition would now have to enter negotiations with the PCS if it wanted to change the scheme in future, the union added.
...
Both sides were given a few weeks to reach an agreement on the terms of an order to quash the amendment, but failed to do so, and the case went back to court for a final hearing on June 9, with the judge confirming the union had been right to oppose the cuts on Friday, it added. "The ruling confirms that a government cannot simply change redundancy rights which have already accrued for civil servants without agreement by the unions," Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, who acted for PCS, said in a statement.
fully article
Edited by Fittster on Monday 5th July 17:35
plasticpig said:
The government can change the law to what it likes as long as it can get enough votes in parliament. That ruling is based on the law as it stands. The government are proposing to change the law the judgement was based on.
Shouldn't that be caveated as:The government can change the UK law to what it likes as long as it can get enough votes in parliament.
How would European Employment Law limited the governments options? I know if I worked for a Union I'd be looking at it.
Edited by Fittster on Monday 5th July 17:50
Fittster said:
mondeoman said:
Contracts cna be rewritten when there is no money in the pot to pay them these gold-plated pay-offs.
Who they gonna sue and where will the money come from if they win?
Cloud Cuckoo Land methinks
Would you be happy for you employer to rewrite your contract without your consent?Who they gonna sue and where will the money come from if they win?
Cloud Cuckoo Land methinks
)It appears from Reuters that the Labour government wanted to legislate the changes rather than negotiate and consult on them (sounds par for the course for the last lot) There is a big difference between the two and this one isn't dead in the water yet.
Incidentally, in case anybody is wondering, this doesn't apply to all public service conditions of service. When I was made redundant in 2004 under local government conditions of service, all I got was the basic minimum in the Redundancy Payments Act - 1 weeks pay for each year of service up to age 40, 1.5 weeks per year over 40.
rs1952 said:
Incidentally, in case anybody is wondering, this doesn't apply to all public service conditions of service. When I was made redundant in 2004 under local government conditions of service, all I got was the basic minimum in the Redundancy Payments Act - 1 weeks pay for each year of service up to age 40, 1.5 weeks per year over 40.
Same here, we're on notice that there will be a cull (don't know what/who/how/how soon yet), and the exsisting redundancy package is a week's pay per year of employment.
k them. They'll have to get a real job.It's worth remembering that these generous redundancy terms were negotiated many years (decades?) back as part of pay deals in lieu of an extra % pay rise. In effect, the govt of the day opted to offer more in redundancy, and save on salary costs.
Result for govt as it could claim to be balancing the books (sound familiar?) as it'd kept in-year costs down and laughing up it's sleeve at the time because well, when was the last time civil servants were made redundant? great, govt saves money and concedes something worthless.
Unfortunately it's now come home to roost. The time to renegotiate redundancy deals was when Lab had to bring civil service pay up to meet a shortfall in staffing to meet it's policy commitments. This did happen, so that the redundancy deals talked about are only for those who were in the scheme pre 1987.
Someone may have more detailed knowledge than me but that's how I undertstand it. In practice, departments will have target head counts and budgets for redundancy pay, so the more expensive a person is to lay off, normally those nearer retirement age, more likey they will be kept on until they leave/retire.
As for the contracts, try this. Say to your wife 'I'm going to divorce you, but first I want to renegotiate the deal so it costs me less' and see what reaction you get
Entirely predictable imo.
Result for govt as it could claim to be balancing the books (sound familiar?) as it'd kept in-year costs down and laughing up it's sleeve at the time because well, when was the last time civil servants were made redundant? great, govt saves money and concedes something worthless.
Unfortunately it's now come home to roost. The time to renegotiate redundancy deals was when Lab had to bring civil service pay up to meet a shortfall in staffing to meet it's policy commitments. This did happen, so that the redundancy deals talked about are only for those who were in the scheme pre 1987.
Someone may have more detailed knowledge than me but that's how I undertstand it. In practice, departments will have target head counts and budgets for redundancy pay, so the more expensive a person is to lay off, normally those nearer retirement age, more likey they will be kept on until they leave/retire.
As for the contracts, try this. Say to your wife 'I'm going to divorce you, but first I want to renegotiate the deal so it costs me less' and see what reaction you get
Entirely predictable imo.telegraph said:
Under existing Whitehall rules, some civil servants are entitled to severance payouts worth as much as six years’ salary.
How did we actually get into that situation? Who thought "Hmm that sounds like a good idea"? Or is it simply that turkeys don't vote for Christmas?Olf said:
telegraph said:
Some ministries have “pools” of several hundred workers who do not have allocated jobs but who are not sacked because of the cost.
Ho ho ho. This pool of losers could swap their massive payouts for shares in New Labia.Fittster said:
Would you be happy for you employer to rewrite your contract without your consent?
Obviously not but if I couldn't live with the change then I would move on, as I have done in the past.Edited by zollburgers on Monday 5th July 22:00
Edited by zollburgers on Monday 5th July 22:01
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff