Expensive gagging of ex-staff. Why?
Discussion
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/330000-public-ca...
During this period there have been several controversial internal investigations - one involving the PCC and expenses, and the other involving the Chief Constable, and a lengthy investigation into his behaviour while in office.
But from the article it seems this is not limited to the police, and nationwide, councils have been using the same tactic to prevent revelations form councils becoming public.
News and Star said:
The county's constabulary has confirmed it had spent £334,511.44 on settlement agreements for the employees when they agreed to depart between 2011 and 2015.
The controversial contracts, which were known as compromise agreements until 2013, provided each officer with an enhanced severance package providing they agree to a set of strict conditions.
Usually, these include signing away the right to talk about work matters after they leave or revealing the true nature of their departure.
Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, a pressure group set up to scrutinise spending from the public purse, was critical of the move.
He said: "These arrangements are not only an extra burden on taxpayers, but there is also a danger that they can be used to cover up incompetence and wrong doing.
"At a time when every police force is having to find savings and police officers are facing pay freezes or worse, these payments will be particularly hard to justify."
So what could these agreements be concealing that couldn't already be part of a contract?The controversial contracts, which were known as compromise agreements until 2013, provided each officer with an enhanced severance package providing they agree to a set of strict conditions.
Usually, these include signing away the right to talk about work matters after they leave or revealing the true nature of their departure.
Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, a pressure group set up to scrutinise spending from the public purse, was critical of the move.
He said: "These arrangements are not only an extra burden on taxpayers, but there is also a danger that they can be used to cover up incompetence and wrong doing.
"At a time when every police force is having to find savings and police officers are facing pay freezes or worse, these payments will be particularly hard to justify."
During this period there have been several controversial internal investigations - one involving the PCC and expenses, and the other involving the Chief Constable, and a lengthy investigation into his behaviour while in office.
But from the article it seems this is not limited to the police, and nationwide, councils have been using the same tactic to prevent revelations form councils becoming public.
Abbott said:
The big deal is using taxpayers money to gag potential whistle blowers.
Compliance has changed everything in the past few years and now most large companies should be encouraging whistle blowers etc.
If the gagging related to work matters that were above board, surely a clause in the employment contract should suffice.Compliance has changed everything in the past few years and now most large companies should be encouraging whistle blowers etc.
The fact these people are only being gagged as they leave, suggests that there is something underhand going on which the various authorities concerned wish to keep from the public.
Gagging is merely incidental. We use Compromise Agreements all the time. The basic situation is that someone is not performing, but to get rid of someone for poor performance is very hard, you need loads of evidence and it takes forever. The employee does not want to be there, you don't want them there. So you say 'here is a big chunk of change, if we give it to you, will you clear off and keep the details confidential?' If you get the number right, most people just sign.
Yep, it's often cheaper to bung someone £10K to get out and stay out than to keep paying them for a year or more while you grind through a performance improvement plan, warnings, disciplinary, grievance, appeal ...
Don't forget it's not only their salary costs, but also the time and effort of everybody who has to produce the above improvement plan, have the regular review meetings with them. Together with their colleagues who are carrying them as they underperform or disrupt.
I don't see we can begrudge these payouts really. Maybe if someone has been flung £100K or something, but even then we'd need to know the circumstances and we won't do so.
Don't forget it's not only their salary costs, but also the time and effort of everybody who has to produce the above improvement plan, have the regular review meetings with them. Together with their colleagues who are carrying them as they underperform or disrupt.
I don't see we can begrudge these payouts really. Maybe if someone has been flung £100K or something, but even then we'd need to know the circumstances and we won't do so.
Mill Wheel said:
Abbott said:
The big deal is using taxpayers money to gag potential whistle blowers.
Compliance has changed everything in the past few years and now most large companies should be encouraging whistle blowers etc.
If the gagging related to work matters that were above board, surely a clause in the employment contract should suffice.Compliance has changed everything in the past few years and now most large companies should be encouraging whistle blowers etc.
The fact these people are only being gagged as they leave, suggests that there is something underhand going on which the various authorities concerned wish to keep from the public.
I left a company under a compromise agreement, and it was something we were both happy with. I had similar clauses in the agreement yet i had nothing of any interest to tell anyone, or any reason to sue them.
Its a neat way to draw a line under a parting of the ways. The extra money isn't forced on you, but if you want to take it then they expect that to be the end of everything.
Edited by 98elise on Saturday 23 April 07:23
The private sector using compromise agreements is fair enough, it's a commercial decision.
I do have a problem with the public sector using taxpayers' money to circumvent employment law because they are unable to manage their employees properly.
They are also being used in the education sector to push out expensive experienced teachers and get cheap, younger staff in. The technique is to offer a settlement with the threat that if you don't take it, you are going to get managed out which is very difficult to fight.
I do have a problem with the public sector using taxpayers' money to circumvent employment law because they are unable to manage their employees properly.
They are also being used in the education sector to push out expensive experienced teachers and get cheap, younger staff in. The technique is to offer a settlement with the threat that if you don't take it, you are going to get managed out which is very difficult to fight.
Mandalore said:
Considering the fact that many gov departments don't make any profit for the taxpayer, I'm more worried and surprised at the way they give out performance bonuses.
That's a little short sighted a view of "performance".How about delivering a project ahead of time and under budget? Should that not be rewarded?
Or reducing cost through successful negotiation with suppliers above targets?
The public sector is becoming more like the private sector and there are fewer jobs for life there.
They need to have the same tools as the private sector in order to move people on. Some old timers can be on a year long notice period which was agreed in the 80's or 90's. Rather than having them be disruptive after a reorganisation for 12 months it's better to send them an agreement.
This public money thing could in many cases be a red herring and this agreement might well save the public purse.
They need to have the same tools as the private sector in order to move people on. Some old timers can be on a year long notice period which was agreed in the 80's or 90's. Rather than having them be disruptive after a reorganisation for 12 months it's better to send them an agreement.
This public money thing could in many cases be a red herring and this agreement might well save the public purse.
Fish said:
It is more likely to do with stopping them from suing the force due to procedural issues in dismissing them. The gagging is just a beneficial extra..
Happens all the time in the real world...
Procedural issues, or a grievance raised and unresolved / unresolvable, long term sick, etc.Happens all the time in the real world...
And as above, usually to avoid the subsequent risk of a tribunal, rather than to gag a "whistleblower"
Vaud said:
That's a little short sighted a view of "performance".
How about delivering a project ahead of time and under budget? Should that not be rewarded?
Or reducing cost through successful negotiation with suppliers above targets?
Has that ever been achieved in the Public Sector I wonder?How about delivering a project ahead of time and under budget? Should that not be rewarded?
Or reducing cost through successful negotiation with suppliers above targets?
Vaud said:
Mandalore said:
Considering the fact that many gov departments don't make any profit for the taxpayer, I'm more worried and surprised at the way they give out performance bonuses.
That's a little short sighted a view of "performance".How about delivering a project ahead of time and under budget? Should that not be rewarded?
Or reducing cost through successful negotiation with suppliers above targets?
rxe said:
Gagging is merely incidental. We use Compromise Agreements all the time. The basic situation is that someone is not performing, but to get rid of someone for poor performance is very hard, you need loads of evidence and it takes forever. The employee does not want to be there, you don't want them there. So you say 'here is a big chunk of change, if we give it to you, will you clear off and keep the details confidential?' If you get the number right, most people just sign.
I find it deeply depressing that this happens.Mandalore said:
No problem if they were actually given - based on a performance initiative as above.
I have seen a tendency to pay them to everyone. It used to be the case that performance bonus didn't show up in headline wage costs, so it was a way of raising pay without the %'s looking bad in the press. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff