The Unions are going to fight all spending cuts...
Discussion
Dupont666 said:
Cant they just give them basic redundancy of 1 week per year service?
They can and should give them statutory minimum. When they bleat, they can be told that they were being paid to do a non-job, so they should be happy to have been paid the inflated salary they have already received.Ha ha ha ha! you really don't get it, the only benefit of being a civil servant is the severance & pensions terms, the pay is crap the job is painfully bureaucratic and the general public who have never worked in the public sector think they are all to a man worthless pen pushers.
If you ask me they deserve it, they will hang on to it for grim death as they are pushed from pillar to post by successive governments as political pawns.
These are legally binding contracts, reneging on them will incur not only the original cost but interest and fees in long drawn out court room battles.
If you ask me they deserve it, they will hang on to it for grim death as they are pushed from pillar to post by successive governments as political pawns.
These are legally binding contracts, reneging on them will incur not only the original cost but interest and fees in long drawn out court room battles.
Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 14:57
Zod said:
Dupont666 said:
Cant they just give them basic redundancy of 1 week per year service?
They can and should give them statutory minimum. When they bleat, they can be told that they were being paid to do a non-job, so they should be happy to have been paid the inflated salary they have already received.The Civil Service Compensation Scheme is far, far better than any statutory or private sector scheme.
Just week or two ago:
"The High Court ruled that changes to [public sector] workers’ accrued benefits could not be altered without their consent or union agreement."
Olivera said:
"Civil servants and many public sector workers are not covered by statutory redundancy provisions but the Civil Service Compensation Scheme provides equivalent benefits".
The Civil Service Compensation Scheme is far, far better than any statutory or private sector scheme.
Just week or two ago:
"The High Court ruled that changes to [public sector] workers’ accrued benefits could not be altered without their consent or union agreement."
What all this means is that it will cost more to get rid of them than keep them in the medium term. So take a big hit now to save ourselves more trouble in 10 years time.The Civil Service Compensation Scheme is far, far better than any statutory or private sector scheme.
Just week or two ago:
"The High Court ruled that changes to [public sector] workers’ accrued benefits could not be altered without their consent or union agreement."
The only option open to the Cabinet Office/Govt now is to put in a menial severance package for new joiners, this saves no money in the long term because all those they need to get rid of are on the old terms and it also hampers attraction of the types of employees they need in the future.
A vicious circle if ever there was one.
Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 15:22
superlightr said:
Mojocvh said:
GT03ROB said:
RMT w
ker leader said:
ker leader said: General secretary Bob Crow said: "We cannot afford to wait for politicians to unleash a £50 billion slash and burn attack on our public services, jobs and living standards after May 6.
The GMB said its members would be out in force over the weekend across the UK and Ireland, including a rally in London on Saturday, where officials from the union's sex workers branch will be among the speakers.
Hmmm interesting so sex workers are now on the public sector payroll.....The GMB said its members would be out in force over the weekend across the UK and Ireland, including a rally in London on Saturday, where officials from the union's sex workers branch will be among the speakers.
Workers pay tax and stamp like anyone else and have their rights upheld in law.
Time to move into the 21st Century.......
Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 18th May 15:24
OneDs said:
Ha ha ha ha! you really don't get it, the only benefit of being a civil servant is the severance & pensions terms, the pay is crap the job is painfully bureaucratic and the general public who have never worked in the public sector think they are all to a man worthless pen pushers.
If you ask me they deserve it, they will hang to on it for grim death as they are pushed from pillar to post by successive governments as political pawns.
These are legally binding contracts, reneging on them will incur not only the original cost but interest and fees in long drawn out court room battles.
Legally binding contracts like the bonuses legally binding ones that joe public complained at and as such many lost their bonus even though they did what was expected and it was in their contract.If you ask me they deserve it, they will hang to on it for grim death as they are pushed from pillar to post by successive governments as political pawns.
These are legally binding contracts, reneging on them will incur not only the original cost but interest and fees in long drawn out court room battles.
Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 14:51
Why does everyone say Public sector is worse pay than Private sector, its not, they have better pay and this has been shown in reports and the papers.
Dupont666 said:
Legally binding contracts like the bonuses legally binding ones that joe public complained at and as such many lost their bonus even though they did what was expected and it was in their contract.
Why does everyone say Public sector is worse pay than Private sector, its not, they have better pay and this has been shown in reports and the papers.
Bonuses are not contractual not legally binding and the only thing the govt for now can legitimately go after.Why does everyone say Public sector is worse pay than Private sector, its not, they have better pay and this has been shown in reports and the papers.
The public sector is by far in Base Salary and Bonus terms, in a like for like job paid less than equivalent role in the private sector. Get over it, no amount of spurious tabloid journalism and misguided statistics will change this.
Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 15:31
OneDs said:
Dupont666 said:
Legally binding contracts like the bonuses legally binding ones that joe public complained at and as such many lost their bonus even though they did what was expected and it was in their contract.
Why does everyone say Public sector is worse pay than Private sector, its not, they have better pay and this has been shown in reports and the papers.
Bonuses are not contractual not legally binding and the only thing the govt for now can legitimately go after.Why does everyone say Public sector is worse pay than Private sector, its not, they have better pay and this has been shown in reports and the papers.
The public sector is by far in Base Salary and Bonus terms, in a like for like job paid less than equivalent role in the private sector. Get over it, no amount of spurious tabloid journalism and misguided statistics will change this.
Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 15:31
Public vs private pay...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/70361...
OneDs said:
The public sector is by far in Base Salary and Bonus terms, in a like for like job paid less than equivalent role in the private sector.
After 13 years of arguing that the public sector needed to attract the best talent and so needed parity with private sector appointments COUPLED with the private sector desperately needing to drive costs out of the business this is no longer true.OneDs said:
Get over it, no amount of spurious tabloid journalism and misguided statistics will change this.
OK. We need some hard facts. Time for some Googling. TVR Moneypit said:
Tony*T3 said:
Lets face it, the Tories will most likely cut around 2 million jobs in the government sector over the next 5 years, to save money to pay this big black hole in the economy. There may be a sma ll percentage of high
end wage earners losing their jobs, but the majority will be lower scale people, those providing real frontline services.
PistonHeaders will be the first
complaining next winter when theres no one out gritting the roads or repairing potholes etc. Yet these are likely the level of people that will nmost suffer from government cuts.
Repairing pot holes and grit spreading? end wage earners losing their jobs, but the majority will be lower scale people, those providing real frontline services.
PistonHeaders will be the first
complaining next winter when theres no one out gritting the roads or repairing potholes etc. Yet these are likely the level of people that will nmost suffer from government cuts.
In south Yorks / north Derbyshire I haven't seen potholes being repaired or grit being spread for the best part of ten years.
Edited by Tony*T3 on Tuesday 18th May 15:59
Olivera said:
I actually agree that we should slash the amount of public sector workers. However the amount of contractually obliged redundancy money they are owed is astounding. In fact we can't actually afford to make many public sectors workers redundant because of this.
The trouble is these are the conditions that they and the employer signed up to when they took the job.Regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks this is fair or not is irrellevant.
However I doubt these terms mean that we cannot afford to make people redundant. Employing someone costs far more than their salary. Ok so you may end up giving them 6 months to a years wages in redundancy but it pays for itself after 12 months.
Olivera said:
Zod said:
Dupont666 said:
Cant they just give them basic redundancy of 1 week per year service?
They can and should give them statutory minimum. When they bleat, they can be told that they were being paid to do a non-job, so they should be happy to have been paid the inflated salary they have already received.The Civil Service Compensation Scheme is far, far better than any statutory or private sector scheme.
Just week or two ago:
"The High Court ruled that changes to [public sector] workers’ accrued benefits could not be altered without their consent or union agreement."
Zod said:
Dupont666 said:
Cant they just give them basic redundancy of 1 week per year service?
They can and should give them statutory minimum. When they bleat, they can be told that they were being paid to do a non-job, so they should be happy to have been paid the inflated salary they have already received.Whatever you think of the jobs these people have, they took them in good faith. They will have seen the T&Cs and possibley on this basis accepted the position that was advertised. They won't have questioned whether the job was really needed or not. Did you when you applied for the job you are currently doing?
Many of these people are going to lose thier jobs which I imagine is making and is going to make life very stressful for them. The suggestion that we should just be able to ignore their contract when we decide the job they applied for is of no use is to be quite honest b
ks.Aim your vitriol at the people who employed them, not the ones who took the jobs. They're the ones who are going to be the real victims of this cull. I may not agree with the unions stance on this but I have every sympathy for anyone who is made redundant in either the public or private sector.
Devil2575 said:
Zod said:
Dupont666 said:
Cant they just give them basic redundancy of 1 week per year service?
They can and should give them statutory minimum. When they bleat, they can be told that they were being paid to do a non-job, so they should be happy to have been paid the inflated salary they have already received.Whatever you think of the jobs these people have, they took them in good faith. They will have seen the T&Cs and possibley on this basis accepted the position that was advertised. They won't have questioned whether the job was really needed or not. Did you when you applied for the job you are currently doing?
Many of these people are going to lose thier jobs which I imagine is making and is going to make life very stressful for them. The suggestion that we should just be able to ignore their contract when we decide the job they applied for is of no use is to be quite honest b
ks.Aim your vitriol at the people who employed them, not the ones who took the jobs. They're the ones who are going to be the real victims of this cull. I may not agree with the unions stance on this but I have every sympathy for anyone who is made redundant in either the public or private sector.
So the £60k pay out would be £35k and the rest goes back to the government... then its almost like a BOGOF
Devil2575 said:
Aim your vitriol at the people who employed them, not the ones who took the jobs.
100%Devil2575 said:
They're the ones who are going to be the real victims of this cull.
of the cull perhaps but the tax payer, past, present and future is the real victimEdited by fbrs on Tuesday 18th May 16:32
Zod said:
Dupont666 said:
Cant they just give them basic redundancy of 1 week per year service?
They can and should give them statutory minimum. When they bleat, they can be told that they were being paid to do a non-job, so they should be happy to have been paid the inflated salary they have already received.Jobs under risk identified.
Consultation.
Employee evaluations.
Position redundant.
Offered alternative position if suitable match of skills etc.
If not statutory payment.
At the same time deal with the doleites.
Riots.
Lots of overtime...
(I said that last bit out loud didn't I?) Sorry
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff