Trough open for business

[Countdown]

Treasury scraps £95,000 cap on public sector pay-offs

Fantastic news for those underpaid Public Sector Execs whose redundancy pay was previously capped at a mere £95k. There will now be an avalanche of restructurings and efficiency savings where the top tier get huge payoffs, re-employed via their own Consultancy at staggering day rates, and the every single level of Management get promoted by one level to fill the gaps above them.

I'm normally a big fan of the Public Sector but I can't see any benefit to this at all (apart from for those at the top who don't want to stick around and deal with the post-Pandemic fallout)

[wc98]

Countdown said:

Treasury scraps £95,000 cap on public sector pay-offs

Fantastic news for those underpaid Public Sector Execs whose redundancy pay was previously capped at a mere £95k. There will now be an avalanche of restructurings and efficiency savings where the top tier get huge payoffs, re-employed via their own Consultancy at staggering day rates, and the every single level of Management get promoted by one level to fill the gaps above them.

I'm normally a big fan of the Public Sector but I can't see any benefit to this at all (apart from for those at the top who don't want to stick around and deal with the post-Pandemic fallout)

i would like to see it made law that every single person, no matter the position or company/govt dept, is subject to the same rules and payment limits as the standard minimum redundancy requirements. no negotiations at all on contracts for this no matter how much you earn. if 500 odd quid a week max is good enough for ordinary punters it should be good enough for those earning considerably more.

[frisbee]

Getting the groundwork in place for the next round of bullying allegations against Priti Patel.

I can already hear the creaking finger joints of the Ultras as they start warming up ready to furiously defend her

[shed driver]

Because it is compulsory to add in the pension pot for some workers it has had the unintentional consequence of penalising some long serving but low paid workers.

SD.

[anonymous-user]

wc98 said:

i would like to see it made law that every single person, no matter the position or company/govt dept, is subject to the same rules and payment limits as the standard minimum redundancy requirements. no negotiations at all on contracts for this no matter how much you earn. if 500 odd quid a week max is good enough for ordinary punters it should be good enough for those earning considerably more.

Why don't we just pay everyone the same and then draw jobs out of a hat?

[Countdown]

01WE01 said:

wc98 said:

i would like to see it made law that every single person, no matter the position or company/govt dept, is subject to the same rules and payment limits as the standard minimum redundancy requirements. no negotiations at all on contracts for this no matter how much you earn. if 500 odd quid a week max is good enough for ordinary punters it should be good enough for those earning considerably more.

Why don't we just pay everyone the same and then draw jobs out of a hat?

I'm not a Socialist but redundancy packages/settlement agreement tend to be quite (for what of better words) corrupt/nepotistic.

[Murph7355]

wc98 said:

i would like to see it made law that every single person, no matter the position or company/govt dept, is subject to the same rules and payment limits as the standard minimum redundancy requirements. no negotiations at all on contracts for this no matter how much you earn. if 500 odd quid a week max is good enough for ordinary punters it should be good enough for those earning considerably more.

I agree - I would apply it to all employment rules and apply it double to MPs. Those who set the law need to follow the same one as the rest of us.

Expenses are my big bug bear, but pensions are another.

[anonymous-user]

Maybe, but the public sector is by far the strictest. Everything is done by the book and checked by HR and RemCo's where needed. The private sector is worse. This thread smacks of ill-informed jealously.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

I agree - I would apply it to all employment rules and apply it double to MPs. Those who set the law need to follow the same one as the rest of us.

Expenses are my big bug bear, but pensions are another.

Obviously. And they do. Also: expenses? That's old news.

[shed driver]

Obligatory socialist worker link.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/13/u-...

SD.

[Countdown]

01WE01 said:

Maybe, but the public sector is by far the strictest. Everything is done by the book and checked by HR and RemCo's where needed. The private sector is worse. This thread smacks of ill-informed jealously.

The Public Sector ranges from the largest Local Authorities to quite small Quangos that nobody has heard of, so HR Departments and RemComs tend to be of variable quality. And in any case if the Chief Exec is on good terms with the Board Chair/ Leader of the Council there is zippadeedoodah that HR or any RemCom could do.

[anonymous-user]

That's not how corporate governance works.

[voyds9]

wc98 said:

i would like to see it made law that every single person, no matter the position or company/govt dept, is subject to the same rules and payment limits as the standard minimum redundancy requirements. no negotiations at all on contracts for this no matter how much you earn. if 500 odd quid a week max is good enough for ordinary punters it should be good enough for those earning considerably more.

Sometimes a buy off is cheaper than keeping them forever

[Countdown]

brickwall said:

voyds9 said:

Sometimes a buy off is cheaper than keeping them forever

This is important.

As much as it smarts, the £95k cap was doing more harm than good, because it prevented departments getting rid of weak staff.

In much of the public sector it is extremely hard to get rid of underperforming staff. Most are amenable to a silver-lined exit. Central rules preventing such exits mean they just stick around - waiting for a time when the rules change and they can get the exit they’re after all along anyway.

In such a period they are at best not pulling their weight, and at worst harming the morale and productivity of the team around them.

It’s better to pay them off and get em out now.

This isn't going to be getting rid of the weak staff. It's going to be getting rid of the strong staff who are either close to the age where they can draw a pension and want a massive lump sum on top OR it's going to be those who are confident in getting another role. VR generally doesn't attract those who are underperforming.

[Macron]

Countdown said:

This isn't going to be getting rid of the weak staff. It's going to be getting rid of the strong staff who are either close to the age where they can draw a pension and want a massive lump sum on top OR it's going to be those who are confident in getting another role. VR generally doesn't attract those who are underperforming.

Indeed, VR is usually a good way to reduce your average quality.

[Murph7355]

01WE01 said:

Murph7355 said:

I agree - I would apply it to all employment rules and apply it double to MPs. Those who set the law need to follow the same one as the rest of us.

Expenses are my big bug bear, but pensions are another.

Obviously. And they do. Also: expenses? That's old news.

Old news perhaps. Still current though.