Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Staff Re-hired Just Weeks After Redundancy Payoffs

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/2...ired-redundancy

The government and its equalities watchdog have "some difficult questions" to answer, an influential committee of MPs said yesterday, after it emerged the Equality and Human Rights Commission spent almost £325,000 on re-employing seven executives who had recently left one of its predecessor organisations with generous redundancy packages.

The National Audit Office (NAO), which published a report into the EHRC, has refused to fully sign off the commission's accounts because it had failed to get Treasury approval for the appointments.

The NAO said the commission – which grew out of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission – "had no business strategy, no agreed organisational design, and no clear understanding of what the commission would do, and was missing important elements of effective programme management" in the run-up to its creation two years ago.

It noted the EHRC had suffered teething troubles from its inception, in October 2007, with only 10 of 25 directors in place and a general staff shortfall of 140. The Treasury eventually decided the "novel and contentious" decision to plug the gaps by bringing back former Commission for Racial Equality employees – some at higher salaries than in their previous jobs – "did not represent value for money".

Earlier this year, it refused to approve the payments because of the higher salaries, doubts over value for money, concerns over tax and pension liabilities and the possibility that some severance money should have been repaid.

Amyas Morse, the head of the NAO, said that although the EHRC was established 18 months before it became operational to ensure it got off to a smooth start, it had still been hampered by a series of problems.

"Delays in bringing in resources sufficiently quickly meant that, when it started doing its job, it lacked more than half of its complement of directors, and made the mistake of re-employing some senior staff from predecessor bodies without authority," he said.

Although Morse said many of the problems could have been avoided through better planning, he added that the EHRC had made "welcome progress in improving its controls and governance".

The NAO also noted there had been a "degree of distraction and confusion" surrounding the EHRC's creation, as responsibility for the new watchdog passed from the Department for Communities and Local Government to the new Government Equalities Office.

The EHRC admitted that it had failed to follow the correct procedures when re-hiring the staff, but added: "This does not imply any criticism of the staff concerned. The commission is grateful for the work carried out by those staff on its behalf."

Nice work if you can get it fleecing the public purse.

We have crooks of the worst kind running the show.

I would say the commission did have a clear goal and that was to steal from the taxpayer and it's done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/2...ired-redundancy

Nice work if you can get it fleecing the public purse.

We have crooks of the worst kind running the show.

I would say the commission did have a clear goal and that was to steal from the taxpayer and it's done that.

This quango costs the taxpayer £78 million per year.

Would any of our lives be the poorer if it simply did not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
with only 10 of 25 directors

WTF!? Do they have Directors of teabags and socks?

+1

How the f*** can you have 25 directors in an organisation with a turnover of a few tens of millions.

For that matter how do you spend £80m on a quango that does nothing but issue few press releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This quango costs the taxpayer £78 million per year.

Would any of our lives be the poorer if it simply did not exist.

It provides employment for New Labour hacks and friends who would otherwise find themselves unemployed or reduced to working for the local council. Remember, these people also have a right to nice houses and cars and expensive holidays - it is discriminatory to restrict them to people who are economically productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
with only 10 of 25 directors

WTF!? Do they have Directors of teabags and socks?

They cost us £78 million a year, not including unfunded pensions.

Just imagine how much money could be saved without impacting front line services at all.

Just takes a politician with a pair of b0llacks, Dave is going to need to grow a pair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable

All the EHRC has to do to improve human rights is throw most of the legislation passed in the last 10 years in the bin.

I'm happy for them to have another armful of redundancy money then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

How the f*** can you have 25 directors in an organisation with a turnover of a few tens of millions.

For that matter how do you spend £80m on a quango that does nothing but issue few press releases.

Yes but they help improve equality......

Didn't realise they have 25 directors. How does one get a cushy number like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but they help improve equality......

Didn't realise they have 25 directors. How does one get a cushy number like this?

Its a quango...its a grace and favour for party activists, a thankyou for services rendered.

Torys love them too.

so will the lib dems.

Now, where is my nearest tory branch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It provides employment for New Labour hacks and friends who would otherwise find themselves unemployed or reduced to working for the local council. Remember, these people also have a right to nice houses and cars and expensive holidays - it is discriminatory to restrict them to people who are economically productive.

Seriously - this stuff makes me f***ing sick. And angry and prone to violence. How I despair at where this country is heading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The government and its equalities watchdog have "some difficult questions" to answer, an influential committee of MPs said yesterday, after it emerged the Equality and Human Rights Commission spent almost £325,000 on re-employing seven executives who had recently left one of its predecessor organisations with generous redundancy packages.

I thought this was a running joke in the middle & upper echelons of the public sector?! Govt. or local council says cut the headcount for politically expedient reasons - cuts duly made, often by voluntary redundancy on generous packages - and many of the same bods re-hired as consultants on more money! Just shifts the costs from one part of the balance sheet to another while satisfying the need to appear to be making cuts. Happened in the 90s a lot anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.