Welsh Nhs Undergoes Massive Reorganisation

[Hip to be bear]

Public spending in Wales per Capita is 112% of the UK average. Public spending in London per Capita is 115%. Doesn't seem so bad now does it!?

D'oh, where is the capital? Where is the administrative centre? Where is Whitehall? Where is the civil service based? Where are all the big departmental offices? Where are loads of the Quangos based?

Clue.....It ain't Wales!

[The Masked Tulip]

That's correct. The result is that you get very high earners with no job to do because their public sector employer can't afford to make them redundant.

I know a person 'seconded' to do non-existent jobs at the Department of Health (with very little to do) for two years on well over £150k a year, waiting for a chief exec position to come up. I also know of a 'director of experience' on over £150k at a health authority with no staff working on a project that no one cares about simply because her redundancy payment would be eye-watering for the employer.

It's not that common, but it is a big problem when services merge or, as we shall find out, when services are down-sized. The system relied on redundant high-earners (directors/chief execs, etc) finding jobs elsewhere. It breaks down when there's no where for them to go.

It costs almost as much to keep them employed as it does to make them redundant (particularly for those with a long length of service and over 50). In addition, if you make them redundant the employer has to pay a large lump sum payment on termination. With belts being tightened, many employers can't afford the lump sum. Therefore, they can't afford to make the high earner redundant and it's more cost effective (at least in the short to medium term) to keep them on the books.

This is the reality of the situation. Or you could choose to believe that HR don't have the balls/its all middle management's fault/nurses are being sacked to keep managers in employment or whatever sh!te the ill-informed Daily Mail are peddling this week.

Yes, this is very true and I have been wondering since the election whether the Coalition will have the guts to change the employment contracts/conditions of the Public Sector? Whether it is even on their radar - I guess it must have been discussed at least otherwise they would be repeating the mistakes that Labour made when they bailed out the banks but did not enforce new contracts on the bw ankers.

[Caius]

D'oh, where is the capital? Where is the administrative centre? Where is Whitehall? Where is the civil service based? Where are all the big departmental offices? Where are loads of the Quangos based?

Clue.....It ain't Wales!

Another one who is absolutely clueless!

[Shmoo]

Yes, this is very true and I have been wondering since the election whether the Coalition will have the guts to change the employment contracts/conditions of the Public Sector? Whether it is even on their radar - I guess it must have been discussed at least otherwise they would be repeating the mistakes that Labour made when they bailed out the banks but did not enforce new contracts on the bw ankers.

I think from memory that Labour tried to change the redundancy terms for Whitehall staff to make it cheaper to make them redundant. The unions mounted a legal challenge and blocked the proposed changes. It is very difficult to do legally without the employees' or their unions' agreement. They would have to threaten to dismiss and re-employ the entire workforce.

[The Masked Tulip]

I think from memory that Labour tried to change the redundancy terms for Whitehall staff to make it cheaper to make them redundant. The unions mounted a legal challenge and blocked the proposed changes. It is very difficult to do legally without the employees' or their unions' agreement. They would have to threaten to dismiss and re-employ the entire workforce.

Yes, I did think the unions would take legal action. It is an economic nightmare isn't.

There was an episode of The Simpsons when Homer replaces the bloke in charge of refuse in Springfield - within a month the budget is spend and the town is a big rubbish dump.

The townsfolk ask the previous guy to come back and he basically stands in front of them all, tells them they are all fecked and walks away... which is a tad how I feel looking at the mess in the country right now.

[carrera]

I have a friend who is an employment lawyer and he is dealing with a few high level Public sector redundancies - so they are going .. and no not all are getting their pensions

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Yes, this is very true and I have been wondering since the election whether the Coalition will have the guts to change the employment contracts/conditions of the Public Sector? Whether it is even on their radar - I guess it must have been discussed at least otherwise they would be repeating the mistakes that Labour made when they bailed out the banks but did not enforce new contracts on the bw ankers.

I think from memory that Labour tried to change the redundancy terms for Whitehall staff to make it cheaper to make them redundant. The unions mounted a legal challenge and blocked the proposed changes. It is very difficult to do legally without the employees' or their unions' agreement. They would have to threaten to dismiss and re-employ the entire workforce.

Yes, I did think the unions would take legal action. It is an economic nightmare isn't.

I have a friend who is an employment lawyer and he is dealing with a few high level Public sector redundancies - so they are going .. and no not all are getting their pensions

To clarify, an employment contract is like any other contract... one side cannot unilaterally change the terms.

Public sector employees will have to agree to any wages/pension/rights cuts, which seems unlikely. If they don't agree there is nothing the government can do. They could make them redundant, but they couldn't explicity pick those that refused the pay cut for redundancies, and they couldn't replace them within 6 months, and they would need to pay them off under their existing terms.

The government could use legislation and change the laws, but they would need to pull out of all the European treaties first.

Welcome to catch 22.

As I keep saying, eventually someone has to pay the piper. We can't squirm our way out of it. The boomers debts have to be payed, or we are facing state failure.

[huw]

To clarify, an employment contract is like any other contract... one side cannot unilaterally change the terms.

Public sector employees will have to agree to any wages/pension/rights cuts, which seems unlikely. If they don't agree there is nothing the government can do. They could make them redundant, but they couldn't explicity pick those that refused the pay cut for redundancies, and they couldn't replace them within 6 months, and they would need to pay them off under their existing terms.

The government could use legislation and change the laws, but they would need to pull out of all the European treaties first.

Welcome to catch 22.

You can't unilaterally change the rules, but maybe you can change the playing field, and the way you keep score

"Continuous inflation (credit expansion) must finally end in the crack-up boom and the complete breakdown of the currency system." -- by insisting on their contractual rights, which can only be met by further credit expansion (QE), the workers concerned would be bringing Mises' prediction to fruition.

Indexation isn't done in real time (almost certainly it's calculated annually), so it's useless in the face of serious inflation. Sterling gets ruined, so at some point the state chooses/is forced to introduce a new hard currency. Workers' and pensioners' terms and conditions are modified by mutual agreement as part of the process of switching the contracts from defunct sterling. NOBODY who's had a taste of this medicine will say "no."

If they do, they're welcome to stay on the old contracts, and have their stipends printed. Then you'd have a situation such as used to exist in China, with hard currency (FECs) and soft currency (RMBs) running in parallel, and exchangeable at whatever rate the market sets.

[OnionTerror]

That's correct. The result is that you get very high earners with no job to do because their public sector employer can't afford to make them redundant.

I know a person 'seconded' to do non-existent jobs at the Department of Health (with very little to do) for two years on well over £150k a year, waiting for a chief exec position to come up. I also know of a 'director of experience' on over £150k at a health authority with no staff working on a project that no one cares about simply because her redundancy payment would be eye-watering for the employer.

It's not that common, but it is a big problem when services merge or, as we shall find out, when services are down-sized. The system relied on redundant high-earners (directors/chief execs, etc) finding jobs elsewhere. It breaks down when there's no where for them to go.

It costs almost as much to keep them employed as it does to make them redundant (particularly for those with a long length of service and over 50). In addition, if you make them redundant the employer has to pay a large lump sum payment on termination. With belts being tightened, many employers can't afford the lump sum. Therefore, they can't afford to make the high earner redundant and it's more cost effective (at least in the short to medium term) to keep them on the books.

This is the reality of the situation. Or you could choose to believe that HR don't have the balls/its all middle management's fault/nurses are being sacked to keep managers in employment or whatever sh!te the ill-informed Daily Mail are peddling this week.

Bloke I used to work with (private (defence sector)) had been with the same company (in various guises) for 38 years. They were looking to make cuts, and he almost threatened them to make him redundant..they didn't of course...they just made the bloke who had 20 years service, redundant..

[Si1]

To clarify, an employment contract is like any other contract... one side cannot unilaterally change the terms.

Public sector employees will have to agree to any wages/pension/rights cuts, which seems unlikely. If they don't agree there is nothing the government can do.

pensons CAN be renegotiated - this AS happened in the private sector and same rules (I think) apply to the puhblic sector

it seems likely that previous contributions cannot be reneged on, but there are many other tricks available

Edited June 20, 2010 by Si1

[Si1]

I have a friend who is an employment lawyer and he is dealing with a few high level Public sector redundancies - so they are going .. and no not all are getting their pensions

you mean not getting early retirement right?

Edited June 20, 2010 by Si1

[The Masked Tulip]

Gillan describes Wales’ deep problems

Jun 19 2010 by Chris Kelsey, Western Mail

SECRETARY of State for Wales Cheryl Gillan said the Government would not shrink from taking “tough decisions” to create an environment in which business could create wealth.

Speaking at the CBI Wales annual lunch in Cardiff yesterday she said the Bank of England, the OECD and the G20, had all endorsed the Government’s plans to tackle the “deep-seated problems” it had inherited.

“These problems have led us to a very fragile recovery, never more so than in Wales,” she said.

“Despite a modest fall, the latest employment statistics highlight that Wales still has an unacceptable and heartbreakingly high rate of unemployment.

“We have the lowest GVA figures of any of the UK nations and over the past two years have seen some businesses disappear completely from the country.”

The economic failure of the last Government had been laid bare she said, adding that it was “all very well to leave a letter saying the money has run out but the real challenge was having an answer to that letter.”

She said: “As a country we simply cannot afford to continue to increase public debt at a rate of £3bn each week – that’s half of the Welsh health and social services budget for the entire year, and over seven times the annual budgets for the four Welsh police forces put together.

She said: “The proposed reforms to capital gains tax will be of major concern to many. We want to see a broad definition of business assets being used to prevent disincentives to investment or start-ups, and the tax needs to be structured in such a way as to minimise the impact on long-term investment.

“Tax rises, and especially tax rises on business, will hamper private sector investment and growth, which is what the economy needs above all else.”

Ms Alexander said the economy was fragile, but still well enough to cope with cuts without triggering a double-dip recession.

In Wales where recent estimates suggest public spending is equivalent to about 70% of GDP there’s a more substantial risk of withdrawal pains, she said.

But she added the effect of cuts might be to reduce the squeezing out suffered by the private sector and help restore business confidence.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2010/06/19/gillan-describes-wales-deep-problems-91466-26682362/

[carrera]

I think tke new key phrase is people being "performanced managed out" .... been happening in the private sector for years .. people in the public sector now realising that they can be dealt with in the same way ... as someone has already said.. you can move the goalposts !!

[The Masked Tulip]

I think tke new key phrase is people being "performanced managed out" .... been happening in the private sector for years .. people in the public sector now realising that they can be dealt with in the same way ... as someone has already said.. you can move the goalposts !!

The other thing they can do, which apparently is common in some public sector organisations, is bully you out or they side-line you or they take away all the people below you leaving you with the work.

Someone mentioned that they will get rid of the cheaper staff first but that will leave expensive managers having to do the work.

I think they will simply move the goalposts though as carrera says.