Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
The Masked Tulip

Ministers To Cut Pay-Offs To Civil Servants

Recommended Posts

Tomorrow's Telegraph according to Nolan on Fivelive now.

Basically the Govt are going to change the rules on pay-offs for making civil servants redundant and it is going to be in place within weeks apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it is in tomorrow's Telegraph. BBC going nuts on this now so will be the lead for the next 24 hours unless Christina Blakely wears a new bikini.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7871570/Ministers-to-slash-pay-offs-for-civil-servants.html

Generous “golden goodbye” payments to civil servants are to be cut drastically to make it cheaper for ministers to lay off thousands of public sector staff, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

The changes, which will provoke a major confrontation with the unions, come as government departments are drawing up plans for budget cuts of up to 40 per cent.

With hundreds of thousands of state employees facing the sack, Civil Service managers have been told that tough new restrictions on redundancy payments will be in place within weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomorrow's Telegraph according to Nolan on Fivelive now.

Basically the Govt are going to change the rules on pay-offs for making civil servants redundant and it is going to be in place within weeks apparently.

This is absolutely required. It's just not possible to make savings if you have to pay 3years salary to lay someone off. Most people I know in the public and ex-public sector (privatised but with same terms and conditions) are hoping for 3year pay-offs asap as that looks better than years of reducing wages and harder working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last year, it emerged that 15,000 civil servants had been made redundant over three years, receiving almost £1 billion in severance payments. [snip] In one case, two Treasury mandarins shared £1.1 million in severance pay.

Oh, for heaven's sake, this is just ridiculous.

As far as I am concerned, I don't pay tax so above-average earners can receive half a million when they get the chop.

When these sort of sums are involved, tax becomes a form of theft from the populace: robbing the poor to give to the rich.

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, for heaven's sake, this is just ridiculous.

As far as I am concerned, I don't pay tax so above-average earners can receive half a million when they get the chop.

When these sort of sums are involved, tax becomes a form of theft from the populace: robbing the poor to give to the rich.

:angry:

those are extreme examples of those at the top and if you compare them to the multiple million golden hand shakes in the private sector, it really is nothing. This is just the Tories fueling public anger so they can hit the lowest paid civil servants. The government may think it's being clever but unison, unite and pcs are drawing up plans for a total walkout. And for the first time we could see the police strike, as top union officials met today to discuss our plans.

Any attempt to change the three rs policy will be met with strikes and legal action. The government will gain nothing and spend billions fighting and losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those are extreme examples of those at the top and if you compare them to the multiple million golden hand shakes in the private sector, it really is nothing. This is just the Tories fueling public anger so they can hit the lowest paid civil servants. The government may think it's being clever but unison, unite and pcs are drawing up plans for a total walkout. And for the first time we could see the police strike, as top union officials met today to discuss our plans.

Any attempt to change the three rs policy will be met with strikes and legal action. The government will gain nothing and spend billions fighting and losing.

"The average payout was £60,000 but some public servants received as much as £100,000"

These are not extreme examples, they are 40year old engineers and contract staff on £35k. I don't know why the article says 'as much as £100k' as that makes no sense eg my friend 3x £40k = £120k ta very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The average payout was £60,000 but some public servants received as much as £100,000"

These are not extreme examples, they are 40year old engineers and contract staff on £35k. I don't know why the article says 'as much as £100k' as that makes no sense eg my friend 3x £40k = £120k ta very much.

that's what you get in France, Germany and the Netherlands. What you are talking about should be happening in the private sector as well but the Tories blocked the social charter. And you would back such a move knowing that the result be a national strike. Maybe you lot should start fighting to protect workers rights to be extended to the private sector rather than back their destruction.

Edited by dubsie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour tried it not long ago.

The legal advice said no.

It was more than legal advice, it was a Judicial Review ruling that redundancy/pension rights are effectively deferred pay. If so legislation to retrospective remove accrued rights would probably fall foul of European law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those are extreme examples of those at the top and if you compare them to the multiple million golden hand shakes in the private sector, it really is nothing. This is just the Tories fueling public anger so they can hit the lowest paid civil servants. The government may think it's being clever but unison, unite and pcs are drawing up plans for a total walkout. And for the first time we could see the police strike, as top union officials met today to discuss our plans.

Any attempt to change the three rs policy will be met with strikes and legal action. The government will gain nothing and spend billions fighting and losing.

But investors are starting to challenge million pound golden hellos in the private sector: WPP, Pru, Tesco (and probably Marks and Spencer in the next few months) have had significant percentages of investors vote against executive remuneration packages recently.

And considering lower paid civil servants, well, it's only those with permanent contracts, isn't it? So basically, all those public sector workers on fixed term contracts or who work for the public sector through private agencies (like cleaners, for example) are screwed because they don't get any redundancy money full stop.

Over half my OH's public sector department will go in the next nine months without any redundancy because the department has been majority staffed through fixed-term contracts for the last seven years .. . but no, we've all to feel the plight of those who have permanent contracts and some element of redundancy payment written in their contracts, and support their walkout strikes when the payout isn't as much as they thought they would get.

Meanwhile, some fixed-termer with a mortgage who has done a comparable job to a permanent for the last five years gets booted out on their ear with nothing, simply because he/she wasn't old enough to get a job in the public sector before "the Great Labour Public Sector Precarity Scandal."

So 'scuse me for not feeling totally sympathetic to your cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But investors are starting to challenge million pound golden hellos in the private sector: WPP, Pru, Tesco (and probably Marks and Spencer in the next few months) have had significant percentages of investors vote against executive remuneration packages recently.

And considering lower paid civil servants, well, it's only those with permanent contracts, isn't it? So basically, all those public sector workers on fixed term contracts or who work for the public sector through private agencies (like cleaners, for example) are screwed because they don't get any redundancy money full stop.

Over half my OH's public sector department will go in the next nine months without any redundancy because the department has been majority staffed through fixed-term contracts for the last seven years .. . but no, we've all to feel the plight of those who have permanent contracts and some element of redundancy payment written in their contracts, and support their walkout strikes when the payout isn't as much as they thought they would get.

Meanwhile, some fixed-termer with a mortgage who has done a comparable job to a permanent for the last five years gets booted out on their ear with nothing, simply because he/she wasn't old enough to get a job in the public sector before "the Great Labour Public Sector Precarity Scandal."

So 'scuse me for not feeling totally sympathetic to your cause.

I'm self employed I get nothing but will still walk if the union calls a strike. It's about supporting your fellow man not being jealous of what they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you lot should start fighting to protect workers rights to be extended to the private sector rather than back their destruction.

That would be nice, but in case you hadn't noticed we've run out of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more than legal advice, it was a Judicial Review ruling that redundancy/pension rights are effectively deferred pay. If so legislation to retrospective remove accrued rights would probably fall foul of European law.

not sure this is precisely true from a quick google, but please correct me if you have more detail:

( http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/12/11/53392/civil-servant-unions-seek-judicial-review-over-redundancy-pay-cuts.html )

to sum up - the previous govt merely 'laid an order' which did not require a parliamentary vote. The judge concluded that this was illegal as it required unions consent. In order to pass the same legislation WITHOUT union consent they need an act of parliament. It is understandable that the Labour govt would not have tried this as, I would think, a great deal of the parliamentary MPS would rebel - just my centre-right thoughts but please take me up on it:

To implement the changes, the government will have to lay an order before parliament. But the PCS spokesman said that without union consent, any changes should be made through an Act which can only be passed following a debate in parliament and a positive vote in favour of changes.

The unions are seeking a judicial review to challenge the government's decision not to seek union consent and to implement the changes with only an order in parliament.

The PCS said government ministers had agreed to talks to discuss the union's concerns but alleged that these talks have now been cancelled four times in the past two months.

The union's spokesman said: "We believe that for any changes and for that order to be laid, it needs to be with the agreement of the unions. Because the government is just ploughing ahead with that [without union agreement] we believe they need to not just lay an order, but an Act.

"If they don't have the agreement of the unions, then there has to be that debate and that positive vote."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence Tories saying they will change the law.

it will still end up back in court since the government is attempting to retrospectively change the employment contract without agreement

Case might end up in the European Court which might cause some fun between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems if the Civil service Unions were to win because it would raise that old issue of European Law judgements taking precedence over UK law in British courts

Edited by realcrookswearsuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure this is precisely true from a quick google, but please correct me if you have more detail:

( http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/12/11/53392/civil-servant-unions-seek-judicial-review-over-redundancy-pay-cuts.html )

to sum up - the previous govt merely 'laid an order' which did not require a parliamentary vote. The judge concluded that this was illegal as it required unions consent. In order to pass the same legislation WITHOUT union consent they need an act of parliament. It is understandable that the Labour govt would not have tried this as, I would think, a great deal of the parliamentary MPS would rebel - just my centre-right thoughts but please take me up on it:

they still need union consent the three rs policy was agreed with the unions. The Tories are playing with fire and will get burnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it will still end up back in court since the government is attempting to retrospectively change the employment contract without agreement

Case might end up in the European Court which might cause some fun between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems if the Civil service Unions were to win because it would raise that old issue of European Law judgements taking precedence over UK law in British courts

Like the Kelly inquiry - for important matters the government seems to have a knack of getting the right judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bless, the Civil Service might go on strike - I suppose paperclip manufacturers might notice.

Nurses, doctors, firesevice, tradesmen, bin men, council staff etc etc and this time the police may walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm self employed I get nothing but will still walk if the union calls a strike. It's about supporting your fellow man not being jealous of what they have.

Obiously you get nothing because you do can hardly have a contract of employment with yourself.

Edited by realcrookswearsuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the Kelly inquiry - for important matters the government seems to have a knack of getting the right judge.

But we have the European court. Zero influence for the Tories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obiously you get nothing because you do can hardly have a contract of employment with yourself.

Of course you get to keep to keep all the profits of your business which employees do not

but I'll still follow my union and so will most of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one has mentioned boomers for while. So I need to point out that if the Govt can't change these rules it means all the super-annuated boomers get to keep their jobs while the youngsters all get cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 260 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.