The Masked Tulip Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Just heard an interesting tidbit from someone high up in the education dept of a South Wales Council - the teacher redundancies they did last year cost so much that it "almost bankrupted the borough". Said that there had been much panicking and worrying about the coming redundancies starting in April - about 20 to 25 percent to go in each school allegedly - with any future redundancy packages being much less than last year. Apparently things got so bad that the Social Services dept had to borrow a third of a million from the education dept just to keep going. Ooh err. You couldn't make it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Just heard an interesting tidbit from someone high up in the education dept of a South Wales Council - the teacher redundancies they did last year cost so much that it "almost bankrupted the borough". Said that there had been much panicking and worrying about the coming redundancies starting in April - about 20 to 25 percent to go in each school allegedly - with any future redundancy packages being much less than last year. Apparently things got so bad that the Social Services dept had to borrow a third of a million from the education dept just to keep going. Ooh err. You couldn't make it up. I am sure that the cuts will be a chance for many to take more from the taxpayers pocket. The legendary public sector severance packages are a financial wonder to behold. Five years pay isnt unheard of, plus early retirement. They are often so good that there isnt any point in continuing working, well for those that were doing any work. Cameron is a bit like GB, in not understand that so much of the trouble is in the detail of his plans of cuts. If he doesnt get down to it, and stamp out all of this supercharged redundancy package nonsense, it will cost the taxpayer more than if they had cut nobody. You need to fight public bodies with great skill and great force, or they will rob you blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Are they too thick to stagger the redundancies so the impact is spread across multiple funding years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I am sure that the cuts will be a chance for many to take more from the taxpayers pocket. The legendary public sector severance packages are a financial wonder to behold. Five years pay isnt unheard of, plus early retirement. They are often so good that there isnt any point in continuing working, well for those that were doing any work. Cameron is a bit like GB, in not understand that so much of the trouble is in the detail of his plans of cuts. If he doesnt get down to it, and stamp out all of this supercharged redundancy package nonsense, it will cost the taxpayer more than if they had cut nobody. You need to fight public bodies with great skill and great force, or they will rob you blind. Looks liek they have done it already - first out the door priviledges to certain people (as much as can be had without totally busting th budget), drop the payouts and then the plebs can go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Are they too thick to stagger the redundancies so the impact is spread across multiple funding years? You are labouring under the misapprehension that these redundancies were meant to save council taxpayers money. If you instead come at it from the angle of someone trying to get their mates a nice payoff before the Tories work out what is going on and put a stop to that nonsense, then you can see the exigent nature of the redundancies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non frog Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 You are labouring under the misapprehension that these redundancies were meant to save council taxpayers money. If you instead come at it from the angle of someone trying to get their mates a nice payoff before the Tories work out what is going on and put a stop to that nonsense, then you can see the exigent nature of the redundancies. This is correct. The Tory cuts are simply a method to transfer the burden of paying for services from the taxpayer to the user of the services. Those that cannot pay for the service go without. Those that can pay generate profit for the private service provider. Saving money is not the important thing. Privatisation is generally welcomed by senior people working in the public sector as they think they will get more money after the process. No one cares about the taxpayer on either side of the process or in either of the main political parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil324 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Much lower? Won't all government reduncies be the statutory rate 1/2 week, 1 week, 1 1/2 weeks depending on age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 I said this months ago when the Coalition first announced cuts - the best redundancy packages will be had by the first ones out of the door. It is always the same. There are people now who probably gloated about a colleague losing a job only to lose their own job in 2011 and probably get a much worse package than the person they had a gloat about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I am sure that the cuts will be a chance for many to take more from the taxpayers pocket. The legendary public sector severance packages are a financial wonder to behold. Five years pay isnt unheard of, plus early retirement. They are often so good that there isnt any point in continuing working, well for those that were doing any work. Cameron is a bit like GB, in not understand that so much of the trouble is in the detail of his plans of cuts. If he doesnt get down to it, and stamp out all of this supercharged redundancy package nonsense, it will cost the taxpayer more than if they had cut nobody. You need to fight public bodies with great skill and great force, or they will rob you blind. You also need to be a strong alpha to lead a whole country, where your words and intent are carried out or those below you know they will feel the consequences. I'm not sure that is even possble in a liberal democratic society. Right now our 'leaders' back down at the slightest chance of it going to court or when bureaucrats stand up to them. If a lowly judge rules something even the prime minister is down on his knees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Craw Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 You also need to be a strong alpha to lead a whole country, where your words and intent are carried out or those below you know they will feel the consequences. I'm not sure that is even possble in a liberal democratic society. Is this "alpha" dictator of a totalitarian society? Right now our 'leaders' back down at the slightest chance of it going to court or when bureaucrats stand up to them. If a lowly judge rules something even the prime minister is down on his knees. Even prime ministers should be subject to the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMX9 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Are they too thick to stagger the redundancies so the impact is spread across multiple funding years? Well they cannot capitalise the redundancy costs and write them down over several years - without government approval which isn't being given. Also they are also caught in a catch 22 situation with the funding cuts - i.e. they cannot afford to employ the staff yet cannot afford to make them redundant. To be honest I am shocked that they are making huge redundancies in schools by sacking teachers - that funding is being protected isn't it? Back room education staff at the town hall - but not loads of teachers (sounds a little odd to me) PS In local governmnent redundancy terms are 1.5 weeks pay for every year worked - you might have got 5 years pay as redundancy in the civil service until recently but not in local government. Edited February 6, 2011 by MRMX9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil324 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Well they cannot capitalise the redundancy costs and write them down over several years - without government approval which isn't being given. Also they are also caught in a catch 22 situation with the funding cuts - i.e. they cannot afford to employ the staff yet cannot afford to make them redundant. To be honest I am shocked that they are making huge redundancies in schools by sacking teachers - that funding is being protected isn't it? Back room education staff at the town hall - but not loads of teachers (sounds a little odd to me) PS In local governmnent redundancy terms are 1.5 weeks pay for every year worked - you might have got 5 years pay as redundancy in the civil service until recently but not in local government. Only if your over age 41 21-41 1 week Under 21 1/2 a week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Just heard an interesting tidbit from someone high up in the education dept of a South Wales Council - the teacher redundancies they did last year cost so much that it "almost bankrupted the borough". Said that there had been much panicking and worrying about the coming redundancies starting in April - about 20 to 25 percent to go in each school allegedly - with any future redundancy packages being much less than last year. Apparently things got so bad that the Social Services dept had to borrow a third of a million from the education dept just to keep going. Ooh err. You couldn't make it up. Your post does not add up. You say that teacher redundancies almost bankrupted the council and these would have been paid from the education dept budget. Then aparently the education budget is so flush it can lend 333K to the social services budget! Illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 You are labouring under the misapprehension that these redundancies were meant to save council taxpayers money. If you instead come at it from the angle of someone trying to get their mates a nice payoff before the Tories work out what is going on and put a stop to that nonsense, then you can see the exigent nature of the redundancies. You're right, I'm not thinking like a public servant. That's probably a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddles Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Cameron is a bit like GB, in not understand that so much of the trouble is in the detail of his plans of cuts. If he doesnt get down to it, and stamp out all of this supercharged redundancy package nonsense, it will cost the taxpayer more than if they had cut nobody. You need to fight public bodies with great skill and great force, or they will rob you blind. Unfortunately, those supercharged redundancy packages are contracted. Worse still, there's a legal precedent called "the Beckman ruling" that supercharges the pensions of some of those fired depending on age. Six-figure severance packages are not unheard of for staff on comparatively low salaries (£50k p.a.). The civil service trawls the depths of lethargy, incompetence and clock-watching to retirement and the local government version is the Challenger Deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParticleMan Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Looks liek they have done it already - first out the door priviledges to certain people (as much as can be had without totally busting th budget), drop the payouts and then the plebs can go. In true Blue Peter style here's one we did earlier. I'd take a jolly good guess that the entire scheme is at the employer's discretion (there should be two levels of weasel words; first, line management signoff at some level is required, and second, the offer will be subject to HR approval).And that the way it works is like so :- Human Remains dept have some slots at the max-3x average payband; have more slots at the max-1x average payband mark; and a whole tonne of slots at their best estimate of the long slow grind of nonvoluntary redundancies. Essentially, it's a reverse auction - from HR's perspective it's better if the first round is oversubscribed than not; this allows them to move the offer more toward (or even below) the average pay band than would otherwise occur. Another piece of information gained (from the employer's side) in the frist round is getting folk to justify their own redundancies (by clicking through the click through) for the secondand subsequent rounds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 Your post does not add up. You say that teacher redundancies almost bankrupted the council and these would have been paid from the education dept budget. Then aparently the education budget is so flush it can lend 333K to the social services budget! Illogical. Yes, I thought the same but don't shoot the messenger. Perhaps they had some bizarre accounting budgeting thing going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Is this "alpha" dictator of a totalitarian society? May have to be, although Churchill and Atlee seemed to be in actual charge. It may be that they were empowered by the war and the powers that gave to the leadership. Even prime ministers should be subject to the law. True, but the ruling party in the legislature in our democratic society makes the law, and can change any law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Unfortunately, those supercharged redundancy packages are contracted. Worse still, there's a legal precedent called "the Beckman ruling" that supercharges the pensions of some of those fired depending on age. Six-figure severance packages are not unheard of for staff on comparatively low salaries (£50k p.a.). The civil service trawls the depths of lethargy, incompetence and clock-watching to retirement and the local government version is the Challenger Deep. A sovereign doesn't have to abide by any contract it signs. And the sovereign also doesn't have to listen to legal precedent. But like I said even if a lowly judge rules something, the prime minister of the UK instantly caves. A recent example is the government of Spain decided it wasn't going to follow through on the very large subsidies to green energy producers that it had signed long term purchase contracts with. The subsidies were high prices the government had signed to pay for a pre-determined length of time per megawatt/hour the companies could deliver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Craw Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 the ruling party in the legislature in our democratic society makes the law, and can change any law. Watch out, you might get an Enabling Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMX9 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Only if your over age 41 21-41 1 week Under 21 1/2 a week It varies - but most pay 1.5 weeks pay as far as I am aware above 21. Not saying some councils aren't looking to cut the costs though - as its discretionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Unfortunately, those supercharged redundancy packages are contracted. Worse still, there's a legal precedent called "the Beckman ruling" that supercharges the pensions of some of those fired depending on age. Six-figure severance packages are not unheard of for staff on comparatively low salaries (£50k p.a.). The civil service trawls the depths of lethargy, incompetence and clock-watching to retirement and the local government version is the Challenger Deep. Parliament is sovereign though, and above the Courts. If the political will was there they could change the rule. But they won't, worried about getting "roughed up" by the BBC and screwing up their own troughing tendencies. Sorry but the only way to cure this country would be complete total, state collapse and bankrupcy and even then the looting would continue, even if it mean't stealing the tables and chairs out of council buildings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil324 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 It varies - but most pay 1.5 weeks pay as far as I am aware above 21. Not saying some councils aren't looking to cut the costs though - as its discretionary. Well Birmingham ain't, family member going through the motions now. The only incentive gave was anyone taking voluntary and over a certain age could take their pension early, at the reduced rate of course. Anyone not taking voluntary get their due rights and nothing more. And i'd hazard a guess 'all' pay the least possible. After all the whole point of what is happening is to save money right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMX9 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Well Birmingham ain't, family member going through the motions now. The only incentive gave was anyone taking voluntary and over a certain age could take their pension early, at the reduced rate of course. Anyone not taking voluntary get their due rights and nothing more. And i'd hazard a guess 'all' pay the least possible. After all the whole point of what is happening is to save money right. The least possible technically in local government is statutory redundancy pay i.e. a maximum payout linked to a maximum salary of about £18k. Councils pay on the basis of actual pay - but legally can reduce this to the statutory max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It should be a given that no government can bind its successor, even by signing a contract. All goverment contracts (local and central) should terminate when the government leaves office. The incoming government can then decide whether to pick up the contracts or let them lapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.