threatened with privatisation

anoneemouse

I work in the public sector and we are being threatened with our work being privatised. Obviously - it would mean worse pay and conditions if it happened.

I wanted to be made redundant anyway - before these rumours started. Obviously - even more so now.

When previous staff members have been privatised - as far as I can see - they were able to choose to be made redundant rather than be privatised. Can I do the same? Obviously - I can see that it wouldnt be possible to stay doing the job and being public sector. I would have to choose to either be privatised - or get made redundant.

I would have thought that I could just go "obviously - a private sector job isnt what I took on and have been doing. It would be a different job - which I dont choose to do. Try and make me personally privatised - and I will turn round and sue you for breach of contract." With that - I would think they then have to make me redundant before privatising anyone who chooses to stay in their jobs.

I think probably the reason why most of the people who get privatised have this happen to them is because they choose to stay in the job (after privatisation) - but that if they had chosen to get made redundant then that public sector employer would have had no option but to make them redundant - rather than force them into the new job. (Obviously changing a job from public sector to private sector is a "substantial" difference - which you are entitled to refuse, even though redundancy will be the penalty for having refused.). We all know that TUPE doesnt protect you for very long at all after the swapover.

So - if the rumours are correct - can I just refuse personally to take part in the privatisation and then just sit back and wait to be made redundant? If they refused to make me redundant - could I then sue them for breach of contract for having "substantially" changed my own job personally from the one I had?

maninthestreet

anoneemouse wrote: »

I work in the public sector and we are being threatened with our work being privatised. Obviously - it would mean worse pay and conditions if it happened.

I wanted to be made redundant anyway - before these rumours started. Obviously - even more so now.

When previous staff members have been privatised - as far as I can see - they were able to choose to be made redundant rather than be privatised. Can I do the same? Obviously - I can see that it wouldnt be possible to stay doing the job and being public sector. I would have to choose to either be privatised - or get made redundant.

I would have thought that I could just go "obviously - a private sector job isnt what I took on and have been doing. It would be a different job - which I dont choose to do. Try and make me personally privatised - and I will turn round and sue you for breach of contract." With that - I would think they then have to make me redundant before privatising anyone who chooses to stay in their jobs.

I think probably the reason why most of the people who get privatised have this happen to them is because they choose to stay in the job (after privatisation) - but that if they had chosen to get made redundant then that public sector employer would have had no option but to make them redundant - rather than force them into the new job. (Obviously changing a job from public sector to private sector is a "substantial" difference - which you are entitled to refuse, even though redundancy will be the penalty for having refused.). We all know that TUPE doesnt protect you for very long at all after the swapover.

So - if the rumours are correct - can I just refuse personally to take part in the privatisation and then just sit back and wait to be made redundant? If they refused to make me redundant - could I then sue them for breach of contract for having "substantially" changed my own job personally from the one I had?

Why would the work you do change substantially just because of privatisation?

Oldernotwiser

The TUPE process is very thorough and monitored by Unison. I can't see why, in this economic climate, you would rather be made redundant than transfer to the private sector. Who knows how long you could be unemployed if this happens?

annie_tanks

Ah..I should stay working,as a job is very precious in these times.I should be very worried about my final salary public pension if I were you.
Once privatised the new empoyers may not want to back a very very very expensive public sector pension .You may have your current private sector pension frozen,( the new company may have to fund the pension debt) and you may have to put in a massive 25%,at least, of your new salary to get any where near what you had in your old pension for value..that is the joy of working in the private sector..

lonestar1

I was privatised back in 95 from the public sector and yes conditions did get worse staff levels being reduced by 25% by the end of the first year

I still view it as a good move for me personally I was rewarded for my hardwork with promotions and payrises something that would never have happened in the public sector

anoneemouse

Thanks for replies.

AlxB - whats the ETO loophole please? Is this what I think it is - ie you get TUPE'd over to the private sector firm and it looks as if you are on the same pay and conditions to start with - but very soon they've found a way (ETO loophole??) to cut your pay and conditions to what they want them to be.?

A particular thing I would be worried about is my pension - I dont suppose for one second a private firm would want to go anywhere near providing the level of pension cover I have at present - or maybe any pension at all. I would be worried about whether I could manage to get any job pension for the rest of my time - but what would worry me even more is protecting the job pension I already have "saved". I presume I could just turn round and say "I'll leave my job pension that I have so far right where it is - in that public sector pension scheme - rather than transferring it over" and, with that, it would be safe in every respect - including getting uprated annually to keep pace with inflation. So - at least - the private sector firm couldnt cause me to lose any pension I already have? Does anyone know the position on this?

I understand the point being made about whether a Tribunal would agree that I had had a "substantial" change in my pay and conditions if I refused to transfer over to a private firm. I guess thats why TUPE is there really? - ie so that both my employer and the private firm could say "Anoneemouse is on the same money/hours/etc - what are they complaining about?" - and then come back a bit later and start cutting that pay and conditions and get away with it - but it would be too late at that point to go to the Tribunal and put in a claim.

I understand the puzzled query as to why I would rather be made redundant - than be privatised. I know most people would think differently here. But - yes - I honestly would prefer redundancy in my position - it would suit me much better than having a paycut and worse conditions.

I noted the point from one poster about 1 year after privatisation 25% of the staff lost their jobs.On what terms did they lose their jobs? - I have the feeling somehow that the answer will amount to "legal minimum redundancy payment - based on the number of years service they have"? Am I correct in thinking that? - and, if so, did they take into account ALL their service (ie from the day they started in the job originally - back when it was in the public sector) or just from the day the private firm took them over?

RobertoMoir

You might want to speak to your union rep, or to other people in the same sector as you, "public service" covers a lot of ground.

If, for example, you work in a school and this is happening under BSF, there is a good collection of detailed information specific to this kind of work on the edugeek forums.

lonestar1

anoneemouse wrote: »

I noted the point from one poster about 1 year after privatisation 25% of the staff lost their jobs.On what terms did they lose their jobs? - I have the feeling somehow that the answer will amount to "legal minimum redundancy payment - based on the number of years service they have"? Am I correct in thinking that? - and, if so, did they take into account ALL their service (ie from the day they started in the job originally - back when it was in the public sector) or just from the day the private firm took them over?

No Some were contractors/Fixed term appointees whose contracts were not renewed Many didnt like the conditions and quit in the first couple of months. But a healthy amount were offered redundancy. When a private firm takes on Public workers with lots of rights the costs of paying some of these people off is usually included in the original bid for the work Many Public workers haev extrememely generous compulsory redundancy terms and these are protected by TUPE the private firm knew this so had to offer voluntary redundancy on compulsory terms many walked away with 6 figure lump sums lots more went on early retirement

anoneemouse

Thanks for that lonestar - now you've cheered me up considerably - to the extent that I'm thinking "Roll on......":j

exil

anoneemouse wrote: »

I work in the public sector and we are being threatened with our work being privatised. Obviously - it would mean worse pay and conditions if it happened.

I wanted to be made redundant anyway - before these rumours started. Obviously - even more so now.

When previous staff members have been privatised - as far as I can see - they were able to choose to be made redundant rather than be privatised. Can I do the same? Obviously - I can see that it wouldnt be possible to stay doing the job and being public sector. I would have to choose to either be privatised - or get made redundant.

I would have thought that I could just go "obviously - a private sector job isnt what I took on and have been doing. It would be a different job - which I dont choose to do. Try and make me personally privatised - and I will turn round and sue you for breach of contract." With that - I would think they then have to make me redundant before privatising anyone who chooses to stay in their jobs.

I think probably the reason why most of the people who get privatised have this happen to them is because they choose to stay in the job (after privatisation) - but that if they had chosen to get made redundant then that public sector employer would have had no option but to make them redundant - rather than force them into the new job. (Obviously changing a job from public sector to private sector is a "substantial" difference - which you are entitled to refuse, even though redundancy will be the penalty for having refused.). We all know that TUPE doesnt protect you for very long at all after the swapover.

So - if the rumours are correct - can I just refuse personally to take part in the privatisation and then just sit back and wait to be made redundant? If they refused to make me redundant - could I then sue them for breach of contract for having "substantially" changed my own job personally from the one I had?

This happened to me - 14 years ago - and my thought processes were much the same. In the event I did what everyone else did and accept the inevitable.

There were redundancies shortly after the transfer - but they were on civil service terms ie a month's salary per year of service. The rest of us got better paid than if we'd stayed in the civil service, and hours and pensions didn't change.

The downside is our company lost the contract after 5 years. I'd seen it coming and got out in time.

So - the big thing you lose is job security. But since they're privatising you, you've lost that already...... so you may as well go with the flow and see what happens.

hex2

I know you are worried but please don't assume outsourcing is all bad. For the record the biggest abuse of TUPE I have ever seen in over ten years of specialising in the area was a bunch of employees returning to the Public Sector after years of being outsourced. They had their terms and conditions cut (quite illegally) to reduce them to the level of their council comparitors and their union accepted a tiny compensation payment on their behalf 'in the best interests of their wider membership'.

Your terms and conditions and length of service are protected, as are any previous poicies - like no redundancy policies. Pensions are protected to some degree, ex public sector ones even more so. Look up the guidance notes for public sector transfers. Previously when I have transferred people in from the public sector I have had to set up an equivelant pension as agreed by the unions. Despite my earlier comments - if you aren't already a union member join one.

Under the revised regulations the council now cannot legally make you redundant prior to transfer even with your agreement, your role still exists in the new organisation therefore it is automatically unfair. You cannot compromise agreement for TUPE so you cant agree something legally. Given that the point of the outsource is usually to save money they are not likely to volunteer this option either.

Post transfer any new provider can argue economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reasons for making changes. This can in theory include making you redundant, re-structuring your role or re-organising wage structures (but not for harmonisation reasons) as long as it isn't linked to the transfer. If they make unreasonable changes then you will be redundant and/or unfairly dismissed. The grim reality is that in the current climate this can happen to an of us, you will be luckier than the rest of us in that you have the added benefit of TUPE legislation to comply with.

HTH