Payoffs for council bosses average £256,104

chucky

cogito wrote: »

As many of those in receipt of pay offs walked straight into similar jobs with other local authorities, there seems no reason why it should be paid. It would be cheaper to put them on gardening leave.

how would it work in the private sector?

cogito

I'm not an employment law expert by any means but a parallel might be the way fooball clubs sack managers. In effect, they don't actually sack them as a rule but continue to pay them normally until they find another job. The club employing them subsequently then has to compensate the sacking club for the loss of their employee unless his contract has ended in the meantime.

The_White_Horse

these council bosses would be lucky to be more than a junior in a real company where every decision they make has real consequences. they would probably bankrupt many real companies with their incompetence and general inefficiencies.

these people make me sick. useless and overpaid!

daveyjp

"after 25% spent on council pensions..."

Really? Where is that figure from - tell us more.

lemonjelly

cogito wrote: »

As many of those in receipt of pay offs walked straight into similar jobs with other local authorities, there seems no reason why it should be paid. It would be cheaper to put them on gardening leave.

Er, no it would not.

Remember you'd be paying their ongoing wages & pension contributions.
Then in addition, you'd be paying another person to fulfil the role.

Then you'd have to look at the disciplinary/greivance issues to be resolved, & the time, cost & resource implications of this.

Then you have the legal issues & legal advice you would need to incur.

Then you also have the real risk of defending an expensive case, losing & having to make a large payment to them...

Perhaps it is a lot cheaper to pay them off & be done?

But the big point the article is trying to make here, is actually that councillors are finding personal differences are affecting their working relationships, & are getting rid instead of actually trying to resolve differences & work with people.

But hey, let us not let facts interfere with our agendas hey?

Kohoutek

daveyjp wrote: »

"after 25% spent on council pensions..."

Really? Where is that figure from - tell us more.

It's old news.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1508474/26pc-of-council-tax-goes-on-public-pensions.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/4838998/One-fifth-of-council-tax-goes-on-local-authority-final-salary-pensions.html

Between 20-25%, presumably depending on the performance of investments. Plenty of other articles that detail this.

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

Er, no it would not.

Remember you'd be paying their ongoing wages & pension contributions.
Then in addition, you'd be paying another person to fulfil the role.

Then you'd have to look at the disciplinary/greivance issues to be resolved, & the time, cost & resource implications of this.

Then you have the legal issues & legal advice you would need to incur.

Then you also have the real risk of defending an expensive case, losing & having to make a large payment to them...

Perhaps it is a lot cheaper to pay them off & be done?

But the big point the article is trying to make here, is actually that councillors are finding personal differences are affecting their working relationships, & are getting rid instead of actually trying to resolve differences & work with people.

But hey, let us not let facts interfere with our agendas hey?

you are right Mr Jelly

i'm still waiting for someone to tell me how it's done in the private sector - is it any different?

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

you are right Mr Jelly

i'm still waiting for someone to tell me how it's done in the private sector - is it any different?

Doubt it - same legislation applies.

OT, are you a whu fan? & if so, worried about next tuesday?;)

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

Doubt it - same legislation applies.

what do the frothers propose?
that we have seperate job contract legislation for public sector and then for private sector?

these types of issues also happen in the private sector.

lemonjelly wrote: »

OT, are you a whu fan? & if so, worried about next tuesday?;)

no i'm not a WHU fan!!!!

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

what do the frothers propose?
that we have seperate job contract legislation for public sector and then for private sector?

these types of issues also happen in the private sector.

A change in employment legislation to state a person can be summarily dismissed for any reason whatsoever?

Old boy networks & the like & also adverse publicity mean (imo) that private sector are more likely to bury something like this (sometimes with bigger payoffs), but of course, as private companies & creators of capital they're answerable to no-one.

Regarding part 2 - apologies for any offence!:o