300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

exil

That's an interesting interpretation of contract law. So a contract is binding until it no longer suits one of the parties. OK - that can happen - but the party has to negotiate a new contract, not tear it up unilaterally.

Employment contracts have indeed been renegotiated in the private sector - with the alternative being the job ends and you are made redundant. But this is entirely about the terms of that redundancy. And it wouldn't have been mooted by Brown and co if they hadn't been intending to make lots of people redundant. If you know you are going to be made redundant the change is hardly "trivial".

Before anyone suggests that I am a civil servant - I'm an ex-civil servant with no chance of benefitting from this so I guess I should be against these redundancy payments on the basis of the "politics of envy" which seems to haunt these threads.

I accept that these terms are a relic of a time when the government didn't expect to make many people redundant (and so the costs were notional) so I can see why the government wanted to do this - but I can also see why the unions weren't willing to play ball.

Kohoutek

exil wrote: »

That's an interesting interpretation of contract law. So a contract is binding until it no longer suits one of the parties. OK - that can happen - but the party has to negotiate a new contract, not tear it up unilaterally.

Thanks I understand how contract law works, but I'm just pointing out we're in an exceptional situation and the changes they are asking for are not unreasonable or onerous. I assume the government tried to alter the contract unilaterally because the union refused to allow the changes. Obviously it is quite likely it will not be possible to make any changes without the consent of the union in view of the judicial review ruling.

Let's hope the union sticks to your view and doesn't budge - tens of thousands more graduates unable to find jobs and tens of thousands of new joiners sacked and left with nothing as a result, just so some older civil servants can enjoy years of being on full pay if they get made redundant.

tomterm8

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's a shame the union is so selfish. If I remember correctly, the altered provision was capping redundancy payouts at £60,000 or two years pay, whichever cheaper. I can't see why this such a outrage - I know it's altering their contract, but times have changed.
.

At the end of the day, the only reason to cap redundancy payments is in order to make it cheaper to fire Union members, so I can see why the union would be against it.

I think a recruitment freeze is inevitable. Actually firing people is quite an inefficient way to go about things, even if you make these alterations to terms and conditions.

As for contract law... contract law is what Parliament says it is. Full stop. If a government wants to change these contracts it can do so.

oz0707

The eat potato council is going according to the mail. It cost's us 6 mil a year and encourages us to eat more spuds. Apparently a waste of time. Also the milk council is going, staff has ten-folded from 44. reality bites

The_White_Horse

this is 700,000 too few.

those that remain in public sector employment should have a 25% pay cut as of June 1st and a pay freeze for the next decade.

this may take things back to where they should be.

Gorgeous_George

I could tell you stories that would make you scream for reform.

The truth is, yes there is waste. However, cutting waste might result in higher benefits payments. I'd rather EVERYBODY had the opportunity to work. It is more important that the people are happy than the country is rich.

GG

Rochdale_Pioneers

This will cost us money. Plus side, we save the salary of the 300,000 people. Less JSA, council tax benefit, housing benefit, extra tax credits. Less the disposable income they once used to buy things. Less the tax paid on that disopsable income. Less the taxes that used to be made by the businesses that used to sell those products. Less the JSA etc of the private sector employees who also now lose their jobs. And their disposable income. And so on and so on.

IF there are private sector jobs for people to go to then fine. If not then you take tax paying spending money in the economy people and turn them into non economically contributing people reliant on benefits. And that's why the cuts take money out of the economy.

jonewer

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

This will cost us money. Plus side, we save the salary of the 300,000 people. Less JSA, council tax benefit, housing benefit, extra tax credits. Less the disposable income they once used to buy things. Less the tax paid on that disopsable income. Less the taxes that used to be made by the businesses that used to sell those products. Less the JSA etc of the private sector employees who also now lose their jobs. And their disposable income. And so on and so on.

IF there are private sector jobs for people to go to then fine. If not then you take tax paying spending money in the economy people and turn them into non economically contributing people reliant on benefits. And that's why the cuts take money out of the economy.

Your argument is ridiculous.

If what you say were true then we should just whack the taxes up to the max, create non-jobs for the 2.5 million unemployed, and we'd be the bestest country in the world!

Only it doesnt work that way outside of socialist la-la-land.

Kohoutek

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

IF there are private sector jobs for people to go to then fine. If not then you take tax paying spending money in the economy people and turn them into non economically contributing people reliant on benefits. And that's why the cuts take money out of the economy.

We have been running a fiscal deficit since 2001. What makes you think our economy will ever be able to support all the public sector jobs it has in the future if we couldn't from 2001-2008? If we couldn't pay for these jobs with the bumper tax revenues from that period, then it follows that we won't be able to with the weaker growth we can expect in the foreseeable future.

I understand that it does take money out of the economy and I think the government should be cautious about the job cuts it makes as a consequence, but it appears that the alternative is running a deficit forever, which clearly isn't a real option.

marklv

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's a shame the union is so selfish. If I remember correctly, the altered provision was capping redundancy payouts at £60,000 or two years pay, whichever cheaper. I can't see why this such a outrage - I know it's altering their contract, but times have changed.

If the government has to resort to making new joiners redundant and freezing recruitment long term like you say, it will exacerbate youth unemployment disproportionately. Maybe the union should think about the long term consequences of what it's doing by following this path.

No union will ever agree to a lowering of employee rights unless accompanied by other measures that improve employee benefits in other areas. The government needs to be more persuasive - one thing they could offer is lower working hours without loss of pay. The unions would tempted by something like this.