New Civil Service Compensation Package

Lyncroft

New details came round yesterday.

Of course, it will depend upon individual circumstances but I don't think it's too bad.

Brief points (and as I read it):

- Voluntary redundancy based on 1 months salary per year of service to a maximum of 21 months

- If you're on less than £23,000 then £23,000 will be used as your salary for working out the above

- Compulsory redundancy will be a years salary (again £23,000 will be the bottom marker)

- 3 months notice given

- Not sure I've got this one right but I read it that if they run a scheme and you don't apply they can force compulsory redundancy, if you do apply and don't get it they can't.

They've run 3 VRs where I work in the last year! I would have got it but hadn't had the balls! As it stands on the Voluntary Redundancy I would actually get more under the new scheme but would lose out big time on compulsory.

The poker game will get tighter in the months ahead.

anoneemouse

The way I read it was that if you ask for Voluntary Redundancy and they refuse it then they are not then allowed to impose Compulsory Redundancy on you.

In other words apply for Voluntary Redundancy if you genuinely want it on the one hand OR if you think you have a high chance of being made Compulsory Redundant then you'd better ask for it in order to get better terms or "put up the shutters" and stop them coming along and going for the Compulsory terms later. They might "call your bluff" if you volunteer and accept your "offer" - even if you didnt really mean it and were just doing so in order to make sure they werent able to push Compulsory terms onto you if you get my drift.


The query I have about it is if someone is in their late 50s and go (on the better terms - ie Voluntary) whether the payoff is likely to be sufficient to buy out completely the "actuarial reduction" for having what would be (in fact if not name) Compulsory Early Retirement. Thus they could buy out that reduction and start receiving pension early.

The allied question is whether they would be able to "buy" any of the remaining pension years they had expected to receive if they had been allowed to work on till 60 as expected - and would there be enough money left after buying out the "actuarial reduction" to cover any purchase of extra "years".

I have the feeling that they will have worked this out in a way that the low-paid workers with a lot of service (say 25 years plus) will have enough to at least "buy off" the actuarial reduction - as they know that its the lowest-paid that will instantly turn round and see what benefits they could get from the DWP for being unemployed if they werent given a good enough payoff.

This seems to be a major concern of theirs in the Pension Review - that is remembering that they cant cut the pensions much of the lower-paid Civil Servants because these employees would then seek to make up the difference with whatever benefit income they could get (eg Pension Credit on top of their State Pension - if they werent allowed to have sufficient employment pension to mean they wouldnt qualify for it).

No point in the Government saving money with one hand - but having to pay it out with the other hand (as benefits/Pension Credit).

As you say - its a game of poker. I guess Civil Servants are very used, by now, to waiting to see what "cards are dealt" this time and who blinks first.

Perhaps I had better add (before the inevitable "have a go at Civil Servants" post that is bound to turn up soon (ho hum) that the single biggest difference between Civil Servants and private sector employees in regard to how they are treated is that Civil Servants are expected to put up with literally years of subtle or not so subtle pressure to resign and generally having their lives made a misery at work if they won't if some High Up has decided they'd like to see them made redundant. At least private sector employees who can "see an axe hovering over their head" don't have to live with uncertainty/pressure to resign for very long at all before the axe descends. I dont think private sector employees really realize just how miserable most Civil Servants are in their jobs because of that.

k-pax

Hi

I read this at work yesteday. It looks like its aimed at the majority of staff (the lower paid) and to appease the unions, except PCS have not agreed to it and they represent the majority of civil service staff members. Bit of a paradox.

Personally, I think its a good thing. It certainly simplifies what was a fairly complicated set of proposals. However where there are winners there's always a loser and no doubt those losers will be people on the middle pay to high pay bands with the longest service and those closest to retirement. Their service suddenly means nothing.:(

getmore4less

So once you hit 21 years you might as well ask for the voluntary redundancy since this will fix the payout at that level if they say no.

If they let you go you get the maximum payout and start the clock ticking with any new job you get.

Handy if you spot a company that might need you public sector skills, perhaps taking on some of the outsourced work

mjm3346

The staff who benefit will be those with pay under £23,000 mainly if they only have a few years service and have not reached their minimum pension age.

The maximum value of the packages available will be less than currently. No one will be able to leave with enhancements to their pension (these can be worth over 5 years’ salary for some staff) and there will be no cash payments of more than 21 months compared to the current terms that allow payments of up to 36 months’ salary; and

A shorter, more streamlined, process for making staff reductions. This will include providing all staff with the right to three months’ notice. Currently staff compulsory dismissed are entitled to at least 6 months’ notice

Staff who have reached their minimum pension age may be able to access an unreduced pension upon their departure. This will be achieved by surrendering the amount of any severance payment received under the voluntary terms to meet the capital cost of removing the actuarial reduction. If the amount of the capital cost is higher than the severance payment, the employing Department will top up the payment to the pension provider so long as the employee uses their whole severance payment for this purpose;

Perhaps the PCS should have taken the February offer from the previous government.

The February scheme still offered the best terms for those made compulsory redundant;

• The February scheme did not include any reform of the process around dismissals;

• The new scheme offers a maximum of 21 months compared to the 24 months under the February scheme and caps compulsory payments at 12 months;

• The new scheme introduces three months notice for all departures:

• The February scheme included various transitional arrangements (which pushed up the cost), these are not included in the current offer

Lyncroft

getmore4less wrote: »

So once you hit 21 years you might as well ask for the voluntary redundancy since this will fix the payout at that level if they say no.

If they let you go you get the maximum payout and start the clock ticking with any new job you get.

Handy if you spot a company that might need you public sector skills, perhaps taking on some of the outsourced work

It wasn't mentioned in the stuff I got at work but I don't think you can get reemployed by the Civil Service unless you pay back your redundancy. So If get 21 months redundancy and go back to work for the CS after 5 months I'd have to pay back 16 months. Assume this would be for outsourced companies as well, not sure about agency work. As ever the devil is in the detail.

Lyncroft

mjm3346 wrote: »

The staff who benefit will be those with pay under £23,000 mainly if they only have a few years service and have not reached their minimum pension age.



Perhaps the PCS should have taken the February offer from the previous government.

Maybe. I think this Govt would have revisited this topic anyway.

mjm3346

Lyncroft wrote: »

Maybe. I think this Govt would have revisited this topic anyway.

Perhaps but by no means certain or quickly.

Francis Maude (Minister for the Cabinet Office; Horsham, Conservative)

The proposals may not have been necessary if the PCS had joined the other five trade unions in agreeing to the previous Government's reform package

and

" we are very keen to have proper protection for the lowest-paid workers. Had that scheme been in existence when the coalition Government came into office, a pressing case would have been made to leave it as it was and work on that basis. That option is no longer on the table"

anoneemouse

Things are certainly going to be clear soon. Has anyone noticed that they've reduced the redundancy notice period from 6 months to 3 months? In other words - redundancy notices (even if they got served immediately) wouldnt result in people leaving in this financial year at 6 months notice. At 3 months notice - then they will be able to serve notice and have it expire by the end of March 2011.

I suppose this means that the first lot of redundancy notices will be served by the end of December. So the first voluntary redundancy scheme is going to start soon - the only question is who will it be targeted at? Which locations? Which agegroups? etc? - and how many Civil Servants have been made so utterly miserable by their "employer" over a prolonged period of time that they will heave a huge sigh of relief and apply for it.

themull1

Ive been a civil servant for 26 years and i'm only 42, so i wouldnt want to be made redundant. I'm like a pit pony, i don't think i could do anything else.!!

dave4545454

themull1 wrote: »

Ive been a civil servant for 26 years and i'm only 42, so i wouldnt want to be made redundant. I'm like a pit pony, i don't think i could do anything else.!!

like having to do some actual work?;)