100,000 Public Sector Jobs Gone

ILW

Really2 wrote: »

A Lot councils are doing the 25% cut in the first year (some departments), I find that a bit odd as they required a 25% cut over 4. So they could of stretched it out a bit not to effect services so much.
But I suppose it means they don't have to do the same process every year for the next three. Also makes the remaining staff a bit more secure

If a council can get rid of 25% of its workforce, what the hell have all these people been doing?

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

This is a civil service wide scheme which is proposed to be enforced by an Act of Parliament. Contracts can be overridden by Parliament under the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Anyone with private assets really ought to be worried by this IMHO. Who's Stalin now?

So you think they can get a law through that is detrimental to people who have served the longest or who are older?

It is against European law, if it goes trough or not should terms be worse based on age or length of service you would open to industrial tribunal.

Really2

ILW wrote: »

If a council can get rid of 25% of its workforce, what the hell have all these people been doing?

25% of workforce is not compleatly true, some cuts will be through capital spending etc.

But some departments could go compleatly some could reamain unscathed.

Hank_Rearden

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

This is a civil service wide scheme which is proposed to be enforced by an Act of Parliament. Contracts can be overridden by Parliament under the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Really? Is this contract law? Which contracts are being overriden? Surely the protection against age discrimination (which I think is what you are saying is being inappropriately circumvented) is civil law?

Anyone with private assets really ought to be worried by this IMHO. Who's Stalin now?

Can you elaborate - I'm intrigued that a (senior?) civil servant is suggesting that the state is going to be nobbling private assets...

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

bulls can dress this up but 100,000 jobs and the frear that is now spreading within the public sector is devastating news for house prices. and there is another 3 years of this to come

Sir_Humphrey

Hank_Rearden wrote: »

Really? Is this contract law? Which contracts are being overriden? Surely the protection against age discrimination (which I think is what you are saying is being inappropriately circumvented) is civil law?...

It is in my employment contract.

It could be contradicted by other law, but if it is UK law, the bill could be reworded to avoid that. Perhaps it would be illegal under the Human Rights Act. That does override Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is why so many politicians (and the Daily Wail) would like to get rid of it.

I am surprised that you are not aware of Superannuation Bill, I sure it has been mentioned here before.

Hank_Rearden wrote: »

Can you elaborate - I'm intrigued that a (senior?) civil servant is suggesting that the state is going to be nobbling private assets...

No. I did not say that. What I said is that Parliamentary Soveriegnty, there would be nothing to stop it from happening. The EU/Human Rights Legislation may prevent it in practise.

The reason to worry is the precedent this sets. It is always hardest to do something fro the first time.

abaxas

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

No. I did not say that. What I said is that Parliamentary Soveriegnty, there would be nothing to stop it from happening. The EU/Human Rights Legislation may prevent it in practise.

The right to employment is NOT a human right.

We could just do a France, and just not bother when the EU complains.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

It is in my employment contract.

It could be contradicted by other law, but if it is UK law, the bill could be reworded to avoid that. Perhaps it would be illegal under the Human Rights Act. That does override Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is why so many politicians (and the Daily Wail) would like to get rid of it.

I am surprised that you are not aware of Superannuation Bill, I sure it has been mentioned here before.



No. I did not say that. What I said is that Parliamentary Soveriegnty, there would be nothing to stop it from happening. The EU/Human Rights Legislation may prevent it in practise.

The reason to worry is the precedent this sets. It is always hardest to do something fro the first time.

So are people at your place being offered better terms if they are younger and have done less service or not?

You are confusuing me now as you said earlier people have been offered it now you are saying it is (possibly) not lawful? (yet)

So without massive industrial tribunals I fail to see how anyone has been offered anything?

Sir_Humphrey

abaxas wrote: »

The right to employment is NOT a human right.

Re-read my post; I am talking about the redundancy terms.

Of course people can be sacked if an employer chooses.

Property rights and liberty are both in the Human Rights Act.

I am not a lawyer, so I do not know whether anything might override Parliamentary Sovereignty in this case.

The previous government tried to enforce a change to the redundancy scheme which was thrown out by the European Court. This is why the current government are preparing an Act of primary legislation. If it turns out that parliament can override legal contractual obligations, I think everyone should be worried.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am surprised that you are not aware of Superannuation Bill, I sure it has been mentioned here before.

Is this it?

Clause 1 of this Bill would cap compensation payable under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme at a maximum of 12 months’ pay for compulsory redundancy and 15 months’ for voluntary exits. Clause 2 provides for clause 1 to expire after 12 months, unless repealed, extended or revived using order-making powers.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government has invited the civil service unions to negotiate a “sustainable and practical long term successor scheme”.

So how is that better terms for younger people and less service, it is the same up to a point.

But 12 months pay in most cases would be 52 years service (1 week per year of service)
It stops golden goodbyes, so how are the younger getting better packages than the longer serving employes?