100,000 Public Sector Jobs Gone

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

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?

I am explaining the proposed revised redundancy scheme (or Civil Service Compensation Scheme). The idea is to cut redundancy payments, making it cheaper to sack civil servants. The main action is reduce the cap in year's wages that can be paid. For compulsory, the cap is planned to be reduced from 3 years pay to 1 year. For voluntary, the cap would be from 2 years to 21 months, with the option of being offered this option before compulsory (which anyone would of course).

The rub is that for under the existing voluntary terms you get two weeks pay per year of service, with double counting for years over the age of thirty (IIRC, it is awfully complicated) and some other provisos. Under the scheme proposed you would get one month's pay per year's service.

For me, this would double my severance pay under voluntary terms, and make no difference to any compulsory terms. However, things like notice period would be reduced.

If I were someone being made compulsorily redundant after 25 years service, the new terms would be worse however.

To answer your above post; the 21 month cap for voluntary was a concession by government in negotiations with the Unions. This concession suggests to me that the government may be worried that it may be impossible to unilaterally re-write contracts under European law.

This is what Eurosceptics mean when they complain about Europe undermining UK sovereignty. This means Parliamentary Sovereignty (in fact the power of the Executive which dominates Parliament in reality via the payroll vote, patronage and whipping).

abaxas

Nothing to stop a tax change on redundancy payments.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am explaining the proposed revised redundancy scheme (or Civil Service Compensation Scheme). The idea is to cut redundancy payments, making it cheaper to sack civil servants. The main action is reduce the cap in year's wages that can be paid. For compulsory, the cap is planned to be reduced from 3 years pay to 1 year. For voluntary, the cap would be from 2 years to 21 months, with the option of being offered this option before compulsory (which anyone would of course).

The rub is that for under the existing voluntary terms you get two weeks pay per year of service, with double counting for years over the age of thirty (IIRC, it is awfully complicated) and some other provisos. Under the scheme proposed you would get one month's pay per year's service.

For me, this would double my severance pay under voluntary terms, and make no difference to any compulsory terms. However, things like notice period would be reduced.

If I were someone being made compulsorily redundant after 25 years service, the new terms would be worse however.

I think you confused the matter with this.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The proposed new scheme is far more generous for people with less than 12 years service.

It is not more generous, the longer serving would (could as it is not law so not sure how your place is offering yet) not get as much as they would have.

There is a vast legal difference between the same to a maximum and more generous for less service.;)

But hey, it's not passed yet so those oldies look fairly safe at the moment.

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

It is not more generous, the longer serving would (could as it is not law so not sure how your place is offering yet) not get as much as they would have.

That is what I initially said; for those below 12 year's service (maybe with the odd exception) the new terms would be more generous.

This was not what the coalition originally wanted IMO, but is a result of the invasion of political reality. No government can achieve anything without effective use of the civil service. Already, the government seems to be leaking like a sieve. This is why the civil service is set up the way it is; to keep civil servants loyal.

There are different terms for early retirement; the terms here apply mainly to the under-55s. Complicated ain't it!

I think the whole thing is an outrageous breach of contract.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I think the whole thing is an outrageous breach of contract.

Could be worse at least you get up to a years pay. LG went 1 week for every year X 2.5 to 1.5X week for everyone.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

I find it hard to agree with that when councils could be controlled by any party. Lab, Lib, Con, etc all control councils who will be setting out how they do their own cuts??

Govt pull the strings.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

Govt pull the strings.

How, average cut for next year is 4.4% (council tax will go up so overall less than 4.4%)

If they cut 25% in say a labour council in one year how did the government make them do that?

I can't agree that central government set this, it is up to each council how and when they cut. any council could cut in line with funding.

StevieJ

Hank_Rearden wrote: »

As cynical political tactics go, that seems a bit stupid given that local elections are next year. (Unless of course the electorate approve).

I suspect the truth is that they, like anyone who has gone through consultation and redundancies, know how disruptive it would be to run the process through multiple iterations. Far more efficient to make the tough calls in one go and then rebuild. It's certainly what the private sector would do.

Not so, they would fully expect to take a hit at the locals whatever they do, much more sensible to have things looking up for the next GE, would that be the Short Con or the Big Con in The Sting parlance?

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

How, average cut for next year is 4.4% (council tax will go up so overall less than 4.4%)

If they cut 25% in say a labour council in one year how did the government make them do that?
I can't agree that central government set this, it is up to each council how and when they cut. any council could cut in line with funding.

By cutting central grant support.

I’ve checked with DCLG and the cut to the formula grant this year will still be, on average, about 10 per cent, despite council pleas to Mr Pickles not to “front-load” the cuts to the first year of the four-year period. Some local authorities will be cut by 17 per cent in the same period.

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/12/local-government-cuts-are-steeper-than-it-looks/

katkim

Really2 wrote: »

How, average cut for next year is 4.4% (council tax will go up so overall less than 4.4%)

The average 4.4% takes into account the police cuts which are lower. Take those out and the average overall for LA cuts is higher than 4.4%.