Should Headteachers or Civil Servants be made to pay for their mismanagement

CLAPTON

worldtraveller wrote: »

Yes, and how many in the public sector, especially teaching, will sight "stress" for an early retirement, with a fat final salary pension, largely paid for by the taxpayer, and then suddenly find that they are well enough to suddenly take up other jobs or part-time supply teaching? Please! You know it and you know you are on to a good thing! However, maybe, just maybe, you don't? That may well be what many of us in the private sector have wondered for years. Maybe you just don't get it! Maybe you just don't!

actually public sector pensions, being deferred salary, are solely paid for by taxpayers

virtually all employees both public and private sector can retire at age 55 if they are willing to accept an actuarially reduced pension

in both cases the retirees are free to take up other employment as they see fit.

if stress has led to early retirement with enhanced pension rights then this would be subject to medical advise

Jennifer_Jane

Not a propos of this thread, but I really hate hearing about people who are made redundant and then go back to very similar to, or indeed, practically their own previous jobs.

But there is currently some media fuss about people taking retirement and then working. Well they can do that, as CLAPTON says, unless they have taken up early retirement with enhanced pension rights fraudulently.

There are no rules about pensioners going back to work.

In my last (private) company, there was so much taking redundancy and then going back as a highly-paid consultant in the same or similar role, that a rule was brought in that you had to wait a year. Nevertheless, it still went on. Immoral behaviour by the employee and the Company. Shareholders are being cheated.

CLAPTON

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Not a propos of this thread, but I really hate hearing about people who are made redundant and then go back to very similar to, or indeed, practically their own previous jobs.

But there is currently some media fuss about people taking retirement and then working. Well they can do that, as CLAPTON says, unless they have taken up early retirement with enhanced pension rights fraudulently.

There are no rules about pensioners going back to work.

In my last (private) company, there was so much taking redundancy and then going back as a highly-paid consultant in the same or similar role, that a rule was brought in that you had to wait a year. Nevertheless, it still went on. Immoral behaviour by the employee and the Company. Shareholders are being cheated.

I aggree in that the priciple of taking a pension in accordance with the rules and then working isn't an issue.

But the wide spread abuse especially in the public sector of large redundance payments, enhanced pension rights and then returning to similar public sector jobs is a disgrace
I'm sure the NHS re-organisation will provide endless examples of such behaviour.
And of course it was common place a few years ago for teachers in their early 50s to be retired on 'efficiency' grounds, enjoy enhanced pension rights and then return part time; ending up with the same overall income but working only 2 days at week

MrRee_2

I was hoping to cash in on redundancy .... in my place, 12 years ago, there were lay-offs.

The average pay-offs were £30,000 Lump Sum (max. Tax Free) and then around £30,000 a year until retirement - when the 'enhanced' Pension was then paid.

Imagine my shock when these people turned up again to do their old £60,000 a year jobs as contactors!? Earning three times as much ...... of course, still receiving the £30,000 a year from the good old Taxpayer!

Tax Rates could be a frcation of what we pay if there was genuine control over the Civil Service and Schools.

thescouselander

MrRee wrote: »

I was hoping to cash in on redundancy .... in my place, 12 years ago, there were lay-offs.

The average pay-offs were £30,000 Lump Sum (max. Tax Free) and then around £30,000 a year until retirement - when the 'enhanced' Pension was then paid.

Imagine my shock when these people turned up again to do their old £60,000 a year jobs as contactors!? Earning three times as much ...... of course, still receiving the £30,000 a year from the good old Taxpayer!

Tax Rates could be a frcation of what we pay if there was genuine control over the Civil Service and Schools.

Its not like that sort of thing only happens in the public sector - my dad did the same thing when he left BT.

Also, 12 years ago I doubt many civil servants were getting anything like the figures you're talking about. Today the average civil servant only gets around £22k so 12 years ago they'd be getting a lot less than that and their pension payout would be commensurate with that figure. Basically your figures are not representative of the typical civil service payout.

ILW

Virtually everybody in and out of the profession knows that some head teachers are better than others. It appears that very little is being done to get rid of the not so good ones. That is the frustrating thing.

MrRee_2

ILW wrote: »

Virtually everybody in and out of the profession knows that some head teachers are better than others. It appears that very little is being done to get rid of the not so good ones. That is the frustrating thing.

It's impossible to get rid of Teachers or Head Teachers.

Only 18 (yes, that's EIGHTEEN!) incompetent Teachers have been dismissed in 40 years - and that is staggering!!

We are letting our children down by not sorting this mess out - but no-one within the school will do anything.

We can all remember crap Teachers from our youth - well, they haven't gone away - they are still Teaching children up and down the country.

poet123

It isn't impossible, the GB I sit on did it. The head was given the option resign or be sacked, he resigned. He would not show in the figures mentioned above, but he was effectively given the sack, and we refused a reference which contained anything other than confirmation he has worked a t x school for x years in the role of head teacher.

MrRee_2

poet123 wrote: »

It isn't impossible, the GB I sit on did it. The head was given the option resign or be sacked, he resigned. He would not show in the figures mentioned above, but he was effectively given the sack, and we refused a reference which contained anything other than confirmation he has worked a t x school for x years in the role of head teacher.

Generally, the LEA would rather sacrifice a GB than a HeadTeacher ... I admire what you did - but, truthfully, they should have been sacked with no option of resignation.

ILW

poet123 wrote: »

It isn't impossible, the GB I sit on did it. The head was given the option resign or be sacked, he resigned. He would not show in the figures mentioned above, but he was effectively given the sack, and we refused a reference which contained anything other than confirmation he has worked a t x school for x years in the role of head teacher.

Did he stay in the profession, I would suspect he did.