Continuous Local Government service

WashingTime

I hope that some expert might be able to shed some light for me on this conundrum.

I work for a local authority and have nine years of continuous service (5 of which come from another council). I am employed on a "permanent" contract.

Part of the arrangement in local government is that if you move to another council, you transfer your continuous service (in respect of pensions, redundancy entitlement, etc).

I am considering applying for a position in another council. The post is offered on a "2-yr fixed term" although after talking to the recruiter, they are hopeful it will be longer-term.

My confusion comes because, if I take it and am let go after 2 years, they would still have to pay me redundancy for my - at that point - 11years-worth of service?

Therefore, I can only see the 2-yr fixed term arrangement being in the council's interest if they recruit someone "fresh" without any service, rather than the best person for the job (assuming that's someone coming from elsewhere).

Surely this means that in practice for someone with transferrable continuous service, a permanent post and 2 year fixed-term are essentially the same?

marybelle01

You are right in all respects except for one - I can't think of any council that considers "more expensive to make redundant" over "best person for the job" in appointments. FTC's are really common councils. It's swings and roundabouts therefore - what they pay "for someone else" is balanced by "what someone else picks up for them" in terms of their leavers.

WashingTime

Thanks for your reply Marybelle.

I think we actually agree that no council would not appoint the best person for the job because of their associated liabilities. (although I think people are thinking harder about that than ever before ... which to me seems flawed).

Your confirmation that I'm on the right track means I'm going to view the advertised post as essentially permanent as the successful candidate would either:
a) Have continuous service, making it essentially a permanent postition; or,
b) Have no continuous service - in which case you can make redundant within 2yrs without having major costs anyway

My only conclusion is that it's a ruse to pacify Daily Mail readers who don't want to see any bins emptied, restaurants inspected, planning regulated or children protected?

Could any HR folk confirm?

marybelle01

I am a contractor but have worked for a fair few councils over the years. So "employment" isn't an issue for me. But I have seen some very good advice from someone who used to post on this site before, and now posts elsewhere. "There is no such thing as a permanant contract". It works for me. If you regard nothing as permanant, because it can always be terminated, then a FTC simply becomes a contract where you get warning!