We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Redundancy at 61
Comments
-
Surely it would be compulsory redundancy? All support staff are either being made redundant or if they wish to stay working for the LA then they have the option of a new job (it is a new job, with different title, lower pay scale - it isn't just the same job with conditions changed).
She is going to find out the restriction period to working for the LA again. But if she took redundancy and started drawing her pension, what would happen if she came out retirement and went back to work for the LA in a year or so (assuming she had 'served' the restricted period doing something else).
Thanks for all your help.
Ed
She will be asked to sign a form and it will say if it's voluntary. She is only compulsory redundant if they are not giving her a choice of staying because her job is no longer there. They can legally change the rate of pay for the job but unless they change the job role then she's not redundant.
She can work for an external private employer but not LA as it will affect her pension i.e they can stop it.
It's very unlikely the restriction on working for LA will be a year or two. Voluntary is usually "for ever", compulsory I believe is 3 or 4 years.
~Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone.~:)
0 -
She is going to find out the restriction period to working for the LA again. But if she took redundancy and started drawing her pension, what would happen if she came out retirement and went back to work for the LA in a year or so (assuming she had 'served' the restricted period doing something else).
You're referring to 'abatement' here. Abatement is abolished for CARE benefits, and for final salary benefits is dependant on the policy of the administering authority (as opposed to the employer). Most have a policy not to impose any abatement because it isn't worth the hassle, though either way what the policy is should be public information (e.g., available on the pension fund's website). Further, even if your mum's current employer is the administering authority, the HR policy will be completely separate. E.g., in a county council for an area that included unitary authorities, the council council's HR policy might forbid re-employment for 12 months after a redundancy, but that wouldn't by itself prevent getting a job at a school controlled by one of the unitary authorities and re-joining the LGPS (in the same fund) immediately.0 -
You're referring to 'abatement' here. Abatement is abolished for CARE benefits, and for final salary benefits is dependant on the policy of the administering authority (as opposed to the employer). Most have a policy not to impose any abatement because it isn't worth the hassle, though either way what the policy is should be public information (e.g., available on the pension fund's website). Further, even if your mum's current employer is the administering authority, the HR policy will be completely separate. E.g., in a county council for an area that included unitary authorities, the council council's HR policy might forbid re-employment for 12 months after a redundancy, but that wouldn't by itself prevent getting a job at a school controlled by one of the unitary authorities and re-joining the LGPS (in the same fund) immediately.
Not disputing what you say but there has been a lot of unrest in my LA over the terms of voluntary redundancy (both over and under age 55) in that they have to sign agreeing they are barred from working for LA for life. There is also some rule about repaying redundancy if they move to another LA within a specified period. People are not volunteering for redundancy if they feel they will be made compulosry redundant as the terms are better. As my LA is also the LEA school staff (including teachers) are also included as the LA pays the redundancy/pension costs and don't want to waste money finishing people for them to turn up in same LA a few weeks/months later. ~Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone.~:)
0 -
Her pension should be on her highest pay for last 3 years but there is also something to with electing salary of last 13 years. So if she earned £19k today and £14k in 2 years time she would have pension based on £19k though under the new scheme it would be on her average of membership (so if new scheme came in April 14 then it will be average of April 14 to date for that period of service and for previous service under old scheme £19k)
The employer should have option for flexible retirement and it's usually for a fixed period of 6 or 12 months.
It was my understanding she wished to keep working, and if kept working for a number of years this would lower either her last 3 years, or her average overall.0 -
but not strictly true at her age given the 3 year rule for the majority of her pension.
The biggest p!sser off is the working for less for doing same job and it's taken them 20/30 years to decide they are overpaid!
I dont think you can say, strictly or not as we dont have enough facts including how many years she would like to work on?0 -
As mentioned earlier that is also something to with last 13 years but can't remember what it is. They union and employer put something out on it but I'm not eligible for ER for a good few years so have only didn't pay a huge amount of attentionIt was my understanding she wished to keep working, and if kept working for a number of years this would lower either her last 3 years, or her average overall.
We have huge budget cuts so will be shedding staff rapidly over never year or so
Found it -
2). Average of 3 consecutive years from the last 13 years.
In the event of a reduction in pensionable pay made within 10 years of the
date of retirement or leaving the Scheme you can request for the:
Annual average of the best three consecutive years of pensionable pay
ending 31 March, within a period of 13 years, ending with the last day of
Scheme membership to be used.
This means if you have a reduction in basic pay on 1 April 2013 (after the 3
year pay protection) and you leave the Scheme on or before 31 March 2023
(within 10 years), the calculation of the final pay would be based on the
annual average of the best three consecutive years, within the last 13 years of
Scheme membership (ending 31 March).
Full protection would last for 10 years from the date of the reduction in pay
and end on 31 March 2023.
. ~Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone.~:)
0 -
It was my understanding she wished to keep working, and if kept working for a number of years this would lower either her last 3 years, or her average overall.
From what I've seen those old enough to retire feel pressured into going as they are told it avoids compulsory redundancy and they think of their young colleagues. Not so much those under 60 but those over it.
Then there is also the issue if they maybe want to go in a year or two the offer will not be on the table to access pension and have to wait a few years for it. ~Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone.~:)
0 -
Not disputing what you say but there has been a lot of unrest in my LA over the terms of voluntary redundancy (both over and under age 55) in that they have to sign agreeing they are barred from working for LA for life. There is also some rule about repaying redundancy if they move to another LA within a specified period.
I was speaking only about the pension scheme, and emphasising the distinction between that and any HR policy. Here you're talking about the latter.As my LA is also the LEA school staff (including teachers)
Teachers are on quite different contracts because the terms are collectively bargained for at the national level. Support staff (including teaching assistants) at local authority schools, in contrast, will very likely be on the council's regular terms and conditions.and don't want to waste money finishing people for them to turn up in same LA a few weeks/months later.
If a given council wants to fetter its future hiring decisions, well that's what it does. This does vary however, and my point about different employers in even the same LGPS fund also still stands, particularly given the current government's academy programme (each academy school - or more exactly academy trust - is its own employer both substantively and from an LGPS Regs point of view).0 -
Thanks for all the help guys. Hopefully she should have some more concrete figures and info by the end of next week at the latest.0
-
From what I've seen those old enough to retire feel pressured into going as they are told it avoids compulsory redundancy and they think of their young colleagues. Not so much those under 60 but those over it.
Then there is also the issue if they maybe want to go in a year or two the offer will not be on the table to access pension and have to wait a few years for it.
sometimes compulsory redundancy gives a better pay out than voluntary. Do check.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards