Civil Service redundancy packages

[aka_kerrly]

I saw this article on the BBC earlier
BBC News - Union anger over 26% cut to civil service redundancy pay
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62560308


The Civil service union are getting ready for a fight over changes to the redundancy terms that C.S employees get.

Apparently the government want to reduce the number of civil servants by 91,000 , in part because additional staff were taken on to assist with Brexit and Covid.

This all seems sensible given the number of employees who could have been taken on in the last 2 years that would receive no redundancy payments but the cost is estimated at £2billion!!!!

Ah, because it seems that the Civil Service get 4 week's pay for every year up to 1 year's salary for compulsory redundancy or 2 years for volunteering.

In the real world of statutory redundancy payments people are lucky to get between 0.5x to 1.5x of their weekly wage for every year depending on age.

Is this another example to the civil service/union being out of touch/unaware of what the general public receive and seem to be thinking their terms are somewhat not good enough when even the proposed reduced terms are still double what most others would receive.

Let's not focus too much on the 2% pay increase being called an insult as there are millions up and down the country who I doubt have seen a pay rise in the last 3-5years and plenty who have been made redundant and got diddly squat.

[tangerine_sedge]

When I took voluntary redundancy 8 years ago from an international corporate, I received 1 month per year worked. No union involved.

This is just more red meat in the ongoing Tory government vs union fight.

Grrr Unions!

[Heathwood]

I’ve worked in both the private sector and the public sector. My experience is that the pay is really rather poor in the public sector but this is somewhat compensated by other benefits.

If they start stripping back benefits, I’m pretty sure they’ll lose civil servants in droves. This may be what they kinda hope for, however I would speculate that they’ll not lose the most disposable personnel, but rather those that keep the wheels turning.

[Squadrone Rosso]

Civil Servant for 34 years. Further attacks on our T& Cs. Been through many HS & HMG. Can’t think of worse times.

Wish I’d bailed to the private sector on 02 when I got my Microsoft training qualifications and had loads of job opportunities. Stuck with it because of loyalty & pension. How stupid I was.

Too old now.

[Murph7355]

Squadrone Rosso said:

Civil Servant for 34 years. Further attacks on our T& Cs. Been through many HS & HMG. Can’t think of worse times.

Wish I’d bailed to the private sector on 02 when I got my Microsoft training qualifications and had loads of job opportunities. Stuck with it because of loyalty & pension. How stupid I was.

Too old now.

Depends what pension you receive...if you're on a final salary, probably not stupid at all.

[Randy Winkman]

aka_kerrly said:

Is this another example to the civil service/union being out of touch/unaware of what the general public receive and seem to be thinking their terms are somewhat not good enough when even the proposed reduced terms are still double what most others would receive.

No - I think it's simply the union sticking up for its members which is what they pay it to do. I do wonder what the point of the timing is when the CS has already been slagged off by potential PMs and by JRM a few times in the last few weeks. It wont really get the new government off to a very good start.

[anonymous-user]

Randy Winkman said:

No - I think it's simply the union sticking up for its members which is what they pay it to do. I do wonder what the point of the timing is when the CS has already been slagged off by potential PMs and by JRM a few times in the last few weeks. It wont really get the new government off to a very good start.

Governments come and go, whilst the Civil Service endures. Don’t blame the people who run the country, during the pandemic, the public were in the street banging pots and pans for nurses, bin men emptied the bins, and the machinery of government turned. The way public servants, who are real people, are treated, is despicable.

[Countdown]

Heathwood said:

I’ve worked in both the private sector and the public sector. My experience is that the pay is really rather poor in the public sector but this is somewhat compensated by other benefits.

If they start stripping back benefits, I’m pretty sure they’ll lose civil servants in droves. This may be what they kinda hope for, however I would speculate that they’ll not lose the most disposable personnel, but rather those that keep the wheels turning.

What will happen is that those at the top of payscales and/or nearing retirement age will volunteer (and will get enhanced packages). There will then be lots of internal promotions to fill the gaps left by the leavers. Over time Ministers will recruit more people to deliver their pet projects and headcount will go back up.

In short it will cost billions and have little lasting effect. Mainly cos the Government is constantly fking about with “initiatives”

[BossHogg]

Squadrone Rosso said:

Civil Servant for 34 years. Further attacks on our T& Cs. Been through many HS & HMG. Can’t think of worse times.

Wish I’d bailed to the private sector on 02 when I got my Microsoft training qualifications and had loads of job opportunities. Stuck with it because of loyalty & pension. How stupid I was.

Too old now.

The new alpha pension is horrendous compared to our old premium pension. I can't believe some of my colleagues are saying it's a better pension. Work longer, get less and no lump sum! I've only been here 16 years though.

[Sheepshanks]

£2Bn sounds a lot but it’s average £20K each - and it’s only someone’s estimate, many recent Civil Servants will be on fixed term contracts.

My wife took voluntary redundancy from the Civil Service some years ago. The amount she was to be paid - buttons anyway but she was only doing it for pin money - reduced twice during the process and they wouldn’t let her change her mind (not that she wanted to).

I worked for a private company and after 20 yrs got a year’s salary. Elsewhere in Europe guys who’d only started in the last one to two years were getting the same.

[Astacus]

They aren’t far off professional contracts in the private sector. I have seen two times monthly for every year and 3 times over 30. I’ve also seen 3 times monthly per year.

My feeling, being a cynic, is that these proposed changes are due to the cost of making those 91,000 individuals redundant. I am shocked that they don’t just admit it frankly.

This country is going to pot because the government refuses to pay its employees a reasonable salary. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, civil servants, mental health professionals you name it. Of course I don’t need telling they can’t afford to, but something will give soon, given fuel prices and inflation and the gulf between the well off and the struggling

PAH I need a drink

[BossHogg]

I think it was worked out that in my job, wages have gone up roughly 75p to £1 an hour in the last 10 years, whereas minimum wage has gone up about £5 an hour in the same time frame. I'm just glad I can hopefully go for partial retirement in 5 years. My wages have gone up about £150 a month in the last 10 years, my household outgoings have gone up nearly £500 in the same time.

[glazbagun]

tangerine_sedge said:

When I took voluntary redundancy 8 years ago from an international corporate, I received 1 month per year worked. No union involved.

This is just more red meat in the ongoing Tory government vs union fight.

Grrr Unions!

This. Just another institution for the government to destroy while distracting from its failures.

Also see the "bonfire of the quango's" from a decade ago. When you push for redundancies, the people who step forward are the ones who don't mind leaving because they're due a good package. So you simultaneously lose experienced staff (or possibly jobsworths) while paying through the nose for it.

Almost like government doesn't learn that there are no quick and easy solutions.

[LHRFlightman]

tangerine_sedge said:

When I took voluntary redundancy 8 years ago from an international corporate, I received 1 month per year worked. No union involved.

This is just more red meat in the ongoing Tory government vs union fight.

Grrr Unions!

Likewise.

Some people just love being told to get angry at something or someone.

[JNW1]

Astacus said:

They aren’t far off professional contracts in the private sector. I have seen two times monthly for every year and 3 times over 30. I’ve also seen 3 times monthly per year.

I don't doubt you've seen those figures but (IMO) they're nowhere near the norm in the private sector. In my experience redundancy tends to be dictated largely by the terms and conditions in your contract with a significant proportion of any severance package being made-up by Pay In Lieu Of Notice; if you've got lots of service and a lengthy notice period you do quite well but if you're a short-server on only a month's notice you often don't get much.

Ok, if a company needs people to hang around until (say) a restructure's complete they might sweeten the pill with additional retention bonuses but two or three months salary for every year of service is exceptional IMO. In actual fact, the only person I know who got anywhere near that was my former neighbour who took voluntary redundancy from BP - and their generous redundancy terms were a throwback to their time as a public sector company!

[Sheepshanks]

glazbagun said:

Also see the "bonfire of the quango's" from a decade ago. When you push for redundancies, the people who step forward are the ones who don't mind leaving because they're due a good package. So you simultaneously lose experienced staff (or possibly jobsworths) while paying through the nose for it.

Almost like government doesn't learn that there are no quick and easy solutions.

Well, what happened in the Civil Service Department my worked in is they let the most recent employees go as they were cheaper to get rid of. So all the useless old timers stayed, even those who wanted to leave.

[otherman]

LHRFlightman said:

tangerine_sedge said:

When I took voluntary redundancy 8 years ago from an international corporate, I received 1 month per year worked. No union involved.

This is just more red meat in the ongoing Tory government vs union fight.

Grrr Unions!

Likewise.

Some people just love being told to get angry at something or someone.

If only we had an upvote button.

[JagLover]

aka_kerrly said:

I saw this article on the BBC earlier
BBC News - Union anger over 26% cut to civil service redundancy pay
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62560308


The Civil service union are getting ready for a fight over changes to the redundancy terms that C.S employees get.

Apparently the government want to reduce the number of civil servants by 91,000 , in part because additional staff were taken on to assist with Brexit and Covid.

This all seems sensible given the number of employees who could have been taken on in the last 2 years that would receive no redundancy payments but the cost is estimated at £2billion!!!!

Ah, because it seems that the Civil Service get 4 week's pay for every year up to 1 year's salary for compulsory redundancy or 2 years for volunteering.

In the real world of statutory redundancy payments people are lucky to get between 0.5x to 1.5x of their weekly wage for every year depending on age.

Is this another example to the civil service/union being out of touch/unaware of what the general public receive and seem to be thinking their terms are somewhat not good enough when even the proposed reduced terms are still double what most others would receive.

Not forgetting that statutory redundancy is capped so those earning at a similar level to civil servants won't get a full week's salary for each year.

A minor change to a very generous benefits package, that will be protested bitterly in the media, while the country continues down the path to a fiscal crisis.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 17th August 05:38

[Electro1980]

aka_kerrly said:

In the real world of statutory redundancy payments people are lucky to get between 0.5x to 1.5x of their weekly wage for every year depending on age.

Why is it everyone has to compare the public sector to the statutory minimum?

aka_kerrly said:

Let's not focus too much on the 2% pay increase being called an insult as there are millions up and down the country who I doubt have seen a pay rise in the last 3-5years and plenty who have been made redundant and got diddly squat.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/real-wages-fall-by-3-9-as-pay-fails-to-keep-up-with-inflation-12654768

“ Pay rises are failing to keep up with inflation - with total pay increases of 7.2% in the private sector and 1.5% in the public sector.”

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/p...

“ Pay in the public sector has risen by an average of 1.1% per year since April 2011, below private sector pay (2.1%) and inflation (1.9%), but above the 1% cap.”

Oh, and before anyone moans about the average pay comparison, take a look at what it says about the mix of low skill vs high skill jobs in the public sector. Basically the difference in average pay is a lot down to doctors being paid more than cleaners.

[tangerine_sedge]

JagLover said:

Not forgetting that statutory redundancy is capped so those earning at a similar level to civil servants won't get a full week's salary for each year.

A minor change to a very generous benefits package, that will be protested bitterly in the media, while the country continues down the path to a fiscal crisis.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 17th August 05:38

Which of your benefits are you giving away to help the fiscal crisis, or is this something that only unionised workers have to do?