Public Sector Casualties
Discussion
So, numerous public sector workers are to be made redundant. Previously a large percentage of these have been too expensive to get rid of because of the large redundancy packages they were entitled to.
It stands to reason that the most expensive people to dispose of would also be the longest serving, with let’s say 20 – 30 years under their belts. This would also suggest that they would be in their mid 40’s to mid 50’s. By this point in their careers they’re unlikely to have built up sufficient funds in their pension pot to retire. As a result of their age, and spending their entire careers in the Civil Service, they will struggle to find equivalent roles in the private sector.
Throughout their careers, these individuals have been told they should not expect equivalent remuneration to the private sector as they had the advantages of job security / generous pensions / large redundancy packages etc.
Now their employers are seeking to change their terms of employment to significantly reduce any redundancy they will receive when they are almost definitely made redundant in the coming months. They are also seeking to change the law to prevent them from striking, they are also asking them not to promote themselves until exact plans have been decided and announced.
So, what is a public sector employee with 30 years service, who is expecting to be made redundant in the near future, who will not be entitled to the significant redundancy package they had detailed in their Ts & Cs, who has not built up enough funds in their pension pot supposed to do?
Just a thought.
It stands to reason that the most expensive people to dispose of would also be the longest serving, with let’s say 20 – 30 years under their belts. This would also suggest that they would be in their mid 40’s to mid 50’s. By this point in their careers they’re unlikely to have built up sufficient funds in their pension pot to retire. As a result of their age, and spending their entire careers in the Civil Service, they will struggle to find equivalent roles in the private sector.
Throughout their careers, these individuals have been told they should not expect equivalent remuneration to the private sector as they had the advantages of job security / generous pensions / large redundancy packages etc.
Now their employers are seeking to change their terms of employment to significantly reduce any redundancy they will receive when they are almost definitely made redundant in the coming months. They are also seeking to change the law to prevent them from striking, they are also asking them not to promote themselves until exact plans have been decided and announced.
So, what is a public sector employee with 30 years service, who is expecting to be made redundant in the near future, who will not be entitled to the significant redundancy package they had detailed in their Ts & Cs, who has not built up enough funds in their pension pot supposed to do?
Just a thought.
hadenough! said:
So, what is a public sector employee with 30 years service, who is expecting to be made redundant in the near future, who will not be entitled to the significant redundancy package they had detailed in their Ts & Cs, who has not built up enough funds in their pension pot supposed to do?
Just a thought.
They are supposed to seek alternative employment either elsewhere in the public sector or the private sector. They are supposed to be prepared to move if necessary and possible - or commute away if not.Just a thought.
Believe me I understand how tough that will be, what a total change in lifestyle it will make. Not nice.
But it's what everyone else is expected to do, as well.
Don said:
hadenough! said:
So, what is a public sector employee with 30 years service, who is expecting to be made redundant in the near future, who will not be entitled to the significant redundancy package they had detailed in their Ts & Cs, who has not built up enough funds in their pension pot supposed to do?
Just a thought.
They are supposed to seek alternative employment either elsewhere in the public sector or the private sector. They are supposed to be prepared to move if necessary and possible - or commute away if not.Just a thought.
Believe me I understand how tough that will be, what a total change in lifestyle it will make. Not nice.
But it's what everyone else is expected to do, as well.
Don't get me wrong, I'm only at the start of my career, work in the private sectr and was made redundant at the end of last year. I had another job lined up when I came off gardening leave. I understand that these thing happen.
Its the moving the goalposts so late in someones career that seems naughty.
hadenough! said:
Its the moving the goalposts so late in someones career that seems naughty.
It happens in the private sector all the time. I spent 22years in a final salary pension scheme in the private sector, only to be told sorry we can't do that anymore, it's gone. What am I supposed to do?GT03ROB said:
hadenough! said:
Its the moving the goalposts so late in someones career that seems naughty.
It happens in the private sector all the time. I spent 22years in a final salary pension scheme in the private sector, only to be told sorry we can't do that anymore, it's gone. What am I supposed to do?Did you find yourself effectively unemplyable as a result of age and job specific experiance?
Getting someone to work for an agreed contract and then changing the terms when its pay out time is very naughty unless the the company really is going to go bust and the choice is "this or nothing". However this is the state so though it has unsustainable debts it is unlikely to go bust in the usual sense.
I would hope that their pensions and redundancy terms to date are frozen and that they are offered the choice of a new contract or leaving with what they have already got. I assume that this is what will happen. To do otherwise sounds like fraud to me.
I would hope that their pensions and redundancy terms to date are frozen and that they are offered the choice of a new contract or leaving with what they have already got. I assume that this is what will happen. To do otherwise sounds like fraud to me.
hadenough! said:
GT03ROB said:
hadenough! said:
Its the moving the goalposts so late in someones career that seems naughty.
It happens in the private sector all the time. I spent 22years in a final salary pension scheme in the private sector, only to be told sorry we can't do that anymore, it's gone. What am I supposed to do?Did you find yourself effectively unemplyable as a result of age and job specific experiance?
Nobody is unemployable. It's how they sell themselves. If they have no skills that are transferrable then they really do have a non-job in the public sector!
Seriously it's tough, but so what? No more tough than anywhere else. If these people don't have the flexibility & drive to go sort something out why feel sympathy?
cymtriks said:
I would hope that their pensions and redundancy terms to date are frozen and that they are offered the choice of a new contract or leaving with what they have already got. I assume that this is what will happen. To do otherwise sounds like fraud to me.
Nope, pensions will remain unchanged, redundancy terms will be cut significanlty and will be a fraction of that they would have been.GT03ROB said:
Nobody is unemployable. It's how they sell themselves.
To an extent, however, when you have thousands of public sector employees coming on to the market at the same time, the odds are changed significantly. I wouldn't bet on the ones on the wrong side of 55 being too successfull.I would have a little more sympathy for the view taken by the op if his assertion that lower salaries have been accepted in return for the other benifits was true.It may have been in the past but certainly hasn't been the case for a number of years with the result that the public sector employees have had the pennies and quite a few buns.
By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
undred orse said:
I would have a little more sympathy for the view taken by the op if his assertion that lower salaries have been accepted in return for the other benifits was true.It may have been in the past but certainly hasn't been the case for a number of years with the result that the public sector employees have had the pennies and quite a few buns.
By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
The examples you state are the exception to the rule. The majority of the employees are on less than the equivelant would be in the private sector, but have stayed where they are due to the trade off in job security / pension / redundancy Vs salary.By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
undred orse said:
pointless vitriol
There's already a thread for b
hing about the system, abuse of the system and those benefitting from the system. This isn't it.Back on topic - I really do feel for those 10-15 years older then me who will be looking at redundancy. It's all well and good saying they can choose to make themselves employable but the reality is that older employees have a harder time getting a job than younger ones.
They often have a wealth of experience (both hard and soft skills) and an outlook that makes them far more stable and dependable than young employees. Many will fail to find work though as the job market has contracted and there are more people looking for work.
I work in IT, am almost 40 and have over 15 years of solid and varied experience. I'm not concerned about finding a job should I need to but I'd feel a lot differently if I were 55.
Saying that, in 15 years time I'd hope I'd be able to retire or semi-retire having planned and saved hard for the last few years
undred orse said:
I would have a little more sympathy for the view taken by the op if his assertion that lower salaries have been accepted in return for the other benifits was true.It may have been in the past but certainly hasn't been the case for a number of years with the result that the public sector employees have had the pennies and quite a few buns.
By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
My local council is about 75% 'professional councilors'. Bonus points for guessing which party they represent? By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
V88Dicky said:
undred orse said:
I would have a little more sympathy for the view taken by the op if his assertion that lower salaries have been accepted in return for the other benifits was true.It may have been in the past but certainly hasn't been the case for a number of years with the result that the public sector employees have had the pennies and quite a few buns.
By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
My local council is about 75% 'professional councilors'. Bonus points for guessing which party they represent? By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
Edited by chris watton on Tuesday 13th July 09:33
hadenough! said:
undred orse said:
I would have a little more sympathy for the view taken by the op if his assertion that lower salaries have been accepted in return for the other benifits was true.It may have been in the past but certainly hasn't been the case for a number of years with the result that the public sector employees have had the pennies and quite a few buns.
By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
The examples you state are the exception to the rule. The majority of the employees are on less than the equivelant would be in the private sector, but have stayed where they are due to the trade off in job security / pension / redundancy Vs salary.By way of example local authority "Directors" on £150k plus and in some cases a bmw 7 series or the like.For what?
Another abuse that has to be stopped is the rise of the "professional councilor" - on £50k plus in some cases when most of them are useless and incapable of earning anything like that by merit in a real job.
ONS said:
The percentage difference between the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£539 per week) and the private sector (£465 per week) widened over the year to April 2009, following annual increases of 3.1 per cent and 1.0 per cent respectively.
It's 2009 specific and the first result I found in Google linkyIainT said:
undred orse said:
pointless vitriol
There's already a thread for bhing about the system, abuse of the system and those benefitting from the system. This isn't it.Back on topic - I really do feel for those 10-15 years older then me who will be looking at redundancy. It's all well and good saying they can choose to make themselves employable but the reality is that older employees have a harder time getting a job than younger ones.
They often have a wealth of experience (both hard and soft skills) and an outlook that makes them far more stable and dependable than young employees. Many will fail to find work though as the job market has contracted and there are more people looking for work.
I work in IT, am almost 40 and have over 15 years of solid and varied experience. I'm not concerned about finding a job should I need to but I'd feel a lot differently if I were 55.
Saying that, in 15 years time I'd hope I'd be able to retire or semi-retire having planned and saved hard for the last few years
Perhaps you cannot understand that one of the the points the op was making and that I was responding to is that lower salaries have been accepted in return for other benifits that are now being taken away.
I was pointing out that in many cases the trade off no longer exists.I accept that the example I gave was at the extreme but it applies equally to many lower paid posts which provide an income above that which the employee could hope to earn in the private sector eg local democracy officer £31k wanted by Tunbridge Wells l.a.Whether that is a non-job is another issue for another thread, as you say. My point is that this job needed or not provides an income that is not discounted for the additional pension,job security etc issues.
hadenough! said:
chris watton said:
...to allow these leeches to have mind blowing salaries and pensions.
Few and far between in the scheme of things.Edited by chris watton on Tuesday 13th July 09:33
I read a report about this (ps pay vs ps pay), the gist of which was that they were now comparable since pr sec bonuses had ceased and low paid pub sec jobs (cleaning for eg) had been largely contracted out to the pri sec, affecing the average.
That being said though, pub sec has done better under the last Govt, though arguably that's market forces - govt wants to do more, needs more staff etc.
I read the OP to be about the years before that when pub sec had been paid less than pri sec, but that was offset by security and terms, which are now being removed.
I read the OP as about the civil service though, rather than pub sec generally. Given NHS is different and local authorities vary enormously, is it worth differentiating?
That being said though, pub sec has done better under the last Govt, though arguably that's market forces - govt wants to do more, needs more staff etc.
I read the OP to be about the years before that when pub sec had been paid less than pri sec, but that was offset by security and terms, which are now being removed.
I read the OP as about the civil service though, rather than pub sec generally. Given NHS is different and local authorities vary enormously, is it worth differentiating?
Phil1 said:
Could you please explain then this quote from the ONS, seeing as you are sure that majority of public sector workers are on less than those in the private sector.
Nope, but how does it go? There are lies, damn lies and statistics. I suspect if you look at the public sector as a whole including GPs, surgeons, MP's, Top council bods etc they are better paid on the whole.The people they are making redundant though are thoes in local Governemnt Offices who are paid a middle of the road salary.
I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but moving the goalposts to this degree on employees with over 30 years service is just not cricket. By all means make them redundan,t but at leas stick to the agreed Ts and Cs. If a large private sector organisation tried to change thousands of employees Ts and Cs with a view to disposing of them on the cheap there'd be uproar.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff