Even Dick Turpin wore a mask

[santa claus]

Civil Service Union is on strike. Contracts are being changed for people who have held them for donkeys years. What a ripoff. Public Sector workers aren't the best paid, everyone knows that, and now there's an obvious plan to make redundancies on the cheap. If the Union decides to go for the jugular, it could get very messy.

Surely a contract is a contract which is why fat cat bonuses are still getting paid and failed CEO's can walk with a huge golden handshake? It's shameful that the easy target is being picked off.

What have we come to when our word is no longer our bond?

[schmunk]

Are you serious?

Redundancy payout of 2-3 years' salary for most civil servants and you're still not happy..?

Private sector redundancy generally gives 1 week's salary per year worked, and this is often capped at statutory rates of £380/week.

[Pob255]

That's not the point it's more that this effectively changes the terms of a work contract without the employe having a say in the matter.

Granted it doesn't effect the majority of workers as they are far below the maximum cap.

One major thing you have to remember about Public sector jobs is that most are far lower paid in the long run, because there's far less opitinuity for advancement within the sector, so you will often end up working 10+years with no real promotion or pay increase other than the base pay rate increase.

One of the other things that annoies me is when people go on about the current "good" base pay rate increases in the public sector, while conveinently overlooking the very small base pay increases that happened from the late 70's to mid 90's (often below inflation) and that was when inflation was far higher.
a 5% raise sounds good now but it doesn't sound so good back when inflation was around 8-10%

[aidanjt]

Blah, nobody in the civil service gets paid minimum wage. They get paid good money for soft hours and little effort.

Not that I don't find the government trying to change contract terms without discussing it with their employees first, annoying. A contract is a contract after all. But I have little respect for anyone who thinks they deserve £90,000+ of tax payers dough, just for being crap enough to actually get the sack from the civil service.

The civil service is still one of the very few employers which you can get work for life. They should be happy enough they have jobs where they can swivel around in a chair until retirement and live comfortably.

[TheAnimus]

Wait a second, what exactly is in their contract?

He said: "It is part of our contract that we get a good payoff if we are sacked. Losing that is just making it cheaper for the government to sack us."

"good" payoff?

3 years isn't good? What the hell!

In industry, if you had worked 30 years, you would get, 30 weeks. If you where really well liked, they might up that to a whole year.

These guys are still getting a minimum of double that, 2-3 years pay. That isn't just good, that's an obscene waste of tax payers money.

I hate the way people are saying that the public sector workers "put up with" low pay:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8549380.stm
The difference between those two jobs pay, is exactly the sort of difference you see between two people in the public sector. In fact I've never seen a public sector job offering a final year salary pension scheme, so someone's got a sweet deal there!

The problem is that there is no real grounding in reality of how the public sector workers perceive the private sector. If they feel hard done by, apply for a job in the private sector? Wait what's that? They know they won't get a better offer?

[kalniel]

The problem in my own experience is that public sector is used as a blunt economic tool only when it suits govts.

For instance, when we had high inflation during the boom, rather than pay going up in line with the private sector, the govt. put a cap on increases to try and create a deflationary pressure. Then when inflation plummets they kept the pay rises down because they suddenly do want it to be in line with the private sector.

I don't deny the redundancy payouts are generous, but the timing is atrocious - if they'd introduced this during the growth years it would have been accepted, but introducing changes immediately prior to planned lay offs is pretty cheap.

Re final salary scheme pensions - they stopped new entrants to the scheme some time ago - when I left my job for a new one I had to very carefully weigh up the loss of it into my salary negotiations.

[menthel]

Soft hours and little effort? Sounds about right to me! Its just a shame my chair isn't more comfortable.

[santa claus]

I think many people overlook the value of the public service. There are a fair few crucial services that could affect virtually everyone in the Country in some way.

Underestimating the worth of public employees sems to be a sport for those who work privately for much better pay. The fun will start when business is crippled by problems at air traffic control or customs and excise for example. This could put many of the private sector jobs at risk in this economic climate.

Instead of beating the same old drum that the public service already gets more that its worth because you feel you are insulated from the effects of a disruption, think again, and consider if it is right that a contract is ripped up and how soon this might impinge directly upon you.

Whether public or private sector both groups are working for a living; it's not a competition, it's an alliance. There's more chance of getting our finances sorted out if there is more respect for each other. And that's to everyone's benefit.

[TheAnimus]

err santa, see the link in my post, we're not doubting the value of them at all.

We are simply saying that tax payers money been spent to give someone a redundancy thats 'only' 3 times their annual salary is damn fine, they should not be complaining that the clarification of good is so generous to them.

And you know what, striking ambulance drivers would worry me more than striking council accountants. These people should apply for the jobs because they are well compensated, not because of a moral obligation. If they don't feel well compensated, they can give the public sector a whirl!

[shaithis]

As someone who has worked for 12 years, for the worlds premier and largest law firm, and is currently in the process of being made redundant.....I would LOVE their "revised" redundancy package.

And I know 4 civil servants......all members of PCS and all 4 of them are on strike, not because of the deal but because "It's a couple of extra days off".

[kalniel]

As someone who has worked for 12 years, for the worlds premier and largest law firm, and is currently in the process of being made redundant.....I would LOVE their "revised" redundancy package.

Not at their salaries you wouldn't. 2 years at 20k each year is probably less than your package is going to be.

[shaithis]

Not at their salaries you wouldn't. 2 years at 20k each year is probably less than your package is going to be.

It's about the same.....now considering our wage difference and all things being relative....their deal is in a class of it's own.

[kalniel]

It's about the same.....now considering our wage difference and all things being relative....their deal is in a class of it's own.

I don't agree - part of the reason one might consider accepting a lower wage packet in the public sector is because of the additional benefits of redundancy and/or pension. They could see it as having a similar redundancy package to you, yet having to cope for all their working time on a lower salary - given the choice I'm sure they'd prefer to have private sector like salaries as well.

Like someone said - the workers agreed to the contract with a valid expectation of what they'd get from it. If your salary as written in the contract was downgraded I'd expect you to kick up a fuss as well, in the public sector's case you do consider salary + benefits as written in the contract.

[Russ]

Yes kalniel but the reason they "chose" lower salaries is down to the fact they probably arent qualified enough to "choose" higher ones?

Also, people live to their means, and a 40k lumpsum to somebody who earns 20k a year is an awful lot, bordering on life changing for some - clear mortgage, get new car, family holiday etc.

Somebody who earns 80k getting a 40k payout is better than a kick in the teeth but theoretically could have a mortgage 4x as expensive and 40k would merely dent it..

[kalniel]

Yes kalniel but the reason they "chose" lower salaries is down to the fact they probably arent qualified enough to "choose" higher ones?

I did a Cambridge first degree, a Masters and PhD, all in fields relevant to the job and I still chose a public sector paid job for my last employment. As do many thousands of scientists. Lack of qualifications has nothing to do with it.

Also, people live to their means, and a 40k lumpsum to somebody who earns 20k a year is an awful lot, bordering on life changing for some - clear mortgage, get new car, family holiday etc.

Somebody who earns 80k getting a 40k payout is better than a kick in the teeth but theoretically could have a mortgage 4x as expensive and 40k would merely dent it..

I don't buy that argument at all - if you go into employment with the expectation of job security (and contract to back it up) then you live accordingly - paying off your mortgage etc rather than saving up, where as if you know you are being paid well but don't have long term security then you'll put some aside and you should need less redundancy pay than the person who has the expectation of long-term security and a lower salary.

[shaithis]

Job security is not "I get a great redundancy package"....it is "I have a job for life"