UK - Recovery of public sector exit payments

[adminblunty]

I came across this link at work today, I assume it's common knowledge and AMP, COS Pers etc are contributing to the consultation exercise, which runs until 17 Sep 14. Yes it does cover the Armed Forces

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/recovery-of-public-sector-exit-payments


Regards

Adminblunty

[Roadster280]

If 80K is the cutoff, it won't affect many of the Armed Forces.

I disagree with it on principle though. You get made redundant, so lose all job security and further pension accrual etc. You then come back as the contractor that got the job after your position was contractorised.

So they get the benefit and you get short changed.

Rolling goat.

[Melchett01]

Having had a quick look at the proposal, I have to say it leaves me feeling uneasy on a number of levels even though an 80k limit won't be applicable to many in the military, although it is potentially highly relevant in principle with the seemingly increasing moves towards civilianisation and contractorisation.

In my current posting, JFC is cutting its military manpower levels hard, and I wouldn't be surprised to see further cuts next year. The jobs and workload aren't going, they are simply looking to reduce military manpower and replace it with civil servants, FTRS and contractors.

Within this context I have seen several people leave the military on a Friday and come back on Monday in a suit as a Mr. These people are actively hunted by the organisation because it means we can retain their specialist skills. However, it's by no means a forgone conclusion and they still have to successfully complete the recruitment process. To my mind, it seems unfair to potentially penalise individuals by removing a chunk of their redundancy, pension etc when they are now working for a new and separate organisation. That payment was made on the back of their military service, which is totally separate to their new service as a civil servant, contractor etc. If the complaint is one of a revolving door, the answer is simple - these posts probably shouldn't have been civilianised in the first place if the requirement for the role still exists.

This seems even more penny pinching and vindictive when one considers that throughout the recent rounds of redundancies, the senior staffs across all the services have been encouraging those leaving to join the Reserves whilst at a local level we have been trying to get these people back in to preserve the skills base. If HMG wants to retain skills, it must be prepared to pay for them and this whole issue is a good example of why civilianisation isn't necessarily cheaper.

It also seems to be as incoherent with the broader intent across Defence as the general plan to fire Regulars and then hope to increase the Reserve component after the fact. But with Danny Alexander's name on the bottom of this, I have to say I'm not surprised.

[Willard Whyte]

Why would anyone want to work with the organization who redundised them in the first place.

**** 'em.

[4everAD]

With the upcoming change to a maximum of 3 months gross pay for redundancy, I don't think this will apply to us in the Armed Forces, not even CDS earns £320,000 a year!

[Ali Barber]

So, fire them and pay redundancy, rehire next week as a civvie contractor and pay back redundancy, fire again next week and you're on your own as you haven't worked long enough to get redundancy. Good earner for the Government.:D

[The Old Fat One]

Why would anyone want to work with the organization who redundised them in the first place.

**** 'em.

This

So, fire them and pay redundancy, rehire next week as a civvie contractor and pay back redundancy, fire again next week and you're on your own as you haven't worked long enough to get redundancy. Good earner for the Government

and this.

If you have good marketable skills (and most people leaving the military do) take them to where they are valued and raise two fingers on your way out the door.

Better still, use the wonga to start your own business doing something you really love and raise two fingers to everybody (except your family, mates and customers).

Realise your value, take control of your life, enjoy it.

[Background Noise]

With the upcoming change to a maximum of 3 months gross pay for redundancy, I don't think this will apply to us in the Armed Forces, not even CDS earns £320,000 a year!

80k does not refer to the size of the redundancy payment, it relates to annual salary.

[charliegolf]

It won't apply to people returning as contractors because:

Summary
This consultation seeks views on the government’s plans to legislate for the recovery of exit payments when high earners return to the same part of the public sector within twelve months of leaving.

... they ain't public sector.

CG

[Riskman]

From the opening paragraphs of the consultation documentA key area in this regard is the issue of re-employment following redundancy.
I would say the key issue is the incompetence in manpower resource forecasting and planning. :ugh:

[LFFC]

Let's get straight to Danny Alexander's central point stated in the forward:

In this context, it is entirely unacceptable that highly paid public sector workers should be able to receive a generous redundancy package and then shortly return to work in the same part of the public sector.I'd like to re-write it as follows:

"In this context, it is entirely unacceptable that highly paid public sector workers be made redundant and then it be necessary to re-employ them, shortly afterwards, to return to work in the same part of the public sector.

Hopefully that cuts to the heart of the problem that the government should be trying to sort out ........ and also helps out with the abuse of the word "shortly". Who on earth does he employ to draft this stuff? Ah yes, I remember now; the highly paid civil servant who used to do so was made redundant and replaced by a school leaver on work experience.