Civil servants redundancy payments @ 6 years Salary!

[convert]

Currently, some civil servants are 'entitled' to six years salary as a redundancy payment.

 

 

It would appear that the previous administration were trying to reduce this, but were blocked from doing so.

 

Looks like the Condems are picking this back up according to the Telegraph.

 

 

Under existing Whitehall rules, some civil servants are entitled to severance payouts worth as much as six years’ salary. Ministers want to shrink those packages to bring them in line with the private sector, where workers who are made redundant typically receive the equivalent of a few months’ or even weeks’ pay...

 

...Ministers have identified the traditionally high cost of laying off staff as a major obstacle to enacting their plans for cuts and improving efficiency.

 

Some ministries have “pools” of several hundred workers who do not have allocated jobs but who are not sacked because of the cost.

 

Source : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7871570/Ministers-to-slash-pay-offs-for-civil-servants.html

 

 

So what do all those who've been made redundant in the private sector think?

 

Did they get 6 years salary as a golden handshake?

[Mecky]

Don't know where the evidence for this is. we have been told that it's 1 months for every year of work and then 2 months for every year over 5 years of service. The government (?) is now looking to change this i.e. going back on signed contracts.

[milquetoast1]

Statutory redundancy pay is calculated as follows:

 

For each complete year of service, up to a maximum of 20 years, your employee is entitled to:

 

0.5 week's pay for each full year of service where their age was less than 22

1 week's pay for each full year of service where their age was 22 or above, but less than 41

1.5 weeks' pay for each full year of service where their age was 41 or above

 

The current maximum gross weekly pay rate at the time of the statutory redundancy calculation is capped at £380.00.

 

This will apply to most people in the private sector.

 

Edit: Unfortunately we have just given a 28 year old with 5.5 years service a redundancy cheque for £1,500.

[Longcol]

The statutory minimum is basically £380 for every year of service although you can't have more than 20 years.

 

Anything above that is "voluntarily" given by your employer.

[convert]

Don't know where the evidence for this is. we have been told that it's 1 months for every year of work and then 2 months for every year over 5 years of service. The government (?) is now looking to change this i.e. going back on signed contracts.

 

So you're saying that someone with 20 years service would have a payment equal to

 

5 x 1 month

 

plus

 

15 x 2 months

 

=

 

35 months (almost 3 years) of salary...

 

 

Wow, I can see quite some savings to be made here.

[Wildcat]

Currently, some civil servants are 'entitled' to six years salary as a redundancy payment.

 

 

It would appear that the previous administration were trying to reduce this, but were blocked from doing so.

 

Looks like the Condems are picking this back up according to the Telegraph.

 

Source : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7871570/Ministers-to-slash-pay-offs-for-civil-servants.html

 

So what do all those who've been made redundant in the private sector think?

 

Did they get 6 years salary as a golden handshake?

 

People that paid in to their pensions up to 1987 can technically take a lump sum payment of up to 6 years of salary if the portion of their pension paid would entitle them to it. Post 1987 Pension contributions are limited to a 3 year cap on the lump sum.

 

The change that the Telegraph is proposing happens, already happened 23 years ago. Unless it wants to break the contract with Civil Servants on the terms of a scheme that people have already paid in to, something I doubt anyone in the private sector would appreciate but all the same something Labour tried to do recently, but were defeated when the case went to the High Court. If the Tories want to illegally change contracts made retrospectively then that sets a dangerous precedent, indeed legally if they can do that for one form of remuneration they can do it for pay as well. How would you like it if as part of your pay deal your employer said we have just decided on a 10% cut in pay from the start of the time you worked with us and you now owe us £50,000.... you wouldn't be too impressed would you.

[milquetoast1]

The statutory minimum is basically £380 for every year of service although you can't have more than 20 years.

 

Anything above that is "voluntarily" given by your employer.

 

From my experience:

 

When times are good, and the redundancy is a one off, then the employer is sometimes generous.

 

When times are bad, or the redundancy is one of many, then the employer is rarely generous.

[Funky_Gibbon]

Of course, redundancy payments wouldn't matter if the government weren't planning on making quite so many people unemployed...

[convert]

People that paid in to their pensions up to 1987 can technically take a lump sum payment of up to 6 years of salary if the portion of their pension paid would entitle them to it. Post 1987 Pension contributions are limited to a 3 year cap on the lump sum.

 

The change that the Telegraph is proposing happens, already happened 23 years ago. Unless it wants to break the contract with Civil Servants on the terms of a scheme that people have already paid in to, something I doubt anyone in the private sector would appreciate but all the same something Labour tried to do recently, but were defeated when the case went to the High Court. If the Tories want to illegally change contracts made retrospectively then that sets a dangerous precedent, indeed legally if they can do that for one form of remuneration they can do it for pay as well. How would you like it if as part of your pay deal your employer said we have just decided on a 10% cut in pay from the start of the time you worked with us and you now owe us £50,000.... you wouldn't be too impressed would you.

 

Sorry, but I thought we were talking about redundancy payments; not lump sums from pensions. 2 totally different things. (although you can use company augmentation schemes to pay redundancy payments into pension schemes to 'manage' the taxation).

 

As I understand it, legally an employer only has to comply with the minimum payments as stated by previous posters.

 

Any redundancy payment above that minimum is at the discretion of the employer.

 

Nice attempt at a straw man with the 10% paycut though.

[Wildcat]

Sorry, but I thought we were talking about redundancy payments; not lump sums from pensions. 2 totally different things. (although you can use company augmentation schemes to pay redundancy payments into pension schemes to 'manage' the taxation).

 

As I understand it, legally an employer only has to comply with the minimum payments as stated by previous posters.

 

Any redundancy payment above that minimum is at the discretion of the employer.

 

Nice attempt at a straw man with the 10% paycut though.

 

Legally Civil Servants aren't entitled to redundancy... although they do get statutory minimum Compensation, not as a legal requirement but because it is included in our contracts. Crown liability and all that...

 

You were talking about 6 years lump sums, they come from the pre-1987 Civil Service Compensation Scheme that is a part of the Pension and is calculated through contributions made to it.

 

If you are talking about something else then you aren't making any sense or making an argument that corresponds with reality at all.

 

No straw man it appears to be the consequence of the Tories view as expressed by the Telegraph. They publically said umpteen times during the election they would not mess with accrued rights... even before the Court had declared it illegal. Personally I doubt the Telegraph article is anything more than a part of its campaign to spread lies about the public sector so they can more easily be scapegoated as they go about making them redundant and attacking the poor. The truth in such a context is not of much interest to them, indeed it wouldn't serve their purpose.