Berberis Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 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? When I was made redundant I received 6 weeks of statutory redundancy pay. 6 years pay is utterly ridiculous and ANYONE who argues in favour of it is a money grabbing ****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 When I was made redundant I received 6 weeks of statutory redundancy pay. 6 years pay is utterly ridiculous and ANYONE who argues in favour of it is a money grabbing ****! You are comparing pension lumps sums with statutory redundancy pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I was recently talking to a guy who works for a local authority not too many miles from Sheffield. His department needed to make quite a few redundant, and asked for volunteers. He's almost 60, works on a manual job and has a lot of years under his belt. He, and the other older ones who applied were denied. He (and another of his colleagues) said the first guy out the door with a redundancy cheque was a (younger) union rep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsalleh Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I was recently talking to a guy who works for a local authority not too many miles from Sheffield. His department needed to make quite a few redundant, and asked for volunteers. He's almost 60, works on a manual job and has a lot of years under his belt. He, and the other older ones who applied were denied. He (and another of his colleagues) said the first guy out the door with a redundancy cheque was a (younger) union rep. Cost too much to make him redundant,let him see his time out and give him a packet of biscuits or summat as a leaving present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Cost too much to make him redundant,let him see his time out and give him a packet of biscuits or summat as a leaving present. Well exactly. Just pointing out that not everyone in public service gets large redundancy payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Hypocrisy much? Feeling a little bit of envy there serapis? (from another thread) So if someone else gets more than you, they are money grabbing ****, if you get more than someone else then them complaining about it is a war against people with a few more pennies, class envy and reverse snobbery. Haha, how you ever became a mod I don’t know. You're failure to comprehend the difference between your class envy and people in the public sector taking 6 years redundancy pay is tragic to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Haha, how you ever became a mod I don’t know. You're failure to comprehend the difference between your class envy and people in the public sector taking 6 years redundancy pay is tragic to say the least. People in the public sector don't get 6 years redundancy pay. Technically the Compensation scheme prior to 1987 allowed for six years as a lump sum pension payment, but since that scheme ended in 1987, there won't be anyone with more than 17 years contributions to it. Practically the max anyone could take would be around 3 years. Something they have paid for through their contributions. The only tragic failure of comprehension is your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Of course, redundancy payments wouldn't matter if the government weren't planning on making quite so many people unemployed... OK, so massive tax rises it is then. (Well the money to pay their salaries has to come from somewhere. Unless you think we can just keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing .... etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 People in the public sector don't get 6 years redundancy pay. Technically the Compensation scheme prior to 1987 allowed for six years as a lump sum pension payment, but since that scheme ended in 1987, there won't be anyone with more than 17 years contributions to it. Practically the max anyone could take would be around 3 years. Something they have paid for through their contributions. The only tragic failure of comprehension is your own. Partially, something in the region of 33%, while the rest was paid by the tax payer. Even if it is just 3 years, as you suggest, that’s a heck of a lot more generous then one weeks pay per year of service currently given by the workers in the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 OK, so massive tax rises it is then. (Well the money to pay their salaries has to come from somewhere. Unless you think we can just keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing .... etc.) Paying a large number of them redundancy however will cost more in the short term. Precisely the wrong thing to do when we have a short term blip in finances caused by bailing the banks out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.