The
Government is currently
consulting on what they euphemistically refer to as “reforms” of “public
sector exit payments” – in other words a wholesale attack upon the rights of
public servants facing redundancy.
You can read
the complete
consultation document online – and you should.
What began
as an attempt to reclaim
larger “exit payments” from senior staff made redundant and then
re-employed progressed to an “exit
payment cap” which (again) appeared to be targeted at the better paid (although
it
hits career public servants who are a long way away from being “fat cats”).
Having first
picked the politically low hanging fruit by seemingly bashing senior managers,
the Government have now revealed their true intention – to make it cheaper for
them to sack hundreds of thousands more public servants on top of the many thousands who have lost their
jobs since 2010.
The
Government’s proposals include limits on the calculation of redundancy
payments, which will impact upon some workers in the health service and civil
service – though not so much in local government, where redundancy pay is
already generally less generous.
However,
local government workers in middle age will be particularly impacted by plans
to limit the cost to public sector employers of allowing redundant employees
access to unreduced pension benefits. This arrangement,
which has been a feature of the Local Government Pension Scheme for many years,
softens the blow of redundancy for those whose
age makes it harder to secure alternative employment.
Many
employees have been working, and contributing to pension funds, for decades
with the reasonable expectation that they would have the benefit of this
approach were they to face redundancy. Now it is clear that the Government is
contemplating a range of options any of which will effectively remove the right
to an unreduced pension for local government workers made redundant above the
age of 55.
Redundancy
payments were introduced
in the 1960s – at a time before the statutory right to complain of unfair
dismissal and when Governments were worried by the strength and militancy of
workplace trade unionism, in order to make it easier for employers in declining
industries to dismiss workers without facing conflict.
Over the
years, various different redundancy arrangements have been negotiated in
different industries and sectors (and the Government’s implicit contention that
redundancy arrangements in the public sector are uniquely more generous than a
homogenously more parsimonious private sector is manifestly incorrect).
Now our
enemies see our movement as weak and so, as with our individual statutory
employment rights they are coming to strip away our redundancy and pension
rights (and to hell with their
recent promise that they would not come back at our pension schemes for 25
years).
The
consultation will run for twelve weeks and will close on 3 May 2016. Responses
should be sent by email to: exitpaymentreforms@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk
with the subject heading “Consultation on Exit Payment Reforms”.
We need to
respond this consultation – but we also need to rebuild our movement, the
collective strength of which is and always has been the only real guarantee of
our individual rights.
Mmmm, thanks Jon for highlighting this.
ReplyDeleteSeems they are indeed "coming back for more" from LGPS members, amongst others. Settled for a generation - my a**e!
The current arrangement must surely be a big factor in whether an employer decides to make an over 55 employee reduntant. To remove (or vastly decrease) the cost involved in such a move will probably be seen by many employers as carte blanche to begin a programme of getting rid of their "ageing" workforce.
Next thing you know the government will relax or abolish the rules (I'm not actually sure what these rules are, other than something exists) regarding the time-frame allowed before an employer is allowed to fill "reduntant posts". The replacements could then be fixed-term appointments, or zero hours contracts perhaps, and all at lower rate of pay than the original experienced permanent contract employee.
Am I being fanciful with this supposition? I fear not.
So, I intend to do as you suggest and respond to this consultation. Not sure how I'm going to find the time to do it, but I will endeavour to do so. Probably a pointless exercise as I expect we all have a similar opinion as to what the word consultation in this context really means. Industrial action anyone?