Frances Maude, the Cabinet Office minister (pictured) , is responsible for drawing up plans to reduce the 'generosity' of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. All well and good I thought as I read this article in the Telegraph, because in recent years some of the golden handshakes have been excessive to say the least.
Those on a salary of £21,000 or less and forced into redundancy will be protected to a degree and receive a guaranteed minimum payment. That's fair because it's usually the lower paid who come off far worse in redundancy situations.
Then I read this:
Some ministries have “pools” of several hundred workers who do not have allocated jobs but who are not sacked because of the cost.
This is the result of 13 years of Labour - hundreds of people 'employed' by the state to do nothing. I can't find any accurate statistics but I doubt of all these civil servants are in the lower-paid bracket if it's cheaper to keep them as a state employee rather than sack them.
My only concern with Mr Maude's remit is that the majority of his cuts don't target the lower paid and compulsory redundancies will be fair across the board. In the next couple of months I can visualise many working within government departments suddenly finding themselves at risk. If I can help him a little, dare I suggest he start with a few quangos. John Redwood has more information about the coalition policy here where he states that 300,000 leave the public service every year and the reductions could be achieved without compulsory redundancies.
Would it be too much to ask Mr Maude, once he's completed the CSCS work, to do the same for councils? This has to be stopped.
Posts
12 comments:
There could be a surprising simple way of cutting a lot out. Start checking all the expenses rigorously, especially those in the recent past. I suspect very many will turn out to be fictional or very imaginative.
There has to be huge redundancies in the Civil Service. I'd say massive redundancies, and the pension scheme has to sorted.
Oh people will scream, but a guaranteed pension fell flat on its face for people all over the country in the private sector with, in some cases only a few weeks’ notice.
So government employees must expect the same sort of thing to happen to them.
Keeping a pool of employees because it is too expensive to get rid of them seems like a weird way of doing. I bet it's people at the top though SR. You can always get rid of little people, but the knights of the Civil Service will take some shifting, and I've no doubt expect a seat in the House of Cobwebs for their troubles.
I haven’t read much about what old Maudie’s doing (I thought he was dead), but it does worry me that the government is trying to go against a court ruling, even if I agree with what they are trying to do. Labour tried to do this (rightly in my opinion) but the courts said it was illegal. It worries me when the government thinks it’s above the law.
Now there's a good angle Demetrius. Mind you, the MoD are very diligent at checking the expenses of the military. Maybe other departments aren't so careful.
My pension fell flat on its face Tris, because Gordon Brown stole a large lump of it.
I thought the article said the government were first going to change the law so therefore they wouldn't be doing anything illegal. In fact if I remember, on radio this morning it was reported Maude and his minions are in talks with the unions today.
"Some ministries have “pools” of several hundred workers who do not have allocated jobs but who are not sacked because of the cost". The issue here SR is called "cashing the cheque". We had this problem in my ex well known telecomms company. No mandatory redundancy policy (thank god) and it means that people have to be managed out of the system
(encouraged to leave). Exactly the same is going in in the CS. The country couldn't afford the redundancy as I believe like most things the govt runs, it runs it with today's cash and not with gradually accumulated wealth. Consequently, there's no money for mass redundancy payments. It'll need to be managed out and remember the well known TC took the better part of twenty years to manage down from a quarter of a million people to circa 100,000 now ( and it very nearly knackered the pension pot doing it).
So "pools" and "gardening leave clubs", redeployment groups etc will be something we'll have to get used to re the CS
Unless of course we adopt the Norman Tebbitt approach - 12 weeks redundancy money regardless of service and out.......
and then the revolution started and bankers got lynched in the street
"hundreds of people 'employed' by the state to do nothing."
And? What would you prefer? That they were sacked and the State had to pay for their housing costs, council tax and other benefits? How is that 'better', in your view?
Why do some people insist on viewing other humans as little more than economic units to be judged solely by their financial debits and credits? *shudder*
"So government employees must expect the same sort of thing to happen to them."
Or else what? You're going to shoot them? Forcibly empty their bank accounts?
What a spiteful individual! Does the world really need such people? Will our society cease to function if such envy, hatred and contempt for your fellow humans ceased to exist? I honestly don't think it would.
"My pension fell flat on its face .... because Gordon Brown stole a large lump of it."
At least Bob Maxwell had the decency to 'fall overboard from his luxury yacht' when he was caught stealing worker's pensions.
Which ties in nicely with your post yesterday about how some 'swimmers' are too optimistic, then drown!
William:
The ones who are sitting around doing nothing are reasonably senior.
Little people are easy to get rid of(and I know because I've been made redundant by the Civil Service).
So, do you think that just because they are reasonably senior, possibly heading for knighthoods, they should be treated better than the little people?
What about the millions who have been punted from the private sector?
Why should senior government employees be different?
Are you quite serious?
You know Subrosa, I know you and I disagree quite fundementally about things, but please if I ever do it as impolitely as Willie there, I hope you will tell me what a rude little oink I am.
Ah right, as I said, I only briefly heard the news this morning about the government wanting to carry on where Brown had left off.
So, old Maude is still alive. I seem to remember his name from my childhood and I wondered why a man was called Maude and Francis (Frances). Deary me, he must be ancient by now.
But, as we know Dram, Britain has existed on 'today's' cash for generations.
Isn't it sad that they haven't even saved a bit of the oil money for a rainy day.
Dearie me William, feeling better now?
It would possibly be cheaper to keep them on benefits than pay the larger salaries many will be receiving.
I'd rather see my taxes go to the people who are unable to work.
Ah Joe, quick thinking there!
Tris, you'd never be a rude little oink. William is entitled to his opinion and he obviously feels strongly that taxpayers should support those non-job civil servants. He could be one himself for all I know.
Post a Comment