I for one am gonna have a party tonight to celebrate the death of the National Treatment Agency. I accidently worked there for vast amounts of cash for about 8 months before the Tory in me kicked in and I walked out. When after a few weeks, I was telling my mates i’d sack myself, I should have realized the game was up. Utterly pointless bureauocracy which interferred with what should have been done by Drug Action Teams, Drug Intervention Programmes, Drug Treatment Agencies (usually charities or nicely funded local orgs – generally, very compassionate & incredibly motivated folks) and Joint Commissioning Groups. The NTA was just a complete irrelevance. Yippee and perhaps even a sotto voce – Hurrah!

Back on topic – Civil Servants do seem to have a very good redundancy package compared to anyone else.

There is another thing to consider: who would take a civil; service job in the future? Well, it does not matter because “shrinking the state” and that godawful phrase “Big Society” mean that the civil service will shrink to almost non-existence by the end of this despicable government.

Not that the government will save money, of course, that is not the object. The object is to get more of our money – tax payers money – into the private sector service companies. This is what Lansley’s plans are about – getting our money into the hands of private sector health providers. In both cases the private sector is more expensive so services will have to be cut, or we – the tax payer – will have to contribute more through co-pay.

Ah yes , Tony Hayward.

What is it the tory trolls are always telling us.. …….”You have to pay the big wages to get the best people………..There is only a small pool of great people out there that can do these jobs…….If you pay peanuts you get incompetent fools.”

Mr Hayward joins the bankers and other private sector failures who fall upwards.

I’m a Civil Servant.

The only thing I’m angry about is the lack of a Referendum on the EU.

@1 Yes Civil Servants do get good redundancy packages, but the idea of bringing them down to ‘Private Sector’ levels goes against the grain.

Here’s a radical idea, instead of bring terms and conditions ‘down’ to private sector levels, why doesn’t the government enforce big companies to take terms and conditions ‘up’ to public sector levels. Bosses have been allowed to skim their companies pension funds etc off for reinvestment and all manner of nefarious reasons. I haven’t seen any company directors walking away from a failing company for free recently. Tony Haywood is one of many, Fred the Shred seems to come to mind and what a roaring success he made of RBS!

@4 You obviously assume that your job is safe (an uwise assumption at the moment), but if you are in a safe seat then just wait for when they go for your pension.

Thanks for all your comments

@2 & 3. You are quite right, this Big Society nonsense is going to set this country back generations if they actually manage to convince people it’s a good idea.

“I’m a Civil Servant”

Yes of course you are.

The only gold-plated pension scheme is the one MPs, ministers and prime ministers get.

Any chance of some savings there? Means testing?

I didn’t think so.

“the High Court said the government was wrong to try and change them arbitrarily.”

No, he said that it was unlawful, often closely related by not not the same thing.

In any case, given that the Superannuation Act 1972 makes it vastly expensive to shrink the state, (something that the country as a whole seems to be up for at the moment despite how unpopular it is here), it cannot be a great shock that the government want to get rid of it. Or are we abandoning that whole Supremacy of Parliament thing because things happen not to going the way you want right now?

As for “setting a rather nasty legal precedent” you might want to take a look at the War Damages Act 1965 and Burmah Oil Co. v. Lord Advocate. The Act you’ll notice was passed under Wilson’s government. “No my boy, I ripped that up yesterday”, comes right round and bites you on the behind doesn’t it?

Many civil service staff are on fixed term contracts and are contracted to work any time between 8am and 8pm, plus Saturdays. Once the government has established longer opening hours through FTA staff you can bet they’ll ‘renegotiate’ the contracts of permanent staff as well.

And yes, it’s the Coalition who are pushing these changes through but Labour started the ball rolling: don’t expect any help from those people either.

The attacks are not on the ranks of civil servants at the front line (in particular not on those who are low paid, on short contracts, and whose activities are entirely determined by their job specs and training). As with any organisation, it is the people in the upper layers who fail their clients, and the eventual consequence is either reform from within or change imposed from outside. Since market disciplines don’t rule for the civil service, and significant chunks of Whitehall that have not kept up with the times have not reformed from within, it behoves the elected government’s executive to act – which is what is happening now. Unfortunately, when presentation of evidence and reasoned argument fail, the levers available appear to be only financial and legislative, both rather blunt instruments – but we really ought to be shown how reasoned argument and evidence have fared before the blunt instrument is used. (I’m hearing that, on one matter of civil service performance, reasoned argument has been rebuffed, and of course there has been much evidence from many directions, including privately from frustrated civil servants.)

@10 Falco. Dealing with your paragraphs one at a time.

1. Whatever. Either way it was deemed illegal.

2. Shrinking the state is something that Tory hawks seem to relish at the moment, not the entire country. And as for regard to parliamentary supremacy; I have no issue it, but only if it’s used properly, cutting the public sector to ribbons with an axe isn’t.

3. We can quote ‘previous’ unfair legislation until the cows come home, what about Clause 6 of the 1980 Social Security Act, at least this one’s topical. My argument is, it’s not right and when will it stop?

Re: 10

This doesn’t make sense, are you saying that it’s some kind of karmic justice for the Civil Service to get punished by the Government for the Government’s unjust treatment of Burma Oil?

I wish verbal reasoning would bite you on the behind.

@11 Shatterface

Yes if they are back tracking on accrued rights, they’ll be nothing to stop them. And you are quite right Labour did start the ball rolling but to be fair it was not as bad as this.

Is there any chance of lightening up on the “shrinking the state” hysteria?

“If only…” one – I – might say!!

Total Managed Expenditure is forecast to fall to 40% of GDP by FY2015-16.
That is pretty much the 90′s and 00′s average excluding the crisis related jump from 41 to 48%. (It was below 40% from 1997-2004.)

See slide 17 of this IFS presentation:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/budgetjune2010/tetlow.pdf

NB that will leave us even then with a deficit of 1-2% of GDP.

Only if there’s any chance of lightening up on the “slashing the deficit” hysteria. Which there ain’t.

Well the reason for that is, erm, it’s 12% of GDP!

@13

1. It is an important distinction and it was one that you get wrong.

2. There is certainly more appetite for a shrinking state in the country than you will tend to find on these pages, hardly a shock given that this is a left leaning / wing place.

3. “We can quote ‘previous’ unfair legislation until the cows come home, what about Clause 6 of the 1980 Social Security Act, at least this one’s topical. My argument is, it’s not right and when will it stop?”

Have a look at the Burmah Oil Co. case, it was the first use of retrospective legislation in this manner. That’s what was important, not just it being legislation I happen to dislike. (Hope this is helpful to 14 as well).

@19

2. Yes indeed it is, but that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. I’m sure at planet Daily Mail they’re advocating an equally unbiased view! And besides the difference between whether the cuts should happen and the scale and speed is the real issue. Most agree with the former however, I also think the latter needs to be considered.

3. You are quite right it was unfair but that doesn’t make changing the Superannuation Act right either. Make no mistake my article at the top would read exactly the same if this was a Labour government doing this. These cuts are going to affect ordinary peoples lives and I think that when reality kicks in (which it will in a year or so) people might feel differently.

State of Red

The public sector has been shat on from a great height. Not only that, but a retrospective change in contracts in this fashion is nothing short of an outrage. An outrage condoned and conducted by Labour, a party that should be opposed to this and was started to fight this very abuse. To see them actualy start this process is sickening. The Tory vermin were always against workers rights so no suprise there.

One thing people should take away from this is theat you should always be carefull of what rights you allow others to lose. When they come for your rights, no-one will care.

Labour stood by as millions of workers lost their rights to the capitalists and said nothing and actually supported it in many cases. Now they have dwindled the core support down the line as a couple of Madame Tussords dummies fight out the leadership.

The public sector are now seen as ‘public enemy’ number one.’. I am really sorry about that, I know what it is like when everyone turns a blind eye to contract law, in order to get the end result they want. I know what it feels like to stand alone while people look the other way, but remember this, you are not alone, millions of us feel the same way, if only somebody stood up for us when they where in power.

Re: 18

That’s stupid though, a higher GDP means the deficit % of GDP is lower. Cameron could just sit on his arse for five years, cut nothing, and that number would still fall dramatically.

It’s literally the least useful measurement there is to base policy.

Yes it would fall.
To around 5% of GDP in 2015-16 according to the IFS “no action” scenario.
Still a very large %age.

You do know that *at some point* we will have to run a surplus, unless you believe that debt can simply be piled upon debt forever?

The timing and the balance between tax and spend are of course both up for debate. But the current state of affairs is unsustainable.

Not only that, but a retrospective change in contracts in this fashion is nothing short of an outrage.

Changes in contracts of employment happen all the time. Usually by consent, but if necessary the employer can push them through unilaterally. Just because you’ve always had a particular perk doesn’t mean that you have an inalienable right to continue to have it for all time.

The private sector caused this gigantic screw up, with the banks the biggest crooks. But of course the moronic brownshirt trolls blame the public sector. They hate the public sector so they cheer on the destruction.

There has always been a view in the public sector that the pay is not that great, that there are few perks. (no cars or commission or other such things) But you have a decent pension. But the greedy private sector have pissed their tax free pensions away by investing in useless private companies that have destroyed share holder value by employing morons to do business that they don’t understand or care since they are paid such huge salaries. This has made the private sector bitter and they want to take out the vengeance on the public sector. And the Right wing is never happier than when it is inflicting pain on someone less fortunate than themselves.

We estimate that £5.5 billion could be saved by 2015-16 if the public sector matched the private sector’s absence rate.

I’ve never understood why public sector employees are sicker than those in the private sector. It just doesn’t make sense unless it’s drinking the fair trade coffee.

Also,why are women absent more than men when everybody knows they are equal as employees?

They can’t be.

http://www.managementinpractice.com/default.asp?title=Publicsectorstillaboveprivatesick-dayrates&page=article.display&article.id=21748

Tim J @ 24

Changes in contracts of employment happen all the time. Usually by consent, but if necessary the employer can push them through unilaterally.

But not retrospectively though. No-one else would have a contracted changed in this manner, would they? I mean, we would not sign a contract paying a private contractor one price and five years later unilaterally change the contract and then backdate the ‘new’ price accordingly, all after changing the law?

Nor was this a ‘perk’, this is part of their contracted terms and conditions.

To be fair though, I do not blame the Tories for this, their instinct is to be devious scum and embezzlement is in their nature. My wrath is with the Labour Party who are meant to be honourable people. They were supposed to be the Party who believe in contracts. Funny how all other contracts, including the ones that left bankers with huge bonuses, yet these contracts, signed by working people can be ripped up on a whim.

@24 Well I think on that basis I think I’ll amend my contract to have 80 days annual leave a year and I fancy working 10 hours a week on a full time contract, ta. Oh and as I’m going to back date it for the 14 years I’ve worked previously that means I’m owed, off the top of my head, oooh say, 4 years off on full pay.

Not having a pop at you just making a point about retrospectively changing contracts, it’s always one way.

@26 Ah yes research conducted by those defenders of workers all over the world the CBI! I rate their word as highly as the Taxpayers Alliance.

On what basis is the comparison made. Are public sector workers in high pressure environments (say Criminal Investigators working 12+ hour shifts) being compared with bankers sat at their desks all day? Once again not all Civil Servants are sat behind desks in Whitehall drinking coffee and attending meetings all day.

@29

The figures are not provided by the CBI but are from the Office of National Statistics.

They are based on overall statistics from each sector.

Please explain them.

26. pagar

‘ We estimate that £5.5 billion could be saved by 2015-16 if the public sector matched the private sector’s absence rate.

I’ve never understood why public sector employees are sicker than those in the private sector. It just doesn’t make sense unless it’s drinking the fair trade coffee.

The 5.5 billion figure seems to be something the CBI plucked out of the air based on the ONS numbers.

It can’t just be assumed that a days absence in the public sector leads to a monetary loss as they imply. For example, there is only a monetary loss if the public sector incurs more monetary costs to deal with the absence. If the library where one of the librarians is off sick that day just operates with one less worker there is no monetary loss. All that happens is the public sector is paying for someone being at home rather than working, there is no loss unless they pay for a replacement. The same situation will apply throughout the public sector no matter the job.

If a police officer is off sick and he is not replaced but the force is just depleted. Where is the monetary loss? You could say his absence means less crime is prevented that day because they are depleted so the community loses. However, that is not what they are saying in the 5.5 billion figure. They are just aggregating all the wages paid in absences.

Take a council office worker who tends to complete a fixed amount of work each week. If they are absent on the Monday but they still completed the same fixed amount of work by the Friday. Is there any loss? In that circumstance it is like the bollocks we heard during the snow in January that the economy would suffer a loss of output. All that happened was output was postponed to the future leading to increased output Q2.

The thing is the ONS numbers can’t capture these sort of things so the CBI placing a monetary value is just bogus.

Another important thing to remember is the absence figures in the public sector will be accurate because they have to record them. The figures for the private sector only covers select large firms. The ONS will have no way of accurately knowing the figures for the private sector so they are just guesstimates. For example, how can you estimate the costs of absences from the large self employed sector. If someone self employed decides one week to work only four days instead of five. There is a cost to GDP unless they make up the output. However, it would not be recorded anywhere as a private sector absence.

None of this means I am a public sector apologist as I have never worked in the public sector. However, I know the public sector absences will be an accurate reflection of public sector absence. But the private sector numbers will not be accurate. For all I know the true number could be lower. Moreover, applying a crude balance sheet cost is utterly meaningless and bogus.

@30 I think Richard W puts it absolutely perfectly. It’s nigh on impossible to compare although I did allude to this in my previous post but you chose to ignore it. Hope that explains it for you.

Richard W @ 31

All that happens is the public sector is paying for someone being at home rather than working, there is no loss unless they pay for a replacement. The same situation will apply throughout the public sector no matter the job.

In the NHS and schools it causes the extensive use of agency nurses and supply teachers.

Well I think on that basis I think I’ll amend my contract to have 80 days annual leave a year and I fancy working 10 hours a week on a full time contract, ta. Oh and as I’m going to back date it for the 14 years I’ve worked previously that means I’m owed, off the top of my head, oooh say, 4 years off on full pay.

If you’re your own employer then go ahead. We’ve had this argument on LibCon before. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/03/08/pcs-workers-start-two-day-strike-against-cuts/

Given that the first sign of madness is quoting yourself…

If the employer informs the employee about the prospective change, but is unable, after negotiation, to agree an amendment, the employer is perfectly within his rights to terminate the existing contract and offer the employee a new one on the amended terms. The employee can then decide whether he wants to take it up or not. That’s employment law, that is.

The SA ’72 is a classic piece of pre-Thatcher labour legislation, in that it requires the active consent of the Trade Unions before amendments are made to pay and conditions. It is an anachronism in the modern workplace, and it’s entirely reasonable to amend it. No other class of job has such protection.

Perhaps the remuneration packages and the sickness leave of civil servants could be published, without revealing names, in order to show that they are not over paid.

@34 You mean you don’t have that sort of protection ergo no-one else should.

You mean you don’t have that sort of protection ergo no-one else should

More or less. I don’t believe that civil servants should have a uniquely protected status. Nor does the Government. Belatedly, they’re going to move to bring the civil service into line with the rest of the country.

@Richard W

If the library where one of the librarians is off sick that day just operates with one less worker there is no monetary loss. All that happens is the public sector is paying for someone being at home rather than working, there is no loss unless they pay for a replacement. The same situation will apply throughout the public sector no matter the job.

Great to hear that the public sector has such over manning that they can afford to have a higher level of absence through sickness.

Because it looks as if they are going to have to function with many fewer staff in the future……

@37 At least you’re being honest I suppose. How about trying this one; instead of taking away public sector rights in keeping with ‘best practice’ in the private sector, we bring the rest of the country in line the public sector? Surely that would be fairer for everyone. That is of course unless we’re all going to get Fred Goodwin or Tony Hayward style pay offs (best practice remember) in which case slash away.

@38 Bait away, we aren’t going to bite. Head back to Tory central office and try again.

@37 At least you’re being honest I suppose. How about trying this one; instead of taking away public sector rights in keeping with ‘best practice’ in the private sector, we bring the rest of the country in line the public sector? Surely that would be fairer for everyone. That is of course unless we’re all going to get Fred Goodwin or Tony Hayward style pay offs (best practice remember) in which case slash away.

As an employee (and one who has experienced redundancy, at the statutory minimum) that sounds wonderful. As a would-be employer it sounds ridiculous.

The BBC has compared the statutory minimum (SM), the current civil service compulsory redundancy (CSCR), and the Coalition’s offer at June 2010:

45 year old employee @ 15 years continuous service (using average salary £22,850)

SM £6,460
CSCR £66,265
offer £22,850

I think the latest offer is 15 months full pay. That’s not a bad deal!

That is of course unless we’re all going to get Fred Goodwin or Tony Hayward style pay offs (best practice remember) in which case slash away.

They weren’t made redundant…

And it’s tax free IIUC?

At least you’re being honest I suppose. How about trying this one; instead of taking away public sector rights in keeping with ‘best practice’ in the private sector, we bring the rest of the country in line the public sector? Surely that would be fairer for everyone.

Because the sort of gold-plated employment packages enjoyed by the civil service are no longer possible in the private sector. They’re too expensive. The Government (and this is entirely bi-partisan) has found that they are, really, no more affordable for the public sector and so is taking steps to bring the public sector into the modern era of employment. If you’re advocating a return to 1950s style employment – job for life, generous final-salary pension, and the rest of it – then you’ve missed the memo. The world has changed. That’s tough on lots of us, but that’s where we are.

I understand that it hurts to lose privileges that you’ve always had, but I’m afraid that even the public sector can only shut out reality for so long.

oh, the 12 months and 15 months are compulsory and voluntary offers respectively. my apologies.

@ Tim J

If you’re advocating a return to 1950s style employment – job for life, generous final-salary pension, and the rest of it – then you’ve missed the memo. The world has changed. That’s tough on lots of us, but that’s where we are.

The point you are missing is that the public sector employment benefits are not paid in real money. They are paid in magic money. If magic money looks like running out you just print some more and the problem is solved.

What State of Red was asking is why the private sector employment benefits can’t be paid in magic money too?

The only logical conclusion is that the private sector don’t believe in the magic and, of course, like all magic, if you don’t believe in it it doesn’t work.

Spoilsports.

@ ukliberty I appreciate that in comparison with private sector redundancy it is generous but that’s not the point I’m making. My point is it fair to simply change Civil Service contracts because they simply want to sack a whole load of us. I’d say no it’s not, if you want rid of then fine cut away but don’t changed the rules because you want to do it on the cheap.

And yes I agree my first point is a pipedream that would never happen, but it would be fairer.

@ Tim J We can go round and round the houses on this one and never agree with each other. But please don’t call our terms and conditions gold plated. They are certainly more generous than most other schemes out there but my redundancy on the ‘current’ deal would be somewhere in the region of £30,000. That would allow me plenty of time to find a new job and live but I’m not exactly going to buy a tropical island with it either. Using ‘best practice’ from the private sector I’d get about £4000 that would probably allow me to pay the bills (including a mortgage) and eat for about 3 months. I don’t see the former as gold plated I’m afraid. There’s a myth that we’d all walk out with hundreds of thousands of pounds, on the proposed scheme it would probably be about £9000.

PS. That £30,000 figure is after almost 15 years of employment.

& 44 Yes yes thank you for your wise words…

…but I still aint biting, back in the box you go.

my redundancy on the ‘current’ deal would be somewhere in the region of £30,000.

Thirty thousand magic pounds coming up for State of Red and all his mates then.

ABRACADABRA

See? That wasn’t so hard, was it?

@47 Yawn. Oh and still I aint biting, never mind eh.

You do know that *at some point* we will have to run a surplus, unless you believe that debt can simply be piled upon debt forever?

And the reward for “absolutely wrong idiot” is won. At some point we’ll have to ensure that *the annual deficit is smaller than nominal economic growth in the same year*. That still leaves room for deficits of 5%ish of GDP, based on trend growth and inflation rates.

Because the sort of gold-plated employment packages enjoyed by the civil service are no longer possible in the private sector. They’re too expensive

Erm, you know UK income per head now is more than double what it was in the 1970s, right? It’s obviously bollocks to say we ‘can’t afford’ things that we could afford then – rather, companies no longer wish to offer them, and the government no longer wishes to compel companies to offer them.

In terms of my personal worklife, I’m happy with that: the concept of a job for life strikes me as utterly horrifying. At the semiskilled end of the workforce, I suspect returning to postwar employment laws and policies would be rather popular…

Of course Civil Servants have a good redundancy package. They deserve it. Any of you who don’t work in the government would probably not undetrstand the mental torture that is the bureaucracy we have to work in. But hey, it has been relatively secure and that’s the benefit.

Don’t make a decision, show no initiative, cover your backside, use lots of jargon and keep your job description quiet – these are the 5 paradigms of the government worker, but only becasue it saves you from going insane. I wrote a book about this, and it was great therapy…but I’m still here wondering about where it will lead me.

George Fripley

Of course you would expect that with a trend nominal growth rate of 5% gilt yields should also normalise (as short rates normalise) and revert to around 5%, so the current debt/GDP ratio (or rather the 95% ratio – think that’s the IMF forecast – which we will reach over the next 4/5 years) will prove rather more – quite a lot more – burdensome than it is now.

Erm, you know UK income per head now is more than double what it was in the 1970s, right? It’s obviously bollocks to say we ‘can’t afford’ things that we could afford then – rather, companies no longer wish to offer them, and the government no longer wishes to compel companies to offer them.

Oh really? How much to conquer India? We could afford *that* 300 years ago, must be a doddle now. Life expectancy, in particular, has shot up in the last 40 years, and it’s largely that which drives pension costs. Accrued pensions rights from back then has virtually destroyed the American auto industry.