Perhaps to align the Public Sector legislation with Private Sector legislation?
No, the relevant employment law is the same -- in that it does not distinguish between public and private sectors; and the minimum required amounts, periods, etc, are identical everywhere. But at the moment, the Government, as an employer, offers more generous contracts,than much of the private sector. Just as any employer is entitled to chose the T&Cs under which it employs its staff, subject to the restrictions of the employment acts.
The law being referred to is a specific, special purpose, instrument which would allow the Government, as an employer, the freedom to renege on pre-existing employment contracts. A freedom of action that the private sector does not, and cannot, enjoy.
I've not been following closely, but I believe that the reason the government lost previously when they tried to change the terms of civil servants redunancy pay, is because the existing provisions are set out in primary legislation (the Superannuation Act 1972).
I'm not an employment lawyer, but I believe that most employment contracts do provide for the terms of employment to be varied from time to time.
I believe that most employment contracts do provide for the terms of employment to be varied from time to time
Yes, but only following mutual agreement, as with all contracts, and not unilaterally. Of course, the employer has the upper hand, as the oft-implied result of rejection tends to be unemployment (even though it cannot actually be).
Private sector companies in dire financial straits of course have the freedom to resort to insolvency and consequently pay very little at all leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab, an option the public sector rather lacks...
Also doesn't mean that those taking the decision to resort to insolvency wind up in the same boat as the staff having to fight for the minimum they are legally entitled to. This is probably not how it is supposed to work, of course.
No, at least it wasn't how it worked at the company that I worked for which went bust. There was a holding company and a service company and other companies. Assets got transferred between companies, debts got transferred between companies. One company ended up with almost all the debt, the other companies ended up with most of the assets and that one was wound up. Its directors got shafted by the directors of the holding company who didn't reveal all the facts prior to the events. I can't now remember all the details, but it was quite dodgy.
It sort of has a happy ending as some of the shafted directors managed to shaft the dodgiest of the shafting directors, who ended up with an insolvant company in Jersey which he couldn't actually make insolvant without revealing his dodgy dealings; they managed to get out with their sense of revenge satisfied.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
No, the relevant employment law is the same -- in that it does not distinguish between public and private sectors; and the minimum required amounts, periods, etc, are identical everywhere. But at the moment, the Government, as an employer, offers more generous contracts,than much of the private sector. Just as any employer is entitled to chose the T&Cs under which it employs its staff, subject to the restrictions of the employment acts.
The law being referred to is a specific, special purpose, instrument which would allow the Government, as an employer, the freedom to renege on pre-existing employment contracts. A freedom of action that the private sector does not, and cannot, enjoy.
(no subject)
I'm not an employment lawyer, but I believe that most employment contracts do provide for the terms of employment to be varied from time to time.
(no subject)
Yes, but only following mutual agreement, as with all contracts, and not unilaterally. Of course, the employer has the upper hand, as the oft-implied result of rejection tends to be unemployment (even though it cannot actually be).
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
It sort of has a happy ending as some of the shafted directors managed to shaft the dodgiest of the shafting directors, who ended up with an insolvant company in Jersey which he couldn't actually make insolvant without revealing his dodgy dealings; they managed to get out with their sense of revenge satisfied.