gerald_duck: (frontal)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] gerald_duck at 04:19pm on 07/07/2010
At a guess (IANAL), they don't have to change the law in order to vary the terms of employment of civil servants. The employment contract itself will describe how the employment contract can be changed, subject to being able to demonstrate reasonableness in an employment tribunal.

It could be (depending on the contract, which, of course, I've not seen) that the government can vary that deal and the employee's only alternative to accepting the change is redundancy with statutory redundancy pay.

The redundancy arrangements for civil servants are far in excess of statutory redundancy pay, which is one week's salary (capped at £380) for each full year of service (capped at 20 years). That's all I got when I was made redundant in late 2008, so my sympathy with civil servants is limited. (-8
[parent entry] [link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] yrieithydd.livejournal.com at 05:14pm on 07/07/2010
And £380 per week is not much.

I'm get the statutory with 100% enhancement for going voluntarily.

Civil servants might be lucky devils -- but that doesn't make it right to imposes changes retroactively.
[link] [parent] [reply]
gerald_duck: (mallard)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] gerald_duck at 05:18pm on 07/07/2010
It's not retroactive, though: retroactive would be going to people who've already been made redundant and asking for the money back.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] wildeabandon.livejournal.com at 06:05pm on 07/07/2010
I'm not convinced. If one enters into a contract for some work, agreeing to pay a certain amount on completion, and then when the work was substantially done, tried to enforce a change to a lower price, I think we'd all agree that was an attempt to retroactively change the contract.

I'm not sure how changing the rules on redundancy payouts shortly before making lots of people redundant is very different.

(On the other hand, I also have limited sympathy with the idea that capping the payout at a year's salary is a terrible hardship. I'm concerned that there may be other changes other than the headline one which means significantly reduced payments for people who would be getting relatively small ones in any case. Haven't done the research though.)
[link] [parent] [reply]
gerald_duck: (dcuk)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] gerald_duck at 06:25pm on 07/07/2010
Nobody's suggesting not paying civil servants for the work they've done, though, only giving them less compensation for not giving them any more work to do.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] wildeabandon.livejournal.com at 10:40am on 08/07/2010
Okay, fine, a contract which paid on delivery of stages, and had a penalty fee for cancelling part way through. Trying to cancel after the first stage without paying the penalty fee would still be a retroactive change of contract.
[link] [parent] [reply]
gerald_duck: (mallard)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] gerald_duck at 11:29am on 08/07/2010
OK, an employment contract could be set up that way and/or perceived that way. But that's expecting quite a lot more than the basic you-do-the-work-and-we-pay-you stuff every contract contains.

I've never had an employment contract that gave me those kinds of rights, so I certainly wouldn't take it for granted that civil servants got them.
[link] [parent] [reply]

July

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    1
 
 2
 
 3
1
 4
 
 5
 
6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31