Public sector redundancy

I'm no expert in this sort of thing but.... I'd imagine if there are to be any guaranteed redundancies they would be delighted for people to offer themselves up. Rather that than make the horrible decisions of who to get rid of.

In my previous public sector role they asked for people to apply for voluntary redundancies. You submitted your note of interest - and then they decided who was too indispensable to let go. Which unfortunately included me, so I left anyway, without the bonus paycheque. I don't know that helps as it sounds like your work isn't at that stage yet - though maybe they'll get there?

Thanks. I think that as it's based on an office relocation then they're hoping many will suck it up and use WFH more than travel two hours to a new office. It's all pretty crap as the other roles on offer aren't really a match but knowing my luck id be forced into one and miss out altogether. It'd be six months of dodging the draft.

There are rules about what suitable redeployment looks like and what is acceptable so it's worth reading up. ACAS is a good place to start but the information is freely available.

Are you in a Union? If not, it might be a good idea as they can usually point you in the right direction, especially in the Public Services.

Why is it more than a years salary? Surely the public sector is only paying the minimum required using our money? The maximum statutory pay out is £17130

They're likely to do their best to redeploy rather than make redundancies, redundancy pay isn't cheap and filling vacancies isn't easy at the moment so retaining good staff will be a priority.

Why is it more than a years salary? Surely the public sector is only paying the minimum required using our money? The maximum statutory pay out is £17130

When I worked in the Env Agency they paid more than a year. They pay more when they need to reduce numbers quickly and efficiently without a kerfuffle. That may be the best use of cash to avoid paying people through months of change programme, redeployment pools and suchlike.

Most public sector employers have reasonable terms and conditions, there's no obligation to offer no more than statutory requirements. They aren't all on minimum wage either.

Why is it more than a years salary? Surely the public sector is only paying the minimum required using our money? The maximum statutory pay out is £17130

Do you ask the same question if a private business you use cuts staff?

Why is it more than a years salary? Surely the public sector is only paying the minimum required using our money? The maximum statutory pay out is £17130

So you want to tear up employee contracts?

They’re likely to do their best to redeploy rather than make redundancies, redundancy pay isn’t cheap and filling vacancies isn’t easy at the moment so retaining good staff will be a priority.

Aren't the government looking to shed 20% of civil service jobs, mysteriously concurrent with an attempt to reduce redundancy payouts? I'm sure I've heard JRM braying about something like that recently.

Do you ask the same question if a private business you use cuts staff?

Of course. If a business has staff that are no longer needed why should it pay more than needed to get rid of them? If a business is in trouble or tight on money (as the public sector is) why waste it on unnecessarily inflated pay outs?

So you want to tear up employee contracts?

Obviously not but I'd question if/why public sector contracts have *redundancy* clauses in them that are above statutory levels. What's good enough for those made redundant by an insolvent company ie. paid by the tax payer should be good enough for public sector employees.

Ah the race to the bottom. Let's be more French.

Obviously not but I’d question if/why public sector contracts have *redundancy* clauses in them that are above statutory levels.

So you want only the shitiest workers who only work for employers with the shitiest contracts looking after your health, teaching your kids or putting out fires at your house?
OR maybe CEOs of privately owned companies are also banned from getting big pay offs when they are terminated?

I have no particular axe to grind here, but I don't see why people who happen to work in public sector jobs should be treated worse than private sector.
So if it's good enough for the private sector, it should be good enough for the public sector

My previous place did a restructuring and offered VR. It's easier and sometimes cheaper to pay off the people who want to leave rather than go through days of negotiations about who is working from where, how often you're expected to be in the office and then have them stuck there with a job they don't like where they're not giving 100%.

Is there a way I can apply for it or will I have to play the surplus at risk lottery and refuse all job matches until the deadline in November ?

They should spell this out to you. Thankfully, where I worked was very open about the process and stated they're rather avoid compulsory redundancy so they offered VR and also potential transfers within the company if skills matched.

I got a decent pay off from it. The company didn't have to recruit to replace me because of the shift around that had been done so it worked out well for everyone.

So if it’s good enough for the private sector, it should be good enough for the public sector

You'd hope.

Fwiw, one of the best public sector jobs I've had was the result of an office closure and redeployment.

If they offered me a years (part time) salary right now I'd probably take it. We can't deliver to the public the way we should, and for those of us who care, it's crushing.

Morecash, coming up to 20 years service, less quite a few strike days, and quite a bit of it part time.

By paying a years salary+ you may avoid the relocation package, which is probably not as good as it used to be.

When I did it with MoD the house had to be equivalent and any additional mortgage costs were covered for 5 years. The selling and buying costs were covered as was recarpeting new house. Overall cost was above annual salary. I moved from Essex to Hampshire.

Obviously not but I’d question if/why public sector contracts have *redundancy* clauses in them that are above statutory levels.

Pensions, annual leave and maternity are going to blow your mind.

If voluntary redundancy is available, they should advise you of how to apply. If they have not, then you can ask, if they are planning on asking.

Remember it is the role which is being made redundant not you. Normally they will look to slot you into a similar job description (quite often with a plan to retrain re skill if there is a small gap, and protect your T+C’s) You can refuse relocation, redeployment but you have to give reason as to why, in my place they were moving offices 30 miles away, many people said they couldn’t commute the extra difference due to child care, quite a few got redeployed to other roles on the same wage the same distance away. Only a handful ended up not being redeployed or moving.

Basically speak to a union. You can’t refuse offers if redeployment, just so you can be made redundant, you are making yourself unemployable and as I said above they are not making you redundant, rather the role.

So you want only the shitiest workers who only work for employers with the shitiest contracts looking after your health, teaching your kids or putting out fires at your house?

in fairness though - having a redundancy clause in a contract that commits an employer to going beyond the legal minimum is not common in private sector - so if it is common in public sector “competition for the best talent” isn’t really the justification.  There may be legitimate reasons, monopoly employers, agreements with unions to prevent mass walk outs whenever restructures are on the cards etc would be good examples where going beyond the minimum would be in the national interest.

I have no particular axe to grind here, but I don’t see why people who happen to work in public sector jobs should be treated worse than private sector.
So if it’s good enough for the private sector, it should be good enough for the public sector

But I think that is where the surprise came.  In many parts of private sector redundancy only happens when you are closing down large parts of or a whole business and then statutory minimum is normal.

when there is a reorganisation and you want an orderly handover, volunteers so people are less bitter about the move, reassurance for those that stay that if they are next they will be looked after etc then an enhanced redundancy package is often offered.  In those cases 12 months would be considered very generous.  So I think if public sector employees are getting more than the private sector employees do then I think tax payers are right to ask if that is good value (it may be if there are good reasons).

Pensions, annual leave and maternity are going to blow your mind.

It's worse than that, some of the really profligate ones pay above minimum wage too!

Not by much, mind. And the govt is trying to fix this.

It's simply not the case that private sector workers get the statutory minimum.

Some well-informed people may have heard something about P&O ferries making 800 people redundant a while back. It was quite a thing in the news. You can look it up if it doesn't ring a bell.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60840467

The P&O case was an unusual example where the employer knew it was skating close to the thinnest of ice and also going to be very much in the public eye - hence the extra pay outs to bribe workers quickly into aquiessence.

Everyone I know in the public sector has better working conditions than similar roles in the private sector with a few exceptions in finance. The job security, working hours, pensions and annual leave being the prime examples. The question shouldn't be how can we reduce them down to the private sector level but surely how can we ensure everybody across the workforce has the same high level of protection?

The question shouldn’t be how can we reduce them down to the private sector level but surely how can we ensure everybody across the workforce has the same high level of protection?

This. Exactly this.

The public sector has traditionally had better pension, job security and redundancy terms (although these are being eroded) but it also pays less and getting a pay rise once in post is much harder. But its always been this way and most of those griping about it will probably have had plenty of opportunity to join during their private sector careers but chose not to. Grass is always greener and all that

If a company has a suitable alternative role for you then you can’t refuse it so you can get redundancy

Our company just changed its rules based on fact everyone and their dog is just sitting around waiting for the next restructure and chance at mammoth pay off, so have decided to play hard ball and insist folks take up roles that they deem suitable

I think it’s fair enough tbh, redundancy should be in place so folks aren’t left high and dry, rather than serving as a means to boost bank balance before walking into another job else where

I suspect you may not get offered voluntary if you don't match a job, instead you'll get compulsory. The terms for compulsory are quite a bit less.

OR maybe CEOs of privately owned companies are also banned from getting big pay offs when they are terminated

Absolutely. Failure shouldn't be rewarded. I've worked in both the public and private sector and can't remember anything about redundancy in any of the contracts I've had. It's certainly not something that would sway me towards taking or not taking a job as I wouldn't join a company that wasn't stable.

It’s simply not the case that private sector workers get the statutory minimum.

Some well-informed people may have heard something about P&O ferries making 800 people redundant a while back. It was quite a thing in the news. You can look it up if it doesn’t ring a bell.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60840467/a >

But if you followed the case closely you would know:

1. P&O were alleged not to have followed the Statutory processes and thus facing realistic threats of employment tribunals.

2. Were suffering from picket lines at the ferries meaning loss of income.

3. Had hugely bad PR.

4. Once they did start operating ran into all sort of technical/regulatory issues because the expert knowledge had left - so they needed worker cooperation.

They could probably have done it for 1/2 the cost if they had been proactive about it.  However had P&O just closed the routes the employees would have likely got statutory minimum.  If they went out of business they definitely would have.  So why are public sector employees treated differently.  (Of course that can be an argument to lift the statutory minimum rather than bring public sector down to the lowest denominator but t it is a legitimate question for taxpayers to ask).

The public sector has traditionally had better pension, job security and redundancy terms (although these are being eroded) but it also pays less and getting a pay rise once in post is much harder.

I'm not convinced that the pays less and pay rise parts are true anymore.  Public sector has had to up its game on pay, and generally you aren't seeing the same private sector payrises as the unions are managing to negotiate with their ability to strike effectively in the public sector.  The gap is narrowing.

But its always been this way and most of those griping about it will probably have had plenty of opportunity to join during their private sector careers but chose not to. Grass is always greener and all that

Depends what you do as a career.  Its also wrong to treat private sector as though its all the same.  There's dreadful employers in private sector as well as good ones - they do whatever they can get away with (either determined by law or the job market).

@poly

Public sector has had to up its game on pay, and generally you aren’t seeing the same private sector payrises as the unions are managing to negotiate with their ability to strike effectively in the public sector. The gap is narrowing.

I think the gap is widening, unless you've seen more recent data than this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900

I brought up P&O because it was such a high-profile case that everyone would have heard about. But it's far from unique.

I mean, this was literally the first hit from the most obvious web search I could think of:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5228009/average-redundancy-offer-in-private-sector

Multiple people discussing their above-statutory-minimum redundancy payouts, for those who can't be bothered clicking. It would have been quicker for you to do a trivial web search than to post your misleading screed about how uniquely unique P&O was. I wonder why you preferred your choice of action.

When private sector employers restructure, it's entirely normal to pay more than the statutory minimum. Maybe some don't, but many obviously do.

When private sector employers restructure, it’s entirely normal to pay more than the statutory minimum. Maybe some don’t, but many obviously do.

Yep, I've been laid off 6 times, each came with a payoff and all pretty much added up to leave now and we'll pay you anything we would've paid you during your Notice Period, including any (possible) bonus entitlements. Notice period was usually 3 months, with just one at 6 months.

I'm sat here waiting for the 7th, they don't know that, but I do 🙂

I’m not convinced that the pays less and pay rise parts are true anymore. Public sector has had to up its game on pay, and generally you aren’t seeing the same private sector payrises as the unions are managing to negotiate with their ability to strike effectively in the public sector. The gap is narrowing

For standard civil servants (not NHS workers / Teachers / Police etc) its been pay freeze after pay freeze with the odd year of 1 or 2% in between.

By paying a years salary+ you may avoid the relocation package, which is probably not as good as it used to be.

There is no CS relocation package. We've centralised to 14 offices around the UK and lost tons of experienced staff because no one could afford to move and no one could possibly be allowed to work from home (pre-covid)

For standard civil servants (not NHS workers / Teachers / Police etc) its been pay freeze after pay freeze with the odd year of 1 or 2% in between.

And local authority staff too

It’s worse than that, some of the really profligate ones pay above minimum wage too!

Not by much, mind. And the govt is trying to fix this.

The next NMW uplift brings our lowest paid staff very close to the starting salary of the next payband up.

Update: in theory I can get 21 months salary for voluntary. Only major obstacle is six months of creatively rejecting all posts offered to surplus staff. It's frustrating why they don't just let people who want to leave go with voluntary straight away.

The gap is narrowing.

Not in my industry. I kept losing staff to the private sector because it offered better pay.

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

I suspect you may not get offered voluntary if you don’t match a job, instead you’ll get compulsory. The terms for compulsory are quite a bit less.

</div>

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

not necessarily - the last two public sector employers I worked for pad the same for volunrtary as compulsory - there was no more money if yuo volunteered, just a bit less hassle.

six months of creatively rejecting all posts offered to surplus staff

There will usually be a policy somewhere about what counts as a match - it can be quite high (80% of duties match between posts) or quite low (40%). I have seen both ends of the spectrum. They usually also lay out how the process works, often a 3 month probationalry period for a new role (for both the organisation and the employee).

Ask for the policy - they may well let you see it. Be careful rejecting posts - usually if they feel you are not acting in good faith they can see this as a resignation not a redundancy.

</div>

It’s frustrating why they don’t just let people who want to leave go with voluntary straight away.

If they wait for long enough then they might see enough attrition to avoid a lot of payouts. Trouble is it’ll be all the good people that get fed up and go and find something else. I’m probably giving them too much credit there though!

It’s frustrating why they don’t just let people who want to leave go with voluntary straight away.

Because they believe they have comparable jobs you could do.

I think the gap is widening, unless you’ve seen more recent data than this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900/a >

The stats are interesting.  I suspect to actually understand what it actually means for individual employees though you need to integrate under the curve?  You may well need to divide public and private sector even further to really understand.  Its clear though that the sorts of deals the unions are managing to negotiate (often backdated as well) are far higher than anything I'm hearing about in the private sector.  Its difficult to see whats happening with the slope of the graphs in the last month of the data.

For standard civil servants (not NHS workers / Teachers / Police etc) its been pay freeze after pay freeze with the odd year of 1 or 2% in between.

Lots of private sector employers found all sorts of excuses to treat people crap too.  I'm not suggesting for a minute that public sector are rolling in cash, or that private sector are often worse off.  I'm simply highlighting that where there's demand for similar skills pure salaries have moved closer, but except in the very largest blue-chip firms few will be able to compete on the other benefits (even if those other benefits have been eroded for public sector too).

Multiple people discussing their above-statutory-minimum redundancy payouts, for those who can’t be bothered clicking. It would have been quicker for you to do a trivial web search than to post your misleading screed about how uniquely unique P&O was. I wonder why you preferred your choice of action.

A nice patronising response.  Of course the stray poll of about 20 people on MSE is of course scientific level polling!  However even within that group there are people saying "stat only" as well as various "formulations" that in the vast majority of cases emphasise what most people said - anything beyond 12 months is unusual (in modern times).

When private sector employers restructure, it’s entirely normal to pay more than the statutory minimum. Maybe some don’t, but many obviously do.

but there's always a reason for doing it - most private sector employers don't do it to be nice, they do it to make the path smoother for themselves!

Couple of points , not relevant maybe but......a few years ago my sister was tasked with preparing tempting redundancy packages for deadwood in the public sector. When she saw the guidelines she went up the management chain to see if she could prep one for herself or apply at least, not a chance came the reply, bastards. In the private sector I once had to make a valued member of staff redundant , I found there was quite a broad scale available to use ,minimum to maximum, I made sure he got the maximum available to him, again bastards. That's all.