[Closed] Shropshire council to sack all staff then remploy them next day on less pay,

The blanket dismissal comes after the [b]Conservative-led[/b] council and Unison failed to reach agreement over changes to the pay and conditions of staff.

all you need to know really. They've got a bit of form with this kind of thing

[img] [/img]

Just how can this be legal, morally right etc.Its going to ber a beurocratic nightmare, and will result in serious disruption to the services they provide

You're confusing the hell out of me, project. I thought you'd be all in favour of this sort of buffoonery.

not to put too finer point on it things have got to change, we are outspending what we earn, public sector cant just keep burying its head in the sand, basically the rest of us pay their wages and we are suffering and its time to pass on some of the pain.....

I hope the new lot aren't as bad as the old lot!

and how does selling everything you can and decimating your infrastructure help?

Its sorta like a builder selling all his tools and van to pay off his debts, yes he can pay more off initially but longer term the debt is going to be huge as he has sold/crippled his ability to make money.

Also if they sack them, I guess they all qualify for redundancy money, which will be a nice little windfall. Stupid, stupid tories.

wasn't this gov that sold the gold........, but tbh what has that got to vdo with public sector sharing the pain.....

continuity of service (reemployed within 30 days)
take redundancy out of the equation, not soo stupid eh?

Surely they can't actually do this to perm staff? I thought there were all sorts of employment laws that are in place to protect employees from this sort of behaviour?

(I don't disagree cuts need to be made)

If they sack them ,no redundancy to pay, and a lot less staff, they think.

Just how can this be legal, morally right etc.Its going to ber a beurocratic nightmare, and will result in serious disruption to the services they provide

1. Err welcome to the real world!
2. As taxpayers we dont owe you a living!
3. This has to happen were broke due to years of overspending by prevoius government!

End of 😀

they have been under consultation which makes it legit, cant do it without warning, but the council have followed due process

Anyone know what the grounds for dismissal would be though?

its not dismissal so no grounds needed.

Errrmm - this also happens in the private sector.

No-one complains then and no-one expects them to.

Public Sector seem to think that everything that happens to them is just because the Government du Jour doesn't like them! It's just business need driving most of it.

basically the rest of us pay their wages

God that's so dull and boring now, who is this rest of us? Well all pay taxes surely.

I do love all this nonsense abut the overspending by the previous government. Its all bobbins. We spend less than Germany, France, and many other countries on public services especially so if you include healthcare.

Spending is always higher under tories to pay for all the unemployment and because of the low growth. This sort of policy make the situation worse not better. The austerity cuts are already making the economy worse by reducing growth and increasing government spending on benefits.

Too many folk have been gullible and bought the tory propaganda

[i]Errrmm - this also happens in the private sector.
No-one complains then and no-one expects them to.[/i]

Of course they complain, and of course people expect them too.

TJ, do we spend less than Germany or France per head, or overall?

Per head as a % of GDP. remember to include healthcare which is mainly government spending in the UK and mainly insurance based in France and Germany.

I do love all this nonsense abut the overspending by the previous government. Its all bobbins. We spend less than Germany, France, and many other countries on public services especially so if you include healthcare.

We spend more money than we take in taxes - ergo, we are overspending, do you understand the concept?

It really does not matter what other people are doing - if all your mates maxed out their credit cards to but new bikes, would it make it OK for you to do it too?

Per head as a % of GDP

GDP can go down as well as up, as recently proven!

Regardless - everyone being offered the opportunity to reengage on the new contract is [b]entirely[/b] at liberty to not accept the offer - if they don't like it, they can go and find another job, simples!

It is technically lawful (assuming the employer carefully avoids an unfair dismissal situation), though ethically quite hollow IMO.

You're confusing the hell out of me, project. I thought you'd be all in favour of this sort of buffoonery.

Project's mission is to be as inconsistent as possible. He's very good at it.

Ethics? Tories?

We spend more money than we take in taxes - ergo, we are overspending, do you understand the concept?

Nope - undertaxing. 🙄 That and spending money in the wrong places

TJ - GDP has dropped, therefore state spending must decrease to maintain the status quo, its quite logical really, thats how %ages work!

I hope they don't want any sort of goodwill from the staff at any point in the near future. Morally reprehensible if you ask me, why not offer redundancy?

Ernie , i quite like shropshire.

We spend more money than we take in taxes - ergo, we are overspending, do you understand the concept?

Absolutely. We need to pay more in taxes (unless we nationalise some of the utilities which make mind boggling profits) So why do you argue that we should be paying less in taxes Zulu-Eleven ? Except the 20% on VAT - you like that.

Zulu-Eleven, you have summed it up perfectly.

No one likes loosing their jobs but at the moment people are, in both the public and private sectors. If the people this is happening too don't want to take the new offer they don't have to, they simply walk away and find another job.

I know this comment will be inflame opinion and I know it will be seen as a troll, but the public sector is having to put up with the same stuff the private sector did 18 months ago. There is no difference, and just becuase you work in the public sector it does not give you a devine right to keep that job forever.

God that's so dull and boring now, who is this rest of us? Well all pay taxes surely.

erm no, private sector is generally cash generator, public sectors cannot/do not create any 'new' money, and are therfore in reality paid for by the private sector

undertaxing... I take it you've never heard of the Laffer curve then Ernie? I'm sure you'd be happy to see your own taxes rise to pay the bill?

what's that? ah, you're happy to spend "other peoples money", but not your own?

and just becuase you work in the public sector it does not give you a devine right to keep that job forever

The tories austerity programme will and is making the situation worse by stifling growth and increasing unemployment.

I would be quite happy to pay more taxes - and equally I would be delighted to see the suprerrich actually pay some - and inheritance taxes rise even tho that would cost me as well.

private sector is generally cash generator, public sectors cannot/do not create any 'new' money,

What a load on nonsense. When a service is privatised, it doesn't suddenly and magically 'generate cash'.

It does the opposite actually - it keeps some of the cash as "profit".

I would be quite happy to pay more taxes - and equally I would be delighted to see the suprerrich actually pay some - and inheritance taxes rise even tho that would cost me as well.

Bloody Hell TJ. News International payed almost a whole 1% in tax last year. What more do you want? Blood?!

can someone explain for me how it's legal to sack everyone without it falling under unfair-dismissal or similar.

public sectors cannot/do not create any 'new' money, and are therfore in reality paid for by the private sector

I work in the public sector (A University) (albeit on the edge of it) and we generate new cash by collaboration with industry and bringing in foreign student cash (though of course we do have government funding and tuition fees taken from some home students.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

I'm sure you'd be happy to see your own taxes rise to pay the bill?

Well make your mind up - you just said that we weren't paying enough in tax.

And why the huge hike on VAT which you fully support ?

Try to be consistent geezer.

can someone explain for me how it's legal to sack everyone without it falling under unfair-dismissal or similar.

The clue is in [i]"everyone"[/i]. It's not unfair if you treat everyone the same.

I think some people might be under the misapprehension that we live in a country where workers have substantial rights. Too much reading of the Sun and the Daily Mail I fear.

No Ernie, I didn't, did I 🙄

The clue is in "everyone". It's not unfair if you treat everyone the same.

what about constructive dismissal, it's definitely that?

Raising VAT was such a silly idea. Throttle consumer-led recovery just at the wrong time and un-progressive to boot. Couldnt have been a worse idea.

Osborne could do some good by u-turning on that one. Even though Ed "The Bollocks" Balls is a big fan of cutting VAT it doesnt make it a bad idea. But it does mean that the chancellor is even less likely to go for it because it wouldnt want to hand Balls a winner.

We spend more money than we take in taxes - ergo, we are overspending, do you understand the concept?

It really does not matter what other people are doing - if all your mates maxed out their credit cards to but new bikes, would it make it OK for you to do it too?

But this type of claptrap is being used to justify policies left right and centre. Countries "overspending" is not the same as me overspending as an individual. The economy does not work like that.

The tories austerity programme will and is making the situation worse by stifling growth and increasing unemployment.

+1

can someone explain for me how it's legal to sack everyone without it falling under unfair-dismissal or similar.

[url= http://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/news/44/changing-employment-terms ]Quick high level summary.[/url]

The tories austerity programme will and is making the situation worse by stifling growth and increasing unemployment.

I'm constantly amazed by the inability of apparently intelligent people to see this. How much worse does it have to get? 🙄

Rather than just saying growth is being stifled, what are your suggestions for developing long term sustainable growth?
Easy to criticise and all that...

Some people really have no idea about what the public sector does for them

Are there any minimum wage workers in Shropshire council (I'd presume there would be some)? Seeing as these people can't be reinstated on less pay how is it unilateral?

The core issue is nicely summed up at every recent demo/march

"NO CUTS" on banners demonstrates how far removed many people are from reality

Everything that follows is just consequence

The gravy train needs derailing

what about constructive dismissal, it's definitely that?

No it's not constructive dismissal - they are not leaving their employment because of the behaviour of their employer. They are leaving because they have all been sacked.

firstly, Simon, make sure that the lions share of tax-payer-funded infrastructure investment, like, say.... erm..... I don't know... a huge railway development goes toward creating jobs

Oh..... hang on a minute....

This happened to Mrs-g and every single person that works at the company on a temp contract about 2 years ago, only it was a 10% cut.

And the notice given was about 10 days, not 2 or 3 months, so the chances of find another job were a bit smaller too.

Thought about it, the sensible thing to do was accept the cut and keep working. Simple

Secondly, give the banks a damn good kick up the arse to ensure that instead of hourding the cash they've been bailed out with, they actually encourage investment from business to create jobs.

If only they were somehow dependent on taxpayer guarantees, or maybe even largely taxpayer-owned. If only eh?

Oh well....

As long as people are happy to pay extra for every service the council provides (bins, street lights, etc) I can't see this going wrong at all.

The economy is ****ed, so making more people redundant and screwing public confidence is just going to add wood to the fire.

The Tories seem to be doing everything they can to get us back to the good old Thatcher days of 15% inflation, and 13% interest rates again.

I could go on

firstly, Simon, make sure that the lions share of tax-payer-funded infrastructure investment, like, say.... erm..... I don't know... a huge railway development goes toward creating jobs

ourmaninthenorth - thanks for the link, it makes more sense now.

The Tories seem to be doing everything they can to get us back to the good old Thatcher days of 15% inflation, and 13% interest rates again.

I think high inflation and interest rates were pretty much a certainty once the the first QE program began (not that I'm sure there were any alternatives), now we're just waiting to see who ends up holding the parcel when the music stops...

The rail travel sector increases year on year. Hence Thameslink (I believe it services a little Hamlet darn sarf

Hence this:

[url= http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/06/16-bombardier-wins-key-15bn-thameslink.html ]Yay for German engineering[/url]

and then this:

[url= http://www.bearsdenherald.co.uk/news/bombardier_job_losses_provoke_anger_1_1715607 ]But not British stuff. Its rubbish[/url]

That's 1400 people directly, and 10,000 indirectly on the rock and roll. Hurray!

portlyone - Member

Some people really have no idea about what the public sector does for them

Over to you portly.

[i]And who will use these new fangled railways to make them profitable?[/i]

Zee Germans.

/edit Binners beat me too it.

The question is, why did Bombardier lose the contract? Cost? Quality? Design? Or...

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the Thameslink contract procurement process was started by the previous Government, adding: "Under the criteria that the previous Government set out in the contract, Siemens were the winner of that competition and under European procurement law we had no choice but to announce them as the preferred bidder."

But not British stuff. Its rubbish

That's 1400 people directly, and 10,000 indirectly on the rock and roll. Hurray!

A fair amount of those directly affected (1,200?) were already marked out for redundancy due to other projects finishing weren't they? Not that I disagree with your point.

and further don simon's post (which is absolutley correct, gov tenders must go thorugh OJEU and cannot be awarded on grounds of nationality except for specific security reasons I believe)...

... chap from railway magazine (yep, I m sure he owns a Thermos) on the Today programm said that the Siemns trains were just BETTER than the bombardier ones. Do we deserve to buy shite trains just because theyre british? Also, bombardier had said that they would still have made some 1,000+ redundancies EVEN IF THEY HAD WON THE CONTRACT becuase other contracts were completing anyway.

EDIT: retro beat me to it.

Good job we have European partners who won't hear of any of this protectionism nonsense, like France! Nope - its the same level playing field for everyone.

And going back to the banking point. The capital for Kraft's leveraged buyout of Cadbury was supplied by taxpayer-owned RBS. So we lent an American company billions of quid provided by thee British taxpayer to buy a British company, close the plants, make the workforce redundent and move production abroad

With decisions like that we'll be sailing out of recession in no time, I'm sure

Yeah we facing similar problems at work Don, where we have long term relationships with certain external companies, but now rather than just giving us the contract and knowing that we will deliver, they have to put it out to European tender, and buy the cheapest tender, with the hope that they will deliver what they want (which they won't)
Alas such transparency in procurement sounds lovely in principle, but in practice. hmm.

There was a strike last week with less justification than this.

The obvious ploy is they sack everyone, and when they come to re-employ them they all say 'no'. Why wouldn't that work? Because they would not all stand together.

The obvious ploy is they sack everyone, and when they come to re-employ them they all say 'no'. Why wouldn't that work? Because they would not all stand together.

I think that would a be superb idea. Then youd find the proper market value of the roles on offer as it would be opened up to the entire unemployed labour force of the county! Knock out!

😉

The "private sector = generates wealth" and "public sector = doesn't" thing really bugs me:

If I opened a shop selling widgets to British people, and I import all those widgets from China, how much wealth have I generated for the country? As I see it, I've just moved some wealth from here to China. Or, have I got my economics arse-backwards?

The question is, why did Bombardier lose the contract? Cost? Quality? Design? Or...

According to a chap on Radio Derby who was from the rail industry press - Bombardier probably lost the contract because...
a) they were more expensive
b) Siemens were offering a better service at the lower price
c) Bombardier have been late by many years on their current contracts which isn't inspiring confidence in the company.

My neighbour also worked in the rail industry in Derby for thirty odd years (latterly in working out worldwide maintenance contracts for Bombardier), and he was saying Siemens have far better working practices.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if the Bombadier management had proposed a cut in salary and an increase in productivity and improved working practices (which I understand to be more for less to help win the contract?

Of course instead of kicking the public sector yet again we could just make rich people/companies pay the tax they owe. Crazy idea I know.

Simon - I'd say, given the situation ,and the alternatives, everything would have been on the table. It certainly would have been if it were me.

dismissing and re hiring is not uncommon practice a customer of mine and his wife have bothe gone through the same process she lost 15% him nearer 30% but as they both agreed it was either that or possibly one or both be out of work.
large businesses like Tesco do much the same virtually every dau by making roles redundant but retaining staff in different roles on a pay scale that reduces over 2 - 4 years to the new level, mrs tts had this happen 18 months ago shes still the pharmacist but with a new title and over 36 months her 'reward' is adjusted to the lower level ( ie her pay remains the same until the rate catches up and or she loses 25% of the difference every year) and no one every bats an eyelid. Tesco is the countries largest private sector employer with 120k union members..

C'mon - award it to a British firm, coz its gotta be better for the economy - it'll be like the old days again!

[img] [/img]

And if it was on the table, binners, what went wrong?

I don't know if it was on the table. You'd have to be pretty daft not too really. You'd think. Turkeys and christmas, and all that

TJ - GDP has dropped, therefore state spending must decrease to maintain the status quo, its quite logical really, thats how %ages work!

The opposite is true. Read your Keynes.

Didn't state spending increase while GDP was increasing?