AIBU to be annoyed about taxpayers money being spent on a dubious 'relocation'?

[tiredandwanttosleep]

Have just been discussing with a very close friend a relocation deal she has negotiated with her work. She works for the civil service in an admin role and her post is being relocated to another office approx. 15 miles down the road. Because of this supposed 'distance' her branch of the civil service have agreed to buy her current home, at the very top market value (in fact almost £5k more than other similar houses near her are selling for), pay her moving costs, stamp duty and solicitors fees and appoint a relocation company to handle everything. The relocation company will sell her home on behalf of the Civil service afterwards and if they can't get the full price they paid her for it the civil service (and by default the taxpayer) will take the hit. Whilst I'm pleased for my friend, who can now afford to move to a house she's always wanted, am I being unreasonable to be furious that it's taxpayers money funding this so called 'relocation'?

I would understand if they had been offered travelling expenses for a period of time, as would happen in a private company, but such an expense when it's just an extra 15 miles (might be even less than this) from one office to another? As my friend says she's merely taking advantage of what's on offer but I can't help thinking that's what my taxes are being spent on, particularly in the current climate. There has also been much surprise from above her at the numbers of people taking up the offer but when you can move with all the hassle and expense taken out of it, and sell at the top market value given the current climate are they really surprised? Am I being unreasonable or do I just have to accept that for large parts of the public sector these deals are commonplace? I have worked in the private sector for most of my career so I accept I have a completely different attitude but if I had ever asked for relocation for such a move I'd have been laughed out of HR!

For FIFTEEN MILES?!!! I didn't even know the civil service had a budget for or authority to do this. Is your friend a particularly highly paid, senior admin person who has such terms negotiated into her contract of employment?

Blimey, we were offered NOTHING for moving across the country needless to say I didn't take them up on the offer

(am public sector btw - it's not all take take take here)

Gosh. DH and I both worked for the same private sector company when it relocated and we were offered diddly squat. No travel expenses, nothing. If we didn't like it, it was made perfectly clear what we could do.......

I don't know how she has been offered that. It certainly isn't something she is contractually entitled to - there must be more to it.

DH is public sector and lots of his colleagues have been relocated-they got nothing like that at all!

Is it maybe her union that has negotiated it for a particular tranche of employees?

If so, I wouldn't be particularly grateful to the union for encouraging taxpayers' money to used in this way.

hmmmm well I am public sector - anything below 25miles we get zilch and we get nothing LIKE that anyway!

She is a middling member of an admin team so not senior in any shape or form and has worked for them for over 10 years. When this move was raised she was the first to argue for relocation as she didn't drive, but does now, and yet is still being offered the relocation package. Her request set the precedent and this has now been applied to everyone making this move, so she is by no means the only one taking up the offer. There really in nothing more to it than that- if there was I might be able to understand it more...

By the way should say that even if not driving this is easily commutable- train directly there. It's not like it's in the sticks but between 2 cities.

Very badly run local authority then, with inadequately control of the purse strings. I would tend to making it public, eg letter to local newspaper.

Where is she working??

You can whistleblow in this sort of thing if it's true. I'm

I think there must be more to this than meets the eye. I'm civil service and in the olden days this sort of package was occasionally offered for long distance (as in one end of the country to the other) moves. Things like that have been totally canned now, and in my department would never have been contemplated for a 15 mile distance.

there could be an arguement that its a boost to the econamy. im not sure how now but 5 mins ago i had it all worked out something to do with house shifting and chains then i went to make a cup of tea.
now ive forgotten

I'm a Civil Servant and I have never heard of anything like this.

There is a relocation policy that applies to long distance moves but it only covers removal expenses AFAIK.

Oh, YANBU. Makes a mockery of all hard working civil servants to read something like this.... Surely it is local authority as suggested up thread?

I'm a civil servant and people employed in roles full time from the 3rd from bottom grade upwards are considered mobile and can be relocated anywhere so I'm very

Especially considering there are virtually no jobs anymore at the lowest grade

That is taking the piss.

My father was offered a similar relocation package when his job moved from London to south wales. He was offered 30K on top of removal expenses. The department he was in was desperate to have him.

He was a very senior civil servant and two years off retirement. Infact he didn't take the package as he argued it was cheaper for the civil service to pay for him to rent a flat for two years and pay for his travel costs to wales and back once a week. He had a detached duty allowance and was a weekly commuter.

I imagine that a big problem is that civil servants get very large redunancy packages. Especially if they have a long service history. Prehaps that why they have given into the woman's ridicolous demands.

I see where you are coming from really but the office is only moving 15 miles.... I'd be told to suck it up and that no redundancy was on offer which would be fair enough IMO.

If all of this is right, then I think there may be a little more to your friend's job than you realise and this may be a cover story for something a little more involved.

If the situation really is exactly as you perceive it, YANBU

ReallyTired, no we don't anymore, they've changed that now - oh yes just before they announced they were going to massively cut the number of civil service positions...

Maybe's she's not in admin but is a journalist/spy/liar/not a civil servant/agent for the Russians/Daily Mail fantasist.

What Department?

This was standard practice in the area of the civil service I used to work in. If any job was relocated the member of staff, of they were a homeowner was offered this. If they rented they had the increase in their rent covered for 4 years. It's laughable really.

The office I was in has recently moved a mile down the road and they're covering all increased travel expenses (in London so should be negligible) without receipts so staff can claim for a return tube journey each day without proving it (and borisbikes cost £45 a year and do the same job).

From what I understand first class travel is still standard for most grades and those who took redundancy last year were handsomely rewarded.

Nothing helpful to conclude, it's just very cross-making.

Swatchdog I work for an excutive agency and we are not permitted to use first class travel, and it is very tricky to find hotel accommodation for the budget we are given!!!

I guess this highlights the differences between the different departments!

Completely agree random. I haven't had first class travel for years and the hotel budget is very limiting. We haven't even been allowed standard returns for years.... We specify the cheapest train which is fine unless you spend time in court! Have to specify a late train just in case as I can hardly run out of a court room to catch a train! Our lunch allowance for working away from our office has been reduced to £4. I often leave at 6am and don't get back until 6pm so £4 doesn't cover all food and drink. Receipts are always required.

I actually don't mind in general because I am very aware the tax payer funds this but when I read things like this post I start to think I'm being taken for a ride.