AIBU to think the Goverment is

[Blackness]

Bang out of order to be planning on changing the law on redundancy packages and striking rules, just so they can force through their new cuts.

Labour tried to do it the right way, by getting the Unions to agree, and they didn't. So the Conservaties think Fuck you we will simply do it the underhanded way.

Just like reducing the tax credits to £23k a year despite telling us 40k.

regret my Tory vote now....

Democracy...... What Democracy Mr Cameroon. Goverment loses in court, so you change the law instead.

You Sir quite frankly Stink!

Riven It says:

"BBC political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said the CSCS had in the past resulted in some payouts equivalent to six years' salary."

I agree that is almost certainly an exceptional case - but even two or three years pay sounds incredible to me.

The main purpose of statutory redundancy pay is to provide enough of a cushion to enable people to get into work again. 2 years is just too long.

The economic crisis (which I don't blame the last govt for but that is another issue) is manna to the Tories.

It is the strapline to every destructive policy they bring in, it is the mantra that everyone chants to excuse what will soon become the inexcusable. 'We are only doing this because Labour left us in such a bad bad mess'. It means they don't have to explain anything very much, just trot out the same line.

I do think that action should be taken to bring the more extravagent excesses of some of the public sector perks into line with normality. It breeds resentment when things like 6 years salary for redundancy are wheeled out. And no-one can concentrate properly on the reality for the majority.

They could start with the pensions that MPs are entitled to.

Are such big and exceptional redundancy pay-outs not heard of in the private sector?

That doesn't really count, though, because everyone knows the private sector can do what it wants when it has the money.

yes it say "some payments equivalent to six years". I would get now where near that. I'd get 1 week for every year i've work at my council up to a maximum of 6 months pay. You'd have to have worked there 26 years to get that!

Of course the last government is to blame for the books they left for this government. Had they done something about it 10 or even 5 years ago, these cuts would not be needed.

But we are where we are...

I just read that one of the things being proposed by this government is to cap the redundancy at 2 years of pay. Sounds bloody generous to me. But, I admit, I need more information to really form a view on the matter.

"You have the right to:

• half a week?s pay for each complete year of employment when you were below the age of 22
• a full week?s pay for each complete year of employment when you were between the age of 22 and 40
• a week and a half?s pay for each complete year of employment when you were above the age of 41.

You can't be given statutory redundancy pay for more than 20 years' employment."

This is what normal people get. So max of less than half a years salary which TBH seems reasonable given that redundancy pay is a cushion for people while they find another job. The disparity between the public and private sector perks really makes a lot of people angry - why not make it so that they meet in the middle somewhere and make them the same? Same goes for pensions - DHs pension is ridiculously generous (public sector) while so many people in teh private sector have no pension at all. The differences set up an "us and them" argument in society with everyone manning their respective sides, and then of course we never get anywhere.

I'm not sure why anyone would be shocked at anything that the Conservatives announce along these lines. We could have predicted it and some of it we did - child benefit freeze, well no shocker there. tax credits slashed - well no shock either, this is what the Tories do!

If you didn't believe it - well then I cannot believe you were taken in by the smarm and the hamshine. think twice next time.

pointydog Well private money is private money. If the shareholders choose to pay a stupid golden goodbye to a CEO, then it is their own money they are wasting.

That is why I am so annoyed with the bank bailouts. Taxpayers have had to pick up the bill for bankers' failures, and that is just wrong.

Banks are a special case amongst private sector companies though. If the shareholders of Vodafone or BT or Woolworths (RIP) want to waste their own money on bad remuneration structures, then who cares? It's the shareholders who lose out.

Whereas when the government wastes money on bad pay structures, it is we, the taxpayers, who lose out.

Actually depending on your age it might be a little more than 6 months pay but not by much.

Without knowing what the exisiting system is or what changes are proposed it is really difficult to discuss this. I did notice that the Beeb article said that the Labour govt had started the process of trying to change the rules - seems it really doesn't matter who you vote for. For far too long now the rich have been getting richer and the gap between the rich and poor has been increasing - I think that our economic model of relying on the stock market is fundermentally flawed tbh. We are ruled by the rich and powerful who continue to increase their share of the wealth and when they say its the welfare claiments/single mothers/unions/local government fault we lap it up. IT WAS THE RICH BANKERS WHO ARE STILL VERY WEALTHY

Public pensions were already being reduced way before cameron came in in his imaginary silver suit of armour. Everyone knew we couldn't afford to pay out such pensions to so many people for a long number of years. No one would argue with that.

It seems incredibly unfair to me that we try to fix the financial issues of this country by cutting public spending and benefits to those who need them, when this is not what caused the recession in the first place. Cameron can harp on about excessive spending all he likes but that doesn't change things - what are the banks paying?

I think there are a whole lot more issues to blame than just the banks to be honest, though I agree that they should have faced higher penalties. We all need them to be performing better though, so maybe there is method in the madness...

1 week for every year is standard in Private sector aswell. What payments are they thinking of changing then? From what I can work out its for civil servants which is different from public sector like council workers etc. I've tried to google the difference but havn't found anything. ANyone know?

'how many people who voted libdem\tory would do the same again with the benefit of hindsight do you think.'

I've resigned from LD's
the buggers sent me a new memvbership card today though , listening clearly not a strong point

swallowedAfly

I guess it depends on what you regard as "decent" rights. I think everyone would agree that some statutory protection is essential.

However, remember that Margaret Thatcher gave Britain a more flexible labour market than most of our European competitors - and that has meant we are seen as a better place to do business. That labour market policy has been responsible for the creation of millions of jobs, and enabled hundreds of thousands of companies to be set up in Britain over the last few decades.

HowAnnoying I think you are right - the "six years" arrangement is for the central civil service, not council workers.

I would be surprised if anyone voted for Dem Libs ever again. They have been well and truly hoist by their own petard.

Things have changed. When final salary schemes were introduced people did not live for such a long time - they were paid for a few years if at all. Now people will live for 20 or 30 years after retirement. Providing final salary schemes for all is simply unaffordable. The reason that private sector companies moved away from them was that if they didn't they would go bust with the sheer size of the payments - and a cost that just goes up and up and up. I'm afraid it is a consequence of our longevity that these pensions are a problem, not people becoming more tight-fisted.

Personally I would like to see a shakeup of the entire way everything works as the way it's done at the moment is shite and just encourages selfishness, competition, rampant consumerism blah blah. I don't know how we would achieve that.

But I do think to say that people who point out the disparity are selfish etc is foolish - while there is a huge disparity there is an argument, and then you end up with people voting tory. Obviously not a good outcome.

What should happen is that it should be looked at sensibly and dispassionately - what is actually affordable? What is a good level? How much should private employers be paying in? To decide what a decent and fair and practical retirement income is - and then ensure that everyone gets it.