On 17 March 2012 22:25, paul perrin <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, > > I specifically asked about posts being cut - whether people were subject to > 'compulsory redundancy' or just not replaced or posts 'not filled' , etc is > irrelevant. >
I have to agree with Paul that 'Posts Cut' and 'People made compulsory redundant' are usually different. This possibly flags up an issue with where someone familiar with the common practices and terminology of councils and the specific practices and terminology of a specific council can respond truthfully to an FoI request but in a way that will lead a member of the public not familiar with the practices and terminology to an incorrect conclusion. In this case there may have been a voluntary redundancy trawl offering enhanced conditions (extra money, outplacement services &c) and/or a voluntary early retirement trawl offering enhanced conditions (e.g. anyone with over 35 years pension service in LGPS will be made up to full pension). With those two tactics they might be able to clear enough posts that they can cut the posts they need to cut without having any compulsory redundancies. Sometimes people selected for compulsory redundancy, where it';s a head count reduction and not removal of a whole function or site, are taken to one side before the selections are announced and basically told "You're out but we'll let you avoid the stigma of a compulsory redundancy if you take VR now." Again avoids compulsory redundancies but still clears posts fro deletion. Some larger councils have a priority movers scheme which is basically people selected for redundancy are put on a process whereby they are first inline for any new vacancies and will be offered first refusal, for six months. Typically they can be offered the chance to go for any job at their current grade, below their current grade or up to one grade above their current grade where they have at least 70% of the skills required to do that job. Any job. So, for example, a project manager on £40k (full time) can be offered a part time cleaning job on £14k pro rata. That isn't as hypothetical example. Typically at the end of the six months so long as they have been offered at least one job and have refused it they are deemed to have resigned and their post can be cut. No compulsory redundancies but posts have been cut. Finally, many council carry a number of funded but vacant posts so to achieve on paper savings they can either delete a vacant post or move someone into a vacant post and delete their original post. Regarding Paul's comment about finding that an audit had been done after his FoI request asking if an audit had been done reminded me of a request I put in last year. The request was to the BBC asking for a list of BBC sites in the west midlands which had a TV on them and if there was a current TV license for that site (apparently the BBC have to buy a license to watch TV same as the rest of us). The response that came back was a list of sites and when the current license was due to be renewed. There was also a comment that in collecting this information they had discovered that they had a site that should have had a license and didn't, this had been rectified. Gave me a chuckle. Stephen -- It's better to ask a silly question than to make a silly assumption. http://stephensorablog.blogspot.com/ | http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenboothuk | Skype: stephenbooth_uk Apparently I'm a "Eierlegende Woll-Milch-Sau", I think it was meant as a compliment. _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
