Another one bites the dust

[english zloty]

15 minutes ago, MrGarrison said:

Retired suggests no package other than standard notice period. Even if they paid more the twat is at least gone now. Although as I see someone has noted in the BV thread that the guy is such a complete weasel that he’s probably already signed up for £10 an hour to drive a bus on the basis of the bus driver shortage he himself seems to have created. So as well as what it cost to get rid of him we’ll probably still have him and Nick Black playing bus drivers for the next 5 years while happily drawing on their taxpayer funded pensions. Taxpayer mooching wankers of the highest order. 

Retired saves public face. It's code for lump sum payoff. NB also 'retired' and it's reasonably well known pub talk he got around £150k 

[Albert Tatlock]

1 hour ago, doc.fixit said:

The Longworth Legacy?

Good riddance.

[Driver2020]

Worth every pound.

[Shake me up Judy]

There'll be one of those Downfall videos on YouTube tomorrow set in the Mercedes Factory bunker when the news comes in that Longworth is retiring. 

[code99]

The problem is that when MHKs are tasked with Ministerial duties they can quickly turn from heroes to zeros; it is like Superman in reverse in a phone booth where they strip off their ‘I can fix it’ Superman (or Superwoman) garb and end up looking like mice.

I wish CT the best of luck in DOI because he will need it. More importantly, the Island needs him to succeed, given that not so longer ago the Chief Minister expressed his concerns about whether the department was ‘fit for purpose’. I believe CT should review all of the departmental senior staff performances and adjust the assessment and evaluation criteria to better reflect personal accountability for not just decision making, but also the delivery of projects. And he should also show the door to those who are unwilling to be responsible for their own actions. This could be a mammoth endeavour, but it has to be done somehow and with minimum cost to the taxpayers. NB and IL replacements’ suitability is also vital.

Incidentally, CT must not become the ‘new David Ashford’ – the man who ‘trusted’ civil/ public servants too much.

Edited June 14, 2022 by code99

[Non-Believer]

DOI was just a warm up for being fed the sort of shite that Crookall will be fed at DfE, he was just starting to be trained nicely in regurgitating stuff without question.

The projected visitor figures, economy benefits and need for increased departmental staffing can now be embossed and elaborated on without end.

[AOR]

36 minutes ago, code99 said:

Incidentally, CT must not become the ‘new David Ashford’ – the man who ‘trusted’ civil/ public servants too much.

It's classic stuff though isn't it.

In a nutshell:

They get elected, so effectively the electorate can fuck off for a few years ("Cheers folks, it was good fun meeting you for all those weeks, and election night was a real blast"). So now the only people to really stroke their ego are fellow MHKs on the backbenches (generally a motley crew). So become a Minister and you're one of the big boy MHKs in the Thursday Club, and the CS are all over you like a rash too.

[Annoymouse]

I fully expect Bus Vannin to decline as a result, I can’t see anyone else being given free reign of the money tree like Longworth was.

[Stu Peters]

5 hours ago, english zloty said:

None of them have stated sacked in the accompanying news release. Each and every one of them is getting at least a year payoff. That's about £100k before tax. I think I'd 'retire' / 'seek new opportunities ' on those terms

Do you know for sure there's a year's payout for people who retire/resign?

[buncha wankas]

6 hours ago, english zloty said:

None of them have stated sacked in the accompanying news release. Each and every one of them is getting at least a year payoff. That's about £100k before tax. I think I'd 'retire' / 'seek new opportunities ' on those terms

They don’t pay tax on pension lump sum

[SpunkCookie]

28 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Do you know for sure there's a year's payout for people who retire/resign?

Why don’t you ask the question in Keys Stu? The perception from the public is that all these recent ‘leavers and retirees’ with immediate effect have been given 12-18 month salary. Employees at that level will probably gain more financially by accepting this than pursuing an unfair dismissal case which probably maxes out at less money than their annual salary.  The tax payer should be made aware if the CS is paying off employees, rather than holding them to account over performance. Then appointing other people into the same post, effectively paying 2 people for 12-18 month to do the same job.

[Ghost Ship]

39 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Do you know for sure there's a year's payout for people who retire/resign?

Speaking from my public sector (NHS) experience in the UK, of course you shouldn't get any sort of payout at all if you simply resign.  You just get paid what you are owed up to your resignation date.  (Plus any amounts outstanding like leave not taken).

But if you retire, I'd be amazed if you didn't get a lump sum if you'd been a member of the pension scheme.

When I retired from the NHS under what was known as the "1995 scheme", you could get a maximum* annual pension of half your final salary** PLUS a lump sum of three times your annual pension.

So I would expect anyone who retires from the IoM civil service and who was a member of whatever the relevant pension scheme*** to get a lump sum "payout" in addition to their annual pension.  (Or whatever the terms of the scheme*** entitle them to.)

 

* Worked out as 1/80th of your final pay for each year of service in the scheme, up to a maximum of 40 years service.

**  Not quite as simple as final salary but close enough

***  And assuming IoM CS pension scheme is vaguely similar to corresponding UK public sector schemes.  (Most UK public sector schemes used to be very similar, but they aren't any more.  What somebody gets when they retire depends on what they are entitled to under their pension scheme.)

[Stu Peters]

Thank you - that was always my understanding. It was the use of the word 'payoff' that concerned me. Like it or not, if your pension scheme includes a lump sum on retirement that's a different thing.

I wouldn't ask questions in Keys about specific cases unless I had significant concerns, and even then I'm not sure I'd be entitled to an answer.

[Newsdesk]

9 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Thank you - that was always my understanding. It was the use of the word 'payoff' that concerned me. Like it or not, if your pension scheme includes a lump sum on retirement that's a different thing.

I wouldn't ask questions in Keys about specific cases unless I had significant concerns, and even then I'm not sure I'd be entitled to an answer.

That’s a bit of a cop out. We already know from a recent FOI that over £5M has been paid out under compromise agreements. That’s a lot of taxpayer money shrouded in mystery just to get rid of people. There are ways of framing a question. Your colleague in Middle is an employment lawyer. Ask her. But the reality is people strongly suspect these people are getting paid off and in reality they likely are as unless they have evidence to totally destroy you, you don’t just walk out of a £100K a year job unless you are strongly induced to. 

[Numbnuts]

34 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

That’s a bit of a cop out. We already know from a recent FOI that over £5M has been paid out under compromise agreements. That’s a lot of taxpayer money shrouded in mystery just to get rid of people. There are ways of framing a question. Your colleague in Middle is an employment lawyer. Ask her. But the reality is people strongly suspect these people are getting paid off and in reality they likely are as unless they have evidence to totally destroy you, you don’t just walk out of a £100K a year job unless you are strongly induced to. 

Yes and in Blacks case he wasnt old enough to access his pension so I'm positive he was given a sum to go.