CS keeps expanding

[Roger Mexico]

8 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

What's a 'nominal' retirement

When they sacked you, but neither side wants to admit it.  And you're old enough to tap into the pension fund (no doubt with lots of extra thrown in to make things smoother).

[Non-Believer]

As Roger M.  alludes to in his previous post, the juicy bit might be what Watterson was trying to get to in asking this question; the information elicited may or not have been exactly what was sought. As is often the case.

Shame there don't appear to have been any supplementaries?

[Happier diner]

18 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

When they sacked you, but neither side wants to admit it.  And you're old enough to tap into the pension fund (no doubt with lots of extra thrown in to make things smoother).

Yep. That makes sense. More of an optimal retirement. We'll pay you a couple of years notice and that gets added to your service for calculations of pensionable pay. Happy days. Doesn't need to be declared as redundancy payment. 

[Roger Mexico]

52 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Shame there don't appear to have been any supplementaries?

Written question, so obviously not, though extra WQs can be used to follow up or even asked in Tynwald/Keys.  But it's always difficult with these personnel-related ones as once you get specific, they can be rejected on the grounds they might identify people.

[Apple]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

I suspect Watterson was asking about something else, though I don't know what.  And with redundancies it's supposed to be the job which goes rather than the person who wasn't up to it.  Though you wouldn't be surprised if they got rid of someone they didn't like by replacing an Assistant Deputy something with a Deputy Assistant.

Agreed. That further information that he really is wanting may come in the form of another similar question related to a different time period, but that he may ask for at another time. Canny fella nowadays.

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Isn't it suspiciously low? I'd have expected Greenhow to have picked that up on his own.

He wasn’t made redundant!

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

He wasn’t made redundant!

Do tell us more. Surely he wouldn't just walk. Not without a little encouragement. 

[John Wright]

Just now, Happier diner said:

Do tell us more. Surely he wouldn't just walk. Not without a little encouragement. 

No doubt he was told/asked to resign/retire. Being sacked or told to resign/retire isn’t redundancy. Redundancy is when the job role doesn’t exist.

No doubt he’d get paid his statutory or contractual entitlements. But they’d be neither ex gratia nor redundancy.

[Happier diner]

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No doubt he was told/asked to resign/retire. Being sacked or told to resign/retire isn’t redundancy. Redundancy is when the job role doesn’t exist.

No doubt he’d get paid his statutory or contractual entitlements. But they’d be neither ex gratia nor redundancy.

Isn't that what I said a few posts back. This happens all the time. It wouldn't be counted in the figure for 'redundancy'.

 

[Happier diner]

Just now, Happier diner said:

Isn't that what I said a few posts back. This happens all the time. It wouldn't be counted in the figure for 'redundancy'.

 

Forgot to add. Not just an IOM or even civil service thing. Often a confidential agreement is made. 

[John Wright]

7 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Isn't that what I said a few posts back. This happens all the time. It wouldn't be counted in the figure for 'redundancy'.

 

No idea. I no longer have to skim every post. You post so much, and lots of it contradictory.

 

[Boo Gay'n]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

No doubt he was told/asked to resign/retire. Being sacked or told to resign/retire isn’t redundancy. Redundancy is when the job role doesn’t exist.

No doubt he’d get paid his statutory or contractual entitlements. But they’d be neither ex gratia nor redundancy.

I agree with John here.

Spuan either phrased his question badly because he is thick (I know...) or he planted it with the poor wording to help Alf by creating a smokescreen (possible, I suppose).

Redundancy has a quite specific legal meaning, and the person drafting the answer would have to stick to it.  So far as I know, ex gratia payments to public servants are not possible, and could be illegal.

That leaves us with settlement agreements, the terms of which cannot be divulged by former employer or former employee.  All of the people mentioned in recent posts (plus Richard Wild a couple of weeks ago) will have left via that route and, as I have said elsewhere I understand (on good authority) that the 'package' is always better than redundancy - possibly up to two years worth of salary.  The government simply can't risk ex-senior civil servants and doctors (Ewart) going to the media with their detailed inside knowledge and so signs Faustian pacts to shut them up, even if it costs a shed-load of money.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

No idea. I no longer have to skim every post. You post so much, and lots of it contradictory.

 

Ha Ha. Have you got any examples. I dont post that much actually. I am well down the league table.

BTW I wasnt criticising your post. I understand what you are saying. I was merely agreeing with you.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Happier diner

[Banker]

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

When they sacked you, but neither side wants to admit it.  And you're old enough to tap into the pension fund (no doubt with lots of extra thrown in to make things smoother).

As mentioned previously you cannot get your pension before normal retirement age ie 65 unless it’s for ill health or you’re a fireman/police officer.

If you take pension earlier you get an actuarial reduction, normally 5% for each year taken early. Decision on pensions are taken by trustees of schemes & nothing t do with politicians 

 

[Happier diner]

14 minutes ago, Banker said:

As mentioned previously you cannot get your pension before normal retirement age ie 65 unless it’s for ill health or you’re a fireman/police officer.

If you take pension earlier you get an actuarial reduction, normally 5% for each year taken early. Decision on pensions are taken by trustees of schemes & nothing t do with politicians 

 

That's true. But if you get 2 years paid notice that is pensionable you are quids in aren't you? .2 more years service. 2 years less reduction and hey 2 years pay as well. Win win win.