Film Star Pay-offs
The Conservative Party has announced plans to cap the big money pay-off packages paid to senior public officials in recent years, often to people who keep on working in one form or another instead of leaving the workforce.
Now that's a very sensible move, one that's long overdue and deserves to be supported on an all-party, cross-party basis - if you ask me.
Because there are far too many examples of well paid senior officials in the NHS, in local government and elsewhere, walking away from their jobs with what look like film star sums of money to ordinary working people.
The reason that these payments have got out of hand is that they have been linked to the final salaries of senior officials, a system which favours the higher paid groups because they end up being 'paid out' a hell of a lot more than they've 'paid in' over the years.
Just like final salary pensions these severance payment arrangements always mean that the low paid subsidise the higher paid.
Conservatives vow to cap public sector redundancy pay-offs
The party has vowed to cap redundancy payments in the public sector - including in the NHS
The Conservatives have vowed to cap public sector redundancy pay-offs if the party wins May's general election.
The party's election manifesto would pledge to introduce legislation to limit payments to £95,000, Treasury minister Priti Patel said.
Taxpayers should not have to fund "huge payouts when well-paid people get made redundant", she said.
Labour said the Tories had already "wasted" more than £1bn on NHS payouts as part of a "reckless reorganisation".
The Conservative proposal follows a number of controversial pay-offs funded by the taxpayer, including some payments of more than £450,000 in the civil service and more than £500,000 in the NHS.
The Conservatives will also consult on extending the cap to cover those working for the BBC, where there have been controversial pay-offs up to just over £1m.
Staff earning less than £27,000 would be exempt from the cap to protect low-earning, long-serving public servants, the Conservatives said.'Horse bolted'
"It's not right that hard-working taxpayers, many on low salaries, have to fund huge payouts when well-paid people get made redundant," Ms Patel said.
"This goes to the heart of our long-term economic plan for Britain.
"It's about backing hard-working taxpayers and making sure the economy is tilted in their favour; and it's about saving money so we help bring down our deficit and make our economy more financially secure."
However, Labour shadow health minister Jamie Reed said Prime Minister David Cameron "can't get away from the fact that this horse has already bolted".
Mr Cameron had already wasted £1.6bn on redundancy payouts to NHS managers as part of "his reckless reorganisation", he said.
"Front line NHS staff found it galling that 4,000 managers who received pay-offs are now back in NHS jobs," Mr Reed added.
Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA which represents senior civil servants, said the cap would hit many ordinary public sector workers.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "This is being portrayed as an attack on fat cats. The reality is this scheme will impact upon nurses, police officers, firefighters, midwives, as well as the people who I represent who are better paid."
The Conservatives have vowed to cap public sector redundancy pay-offs if the party wins May's general election.
The party's election manifesto would pledge to introduce legislation to limit payments to £95,000, Treasury minister Priti Patel said.
Taxpayers should not have to fund "huge payouts when well-paid people get made redundant", she said.
Labour said the Tories had already "wasted" more than £1bn on NHS payouts as part of a "reckless reorganisation".
The Conservative proposal follows a number of controversial pay-offs funded by the taxpayer, including some payments of more than £450,000 in the civil service and more than £500,000 in the NHS.
The Conservatives will also consult on extending the cap to cover those working for the BBC, where there have been controversial pay-offs up to just over £1m.
Staff earning less than £27,000 would be exempt from the cap to protect low-earning, long-serving public servants, the Conservatives said.'Horse bolted'
"It's not right that hard-working taxpayers, many on low salaries, have to fund huge payouts when well-paid people get made redundant," Ms Patel said.
"This goes to the heart of our long-term economic plan for Britain.
"It's about backing hard-working taxpayers and making sure the economy is tilted in their favour; and it's about saving money so we help bring down our deficit and make our economy more financially secure."
However, Labour shadow health minister Jamie Reed said Prime Minister David Cameron "can't get away from the fact that this horse has already bolted".
Mr Cameron had already wasted £1.6bn on redundancy payouts to NHS managers as part of "his reckless reorganisation", he said.
"Front line NHS staff found it galling that 4,000 managers who received pay-offs are now back in NHS jobs," Mr Reed added.
Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA which represents senior civil servants, said the cap would hit many ordinary public sector workers.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "This is being portrayed as an attack on fat cats. The reality is this scheme will impact upon nurses, police officers, firefighters, midwives, as well as the people who I represent who are better paid."
Revolving Doors (28 October 2012)
I have to admit I'm getting a bit confused as well as outraged by the early retirement arrangements for some of the country's leading public servants.
The latest example to attract my attention is that of Sir Norman Bettinson - who resigned from his job yesterday as the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police.
But prior to this job Sir Norman was the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police - from 1998 to 2005 - when he retired from that job to become the Chief Executive of Centrex.
Centrex apparently provided training and development to police forces in the UK - and other enforcement agencies worldwide - until it was abolished in 2007.
Whereupon Sir Norman rejoined West Yorkshire Police as its new Chief Constable in 2007 - which he had worked for previously between 1993 and 1998.
Despite receiving a £328,000 lump sum (tax free?) severance payment - in connection with his earlier retirement as the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police in 2005.
Now Sir Norman is patiently waiting on his £83,000 annual pension being released - although the families of the Hillsborough disaster victims have called on his pension to be suspended - until investigations into the tragic deaths of 96 innocent Liverpool fans have been completed.
Now my confusion is this - 'How can it be right that these public funded bodies are able to operate a revolving door policy when it comes to senior staff?'
Staff who have previously retired and supposedly moved on in their lives - end up joining new organisations such as Centrex which were providing training and other services to UK police forces.
The whole thing seems like a complete racket to me - and it's high time that these ridiculous pensions regulations were changed.
Revolving Doors (14 January 2014)
Unite, the union, is at it as well it seems and has apparently brought back a former general secretary, Tony Woodley, as a consultant - only weeks after he retired.
Unite was also the union responsible for the outrageous 'golden goodbye' payment made to its other joint general secretary, Derek Simpson, who walked out with around half a million pounds of the members' money.
Without an angry word from Unite or any of the many Labour MPs or MSPs who are Unite members.
Amazing.
Unite in new row as union chief retires to return as adviser
Tony Woodley of Unite sparked anger with his return to work as an adviser straight after his retirement announcement Photograph: Julie Howden
Golden Goodbyes (November 28th 2011)
The latest edition of Private Eye reports on the ongoing row within Unite - Labour's biggest trade union donor of course - over the 'golden goodbye' paid to its former general secretary - Derek Simpson.
Funny how the subject is never brought up elsewhere in the news - or in the House of Commons - where Labour MPs queue up to denounce greedy bankers.
Unite's 'defence' of this extraordinary payment - is both ridiculous and insulting to ordinary union members.
More than a year after the row erupted - no one seems willing to explain who authorised over £500,000 of the members' money to be paid to one individual - and why.
"TUC News
Thousands of members of Unite, Britain's biggest union, are annoyed at its lawyers' decision to drop attempts to recover £361,347 paid to former joint-general secretary Derek Simpson as part of a controversial 'severance payment'.
Simpson left the union last year, pocketing a total farewell package off £519,659 (Eyes 1295 & 1296). With m'learned friends claiming the case was too 'finely balanced' to justify further action, irate members are none the wiser about how Simpson was able to pocket such a huge 'severance' payment when he had voluntarily resigned.
The union is sticking to the line that the payment was properly authorised in March 2008 by a meeting of the Amicus section of the general and purposes finance committee, chaired by one Steve Davidson. A promised affidavit by Davidson to that effect has yet to be produced.
Should it fail to appear, along with the record showing which union officer authorised the payment and when it left the union's bank account, disgruntled members are preparing to take their case to court and lodge a complaint with the trade union certification officer.
If such a complaint is upheld, the union's trustees - one of whom is Len McCluskey - could face removal from office - and Simpson could yet be forced to pay the money back."
Union Fat Cats (July 20th 2011)
Unite members will be shocked to learn that their hard-earned union contributions were used - to fund a £500,000 'golden goodbye' payment to former general secretary - Derek Simpson.
Simpson - a controversial character - received the severance package when he stepped down as Unite boss last year.
In one of the most lame statements of recent times the new boss of Unite - Len McCluskey - said that the payment was 'inappropriate' - and that it was made by a regime with 'lower standards of transparency and probity'.
Well that takes the biscuit for complacency.
Because presumably Derek Simpson was not able just to write a cheque to himself for over £500,000 - surely some committee of the union (unions are obsessed with committees) must have known about and approved the payment.
In which case what exactly was it for - how was it calculated - and who gave the green light to proceed?
Now if this were News International or News of the World - Labour MPs in particular would be jumping about and down - displaying their outrage and contempt - demanding straight answers to straight questions.
So you would think that one or two - especially those with links to Unite - would be standing up for the interests of ordinary union members.
Not so far.
Euan McColm: How can we afford golden goodbyes?
Former Chief Exec of Historic Scotland, Ruth Parsons, alongside Mike Russell. Picture: Donald MacLeod
by Euan McColm
REDUNDANCY can be the most devastating life experience, especially for the middle-aged. There are the practical considerations: how am I going to pay the rent or mortgage? Are there any jobs I can actually do? Do I need to retrain?
And then there is the emotional impact: the feeling of powerlessness; fear about the future; frustration at the prospect of starting from scratch.
A common response is to wear a brave face and insist to friends and family that this sudden, unwanted career change is a great opportunity. Perhaps you know someone who’s chosen this coping strategy. You’ll know the pathos can be unbearable.
If you’re lucky, your employer will have its own redundancy scheme and you might get enough to tide you over. But if you’re entitled only to statutory redundancy, you can expect half a week’s pay for every year you were under 22, a week’s money for every year you were aged 22-41, and one-and-a-half week’s cash for those years in which you were over 41.
Actually, you might not get that. Statutory redundancy payments are capped at £430 a week and at 20 years’ service. The maximum anyone receives under this scheme, regardless of time served or salary earned, is £12,900. A decent chunk of cash, yes, but hardly the strongest of safety nets.
Ruth Parsons, a career civil servant, was appointed chief executive of Historic Scotland in 2009. What followed was a turbulent 30-month period within the heritage agency.
A survey of Historic Scotland employees in October 2011 uncovered several claims by staff that they had been harassed at work. The wellbeing study of 1,100 staff found 53 reported bullying in some form, five alleged that they were often victimised, and two felt they were continually bullied.
Despite the findings of the survey, there were no formal complaints lodged by staff, and Parsons denied there was discontent within the organisation, and strongly rejected allegations of bullying levelled against her.
In June 2012, Parsons arranged a deal to leave Historic Scotland, and went on to become deputy director of the International Public Policy Institute at Strathclyde University, a position she still holds along with the executive directorship of CyArk, a charity committed to creating an online 3-D library of world heritage sites.
On leaving Historic Scotland, Parsons enjoyed considerably more than the statutory entitlement for departing employees. We now know that Parsons was compensated “for loss of office” to the tune of almost £300,000, or around three times her annual salary. Forget one week’s pay for every year worked. Having worked for Historic Scotland for just two-and-a-half years, Parsons received almost two grand for every week she had been in post.
This payment was authorised – alongside a raft of other civil service redundancy packages totalling £18 million last year – by the Scottish Government. Many of these were mundane enough cases. The total figure covers the departures of 461 staff. But there are some eyebrow-raisers in the mix. Two senior officials left their jobs with packages amounting to more than quarter of a million pounds, while 29 in total received six-figure sums.
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson raised Parsons’ case with Alex Salmond during First Minister’s Questions on Thursday, when she correctly identified the pay-off as a huge amount and demanded to know why ministers had not taken a personal interest in the arrangement since this was a high-profile case.
Since Scottish taxpayers were footing the bill for this “golden goodbye”, it was incumbent upon the First Minister to tell us who was responsible for signing it off. It was hard to believe, said Davidson, that such a lucrative package could have been handed over without a minister’s say-so..
It’s true the Scottish Government’s guidelines suggest ministerial clearance might have been sought in this case, though the unhelpfully vague wording of the advice to ministers – that this should be done “as and when appropriate” – lets Salmond and colleagues off the hook. Salmond was clear that it would not have been appropriate for ministers to intervene in Parsons’ case. We must take him at his word. But Davidson’s questions in the Holyrood debating chamber were not about changing anything, about getting the money back. Hers was an attempt to make the First Minister appear blasé about public finances at a time when cuts have hit the services upon which we depend.
It’s not, however, Salmond’s fault that Parsons received such a thwacking great pay-off – along with pension contributions that will give her a further £100,000 lump sum and £35,000-a-year upon retirement – but rather it’s the fault of the terms and conditions of civil service employees.
We might be interested (after all, who doesn’t like a gossip?) in the details of how and why it was decided that Parsons should depart from Historic Scotland but we have no right to. Confidentiality in these matters must be available to every employee, even if we don’t much like the look of the deal as struck.
But we are entitled to ask questions about whether civil service contracts should include vastly inflated pension schemes, funded by taxpayers, and lump sums which, in some cases, would comfortably buy a house.
Why should it be that private sector workers have no more protection than that offered by the statutory redundancy scheme while the civil servants who drafted that legislation have so much more, including the common practice of turning redundancy into early retirement, ensuring fat pensions are paid out immediately?
Davidson affected to want more detail about the Ruth Parsons case in order to embarrass Salmond. More useful to the rest of us would be a serious examination by politicians of whether it’s sustainable – or fair – for senior civil servants to enjoy such colossal financial perks at all.
In recent weeks there has been much comment about the NHS and the practice of senior officials being shown the door - often in controversial circumstances - but with hugely generous exit packages.
More often than not these publicly funded exit packages are accompanied by 'gagging clauses' - which effectively prevent people speaking out about the circumstances surrounding their departure - a practice that is the exact opposite of open and transparent government.
So I thought it would be useful to reproduce a previous post from the blog site on the departure of the former Finance Director - of South Lanarkshire Council.
I think it would be a great public service if senior officials in this situation - like Linda Hardie - came forward to tell their side of the story - because these 'gagging clauses' are offensive to common sense and have no place in any of our public services.
South Lanarkshire Council is up in the UK Supreme Court soon - over its refusal to disclose pay information ordered by the Scottish Information Commissioner - and the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.
I'll have more to say on that subject in the next few days.
Mired in Scandal (6 August 2012)
Well done to the Daily Record for exposing another disgraceful chapter in the life of South Lanarkshire Council.
Here's a story which appeared in the paper last week - and shines a light on the controversial departure of the council's finance chief in April 2011.
To my mind spending £500,000 on a early retirement package for a senior council official - is an obscene waste of public money.
Yet the council fails to offer a proper explanation for its actions and simply brushes aside the criticisms of Scotland's public spending watchdog - Audit Scotland.
If you ask me it's high time the Scottish Government took a long hard look at what's going on inside South Lanarkshire Council - which looks increasingly arrogant and out of control.
Golden goodbye scandal: Council chief pocketed £500k severance package.. after receiving £63k garden leave pay
The Daily Record revealed yesterday the severance package had been paid to finance chief Linda Hardie by Labour-led South Lanarkshire Council.
The council who gave a £500,000 payoff to a boss who “retired” at 50 have been savaged by a financial watchdog for paying her another £63,000 to stay at home.
The Daily Record revealed yesterday the severance package had been paid to finance chief Linda Hardie by Labour-led South Lanarkshire Council.
Hardie’s department lost £100,000 of taxpayers’ money to a fraud scam and made £38million worth of “arithmetical errors” in budget cuts.
Now we can reveal the council have been criticised by the public spending watchdog for allowing Hardie to spend six months on her full £127,000-a-year salary before picking up her massive package.
A report for Audit Scotland says: “There is no documentary evidence to demonstrate value for money for the full pay provided from 18 October, 2010, to 18 April, 2011.”
The report also reveals that Hardie’s deal was approved only by her fellow paid officials, contrary to Audit Scotland’s guidelines, which say elected councillors should be involved in early retirement packages.
That has prompted questions about who exactly is running the council, who are fighting a costly legal battle against their own female staff over equal pay.
Local SNP MSP Christina McKelvie said: “Given that they are dragging their heels over equal pay claims, how could they justify using scarce resources to award such a staggering payoff?
Council leader Eddie McAvoy has some serious questions to answer. Why is it that decisions about early retirement appear to have been left to council management?
Did McAvoy have any knowledge of this golden goodbye and does he think it was appropriate or necessary? The buck stops with the administration, and they now must explain what steps they are taking to avoid such obscene payoffs in future.”
SNP ministers are also demanding answers from the council about the payoff – which saw Hardie receive £106,000 severance plus £427,000 paid into her pension.
McAvoy was abroad on holiday and could not be contacted for comment.
A council spokesman said: “The council followed early retirement approval procedures as detailed in standing orders. The retirement provision was in line with the contract of employment and with general employment law and pension regulations.”
A DINNER LADY'S TALE.
It would take half a century for the average female worker fighting South Lanarkshire Council for equal pay to earn the £500,000 payoff handed to finance chief Linda Hardie.
Hardie took early retirement aged just 50 in April last year but the details of her package have only emerged now.
One dinner lady of 55, who is among those fighting for equal pay, earns £10,000 a year for a 30-hour week – but Hardie will get six times that in pension.
The woman, who did not want to be named, said: “When I saw what she was getting, it made me sick to the pit of my stomach.
“If I worked every day for the rest of my life, I wouldn’t earn the money she has walked away with.
“The council have done everything they can to stop us getting a fair deal and just hand over cash like that to someone who made a hash of her job.”
The council are refusing to accept an employment tribunal’s ruling that they must offer the women, including cleaners and dinner ladies, equal pay.
The worker added: “All the money that is being used to fight us is also a waste of taxpayers’ cash because we are not giving up until we win.”
THE trade union behind the Grangemouth debacle is embroiled in another row after a former general secretary was hired as a consultant weeks after he retired.
Tony Woodley of Unite sparked anger with his return to work as an adviser straight after his retirement announcement Photograph: Julie Howden
Tony Woodley left Unite in December but is to become an "adviser" to the union.
Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser blasted what he described as the union's "jobs for the boys" culture.
Unite, which is Labour's biggest donor, was formed in 2007 following the merger of Amicus and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
Two general secretaries ran the organisation jointly in the early years: Derek Simpson, on the Amicus side; and Woodley, who had led the T&G.
In 2010, Len McCluskey - a key ally of Woodley - won the election to become the super-union's first sole general secretary.
Simpson received a severance deal worth around £500,000, while Woodley was given the plum job of "executive officer" for organising.
In a letter to members at the time, Woodley noted: "I am pleased to say that I am not jumping ship - I will continue to work for the union until my normal retirement age of 65, in a position I have discussed with Len and about which he will be writing to you separately."
Woodley turned 65 last year and retired before Christmas.
But the veteran trade unionist is set for a comeback as an adviser to the union on the car industry.
Woodley was involved in helping the workforce during the recent industrial dispute with logistics firm DHL, which delivers parts to the car manufacturer Jaguar Land Rover.
A Labour source criticised the advisory role: "Unite members, many of whom are worried about their jobs, will be flabbergasted about this situation. For someone to retire and then come back as an adviser beggars belief."
The retire-rehire practice has attracted controversy in the public and private sectors, as it involves using resources that could be used to hire new blood. The Sunday Herald has revealed numerous cases of quangos, agencies, councils and police bodies giving consultancy work to firms run by former managers and executives.
One Scottish council is reportedly considering putting restrictions on rehiring staff who have taken early retirement or voluntary redundancy.
The revelation comes after Unite was criticised for its tactics last year during a Labour selection contest in Falkirk.
The union recruited more than 100 new members in a bid to help its preferred candidate, Karie Murphy, secure the nomination.
However, it was alleged that some of the new members were signed up without consent, an allegation Unite vigorously denied.
A political row then spiralled into a major industrial dispute, as many of the members were recruited at the Grangemouth oil refinery by shop steward Stevie Deans.
Ineos, which operates the plant, investigated whether Deans had used company time to sign up the members, a probe that nearly led to the site's closure and the loss of hundreds of jobs.
Murdo Fraser said: "Obviously Unite is free to use its members' subscriptions how it sees fit.
"If I was a contributing member, I'd be pretty appalled at this 'jobs for the boys' culture that seems to exist. Perhaps if the union spent less time propping up a failing Labour Party it would be able to make better use of its members' hard-earned donations."
A Unite spokesman said: "Unite is pleased that Tony Woodley has agreed to act in an advisory capacity which will see, from time to time, the union drawing upon his forensic knowledge and expertise of the car industry.
"It is widely acknowledged that Tony has played a central role in securing the future of the UK industry as it continues to go from strength to strength.
"Hugely respected by senior ministers and employers through his work on the automotive council, and with a proven record in securing investment into the UK from global car makers, it makes sense that Unite should continue to draw on his skills as we continue to support this key sector of the UK economy."
Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser blasted what he described as the union's "jobs for the boys" culture.
Unite, which is Labour's biggest donor, was formed in 2007 following the merger of Amicus and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
Two general secretaries ran the organisation jointly in the early years: Derek Simpson, on the Amicus side; and Woodley, who had led the T&G.
In 2010, Len McCluskey - a key ally of Woodley - won the election to become the super-union's first sole general secretary.
Simpson received a severance deal worth around £500,000, while Woodley was given the plum job of "executive officer" for organising.
In a letter to members at the time, Woodley noted: "I am pleased to say that I am not jumping ship - I will continue to work for the union until my normal retirement age of 65, in a position I have discussed with Len and about which he will be writing to you separately."
Woodley turned 65 last year and retired before Christmas.
But the veteran trade unionist is set for a comeback as an adviser to the union on the car industry.
Woodley was involved in helping the workforce during the recent industrial dispute with logistics firm DHL, which delivers parts to the car manufacturer Jaguar Land Rover.
A Labour source criticised the advisory role: "Unite members, many of whom are worried about their jobs, will be flabbergasted about this situation. For someone to retire and then come back as an adviser beggars belief."
The retire-rehire practice has attracted controversy in the public and private sectors, as it involves using resources that could be used to hire new blood. The Sunday Herald has revealed numerous cases of quangos, agencies, councils and police bodies giving consultancy work to firms run by former managers and executives.
One Scottish council is reportedly considering putting restrictions on rehiring staff who have taken early retirement or voluntary redundancy.
The revelation comes after Unite was criticised for its tactics last year during a Labour selection contest in Falkirk.
The union recruited more than 100 new members in a bid to help its preferred candidate, Karie Murphy, secure the nomination.
However, it was alleged that some of the new members were signed up without consent, an allegation Unite vigorously denied.
A political row then spiralled into a major industrial dispute, as many of the members were recruited at the Grangemouth oil refinery by shop steward Stevie Deans.
Ineos, which operates the plant, investigated whether Deans had used company time to sign up the members, a probe that nearly led to the site's closure and the loss of hundreds of jobs.
Murdo Fraser said: "Obviously Unite is free to use its members' subscriptions how it sees fit.
"If I was a contributing member, I'd be pretty appalled at this 'jobs for the boys' culture that seems to exist. Perhaps if the union spent less time propping up a failing Labour Party it would be able to make better use of its members' hard-earned donations."
A Unite spokesman said: "Unite is pleased that Tony Woodley has agreed to act in an advisory capacity which will see, from time to time, the union drawing upon his forensic knowledge and expertise of the car industry.
"It is widely acknowledged that Tony has played a central role in securing the future of the UK industry as it continues to go from strength to strength.
"Hugely respected by senior ministers and employers through his work on the automotive council, and with a proven record in securing investment into the UK from global car makers, it makes sense that Unite should continue to draw on his skills as we continue to support this key sector of the UK economy."
Golden Goodbyes (November 28th 2011)
The latest edition of Private Eye reports on the ongoing row within Unite - Labour's biggest trade union donor of course - over the 'golden goodbye' paid to its former general secretary - Derek Simpson.
Funny how the subject is never brought up elsewhere in the news - or in the House of Commons - where Labour MPs queue up to denounce greedy bankers.
Unite's 'defence' of this extraordinary payment - is both ridiculous and insulting to ordinary union members.
More than a year after the row erupted - no one seems willing to explain who authorised over £500,000 of the members' money to be paid to one individual - and why.
"TUC News
Thousands of members of Unite, Britain's biggest union, are annoyed at its lawyers' decision to drop attempts to recover £361,347 paid to former joint-general secretary Derek Simpson as part of a controversial 'severance payment'.
Simpson left the union last year, pocketing a total farewell package off £519,659 (Eyes 1295 & 1296). With m'learned friends claiming the case was too 'finely balanced' to justify further action, irate members are none the wiser about how Simpson was able to pocket such a huge 'severance' payment when he had voluntarily resigned.
The union is sticking to the line that the payment was properly authorised in March 2008 by a meeting of the Amicus section of the general and purposes finance committee, chaired by one Steve Davidson. A promised affidavit by Davidson to that effect has yet to be produced.
Should it fail to appear, along with the record showing which union officer authorised the payment and when it left the union's bank account, disgruntled members are preparing to take their case to court and lodge a complaint with the trade union certification officer.
If such a complaint is upheld, the union's trustees - one of whom is Len McCluskey - could face removal from office - and Simpson could yet be forced to pay the money back."
Union Fat Cats (July 20th 2011)
Unite members will be shocked to learn that their hard-earned union contributions were used - to fund a £500,000 'golden goodbye' payment to former general secretary - Derek Simpson.
Simpson - a controversial character - received the severance package when he stepped down as Unite boss last year.
In one of the most lame statements of recent times the new boss of Unite - Len McCluskey - said that the payment was 'inappropriate' - and that it was made by a regime with 'lower standards of transparency and probity'.
Well that takes the biscuit for complacency.
Because presumably Derek Simpson was not able just to write a cheque to himself for over £500,000 - surely some committee of the union (unions are obsessed with committees) must have known about and approved the payment.
In which case what exactly was it for - how was it calculated - and who gave the green light to proceed?
Now if this were News International or News of the World - Labour MPs in particular would be jumping about and down - displaying their outrage and contempt - demanding straight answers to straight questions.
So you would think that one or two - especially those with links to Unite - would be standing up for the interests of ordinary union members.
Not so far.
Golden Goodbyes (15 January 2014)
Euan McColm wrote this hard hitting piece in Scotland on Sunday at the weekend and he's absolutely right - the whole business of these big 'golden goodbye' payments stinks to high heaven.
In this case a former civil servant walked away with a huge sum of cash - even though she had another job within a short space of time.
So what was the £300,000 supposed to be 'compensating' as the former CEO seems not to have lost out financially speaking in moving on from Historic Scotland?
Now these kind of payments are not unusual in the public public sector and. of course, they are always reserved for the most senior and highest paid staff - many millions of pounds of public money have been squandered by Scotland's councils, NHS boards and other public bodies such as the BBC in recent years - £18 million is just the tip of the iceberg.
People routinely take early retirement and then walk into other paid employment - but it seems to me that allowing people to 'retire' and then re-enter the workforce rather defeats the point an early retirement scheme.
I would change the rules by capping these big buy off payments - and suspending pension payments if the former employee continues to work and does not actually retire.
Euan McColm: How can we afford golden goodbyes?
Former Chief Exec of Historic Scotland, Ruth Parsons, alongside Mike Russell. Picture: Donald MacLeod
by Euan McColm
REDUNDANCY can be the most devastating life experience, especially for the middle-aged. There are the practical considerations: how am I going to pay the rent or mortgage? Are there any jobs I can actually do? Do I need to retrain?
And then there is the emotional impact: the feeling of powerlessness; fear about the future; frustration at the prospect of starting from scratch.
A common response is to wear a brave face and insist to friends and family that this sudden, unwanted career change is a great opportunity. Perhaps you know someone who’s chosen this coping strategy. You’ll know the pathos can be unbearable.
If you’re lucky, your employer will have its own redundancy scheme and you might get enough to tide you over. But if you’re entitled only to statutory redundancy, you can expect half a week’s pay for every year you were under 22, a week’s money for every year you were aged 22-41, and one-and-a-half week’s cash for those years in which you were over 41.
Actually, you might not get that. Statutory redundancy payments are capped at £430 a week and at 20 years’ service. The maximum anyone receives under this scheme, regardless of time served or salary earned, is £12,900. A decent chunk of cash, yes, but hardly the strongest of safety nets.
Ruth Parsons, a career civil servant, was appointed chief executive of Historic Scotland in 2009. What followed was a turbulent 30-month period within the heritage agency.
A survey of Historic Scotland employees in October 2011 uncovered several claims by staff that they had been harassed at work. The wellbeing study of 1,100 staff found 53 reported bullying in some form, five alleged that they were often victimised, and two felt they were continually bullied.
Despite the findings of the survey, there were no formal complaints lodged by staff, and Parsons denied there was discontent within the organisation, and strongly rejected allegations of bullying levelled against her.
In June 2012, Parsons arranged a deal to leave Historic Scotland, and went on to become deputy director of the International Public Policy Institute at Strathclyde University, a position she still holds along with the executive directorship of CyArk, a charity committed to creating an online 3-D library of world heritage sites.
On leaving Historic Scotland, Parsons enjoyed considerably more than the statutory entitlement for departing employees. We now know that Parsons was compensated “for loss of office” to the tune of almost £300,000, or around three times her annual salary. Forget one week’s pay for every year worked. Having worked for Historic Scotland for just two-and-a-half years, Parsons received almost two grand for every week she had been in post.
This payment was authorised – alongside a raft of other civil service redundancy packages totalling £18 million last year – by the Scottish Government. Many of these were mundane enough cases. The total figure covers the departures of 461 staff. But there are some eyebrow-raisers in the mix. Two senior officials left their jobs with packages amounting to more than quarter of a million pounds, while 29 in total received six-figure sums.
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson raised Parsons’ case with Alex Salmond during First Minister’s Questions on Thursday, when she correctly identified the pay-off as a huge amount and demanded to know why ministers had not taken a personal interest in the arrangement since this was a high-profile case.
Since Scottish taxpayers were footing the bill for this “golden goodbye”, it was incumbent upon the First Minister to tell us who was responsible for signing it off. It was hard to believe, said Davidson, that such a lucrative package could have been handed over without a minister’s say-so..
It’s true the Scottish Government’s guidelines suggest ministerial clearance might have been sought in this case, though the unhelpfully vague wording of the advice to ministers – that this should be done “as and when appropriate” – lets Salmond and colleagues off the hook. Salmond was clear that it would not have been appropriate for ministers to intervene in Parsons’ case. We must take him at his word. But Davidson’s questions in the Holyrood debating chamber were not about changing anything, about getting the money back. Hers was an attempt to make the First Minister appear blasé about public finances at a time when cuts have hit the services upon which we depend.
It’s not, however, Salmond’s fault that Parsons received such a thwacking great pay-off – along with pension contributions that will give her a further £100,000 lump sum and £35,000-a-year upon retirement – but rather it’s the fault of the terms and conditions of civil service employees.
We might be interested (after all, who doesn’t like a gossip?) in the details of how and why it was decided that Parsons should depart from Historic Scotland but we have no right to. Confidentiality in these matters must be available to every employee, even if we don’t much like the look of the deal as struck.
But we are entitled to ask questions about whether civil service contracts should include vastly inflated pension schemes, funded by taxpayers, and lump sums which, in some cases, would comfortably buy a house.
Why should it be that private sector workers have no more protection than that offered by the statutory redundancy scheme while the civil servants who drafted that legislation have so much more, including the common practice of turning redundancy into early retirement, ensuring fat pensions are paid out immediately?
Davidson affected to want more detail about the Ruth Parsons case in order to embarrass Salmond. More useful to the rest of us would be a serious examination by politicians of whether it’s sustainable – or fair – for senior civil servants to enjoy such colossal financial perks at all.
Gagging Clauses (15 March 2013)
In recent weeks there has been much comment about the NHS and the practice of senior officials being shown the door - often in controversial circumstances - but with hugely generous exit packages.
More often than not these publicly funded exit packages are accompanied by 'gagging clauses' - which effectively prevent people speaking out about the circumstances surrounding their departure - a practice that is the exact opposite of open and transparent government.
So I thought it would be useful to reproduce a previous post from the blog site on the departure of the former Finance Director - of South Lanarkshire Council.
I think it would be a great public service if senior officials in this situation - like Linda Hardie - came forward to tell their side of the story - because these 'gagging clauses' are offensive to common sense and have no place in any of our public services.
South Lanarkshire Council is up in the UK Supreme Court soon - over its refusal to disclose pay information ordered by the Scottish Information Commissioner - and the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.
I'll have more to say on that subject in the next few days.
Mired in Scandal (6 August 2012)
Well done to the Daily Record for exposing another disgraceful chapter in the life of South Lanarkshire Council.
Here's a story which appeared in the paper last week - and shines a light on the controversial departure of the council's finance chief in April 2011.
To my mind spending £500,000 on a early retirement package for a senior council official - is an obscene waste of public money.
Yet the council fails to offer a proper explanation for its actions and simply brushes aside the criticisms of Scotland's public spending watchdog - Audit Scotland.
If you ask me it's high time the Scottish Government took a long hard look at what's going on inside South Lanarkshire Council - which looks increasingly arrogant and out of control.
Golden goodbye scandal: Council chief pocketed £500k severance package.. after receiving £63k garden leave pay
The Daily Record revealed yesterday the severance package had been paid to finance chief Linda Hardie by Labour-led South Lanarkshire Council.
The council who gave a £500,000 payoff to a boss who “retired” at 50 have been savaged by a financial watchdog for paying her another £63,000 to stay at home.
The Daily Record revealed yesterday the severance package had been paid to finance chief Linda Hardie by Labour-led South Lanarkshire Council.
Hardie’s department lost £100,000 of taxpayers’ money to a fraud scam and made £38million worth of “arithmetical errors” in budget cuts.
Now we can reveal the council have been criticised by the public spending watchdog for allowing Hardie to spend six months on her full £127,000-a-year salary before picking up her massive package.
A report for Audit Scotland says: “There is no documentary evidence to demonstrate value for money for the full pay provided from 18 October, 2010, to 18 April, 2011.”
The report also reveals that Hardie’s deal was approved only by her fellow paid officials, contrary to Audit Scotland’s guidelines, which say elected councillors should be involved in early retirement packages.
That has prompted questions about who exactly is running the council, who are fighting a costly legal battle against their own female staff over equal pay.
Local SNP MSP Christina McKelvie said: “Given that they are dragging their heels over equal pay claims, how could they justify using scarce resources to award such a staggering payoff?
Council leader Eddie McAvoy has some serious questions to answer. Why is it that decisions about early retirement appear to have been left to council management?
Did McAvoy have any knowledge of this golden goodbye and does he think it was appropriate or necessary? The buck stops with the administration, and they now must explain what steps they are taking to avoid such obscene payoffs in future.”
SNP ministers are also demanding answers from the council about the payoff – which saw Hardie receive £106,000 severance plus £427,000 paid into her pension.
McAvoy was abroad on holiday and could not be contacted for comment.
A council spokesman said: “The council followed early retirement approval procedures as detailed in standing orders. The retirement provision was in line with the contract of employment and with general employment law and pension regulations.”
A DINNER LADY'S TALE.
It would take half a century for the average female worker fighting South Lanarkshire Council for equal pay to earn the £500,000 payoff handed to finance chief Linda Hardie.
Hardie took early retirement aged just 50 in April last year but the details of her package have only emerged now.
One dinner lady of 55, who is among those fighting for equal pay, earns £10,000 a year for a 30-hour week – but Hardie will get six times that in pension.
The woman, who did not want to be named, said: “When I saw what she was getting, it made me sick to the pit of my stomach.
“If I worked every day for the rest of my life, I wouldn’t earn the money she has walked away with.
“The council have done everything they can to stop us getting a fair deal and just hand over cash like that to someone who made a hash of her job.”
The council are refusing to accept an employment tribunal’s ruling that they must offer the women, including cleaners and dinner ladies, equal pay.
The worker added: “All the money that is being used to fight us is also a waste of taxpayers’ cash because we are not giving up until we win.”
