unlinkedstudent Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 considering he has only been head of finance for 10 years we are paying 13years top up for his final salary pension, this is in no way a good deal for us the council tax payer, I did hope that when the man came here fae orkney all this nonsense would come to an end, it seems not.Although as one guy just said maybe paying all that money to get rid of him is actually a good deal given the councils financial record of late I don't think it is unusual for certain Heads of Department to be shown the door/decide to take early retirement when a new (even if temporary) CEO joins an LA. However, it may well have been part and parcel of his Terms of Contract of Employment re the "golden handshake" and the blame therefore lies with the Head of HR/the bod(s) who agreed that contract. If, however, it is not in his Terms of Contract of Employment that the Council tops up his pension contribution and IF (I stress if because I am not totally au fait with pension legislation) there is no legal requirement for the Council to top it up, then they shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 When someone gets early retirement, the pension pot has to be 'topped up' by the employer to compensate for the 15 years that the employee is not payng into the fund and the 15 extra years they will be taking out of it. That will come to a sizeable sum, given the extremely large salary the Head of Finance is on, and the likely pension someone earning that amount will receive. Normally the top-up can be 'justified' by the savings from the deletion of the post, by surely SIC will still need a Head Finance - regardless of what they call the postion. It would not surprise me that the 'top up' the SIC have had to add to the pension fund to allow the Head of Finance to take early retirement is in the range of £250-500,000. The employee does not necessarily get 15 years of top up. I retired from the SIC at 51 and only got 6 1/2 years. The top up is not guaranteed, it depends on avaialable budget. I tried looking online for the SIC's Early Retirement Policy but is does not seem to be publically available. Someone on another thread was asking SIC Comms to make the terms of the Head of Finance's settlement public. In view of the wild speculation here that might be a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 sorry muckle but if your quiting public sector work at 50 then you should resign except if your unfit to carry on. why should the council pay an extra penny for anyones pension when they have to replace that person at probably extra cost.its a shear waste of money and talent. plus whats to stop the tired old 50 year old from then going on to earn another big chunk in the next 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 I found it a bit odd to retire so early myself but it has meant I can fit my life around our disabled bairn. I'm also a member of several voluntary groups so my talents are stilled being used for the benefit of Shetland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 and a very good reason too. but can you honestly say that the shetland island council rate payers should have payed you extra to go early. who ever though it was a good idea to allow public servants to walk away at 50 needed shooting.no blame on you thou we all would have done the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 They have spent so much money on pointless things the can only use the CAT scanner at the GBH every other Tuesday.Just wait until the windmill wannabes cash the trust check and do a runner.If you want a CAT scan, you will have to go to the local vet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhutch Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 I found it a bit odd to retire so early myself but it has meant I can fit my life around our disabled bairn. I'm also a member of several voluntary groups so my talents are stilled being used for the benefit of Shetland. i say good luck to dee n mean it , not trolling, in the current ecconomic climate jobs freed up are going to be desperately needed , if you have a desire to retire at 51 its nobodys business but your own , family needs are much more important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 of course family needs are the highest priorty for the person. not for the council. the council have a serious problem funding there retired workers pensions now. this is every where not just shetland. a very big chunk of the council tax goes to that pot. even were family needs are so urgent why is retirement the best option. the person is still fit and capable of work. however were talking about our soon to be retired head of finance here not mucklejoannie. he is not planning to look after a sick member of his family reading his statement in the paper he plans to bum about. why should we cover his pension for the next 15-20 years so he does not have to work. and if he does plan to work why should we pay his pension. if he no longer wants the job quit there will be others will to do it. and he can get his pension like every other council worker when he is 65/67/70 or whatever it will be then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 I am fairly certain that when the council houses "homeless" people they provide a complete house full of furniture right down to a kettle. Is this true and if so is this something they are required to do by law?. Otherwise perhaps there is scope for cuts here. Well a cut to SICs spending anyway as I am sure the people being housed could get a loan from the "social fund". Are you referring to when someone is allocated accomodation first as a homeless person ie. in what is/was called "temporary emergency accomodation", of when a "homeless" person already in the "temporary emergency accomodation" is allocated permanent accomodation under a full tenancy and moves in to that? I have no idea what goes on with the latter, but with the former whatever furniture etc is provided in the "temporary emergency accomodation" usually serves the needs of numerous people and is only replaced when it breaks or is broken. Someone allocated "temporary emergency accomodation" doesn't get to keep and take with them whatever furniture is provided in that accomodation to whatever accomodation they are eventually allocated under a full tenancy, they have to leave it behind for whoever is allocated that "temporary emergency accomodation" next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 No, was talking about people who get allocated permanent accommodation having been in temporary accommodation but perhaps also people who manage to get into permanent accommodation after leaving somewhere like prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhutch Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 No, was talking about people who get allocated permanent accommodation having been in temporary accommodation but perhaps also people who manage to get into permanent accommodation after leaving somewhere like prison. not that i'm at all sure , but i think SIC just follows legislation , as far as i'm aware theres no SIC or trust money spent on this , sincerely hope i'm correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 i think there were a few furnished houses in firth once for emergencies. but apart from them i think they would have to find there own stuff. they may help the person if they have extra needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bug Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 not that i'm at all sure , but i think SIC just follows legislation , as far as i'm aware theres no SIC or trust money spent on this , sincerely hope i'm correct Please be aware that all the money spent on this is straight from the taxpayers pocket (some of us still pay it) and it matters not a jot if it's referred to as SIC money or CT money or Government money or EU money or World Bank money. It's the working mans contribution to the cyclic shift of funds. I know most workers would rather use their earnings on other things but tax is tax and the contributors have little control on how it's channelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bug Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 Regarding budget cuts - I suggest an immediate ban on all overtime (emergencies & statutory exempt of course). No more routine time and a half or double bubble for any council employees forthwith. It'll hit hard on the council employees wagepackets and the receivers of their services (us) and will not be popular with anyone - but it is a cutback that's easy to implement and measure. What think you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhutch Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 not that i'm at all sure , but i think SIC just follows legislation , as far as i'm aware theres no SIC or trust money spent on this , sincerely hope i'm correct Please be aware that all the money spent on this is straight from the taxpayers pocket (some of us still pay it) and it matters not a jot if it's referred to as SIC money or CT money or Government money or EU money or World Bank money. It's the working mans contribution to the cyclic shift of funds. I know most workers would rather use their earnings on other things but tax is tax and the contributors have little control on how it's channelled. whats eatin at your pants ? even the bairns pay tax at a staggering 20% on thier X boxes etc , point is if its legislation there has to be stuff in emergency houses n you need one yoursell one day how loud will you sing ? and council budget cuts wont be against legislation , so try bein nippy n short wi the MP instead o me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now