You are:

Timetable to compulsory redundancies

25 August 2010

Timetable to compulsory redundancies November to May 2011 for DfT (C) re-organisation; June to November to "Work with those not placed in 'new DfT' to identify options including re-deployment"

Secnario 1

 

This is Scenario 1 as set out in a time table given to the Unions. DfT hope to publish this timetable soon on the central Department’s intranet.


The time period from early November to the end of May 2011 is labelled “If certainty on key issues, e.g. compensation scheme, begin transition, i.e. selection of people into parts of new organisation”.


From what the Department tell us (we are having regular meetings) the structure as reached at the end of May 2011 will also contain transitional posts that will disappear over time. How many such posts will there be, they don’t know (the last phrase could be the motto of this run down).

Scenario 2


Scenario 2 begins in late December and also lasts to the end of May. This period is labelled as “Uncertainty delays launch of transition”. It seems strange that uncertainty may delay the launch of the selection process but it will not change the end of that process (Scenario 1 and 2 both finish at the same time).
Even under Scenario 2, June to November 2011 is labelled “Work with those not placed in 'new DfT’ to identify options including re-deployment”.


So in both scenarios DfT(C) wants to select staff quickly for the new structure and then only allow June to November to deal with displaced staff. These changes in the central department are driven by the Government’s decision to cut DfT(C)’s administration budget (from which most staff are paid) by one third.

Lack of knowledge


We believe, given the lack of knowledge of the result of the cuts in the admin budget, that the timings in Scenario 1 (more so under Scenario 2) are over hasty and will lead to chaos and to compulsory redundancies. The admin budget is made up of pay (which is 60% of the admin budget) and non pay elements. DfT want to squeeze the non pay side (e.g. rent, paying consultants) so as to lessen possible staff cuts. How much they can do this we, and they, don’t know. It may be that they can greatly reduce non pay; it may be the current redundancy/early retirement exercise will exit many staff. If these things happen then maybe the number of staff left over when the music stops at the end of May 2011 is manageable and all the staff can be redeployed. Again we don’t know.


We do know that DfT senior managers are not being compelled to re-organise in six months; they have at least three years to reduce the administration budget. They have made a policy decision to re-organise the central department in six months. So why the hurry?


A clue is found in a Q&A published on 10 August by DfT (C). It states:


Why is the Board looking to restructure so quickly if we have three or four years to make the savings? Some of us would prefer to have a job for the extra period.


The DfT Board believes it would be bad for our Department’s business, and so ultimately bad for the people who work here, to let the restructure take a long time, and evidence from other organisations is that it is best to do major changes as soon as possible so that we can be fit to deliver the new challenges as quickly as possible.


Let’s leave to one side the statement that staff staying in employment for longer is bad for them.
 

Bad for Business?

When they say “The DfT Board believes it would be bad for our Department’s business” what they mean, we think, is that it will be more difficult to manage a change over three years rather than six months. The truth is that it will (may???) be more difficult to manage but that is the price that should be paid to protect staff. Even if the squeeze on non pay is only a modest success, even if few people exit under the current scheme, having three years to make the changes greatly reduces the chance of compulsory redundancies.


The cost of the senior civil service in DfT is over £18 million a year. Let’s put this £18 million talent to work and get it to manage a gradual run down. Despite what the Q&A states that would be good for the business and us.
 

View all News