Female jobs recession ‘underway’

I didn't, I thought it was cheeky that only HEO and above got bonus's.

I don't think anyone shouls get bonus's for doing the job they are paid to do and that includes bankers!

My understanding is that video and telephone conferencing is increasingly being regarded as the default for meetings across Government Departments, with travel needing to be justified, rather than expected, as was the case in the past. First class travel has, I believe, been almost completely halted across the Civil Service and it seems to be a rarity to get a cup of coffee provided at a meeting nowadays - hospitality seems to be restricted to being directed to the water tap down the corridor in the Civil Service.

I'm intrigued as to why you think bonuses should be restricted to staff below HEO level. Where bonus schemes are in operation (and whether they actually work is another issue!) shouldn't anyone who is performing above the required standard be rewarded?

The Home Office in London has already sent the e-mail out it was closed in October 2010 and you are right it was across the board. One of my friends has accepted the offer and another has found that it is not beneficial for her.

In the past when voluntary redundancies have been broached it was offered to the over 50's only. Some were accepted for redundancy some were not. I would assume that only the over 50's would contemplate redundancy this time too, as upping the earnings to £23k for young people will not amount to much if the calculation includes length of service.

I maintain that the majority of lower grade officer's are still women and if their partner's are working they will not qualify for JSA and even if they have no partner the lump sum would bar them from claiming JSA therefore the figures are massaged there will be people out of work who cannot claim JSA just like 16 and 17 year old people cannot claim. So the unemployment figures quoted by the Government are not a true reflection of the unemployed people there actually are.

I call it redundancy because the Union states "the CSCS is the redundancy and early retirment payment scheme for Civil Service and many other public bodies". However it is pitched it is redundancy.

I am not a Civil Servant but I was for over 30 years' and my peers gave me the impression that the lump sum and pension started immediately. I apologise if I have offended you but as figures were mentioned I assumed that the payout was imminent and the terms she was given were very generous. My peer will receive £7k pension for 24 years' and a 33 years' pension is only £1k more and if it does start immediately then she is quids in.

Whatever happens it is clear that Wales and the North East will suffer as Civil Service work is devolved to these areas and the Government appears to think these areas are too dependent on public service work.

Take pity on those left when they are doing the jobs of three people HMRC is stuggling already before the cuts have evn been made.

This is not the way to make savings, there are many other way's the service can save money using spider 'phones instead of travelling to meetings, stopping first class travel and bonus's for HEO's and above, halting hospitality need I go on?

Sorry, Michelle, but I have aproblem with your first sentence "...all the employees over 50 were recently offered redundancy ...". In general Departments are still working out the details of their staff reduction plans and your sweeping statement does not apply to 'the Civil Service'. If jobs have to be lost, the'offer' of redundancy will first be on a voluntary basis, then on a voluntary basis with compulsory terms and finally fully compulsory. For the first 2 situations there is no discrimination as it's voluntary and in fact the compensation scheme (we don't have redundancy) that has now been imposed on the Civil Service is discriminatory in favour of younger people, as anyone earning under £23000, automatically has their earnings treated as £23,000. In the compulsory scenario, if it needs to come to it as it hasn't in the recent past, it will need to be open to all, but the scheme is skewed towards being more advantageous to older people as it is actuarily reduced the further away from 60, the retirement age, that the person is.
I'm also unsure as to what you mean by "...as the lump sums are still not spent ...". It depends what the terms of the sheme are and the age of the person, but the pension will either be preserved until the retirement age, so I suppose not spent at this moment, or will be immediately paid and that includes the lump sum.

Most low paid Civil Servants are women and all the employees over 50 were recently offered redundancy to facilitate the cut backs Government needed. It seems to fly in the face of the new age discrimination rules whilst also reducing the complement of women in the workplace usually in places where there is already high employment. I suppose as the lump sums are still not spent these figures are yet to be shown in the unemployment figures or if the husband works perhaps they will never show up as they won't be able to claim at all. Am I being cynical or is this just massaging the figures?

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a recession, all jobs are in danger.