Payoff for Brighton and Hove City Council's £85k a year HR boss (From The Argus)

If a member of staff is made redundant the payout is acceptable.
However, I have serious concerns about this council which seems to 'pay off' anyone it no longer wishes working in the authority, although we are never told the reason despite public money being used to pay staff off.
If a member of staff is failing to perform then performance manage them out of their role.
If the councillors don't like the individual, then the tax payers need to know why our money is being used in this way.
I find the increasing number of pay offs by this council very worrying.
Who is accountable?

An announcement on the council’s internal website confirmed Ms Thomas will leave the local authority on October 19 after overseeing the process of recruiting a new chief executive.
I thought they paid an outside Agency £30,000 To recruit a new CEO.More smoke and mirrors.

who the hell is worth 85k a year in HR? what are the people hired by the 85k HR boss getting paid?

who the hell is worth 85k a year in HR? what are the people hired by the 85k HR boss getting paid?

wow. I wish I could get a big fat payoff for being **** at my job

Here we go again!
The acolytes of the Lucas and Kitcat cult can indulge in pay-offs like this, find the the money to plant solar palm trees but you'll be lucky to get your gritting bin refilled this winter.
Strange priorities - weird Council.

"This council does not comment on personnel matters"; EXCUSE ME - SINCE WHEN IS PUBLIC FUNDS A PERSONAL MATTER?

vogon1 wrote:
wow. I wish I could get a big fat payoff for being **** at my job

Not to mention the big fat salary she was getting when throwing it around.

There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.

How much would kitcat take to b****r off? Definately the cheaper option as he and his minions waste our money on pet projects like the Kitcat vanity memorial erection, sorry the i360. Shame on the other parties for voting for this monstrosity.

Nice work f you can get it

Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.

No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.

Fight_Back wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.

No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.

You might be right. But the payment is there both to deter and to protect. I am sure the unions will protect their members from such practices, after all, what else do they exist for but to maximise working conditions for their members?

Plantpot wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.

No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.

You might be right. But the payment is there both to deter and to protect. I am sure the unions will protect their members from such practices, after all, what else do they exist for but to maximise working conditions for their members?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - a rhetorical question I'm sure. Well when my partners employer starting playing games like that her Union, Unite, were useless. Barely wanted to know, rarely responded in a timely manner and when they did deem to turn up to meetings were next to pointless. In my partner hired an employment solicitor who managed to get thousands of pounds for her amongst other things. Personally I'd recommend people save their union fees and pay for a solicitor as and when required.

"A council spokesman declined to make any further comment adding it did not comment on personnel matters" -ermmm it's public money???
Notice how council "spokespeople" never give their name? -so much for transparency

I do wonder how the amount paid can be deemed commercially sensitive when the payer is a public authority. Its not as if they are in competition with anyone. Perhaps its just the exemption they hide behind when responding to a Freedom of Information request. I'm sure an appeal to the Info Commissioner will result in an order to divulge.

I assume the lack of disclosure is to protect the individual to whom the payment has been given. Disclosure might give the opportunity for the individual to be smeared, even inadvertently.

Fight_Back wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.

No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.

This.

Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.

For the record, only one Union is bothered! Not my one!

Fight_Back wrote:

Plantpot wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.

No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.

You might be right. But the payment is there both to deter and to protect. I am sure the unions will protect their members from such practices, after all, what else do they exist for but to maximise working conditions for their members?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - a rhetorical question I'm sure. Well when my partners employer starting playing games like that her Union, Unite, were useless. Barely wanted to know, rarely responded in a timely manner and when they did deem to turn up to meetings were next to pointless. In my partner hired an employment solicitor who managed to get thousands of pounds for her amongst other things. Personally I'd recommend people save their union fees and pay for a solicitor as and when required.

I'd love to agree with this, and it may be true in that case - but, the vast majority of UNISON members in BHCC, would, I am sure, agree, that we do the "business" for them. Which is why in comparative terms we have the second largest Branch in our main employer, in the whole of the UK.
A bit of trumpet blowing, but it shows what can be achieved when members act collectively.

Skidrow wrote:
I do wonder how the amount paid can be deemed commercially sensitive when the payer is a public authority. Its not as if they are in competition with anyone. Perhaps its just the exemption they hide behind when responding to a Freedom of Information request. I'm sure an appeal to the Info Commissioner will result in an order to divulge.

God knows why they used that phrase - what they should have said is that a confidentiality clause applies - neither party can reveal the content of a "Compromise Agreement".

Consultants, consultants and more consultants who are paid huge sums of money to hire people , to put right the damage when things go wrong , paid more to hire a replacement - surely someone should be investigating the efficacy of the so called consultants - especially looking at their track record of placing then re-placing key personnel.