Edinburgh Trams
A friend of a friend told me an interesting story the other day - apparently her neighbour's husband (a just about to be retired firefighter) has landed a job as a driver on the Edinburgh trams which are now up and running.
Now this rather unremarkable piece of information is really quite significant because it highlights a widespread issue in the public sector which is people retiring early or accepting large pay offs - only to go on and take another job which is also supported by public funds.
Yet if I remember correctly, the firefighters' union often argues that their members deserve to retire early given the physical demands of their jobs and that they are effectively 'burnt out' by the time they get into their mid 50s.
Although not sufficiently burnt out to get a job driving an Edinburgh tram it would appear.
The same argument is also used by many teachers, of course, who point to the stress of the job rather than its physical demands in making a case that teachers too deserve more favourable treatment than other public service workers.
So it seems to me that public policy should be changed to ensure a degree of fairness across the board by requiring that someone who does retire early does not come back into the workforce - that they cannot have their cake and eat it at the same time by taking a job that someone else could do.
Which seems perfectly fair, if you ask me.
Waste of Public Money (12 May 2013)
I heard a news item on the radio the other day - which revolved around a report from the Taxpayers Alliance criticising the high salary levels - in local councils across the UK.
Interestingly, Glasgow City Council and South Lanarkshire Council came in for particular criticism - and some academic was wheeled out by Good Morning Scotland (GMS) to explain that it wasn't really all as bad as it sounded.
Because the big payments involved - in one case over £500,000 - often included early retirement payments and that the Taxpayers Alliance report did not reflect the fact that the paybill was reducing overall.
Now the paybill may be falling, but that ignores the key point - that all these senior managers are walking out the door with incredible retirement packages, often with another discretionary boost from public funds - only to resume their working careers in some other part of the public service or as a consutant cum contractor.
In other words, many of these individuals don't retire - they just go through a crazy revolving door which allows them to take up other publicly funded work - often in the same area of employment they've just left.
The fact that these arrangements apply only to people in senior psotions ought to be the give away - that it's a disgraceful way to waste public money.
Radical Idea (24 March 2013)
I had a radical idea the other day.
I was reflecting on the huge numbers of senior officials - from local Councils, the NHS, the BBC - who retire early on big tax free lump sums and very generous pensions.
Only to come back through a 'revolving door' as they enter the workforce again - in a different but often similar kind of job.
Now I've nothing folks who retire early - especially those who are supposedly 'burnt out' and who can't go on - because they've done their stint and have had enough of the world of work.
Though you would have to be daft not to notice that it's almost always the most senior and highly paid staff who benefit from these generous early release schemes - which then result in a big (taxpayer funded) boost to their pensions.
But my point is ithat f they've retired early, then why are such people they allowed to re-enter the workforce again - in any capacity?
To my mind this practice should be stopped - because it strikes me as those at the top having their cake and eating it at the same time.
So as a way of ensuring that public money is spent efficiently, wisely - and on the purpose for which it is intended - my idea is that once an employee leaves a publicly funded job then the the party's over - for good.
No more revolving doors or coming back in a slighlty different capacity - or dressed up in different clothes - as an independent contractor, for example.
If someone wants to leave and access their public pension, then fair enough - let them go.
But they should not be allowed to benefit from public sector money again - in any capacity because they've had a very good innings, at public expense - and no one is forcing them out the door.
Now far as I can see this would be very fair and maximise employment opportunities - by making sure that people could not effectively be retired early from one job - while being paid to do another.
Voluntary work wouldn't be excluded - of course.
