No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by Si »

Tis the world of working in this sector of cycling. CTC has had relatively few redundancies compared to certain others. Because of the way that funding works, it is the future.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by TonyR »

langsett wrote:I believe for the last 7 or so years the majority of CTC staff engaged have been on short term contracts linked to funding streams at the end of which they are redundant?


If you look at the Annual Report and Accounts, restricted funding i.e. that funding which comes with specific delivery obligations such as grants, is about 20% of the CTC's income. The bulk is unrestricted funding i.e. its up to the CTC what they do with the money. So it would be surprising if the majority of CTC staff were on short term contracts. And in any case after four years on a short term contract you have the same employment rights as someone on a permanent contract.

Having a permanent contract does not give job security either. As many on permanent contracts find out you can be suddenly out of work at a week's or month's notice. On fixed term contract you tend to have security up to the end of the contract which you can see coming many months in advance so you have plenty of time to find an alternative job. One of the major problems with fixed term contracts for an employer is staff tend to move on with around six months to go leaving you with six months of obligations to fulfil and nobody there to fulfil them.
MartinC
Posts: 2127
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by MartinC »

Si wrote:Tis the world of working in this sector............................................


..........................which makes you wonder why we let them choose to be in this sector.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by thirdcrank »

MartinC wrote: ..........................which makes you wonder why we let them choose to be in this sector.


There were rumours at the time of the conversion vote that CTC staff were under some pressure to vote in favour.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by TonyR »

thirdcrank wrote:There were rumours at the time of the conversion vote that CTC staff were under some pressure to vote in favour.


In the 2011 vote to convert to a charity there were 11,000 votes with 80% in favour of converting. There are about 50 CTC staff. Do you really think how they voted would have made any difference to the outcome?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by thirdcrank »

TonyR wrote: ... In the 2011 vote to convert to a charity there were 11,000 votes with 80% in favour of converting. There are about 50 CTC staff. Do you really think how they voted would have made any difference to the outcome?


Not at all. OTOH, if the rumours were correct, then somebody thought that they might have made a difference. I was just hinting that this was one of those situations where turkeys were - allegedly - being invited to vote for Crimbo.

BTW, if it's not already clear from other posts, I'm not one of those who are still fighting some sort of rearguard action over conversion. I voted against but a sufficient majority voted in favour to overcome the substantial provisions in the Club's rules to protect the status quo. (And I've consistently supported the chair over the way that proxies were cast.) That doesn't disqualify me from comment.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by TonyR »

thirdcrank wrote:Not at all. OTOH, if the rumours were correct, then somebody thought that they might have made a difference.


A big IF there. Any evidence to support the rumour and if not why repeat it?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by thirdcrank »

TonyR wrote: ... A big IF there. Any evidence to support the rumour and if not why repeat it?


I made it clear in my post that it was only a rumour - it's all there in the almost endless threads from that time, which you can plough through yourself if you want more detail. Had there been evidence - which was unlikely to surface in the circumstances - then you may be sure I'd have chosen my words differently.

I repeat because I choose to.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by TonyR »

thirdcrank wrote:I repeat because I choose to.


Sound's more like still fighting that denied rearguard action with Lenin's Lie.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by thirdcrank »

TonyR wrote: ... Sound's more like still fighting that denied rearguard action with Lenin's Lie.


You must form your own opinion. There's a difference between accepting the decision to convert and supporting the results. It's unfortunate but probably inevitable that this thread confused discussion the role of the technical officer with the position and personality of the long-term postholder. At least, it reminds us that real people are involved. As I've already posted, there are other people who might easily be in the same position and it cannot be any comfort now to know that this is the norm for charities. I recognise that the trustees are obliged to act in the best interests of the charity, rather than take instructions from the membership. If they feel that redundancies are in the CTC's best interests then that's the way they must go. Understanding that isn't to say it's good that this situation has been reached.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by TonyR »

thirdcrank wrote:It's unfortunate but probably inevitable that this thread confused discussion the role of the technical officer with the position and personality of the long-term postholder. At least, it reminds us that real people are involved. As I've already posted, there are other people who might easily be in the same position and it cannot be any comfort now to know that this is the norm for charities.


It the norm for everyone these days. Current employment law is all about the role not the person. You might think it would be simple to make a newer member of staff redundant so that the long serving member could retain a role in the company. But you can only make a role redundant, not the person, so when that newer member is made redundant its because their role has gone. And because its gone you cannot recreate it or refill it because that would mean the role was not redundant and would make the person's redundancy illegal. The only other ways to create a vacancy is if the person commits gross misconduct or they have been through a long sequence of performance management that has not worked or they decide to leave of their own volition.

Perversely, in this context, the law is there to protect newer members of staff being disadvantaged relative to long timers when redundancies are needed by making the process blind to the person in the role and focussing only on the role.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by Vorpal »

There are a number of ways around that, though. Companies usually know this sort of thing is coming well in advance. They can reorganise a few months before and 'promote' the newest hire, put someone else in his/her job, then make a redundant, later. Or they can stick an extra layer of management in, then give some of the duties from the now redundant position to the new manager. They can also make a role redundant, split the duties up amongst two or three other people, then gradually consolidate them again.

Lastly, if they have more than one staff doing the same job, and one of the roles is made redundant (e.g. in capacity reduction), they can use any of a number of criteria to decide how that person is chosen for redundancy. They have to be clear about it, and use the same criteria fro similar roles, but experience can certainly be one of the criteria, or even the primary criterion.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by TonyR »

Vorpal wrote:There are a number of ways around that, though. Companies usually know this sort of thing is coming well in advance. They can reorganise a few months before and 'promote' the newest hire, put someone else in his/her job, then make a redundant, later. Or they can stick an extra layer of management in, then give some of the duties from the now redundant position to the new manager. They can also make a role redundant, split the duties up amongst two or three other people, then gradually consolidate them again.


Yes, there are all sorts of ways you can try and circumvent the law and hope not to get caught out but I hope you are not suggesting the CTC is the type of organisation that would do that.

Lastly, if they have more than one staff doing the same job, and one of the roles is made redundant (e.g. in capacity reduction), they can use any of a number of criteria to decide how that person is chosen for redundancy. They have to be clear about it, and use the same criteria fro similar roles, but experience can certainly be one of the criteria, or even the primary criterion.


True but I don't think there was more than one person in this particular role to choose from.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by Vorpal »

No, I wasn't suggesting the CTC would do anything like that. It's not really relevant to the current topic, but neither is
Perversely, in this context, the law is there to protect newer members of staff being disadvantaged relative to long timers when redundancies are needed by making the process blind to the person in the role and focussing only on the role.


Is it?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Post by TonyR »

Vorpal wrote:No, I wasn't suggesting the CTC would do anything like that. It's not really relevant to the current topic, but neither is
Perversely, in this context, the law is there to protect newer members of staff being disadvantaged relative to long timers when redundancies are needed by making the process blind to the person in the role and focussing only on the role.


Is it?


It is. Lots of people here wanted a long serving liked employee to be kept on but the law is designed to prevent such people getting preferential treatment where redundancies are involved.
Post Reply