No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

[tyreon]

Goodbye CJ it was nice to have had you. If there was one bloke I would not have retrenched it would have been you. Technical skills,networking skills,insider knowledge,product knowledge,riding experience,legal compliance...the list could go on for 7 pages. You led rides,you must have presented at seminars,got a working knowledge of what was happening in other foreign countries... I would have thought your skills easily adaptable to any new role created by the CTC for you for another 10 years...if you had of wanted to work those extra 10 years. True grit. A workhorse. Still,that's a clean out for you. I never understood the charity v remain-as-we-are debate. But then I am told that's how it is supposed to be! Behind the opaqueness bigger forces and deals are made. Re-ordering matters doesn't of itself lead to better dealings or service: see Andrew Lansleys meltdown of the NHS. I guess the window-display may be made brighter but the substance of the goods may be cheaper. Maybe we're swopping bespoke,or M+S,for Primark. Anyways,getting out might add more mph to your average mileage...arggggghhh!

[thirdcrank]

Something that has occurred to me since the "technical moderator" thread was started is that I always understood, but had recently forgotten, was that CJ would be available to provide technical advice and if necessary testimony, to a CTC member involved in a relevant dispute or proceedings. I'm thinking here of both consumer issues involving cycling such as dodgy equipment or service and things like the construction and use of pedal cycles. Within his wide area of expertise, I presume he could be called as an expert witness. Most witnesses can only give admissible evidence on "facts" ie things they have personally witnessed happening. An expert witness can give evidence of their opinion. I've no idea how often, if at all he's been involved in any of this. In negotiations with an insurance company or the like, he's the type of witness you'd like to have in your batting order.

[TonyR]

Something that has occurred to me since the "technical moderator" thread was started is that I always understood, but had recently forgotten, was that CJ would be available to provide technical advice and if necessary testimony, to a CTC member involved in a relevant dispute or proceedings. I'm thinking here of both consumer issues involving cycling such as dodgy equipment or service and things like the construction and use of pedal cycles. Within his wide area of expertise, I presume he could be called as an expert witness. Most witnesses can only give admissible evidence on "facts" ie things they have personally witnessed happening. An expert witness can give evidence of their opinion. I've no idea how often, if at all he's been involved in any of this. In negotiations with an insurance company or the like, he's the type of witness you'd like to have in your batting order.

Expert witnesses are usually paid (and paid quite well) by the lawyers commisioning them for their expert opiinion. Its not something I would expect my CTC membership fee to pay for nor would I expect the CTC to take on the liaiblities that being an expert witness can now carry unless the case had wider implications for the cycling community. If there is any significant business of that type then I'm sure CJ will be in a good position to benefit from it. Certainly people like John Franklin seem to do quite a bit.

[Si]

Last time I was involved with a case that required an expert witness I believe the CDF paid for him as that, apparently, is one of the things that it's there for.

[gaz]

...
As part of our ongoing review of how CTC can best support members we no longer have a dedicated technical helpline. Instead if you have a technical query about bikes or cycling please visit our online technical resource at http://www.ctc.org.uk/bikes-and-bits, read our back catalogue of product and bikes reviews at http://www.ctc.org.uk
...

Today the CTC website continues to run the following membership ad.

[LollyKat]

Goodbye CJ it was nice to have had you. If there was one bloke I would not have retrenched it would have been you. Technical skills,networking skills,insider knowledge,product knowledge,riding experience,legal compliance...the list could go on for 7 pages. You led rides,you must have presented at seminars,got a working knowledge of what was happening in other foreign countries... I would have thought your skills easily adaptable to any new role created by the CTC for you for another 10 years...if you had of wanted to work those extra 10 years. True grit. A workhorse.

+ 100

[johnmac]

I didn't renew my membership after the organisation was hijacked by the charity people. I was thinking of rejoining, but this sad situation has put me right off the idea.

Good luck CJ; I hope you realise that you're well respected, <moderated>

[thirdcrank]

...
As part of our ongoing review of how CTC can best support members we no longer have a dedicated technical helpline. Instead if you have a technical query about bikes or cycling please visit our online technical resource at http://www.ctc.org.uk/bikes-and-bits, read our back catalogue of product and bikes reviews at http://www.ctc.org.uk
...

Today the CTC website continues to run the following membership ad.

Yet another glitch on the IT front. ████████████

(I redacted this myself.)

[Edwards]

As I said on page 4 expert witnesses also give evidence (if it is called that) to committees and statuary bodies, the CTC has lost that expertise.
So if it is ever needed I bet it will cost the membership more to hire one in than they paid in salary.

But as CJ himself has explained the new management do not consider a lengthy cycling experience worthy of keeping.
I am now wondering how many of the powers that be in Guildford actually ride a bike for more that show?
Also how many rode a bike before being employed by the Cyclist Touring Club?
Have they ever been cycle touring?

I feel that the organisation at the top is trying to distance itself from actual bikes and anything to do with them. Pushing this part out to unpaid volunteers.

We at least now know that CJ parting was not on the best of terms (especially for him) I assume that the others made redundant were treated the same.

I wish him and the others made redundant all the best for the new year and would love to see him set up a cycling holiday company of his own.

[TonyR]

But as CJ himself has explained the new management do not consider a lengthy cycling experience worthy of keeping.

If you've ever had the painful misfortune of having to manage a redundancy programme its a complex process constrained by legal requirements.

Technically its not the person that is made redundant but the post, in this case because the post is deemed to be no longer needed. And although the employer should offer suitable alternative work to the person in that post if its available its often not easy to do for someone senior. You can't create a new post as that is still costing and you can't make someone else senior redundant to create a vacancy because as above its the role that is being made redundant so if you refill it it wasn't redundant.

It's easy to portray it as hard hearted management v hard done by employee but these are difficult and painful matters on both sides while trying to do the best you can for the most people you can within a restrictive legal framework

[millimole]

Sorry Tony, there are different ways of going about redundancy within the legal framework which don't alienate either party. In this case it appears that CJ offered to consider taking early retirement (correct me if I'm wrong) - this implies to me that management were intent on removing the post of technical advisor, because as you say, following a redundancy it cannot be re-filled. This stinks.

[TonyR]

Sorry Tony, there are different ways of going about redundancy within the legal framework which don't alienate either party. In this case it appears that CJ offered to consider taking early retirement (correct me if I'm wrong) - this implies to me that management were intent on removing the post of technical advisor, because as you say, following a redundancy it cannot be re-filled. This stinks.

Not in my experience. I've had people very appreciative of the way I've handled the redundancies and others undergoing the exact same process absolutely incensed at what has happened to them. Redundancy can be a deeply painful and emotional experience with feelings of rejection, not being appreciated and breach of trust. For some nothing you can say or do will change their sense of grievance.

As for early retirement we'll never know because the CTC cannot discuss CJ's case under DPA if nothing else. But depending on the pension arrangements early retirement can be very costly for the employer and/or employee. It may have been better for CJ but it may not have been deliverable by the CTC - but that's all speculation. The days of public and charitable body golden goodbyes are going I'm afraid after lots of bad examples and bad publicity and that is not just stopping the undeserving cases but impacting on the deserving ones as well

[Psamathe]

Sorry Tony, there are different ways of going about redundancy within the legal framework which don't alienate either party. In this case it appears that CJ offered to consider taking early retirement (correct me if I'm wrong) - this implies to me that management were intent on removing the post of technical advisor, because as you say, following a redundancy it cannot be re-filled. This stinks.

But there is nothing to stop management agreeing to early retirement and then discontinuing the technical post (after CJ had retired). They could have just not filled it or anything. Management clearly decided and had necessary approval from "whoever" to discontinue the post. So discontinue it with a redundancy or discontinue it after an early retirement ... it is still a discontinued post. One big difference is that use the early retirement route and you don't viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10801 loads of your membership, alienate a 1st rate expert employee, probably move forward with a cooperative 1st rate expert who would be happier to contribute to Cycle Magazine, CTC, etc. maybe on a consultancy or ad-hoc basis. Instead they probably chose the worst way forward ... which probably says a lot about the CTC management (and where the organisation is heading).

Ian

[TonyR]

One big difference is that use the early retirement route and you don't viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10801 loads of your membership, alienate a 1st rate expert employee, probably move forward with a cooperative 1st rate expert who would be happier to contribute to Cycle Magazine, CTC, etc. maybe on a consultancy or ad-hoc basis. Instead they probably chose the worst way forward ... which probably says a lot about the CTC management (and where the organisation is heading).

There are other big differences too. Make it early retirement and you don't get your statutory redundancy payment - worth about £13k for someone of CJ's seniority and service. If the pension is a money purchase one then CJ can activate it immediately after redundancy and be £13k better off than if he had taken early retirement.

If OTOH the expectation is that the retirement income will be what it would have been had he retired at normal retirement age then the pension will require quite a big lump sum payment in to cover the probably 5-7 years of missing employer and employee contributions plus the lower actuarial value of the pot because the pension will expect to have to pay out for an extra 5-7 years. That works out at a lot of money well over a year's salary and probably nearer two assuming about a 20% combined employer/employee contribution over 5 years plus inflation and actuarial top up on top. So it may have achieved all you say but at a high cost that would not have been achievable without cutting back other areas, activities and posts to pay for it.

[Psamathe]

One big difference is that use the early retirement route and you don't viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10801 loads of your membership, alienate a 1st rate expert employee, probably move forward with a cooperative 1st rate expert who would be happier to contribute to Cycle Magazine, CTC, etc. maybe on a consultancy or ad-hoc basis. Instead they probably chose the worst way forward ... which probably says a lot about the CTC management (and where the organisation is heading).

There are other big differences too. Make it early retirement and you don't get your statutory redundancy payment - worth about £13k for someone of CJ's seniority and service. If the pension is a money purchase one then CJ can activate it immediately after redundancy and be £13k better off than if he had taken early retirement.

If OTOH the expectation is that the retirement income will be what it would have been had he retired at normal retirement age then the pension will require quite a big lump sum payment in to cover the probably 5-7 years of missing employer and employee contributions plus the lower actuarial value of the pot because the pension will expect to have to pay out for an extra 5-7 years. That works out at a lot of money well over a year's salary and probably nearer two assuming about a 20% combined employer/employee contribution over 5 years plus inflation and actuarial top up on top. So it may have achieved all you say but at a high cost that would not have been achievable without cutting back other areas, activities and posts to pay for it.

It was CJ himself that raised the early retirement option:

I offered to negotiate terms for early retirement, as that would surely play better with the members, but nothing doing.

I also offered to provide a reduced combined touring and technical consultancy service, but they wouldn't even consider that.

As an aside, how much is the new guy at the top being paid ?

Ian