Redundancy Process ?
Discussion
At the company I work they have said there will be redundancies and that all the staff in the department are "at risk", the department spans various global regions, I am only concerned about UK staff as employment law differs markedly around the globe.
They issued a new structure chart which had boxes with the new roles they had created on, however a number of the boxes were already populated with names, so I am guessing that the folk named are not at risk and those specific jobs are not available to be applied for.
To be honest, I am not all that bothered as I think one way or another I should be ok, however there are a lot of worried people and it seems to have caused some resentment that certain people have been named for roles before others had a chance to apply, even if the role was earmarked for someone, and the actual result was the same it seems quite indelicate to do it that way.
Are they doing anything wrong there ?
They issued a new structure chart which had boxes with the new roles they had created on, however a number of the boxes were already populated with names, so I am guessing that the folk named are not at risk and those specific jobs are not available to be applied for.
To be honest, I am not all that bothered as I think one way or another I should be ok, however there are a lot of worried people and it seems to have caused some resentment that certain people have been named for roles before others had a chance to apply, even if the role was earmarked for someone, and the actual result was the same it seems quite indelicate to do it that way.
Are they doing anything wrong there ?
this is common and will have been done because no system is fair, those running the show know who they want in key positions and the rest can go through the charade of potentially being kept. Make no mistake there is no deciding going on, those wanted in a role will be kept and the others may go into a pool. There may still be new roles and you could still get one. I went through this three times (formally put at risk) in eight years with one company and the other years I had the nod that the position was safe and so not put at risk though others in the team had their names on 'the list.'
The very first time I was ever made redundant I was mortally offended, now I see it as the game that is played as organisations change their shape. It has little stigma now so you should potentially see it as another opportunity to view the job market with fresh eyes.
The very first time I was ever made redundant I was mortally offended, now I see it as the game that is played as organisations change their shape. It has little stigma now so you should potentially see it as another opportunity to view the job market with fresh eyes.
It's very difficult to comment from the outside but it sounds like the process and communication could have been handled better. What is the rationale for the reduction/redundancy? Is it simply to reduce employment costs? Is it a restructuring of the department as there is less need for certian skill sor roles but perhaps more for others? Does everybody do the same job? Are the jobs with names attached in fact very similar to existing jobs? What communication/consultation has taken place/will take place? How many people are affected? Have people volunteered? Is there a a request for volunteers? You are not going to get near a definitive answer without a lot more information being divulged.
There may be several concurrent or simultaneous processes being run. You may find that one pool of people is at risk and the number of roles is being reduced to those named in the org chart. A process may have already been concluded for them/that pool and those roles are ringfenced for that pool. In some scenarios it is much more of a charade to suggest that everybody is one pool, if they are not, and can compete equally for every open role.
There may be several concurrent or simultaneous processes being run. You may find that one pool of people is at risk and the number of roles is being reduced to those named in the org chart. A process may have already been concluded for them/that pool and those roles are ringfenced for that pool. In some scenarios it is much more of a charade to suggest that everybody is one pool, if they are not, and can compete equally for every open role.
Edited by edc on Wednesday 25th March 10:32
J4CKO said:
At the company I work they have said there will be redundancies and that all the staff in the department are "at risk", the department spans various global regions, I am only concerned about UK staff as employment law differs markedly around the globe.
They issued a new structure chart which had boxes with the new roles they had created on, however a number of the boxes were already populated with names, so I am guessing that the folk named are not at risk and those specific jobs are not available to be applied for.
To be honest, I am not all that bothered as I think one way or another I should be ok, however there are a lot of worried people and it seems to have caused some resentment that certain people have been named for roles before others had a chance to apply, even if the role was earmarked for someone, and the actual result was the same it seems quite indelicate to do it that way.
Are they doing anything wrong there ?
No they aren't - although it is not necessarily best practice either. They issued a new structure chart which had boxes with the new roles they had created on, however a number of the boxes were already populated with names, so I am guessing that the folk named are not at risk and those specific jobs are not available to be applied for.
To be honest, I am not all that bothered as I think one way or another I should be ok, however there are a lot of worried people and it seems to have caused some resentment that certain people have been named for roles before others had a chance to apply, even if the role was earmarked for someone, and the actual result was the same it seems quite indelicate to do it that way.
Are they doing anything wrong there ?
The term is "role mapping" - what should happen is that all the new position in the organisation are defined, and the skills required for the roles are identified.
All employees should then be "mapped" against those positions, those with a natural fit for a position can be allocated into those roles.
Remaining employees not mapped to role are then put into consultation, which means either applying for other remaining positions where a natural fit wasn't identified but perhaps could be made to work through re training etc. Or for other roles in the business, or ultimately out via redundancy.
In my view it may have been better to simply let all employees know about all new positions and then run an open recruitment process, but that has flaws too, often with at risk employees applying for multiple jobs etc
When we had partial redundancies at my last company, everybody was put at risk. The roles that would remain were defined with job specs - in general, since it was a reduction of existing people they were not new roles but simply a clear definition of existing roles.
People (everybody) were then automatically scored against roles in the group they were in - so typically, they would be scored against the job they were already doing, but the low scorers wouldn't make the grade.
If people wanted, they could apply to be scored against positions outside of their group too and a few people did move groups successfully.
It was clear that some people would stay - the description for the role I was being scored against may as well have had my name at the top - but at least there was an understandable selection process.
People (everybody) were then automatically scored against roles in the group they were in - so typically, they would be scored against the job they were already doing, but the low scorers wouldn't make the grade.
If people wanted, they could apply to be scored against positions outside of their group too and a few people did move groups successfully.
It was clear that some people would stay - the description for the role I was being scored against may as well have had my name at the top - but at least there was an understandable selection process.
softtop said:
this is common and will have been done because no system is fair, those running the show know who they want in key positions and the rest can go through the charade of potentially being kept. Make no mistake there is no deciding going on, those wanted in a role will be kept and the others may go into a pool. There may still be new roles and you could still get one. I went through this three times (formally put at risk) in eight years with one company and the other years I had the nod that the position was safe and so not put at risk though others in the team had their names on 'the list.'
The very first time I was ever made redundant I was mortally offended, now I see it as the game that is played as organisations change their shape. It has little stigma now so you should potentially see it as another opportunity to view the job market with fresh eyes.
Yeah, no easy way to do it and it is an unenviable task, from what I can see they aren't looking to lose huge numbers, as far as I can tell, I am ok, I made a few noises about an external role and got told to not worry about having a role, it was just down to which one, I am not getting complacent and am treating it seriously but they know I have portable skills and could get something pretty quickly, plus they have loads of work needing doing, I just wanted to find out whether the process was correct.The very first time I was ever made redundant I was mortally offended, now I see it as the game that is played as organisations change their shape. It has little stigma now so you should potentially see it as another opportunity to view the job market with fresh eyes.
Dont want to go into which company, but no it doesn't have a red/yellow logo.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff