How is redundancy really supposed to work?
Discussion
You'll have to bear with me here because I'm still early in my career and so haven't had much experience in this area, but I'd just like to run what I've seen past everyone.
1. 2 weeks ago, some people from my team were called into a meeting, were told that they were at risk and that there would be a consultation process. There was no general announcement, anybody above "worker bee" status would not talk about it.
2. this week, they were fired. Generous redundancy offer on the table if you went quietly it would seem.
Now, the things that struck me as odd:
1. It was very clear that it was the people who were made redundant, not the positions. They were in a growth area where we will be hiring in the very near future, but under a different cost center.
2. If I was told how many people would be going, I would've been able to pick them out 100%. The people who were fired were the ones who would be at the bottom of the list if you ranked everyone in order of how well they got on with their boss.
It's made me slightly uneasy. There's supposed to be a defined legal process, but looks like they picked who they wanted to fire from the start and then threw them a bundle of money to go quietly.
Is this how redundancy really works at big blue chip companies?
1. 2 weeks ago, some people from my team were called into a meeting, were told that they were at risk and that there would be a consultation process. There was no general announcement, anybody above "worker bee" status would not talk about it.
2. this week, they were fired. Generous redundancy offer on the table if you went quietly it would seem.
Now, the things that struck me as odd:
1. It was very clear that it was the people who were made redundant, not the positions. They were in a growth area where we will be hiring in the very near future, but under a different cost center.
2. If I was told how many people would be going, I would've been able to pick them out 100%. The people who were fired were the ones who would be at the bottom of the list if you ranked everyone in order of how well they got on with their boss.
It's made me slightly uneasy. There's supposed to be a defined legal process, but looks like they picked who they wanted to fire from the start and then threw them a bundle of money to go quietly.
Is this how redundancy really works at big blue chip companies?
BMWBen said:
Now, the things that struck me as odd:
1. It was very clear that it was the people who were made redundant, not the positions. They were in a growth area where we will be hiring in the very near future, but under a different cost center.
2. If I was told how many people would be going, I would've been able to pick them out 100%. The people who were fired were the ones who would be at the bottom of the list if you ranked everyone in order of how well they got on with their boss.
It's made me slightly uneasy. There's supposed to be a defined legal process, but looks like they picked who they wanted to fire from the start and then threw them a bundle of money to go quietly.
Is this how redundancy really works at big blue chip companies?
1) Don't be so sure. A new area can be just as prone to a downturn as an 'old' area. Who's to say that the work of this supposed growth area is not going to be absorbed by another part of the business? Your statement about cost centres goes some way to support the presumption.1. It was very clear that it was the people who were made redundant, not the positions. They were in a growth area where we will be hiring in the very near future, but under a different cost center.
2. If I was told how many people would be going, I would've been able to pick them out 100%. The people who were fired were the ones who would be at the bottom of the list if you ranked everyone in order of how well they got on with their boss.
It's made me slightly uneasy. There's supposed to be a defined legal process, but looks like they picked who they wanted to fire from the start and then threw them a bundle of money to go quietly.
Is this how redundancy really works at big blue chip companies?
2) Why would you want to get rid of the best people? If it is not a compulsory redundancy exercise and there is a headcount reduction requiring some choosing of people then there will be a set of selection criteria. Naturally, performance related criteria are going to appear on there.
In practice, from a pool of people, it is possible to pick who you want and justify it as long as the selection criteria are fair and reasonable. There is nothing to stop you from designing them in such a way that they achieved the desired outcome.
The law only comes into play if people are objecting. When they object, they will most likely get a compensation instead of being re-employed, since faith between both parties cannot be restored.
If the redundancy package is better than the ruled compensation, no one would bother to take the matter to court.
If the redundancy package is better than the ruled compensation, no one would bother to take the matter to court.
BMWBen said:
Is this how redundancy really works at big blue chip companies?
Yes; they get rid of who they want by paying them to go away. It's a commercially sensible answer to the problem of employment protection.Could be worse - the employer could decide it didn't like you then watch everything you do like a hawk, go through your files after you've left, find one thing wrong and sack you without the pay-off on flimsy grounds.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff