last in first out?

[Si 330]

I work for a civil / structural engineering consultancy and I am halfway through my 6 month probationary period, there are 2 others also in there probationary period (total staff 20). I have asked myself several times why we were employed looking at the work schedule.
So it comes as no surprise tomorrow all the staff are receiving a letter to say one position within the office is to be made redundant.
Is it a foregone conclusion that it will be one of the three new starters?
I would be mighty aggrieved if I had worked there several years and got the boot over somebody that had been there 3 months or is it just tuff.

[Beardy10]

Well the people on probation will be cheaper to get rid of because there is presumably no redundancy as part of any severance ? Having said that they may be looking at getting rid of someone who is full time, there is no need to send letters to everyone if you are just getting rid of someone on probabtion. So my guess is that you will be safe. Hope I am right!

[edc]

Even if last in first out was applied - to use this as the sole criteria is ill-advised. Until you know the criteria they will apply then there's not much you can do.

[Fer]

Any updates?

[Engineer1]

For a good saving you are better keeping your probationers are they still have no rights, and get rid of a long serving permanent as you can make everyone act up for a small amount.

[Si 330]

Fer said:

Any updates?

Each member of staff will have a consultation with a partner on Thursday.

[Fer]

Hope all goes well, and the wait is not too tough.

[Si 330]

I'm safe!!

[edc]

Seems like a very quick process. I can only think that the pool of people was just the one person.

[Engineer1]

Like I said if you are doing redundancy it will be one of the employees with rights, as first off they can only be let go after due process and also they cost more, the probationers can be worked right up until they have full rights then either taken on or let go.

[Si 330]

edc said:

Seems like a very quick process. I can only think that the pool of people was just the one person.

The pool has been narrowed down, but I'm now fairly confident the person to go was selected pre consultation and they are just going through procedures. Only time will tell if the person in question does go.

[Beardy10]

Brilliant isn't it. It used to be the case that if you wanted to make someone redundant you could do just that....now companies have to go through this whole process of putting pretty much the entire workforce "at risk" which obviously puts all those people through huge and unnecessary stress and probably puts productivity at near zero so it costs the company money and makes more redundancies more likely!

I am all for making sure it's a fair process but surely there has to be a better way to do it.

[edc]

Beardy10 said:

Brilliant isn't it. It used to be the case that if you wanted to make someone redundant you could do just that....now companies have to go through this whole process of putting pretty much the entire workforce "at risk" which obviously puts all those people through huge and unnecessary stress and probably puts productivity at near zero so it costs the company money and makes more redundancies more likely!

I am all for making sure it's a fair process but surely there has to be a better way to do it.

But you don't have to put everyone at risk at all ...

[Rude-boy]

edc said:

But you don't have to put everyone at risk at all ...

It's all about how you determine the pool from which you will have to make that difficult decision before cutting the deadwood.

[Mojooo]

someone told me its positiosn that get made redundant - not people

so its actually pretty easy to spot a specific person and get rid

the issue i think is is multiple people do the same job so they all become potentials - or the company just wants to save money and is effectivley looking for positions to make people redundant in

so it can certainly work both ways from the sounds of it.