Redundancy v 4 day week

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[edb49]

4 day week reduces costs of employee by 20%

redudancy by 100%

(Actually, redundancy is better because you can scrap their desk etc and have none of the overheads.)

[srebbe64]

In reality what happens is that (sensible) companies lay off 'middle managers'. These are the people that cost a lot but don't (directly) deliver the product/service. In a smart company the last to go are the top performers who (a) sell product; and (b) deliver product;

Edited by srebbe64 on Wednesday 9th July 01:11

[Mattt]

I find it amazing how, in despite of redundancies amongst those middle managers/admin staff, things still get done.

[Egbert Nobacon]

[quote=Mattt]I find it amazing how, in despite of redundancies amongst those middle managers/admin staff, things still get done.

It's a shame they don't try this in Local Gov't / Civil Service ...

[Mr POD]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's still not that simple. I bet that they'd already reduced the wage bill by 30% by cutting overtime, so if you are hourly paid and are on 70% of the take home you had this time last year you will be screwed, if asked to remove another days pay.

[Scawie]

edb49 said:

4 day week reduces costs of employee by 20%

Wouldn't that be more like 10%?
edit: (like you said, costs etc.)

Edited by Scawie on Monday 14th July 08:04

[superlightr]

redundancy can be forced upon a workforce, asking an e/ee to do a 4 day week cannot.

redundancy payment is also a tax deductable expence in running the business.

pension payments/rights are also limited to that point in time.

[Road Pest]

Mattt said:

I find it amazing how, in despite of redundancies amongst those middle managers/admin staff, things still get done.

Things still get done because there is less work! That is why not so many people are needed. We are currently writing less business than a year/6 months ago and therefore staff have been made redundant. Middle and senior management have gone as well as admin staff.

[M400 NBL]

Not everyone can afford to live on 80% of their current wage.

It was considered by my current employers to work a 4 day week (on full pay for 3 weeks, followed by 80% salary) and then possibly a 3 day week (on 80% salary for a further 3 weeks followed by 60% salary thereafter, until orders pick up.

This was to prevent further redundancies, but luckily we got very busy anyway, and so we remained on a 5 day week.

What are the requirements of a company to introduce a reduced working week?....since this could force employees to leave, reducing redundancy payouts for employers!

[Plotloss]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That surely assumes that every employee in the company is of equal value?

They're not of course, you want the money makers working and you want the costs gone.

A 4 day week wouldnt achieve this.

[Road Pest]

M400 NBL said:

What are the requirements of a company to introduce a reduced working week?....since this could force employees to leave, reducing redundancy payouts for employers!

The employer would have to be careful as it may leave itself open to constructive dismissal cases?