preparing for the bullet

[Mabozza]

Looking for advice please, my employers are likely to have a “workforce reduction” in January. Its not confirmed but in the current climate it looks likely.
Background as to why - global sales are not where they need to be and EMEA is a worse despite having soft targets for 2024. I might be in the firing line as an indirect result of poor EMEA sales leadership and performance - something everyone in EMEA with a Sales or related role could see early doors, and the company should really have sorted in Q1, rather than bury its head in the sand and hope for the best - and here we are!

The company is US based, VC funded – not public, so the board will look for costs to be reduced in order to maximise their returns/dividends etc. The majority of employees are US based, so they don’t have a great handle on UK HR legislation etc.

What can I do to be prepared and if the worst happens, ensure I don’t get shafted any more than I have to?

They had a workforce reduction last year, albeit with better sales / company performance etc, I’m not sure if it will be a redundancy or if they offer a package to exit.
US employees get let go immediately. I’ve been with company for just over 2 years so assume I have some protection or statutory rights, or a formal HR process needs to be followed?
What obligations would the company have to the employee here – eg provide access to an independent Legal advisor? Anything else?
I’m over 50 so moving to another like for like job with same package is unlikely. If I managed to get past the AI application vetting and first line recruiters, I would expect a drop in salary in the current climate.

I know I’m over thinking here on something that hasn’t happened, but its being weighing me down for a few weeks and hopefully opening up to the PH crowd will help offload a bit and deal with whatever comes of this.

[Aunty Pasty]

From my limited redundancy experience, also from a small US based company, I think you will get he statutory minimum they can get away with. They will still need to go through a consultation process. If there is a reduction in the number of roles with several people with that role, they're supposed to interview each person and pick the most suitable. Reality is they've probably decided already and are just going through the motions.

I would prepare for the worst in case your entire dept gets axed. Good luck.

[ozzuk]

Mabozza said:

Looking for advice please, my employers are likely to have a “workforce reduction” in January. Its not confirmed but in the current climate it looks likely.
Background as to why - global sales are not where they need to be and EMEA is a worse despite having soft targets for 2024. I might be in the firing line as an indirect result of poor EMEA sales leadership and performance - something everyone in EMEA with a Sales or related role could see early doors, and the company should really have sorted in Q1, rather than bury its head in the sand and hope for the best - and here we are!

The company is US based, VC funded – not public, so the board will look for costs to be reduced in order to maximise their returns/dividends etc. The majority of employees are US based, so they don’t have a great handle on UK HR legislation etc.

What can I do to be prepared and if the worst happens, ensure I don’t get shafted any more than I have to?

They had a workforce reduction last year, albeit with better sales / company performance etc, I’m not sure if it will be a redundancy or if they offer a package to exit.
US employees get let go immediately. I’ve been with company for just over 2 years so assume I have some protection or statutory rights, or a formal HR process needs to be followed?
What obligations would the company have to the employee here – eg provide access to an independent Legal advisor? Anything else?
I’m over 50 so moving to another like for like job with same package is unlikely. If I managed to get past the AI application vetting and first line recruiters, I would expect a drop in salary in the current climate.

I know I’m over thinking here on something that hasn’t happened, but its being weighing me down for a few weeks and hopefully opening up to the PH crowd will help offload a bit and deal with whatever comes of this.

Caveat first, I'm not HR, lawyer etc...but do have 17 years with a multi-national that loves messing people around (I work IT). What we see is in places like Canada and US they just get called in and told to leave, no notice, however they will give them very decent severance packages. They always struggle with UK and our better protection. Process seems to be they put you on 60 day consultancy, look at redeployment options etc. Packages if redundancy could be stat (I think 1 or 1.5 weeks a year pay, with a minimum term), or hopefully better. With just over 2 years your main hope is they offer you a settlement agreement (which you MUST get legal advice on for it to be valid, the company must offer a contribution to that cost, some pay it all (£250 average). Settlement agreement is whatever you agree, with them proposing first, so could be anything. I've seen 4 weeks for every year offered, 3 month garden leave, 6 month garden leave, usually depends on your level. Good luck!

[Starfighter]

You mentioned previous rounds of job losses, if the company has consistently offered packages in the past this can be seen as a pattern for the future.

I know a union in my company used this as leverage and the previous formula was used at the final site closure. Very few of us survived that closure and I had the package written into my contract.

[essayer]

Commiserations. Start accumulating all your payslips/P60s and things that you can legitimately take home, like training materials etc

[boyse7en]

ozzuk said:

Caveat first, I'm not HR, lawyer etc...but do have 17 years with a multi-national that loves messing people around (I work IT). What we see is in places like Canada and US they just get called in and told to leave, no notice, however they will give them very decent severance packages. They always struggle with UK and our better protection. Process seems to be they put you on 60 day consultancy, look at redeployment options etc. Packages if redundancy could be stat (I think 1 or 1.5 weeks a year pay, with a minimum term), or hopefully better. With just over 2 years your main hope is they offer you a settlement agreement (which you MUST get legal advice on for it to be valid, the company must offer a contribution to that cost, some pay it all (£250 average). Settlement agreement is whatever you agree, with them proposing first, so could be anything. I've seen 4 weeks for every year offered, 3 month garden leave, 6 month garden leave, usually depends on your level. Good luck!

Not specific to the OP's situation, but I don't understand the bit i've highlighted above. Why would the company offer anything above the minimum legal redundancy payment? If they are getting rid of people, what is in it for the company to spend more than is necessary?

[therams]

The agreement would have extras in it to protect the employer, e.g you go quietly, don’t join a competitor for 18 months, don’t talk to colleagues and have some extra cash to make that happen

[Dbag101]

I went through something similar in March. I decided to head them off at the pass, and negotiate a ‘settlement’. They agreed, and came up with a pretty decent offer. I did ensure a lawyer had a look at it ( they insisted on that ). If you think you’re dead cert for the high jump, that’s what I’d suggest you do. It could be a gamble, but the chances are, a forced statutory hoof, won’t be as generous.

[Aunty Pasty]

boyse7en said:

Not specific to the OP's situation, but I don't understand the bit i've highlighted above. Why would the company offer anything above the minimum legal redundancy payment? If they are getting rid of people, what is in it for the company to spend more than is necessary?

I think it's for branding and reputation. Many large corporations do involve themselves in altruism of some sort such as sponsoring local events etc. In the future, the company may grow again and everyone will remember how they treated staff when things got bad so be less inclined to work for them on the up turn.

[Arnold Cunningham]

boyse7en said:

Not specific to the OP's situation, but I don't understand the bit i've highlighted above. Why would the company offer anything above the minimum legal redundancy payment? If they are getting rid of people, what is in it for the company to spend more than is necessary?

Sometimes a company with people in is run by actual humans, so when you "have" to let someone good go, you want to do what you can to look out for them - you never know, you could end up working for that person yourself in a few years.

[98elise]

boyse7en said:

ozzuk said:

Caveat first, I'm not HR, lawyer etc...but do have 17 years with a multi-national that loves messing people around (I work IT). What we see is in places like Canada and US they just get called in and told to leave, no notice, however they will give them very decent severance packages. They always struggle with UK and our better protection. Process seems to be they put you on 60 day consultancy, look at redeployment options etc. Packages if redundancy could be stat (I think 1 or 1.5 weeks a year pay, with a minimum term), or hopefully better. With just over 2 years your main hope is they offer you a settlement agreement (which you MUST get legal advice on for it to be valid, the company must offer a contribution to that cost, some pay it all (£250 average). Settlement agreement is whatever you agree, with them proposing first, so could be anything. I've seen 4 weeks for every year offered, 3 month garden leave, 6 month garden leave, usually depends on your level. Good luck!

Not specific to the OP's situation, but I don't understand the bit i've highlighted above. Why would the company offer anything above the minimum legal redundancy payment? If they are getting rid of people, what is in it for the company to spend more than is necessary?

Because some companies want to treat their staff reasonably and not have a reputation for screwing people over when they are done with them. It's not good for moral or staff retention. Good people will look for a better employer.

I've been though many redundancy rounds and not been picked, but it was good to see colleagues being given decent packages. For the employer it's just a few extra months of spending before the savings kick in.

[Olivera]

Aunty Pasty said:

I think it's for branding and reputation. Many large corporations do involve themselves in altruism of some sort such as sponsoring local events etc. In the future, the company may grow again and everyone will remember how they treated staff when things got bad so be less inclined to work for them on the up turn.

I would posit that It's absolutely nothing to do with reputation, but rather to ensure that soon to be redundant employees engage in an orderly and motivated handover process. The peanuts of statutory redundancy will ensure people kick off/walk out/put their feet up and do nothing, and so on.

[John D.]

boyse7en said:

Not specific to the OP's situation, but I don't understand the bit i've highlighted above. Why would the company offer anything above the minimum legal redundancy payment? If they are getting rid of people, what is in it for the company to spend more than is necessary?

Because it's costs just as much (probably more) to spend 3 months going through a consultation process before a redundancy.

[98elise]

Olivera said:

Aunty Pasty said:

I think it's for branding and reputation. Many large corporations do involve themselves in altruism of some sort such as sponsoring local events etc. In the future, the company may grow again and everyone will remember how they treated staff when things got bad so be less inclined to work for them on the up turn.

I would posit that It's absolutely nothing to do with reputation, but rather to ensure that soon to be redundant employees engage in an orderly and motivated handover process. The peanuts of statutory redundancy will ensure people kick off/walk out/put their feet up and do nothing, and so on.

It's both. I've seen people walked to the door and their accounts frozen because they have took much power to fk things up (IT). There is no suggestion they will, it's just protocol.

They still get the full package and support because it's the right thing to do.

[Mabozza]

thanks for all the replies and insight folks.

Here is some asnwers to questions and more info:
Redundancy - I'm not sure thats the process they follow - there is no consultations. Outside of the US it looks probably like a package to to go, unfortunately there isnt anyone in EMEA management I can approach to verify this.
I report into a US manager and he has been candid on this - we lost 1 of our team last year and my manager had no consultation with him or the employee - just gone. This makes me think they look at a name / location / job role / or randomly pick a victim. They guy they picked last year was the weakest link but dont know if or how this was arrived at.

Legal advice - is there any HR law or legislation that covers this that can be referred to?

Gathering payslips and materials. I work from home so only asset I have is laptop.

[StevieBee]

You say your employer is a US company. Does the employer employ you directly of via a UK registered subsidiary?

Do you get paid in USD or Sterling?

I assume you have an employment contract. Does this contain any description of the process of redundancy?

[fourstardan]

Im sorry to hear this potential news it must be taking its toll.

The PE firm that own my business are showing their true colours the last few months, people laid off out the blue even though we have a CEO saying we are hitting our targets and profit is on the up.

[davek_964]

"Consultation" for redundancy depends on how many people are being made redundant. It must be at least 20, or it isn't necessary.

The last time I was made redundant (US company closed down UK office) was a year or two after the company had made a group of people redundant. In my experience :

1) The previous agreement does not dictate what your agreement will be. The first group who got made redundant got slightly better terms than we did - but our attempts to use the argument that they should apply the same terms was rejected by the company

2) I'm not convinced consultation really makes that much difference. The company already knows what they are going to give you - you can argue, and they might shift on some minor things - but probably nothing major (that was our experience).

3) The "American companies will give the bare minimum" isn't necessarily true. Ours gave 1 month per year (plus a few other things) to the first group and 4 weeks per year to us. I also know that my current company - who made redundancies a year or two back - paid 1 month per year. So it really depends on the company

[ozzuk]

boyse7en said:

Not specific to the OP's situation, but I don't understand the bit i've highlighted above. Why would the company offer anything above the minimum legal redundancy payment? If they are getting rid of people, what is in it for the company to spend more than is necessary?

A few people have mentioned possible reasons, doing the right thing etc. My take for multi-national companies is that it's just not personal and they want it done as smoothly and quickly as possible. Throwing money at it is one way to achieve that, happy leaver means less risk of complications/legal action/malicious action and it's rarely HR's budget so it really is a 'pay off'. The wider business accepts it as a cost of doing business, i.e. spike in people costs in year 1, with a reduction thereafter.

For the OP, I'd just be making a note of every related conversation, ask to record any meetings/things in writing, read up on your rights and see what they offer. If you aren't happy then you are looking at taking proper paid legal advice and potentially taking action. Hopefully the offer will be good enough that none of this matters.

[Mr E]

John D. said:

boyse7en said:

Not specific to the OP's situation, but I don't understand the bit i've highlighted above. Why would the company offer anything above the minimum legal redundancy payment? If they are getting rid of people, what is in it for the company to spend more than is necessary?

Because it's costs just as much (probably more) to spend 3 months going through a consultation process before a redundancy.

And people cooperating and going quietly because they’re being paid is easier all round.