mrjenrst

mainly redundancy?

dangerousbrian

directgov.uk should answer most of your questions

mrjenrst

it doesnt mate tbh. Well not all of them.

natehall

iTrader: (2)

what your questions are may help people to help you

vaughant

iTrader: (1)

I got made redundant(voluntarily) 15 months ago and I was on the union throughout the negotiations so give me a shout if there's any advice you need.

I think it may help to put up exactly what your situation is and what you want to know about.my one piece of advice would be if you get your redundancy payout,however much it maybe,if you've got a particular target payment (ie money off mortgage,loan etc) do it straight away and get yourself any sort of income you can,obviously if u want to go on courses/retrain etc then stick to the dole as you WILL spend the money really easily.another tip,if your ok credit rating wise right now,extend your overdraughts,get a credit card as when your not working and you turn to the bank they will give you fuck all!!

I'm only speaking from a personal point of view on that last point as I turned to my bank for a Ł450 extension on my overdraught the other day and they totally refused,despite me having over 200k in equity in my house!!!Cunts!!

mrjenrst

good point
Well basicly a bloke got made redundant about 6 week's ago he was told he'd be back as soon as work come in. Now a fortnight ago another 6 blokes got made redundant and another 4 last week, but the bloke who got made redundant first start's back on tuesday even though there has been no work come in and none in the pipeline. Now the department that he work's in is over staffed big time and scratching around for thing's to do. So i cant understand how it can be done if the workload has dropped that much yet he's been taken back on. Just wondering where the other bloke's stand tbh

natehall

iTrader: (2)

now from my understanding of employment law, is no person got made redundant. the position they held was no longer needed and due to this there employment was terminated.

I dont know what industry you are in, but lets take a simple office with 5 employees.

1 director
1 sales person
1 admin assistant
2 web developers

if I was to initially make 1 web developer redundant, and then follow this up with a sales person and the admin assistant - as soon as I know I will need a web developer again (within certain timelimits i cant remmeber) I must offer the position back to the person who's employment was terminated to comply with the relevent laws iirc.

This is to avoid a whole lot of other issues with regards to constructive dismissal, and there is a procedure which acas guide you through without issue to ensure everything is conducted properly.

hope this helps...

mrjenrst

yeah i know that.
I suppose what i'm talking about is more ethical.
And if there is a grievence procedure for that reason

vaughant

iTrader: (1)

Depends on a lot of factors really.from what you've said he was laid off and then came back to work at a time where they let further people go hence your argument is why was this guy taken back on when clearly their overstaffed and have let 10 others go?

A lot of it depends upon that companies policy,they may have just put the original guy on layoff,hence no break in his service therefore the first person to come back in.if the others accepted some sort of redundancy package then they have no argument really,although I'd be surprised if that was the case as that should have been offered to everyone first before the company looked down the route of compulsory.

I'd hazard a guess that the 10 people apart from this guy have been laid off rather than let go.the only other thing I could suggest is that IF they've all been made redundant,they've re-advertised a position and this guys successfully applied for it?

It's tricky ground,but do you have a union in place?also,it would be interesting to know what field you work in.is this guy a managers son or something like that,maybe just a bit of a suckhole?

cjwood555

Essentially there is little you can do about unless they make more than 20 people redundant. There are many companies using the recession as an excuse to get rid of people. Ultimately, the guys should consider whether that's the sort of company they actually want to work for.

When I was made redundant the company was VERY nasty - they moved people about before announcing redundancies to drop the number below 20 (tenuous at best). They also tried to tell me I would only get 1 week's notice based on a dodgy interpretation of the probation period clause of the contract (contract didn't require a review, they said because I hadn't had one I was still on probation) - an approach which made no business sense because as an M&E project manager with about 15 jobs on the go it would take longer than that to hand them over.

I eventually won that argument and got a month's notice, but the way they'd gone about the whole business (including other people's redundancies) allowed plenty of remaining employees to see the sort of company it was. The head of design/engineering actually resigned because of it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: if a company and it's management are sufficiently arrogant to try to bend the rules to get rid of people, and display clear favouritism and scheme-ing in doing so, then that tends to just be the beginning. Employees know where they stand and the work environment changes. Management think they are clever and invincible masters of disposable pawns, and start to take the piss. It's the beginning of the end.

Chris

Chip

iTrader: (3)

That IS the definition of redundancy mate!

mrjenrst

he was made redundant. But the way i see it is why should he get his job back when 10 other's have been made redundant? I really cant fathom why? Especially as he start's back on tuesday which it the first official day of 6 of them been made 'unemployed' if that make's sense?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Dont see how anyone can usefully comment to you without knowing the exact details of his skillset and what the roles are.
It may be that he has some particular skill or experience that the others dont which wasnt needed when they made him redundant but is now.
Loads of people in my company with the same job title but who specialise in different programming languages for example so if a project came in for one specific language, many of the guys couldnt work on it without needing training first.

mrjenrst

chip he's probably the least qualified and least experienced from his department. They've got rid of 4 more qualifyed?

vaughant

iTrader: (1)

Tend to agree with this really,it does depend on the individual.I've been both sides of the fence where I've been employer and employee involved with it all.as an employee you can't understand why this happens but as an employer you only want people who are going to work FOR you not against you.

In January I got rid of my sprayer as he wasn't making the grade in my eyes,he made it easy for me by thinking he was so good he'd walk into another job but he hasn't and he was ruining the whole business.sadly,it was too late anyway,the damage was done but I can certainly see it from both sides.was this guy particularly good,related or were the others just a bit shit at their jobs?did he have something on the company?believe me,it goes on!!the stuff i found out going through old documents in the union office was shocking!

dojj

iTrader: (3)

if it's voluntary and not compulsory there are different things that apply

we had a staff of 15 and we needed a staff of 10, so they sent out voluntary redundancy letters to everyone with the implication that, should there not be enough takers of the voluntary type, the company would seek to make up the figure of 5 jobs gone through complusory means

the offer was 2 months salary plus a months salary for each year worked and enough peeps took it, i'll see if i can dig out the letter, but i'm sure they said that there were opportunities in other depots for work if we were prepared to go there but nothing about returning to work, something about we couldn't go back and apply for a job withint 12 months or soemthing

mrjenrst

no choice dojj not even a consultation, they were called in the office and given it there and then

DazC

iTrader: (1)

Compulsary is usually done on a point scoring basis which will not only include the persons skill and experience levels but also sick record, ability to put himself to work, time keeping, willing to put in over time when required speed and effieciency etc.

A person can be worth more to a company beyond his sub set of skills and training if they are there bending over backwards for the company and seem like they have no home to go to.

mrjenrst

oh i agree mate but there's no real redeeming work quality's the guy has got and i dont mean that in a negative way.
he is just like the rest of the blokes just a bit younger and less experienced.

DazC

iTrader: (1)

The only other thing I can think of is that his position was unique to him only and while the rest of the staff were laid off, there was a requirement to re-introduce his position back into the company. They would have to offer him his job back.

mrjenrst

that would make sense but his position isnt unique, that's what nobody can understand

we've had labourers who can and have done his job lol

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

is he paid less due to his experience??

if so im sure they can give him a job spec at a lower level and a lower wage than the others and hence technically its a slightly different job and the people theyve got rid of are over qualified and too expensive.

mrjenrst

ah now you may of hit the nail on the head there. I've just found out he is on less so that might be the reason, still shitty as fuck though

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

companys do it all the time these days. especially so in "customer service" or call centres. theres loads of government incentives to take on long term unemployed and often the agencys will also pay first month or twos wage as well.

so the company takes on then 6 -11 months later restructures the department so they can make everyone redundant. later that month create loads of new jobs doing basically the same job but because in effect its different roles moved from other departments its technically a different job title and you get away with it. hence you can now get more long term doleys in on government schemes and repeat said process a few times.

so on paper it looks like said company has produced loads of new jobs that year and employed loads of people when in reality the net throughflow of people hasnt changed. Difference is the company gets free money from incentives and has to take less risk as the agency takes risk.

mrjenrst

nah it's not that sort of company mate. There's people been there 40+years which is why it's fucked up and doesnt make sense?

natehall

iTrader: (2)

Everyone should know - Ethics have no place in law

If they did - why would a lawyer represent a murderer who they know commited the crime and try to get them off?