Home » Forums

[loopy_lass]

Originally Posted by bendix

Yeah, there's nothing like a good grievance to put you smack-bang in the middle of the radar when it comes to restructuring time.

As a manager, who am I more likely to look at building a business case to rid of? The person who quietly gets on with their job, or the employee who is forever in the HR office, taking up their time with pseudo-grievances.

Here's a taste of the real world. In virtually EVERY restructuring or redundancy process I've been involved in, we've known months in advance who we are aiming to get rid of.

and we wonder why moral is low in the workplace and the economy and the world is in such a mess!!!

[terra_ferma]

Originally Posted by Ama

Perhaps you guys need some training... You give HR professionals a bad name.

He never said he is an HR manager, unless I missed something...
HR and operational mangers have different priorities during a restructure.
HR (in theory) would want to ensure they follow the correct process, and don't give ammunitions to any employee to take them to ET.
Operational managers (again in theory) want to make sure they keep the people they perceive as being good workers, even keeping individuals whose role is being deleted.
Then there is the workers who always think they are doing a good job even when they are not, and feel treated unfairly if made redundant...

Would you think someone is a good manager if they keep a useless, lazy worker on just because they have the right job title, and got rid of someone who is hard working and efficient?
The problem is that often decisions are not made in this way, and it becomes rather too political.... I've seen many good people losing their jobs and useless one keeping it, depending on who the manager liked.

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by terra_ferma

Would you think someone is a good manager if they keep a useless, lazy worker on just because they have the right job title, and got rid of someone who is hard working and efficient?

I'd say they were a bad manager because they haven't dealt with the useless lazy worker before the redundancy situation arose

[terra_ferma]

Originally Posted by Andy L

I'd say they were a bad manager because they haven't dealt with the useless lazy worker before the redundancy situation arose

Glad to hear you are a good manager and all you staff are equally hardworking, committed, competent and efficient......

[timmmers]

To be made redundant the job needs to be going...not moved to someone else.
Not going to the neeting because you just came back from holiday...that's petty and will look so. Is it going to be much better a week later or something? No it isn't, and you're worrying about it now so you will on holiday.
I'd cancel the holiday before I got a full time holiday. Priorities and all that.
People are crawling over broken glass to get a job of any kind...you have no legal reason to lose yours, and the law matters.
They are fools to allow you to see your job being moved eslewhere to someone else ...it's evidence on your part that the redundancy is unfair and your job still exists.

Contrary to previous posts life isn't so sweet living on coackroaches and insects, everyday is a holiday but with no cash not a fun one.

t

[oscar52]

Originally Posted by timmmers

To be made redundant the job needs to be going...not moved to someone else.
t

This, stricly speaking, isnt true. What about all those jobs that have been relocated - specifically, I am thinking of banking call centres (may not link to OP, but is just an example) - many of these have been moved overseas (various countries). In these cases, the job still exists, just in a different location, and at a cheaper rate.

[qetu1357]

Originally Posted by terra_ferma

He never said he is an HR manager, unless I missed something...
HR and operational mangers have different priorities during a restructure.
HR (in theory) would want to ensure they follow the correct process, and don't give ammunitions to any employee to take them to ET.
Operational managers (again in theory) want to make sure they keep the people they perceive as being good workers, even keeping individuals whose role is being deleted.
Then there is the workers who always think they are doing a good job even when they are not, and feel treated unfairly if made redundant...

Would you think someone is a good manager if they keep a useless, lazy worker on just because they have the right job title, and got rid of someone who is hard working and efficient?
The problem is that often decisions are not made in this way, and it becomes rather too political.... I've seen many good people losing their jobs and useless one keeping it, depending on who the manager liked.

And this is exactly what is happening in my case; I'm good but not so liked whereas the other person who has been given my work is liked but not so good.

As mentioned in my original post we have now entered consultation about the restructure.

And surprise, surprise (and as predicited) his post is being merged with mine.

if we hadn't been given half of my work to do, I would have been ring-fenced/automatically matched.

Anyway grievance meeting tomorrow and already I am confident that I have enough evidence to go to tribunal if things don't go my way.

[jazzyman01]

How did the meeting go?

[qetu1357]

Originally Posted by jazzyman01

How did the meeting go?

Went quite well.

He has to write to within 7 days with his answer.

I have asked for one of
a) duties to be returned to me straightaway
b) an alternative comproable job
c) enhanced redundancy

Will let you all know what happens

[Ama]

Originally Posted by terra_ferma

He never said he is an HR manager, unless I missed something...
HR and operational mangers have different priorities during a restructure.
HR (in theory) would want to ensure they follow the correct process, and don't give ammunitions to any employee to take them to ET.
Operational managers (again in theory) want to make sure they keep the people they perceive as being good workers, even keeping individuals whose role is being deleted.
Then there is the workers who always think they are doing a good job even when they are not, and feel treated unfairly if made redundant...

Would you think someone is a good manager if they keep a useless, lazy worker on just because they have the right job title, and got rid of someone who is hard working and efficient?
The problem is that often decisions are not made in this way, and it becomes rather too political.... I've seen many good people losing their jobs and useless one keeping it, depending on who the manager liked.

They still need training if they are managing people..... and as someone said elsewhere, the process has to be fair and any competent manager should have dealt with their so called lazy employees. Managers be it HR managers, operational managers etc, should be trained enough to see through lazy !!!! licking employees. The point here is about doing what is right and following proper procedures.

I still stand by what I said and if the person is not a HR manager, then his/her attitude does not reflect well on the HR manager who is supporting them through the process! This is 2009AD and not 2009BC.

[Ama]

Originally Posted by qetu1357

Went quite well.

He has to write to within 7 days with his answer.

I have asked for one of
a) duties to be returned to me straightaway
b) an alternative comproable job
c) enhanced redundancy

Will let you all know what happens

Good on you and well done for standing up for your rights. People like you are inspiring and pave the way for all of us. Keep it up and your bravery will pay dividends

[Ama]

Originally Posted by oscar52

This, stricly speaking, isnt true. What about all those jobs that have been relocated - specifically, I am thinking of banking call centres (may not link to OP, but is just an example) - many of these have been moved overseas (various countries). In these cases, the job still exists, just in a different location, and at a cheaper rate.

I think what you are talking about is a different ball game all together. Relocating a business is not the same as giving someone else's job to a colleague who is sitting two feet away!