Voluntary redundancies...

jodenice · 7 February 2018 at 5:13PM

I am just trying to find out if anyone knows the criteria in selecting people for voluntary redundancies (if too many people apply for the redundancies offered).

They have offered two Voluntary Severance positions here. 3 of us have gone for them. I don't know what the criteria is apart from skills and cost to business.

I've gone for it. I am part time as I work 4 days but earn the most and have a redundancy offer (£43K). I have been here 15 years.

A colleague on this team has gone for it, she's younger than me, is full time and earns slightly less and redundancy offer is £36K. She has been here 20 years.

An older colleague in a neighbouring team has gone for it. He's about 55 and his redundancy offer is approx. £38K. He has also been here 15 years.

In terms of cost to business, it will obviously cost them more to get rid of me but also to keep me. I'm not sure I have a good chance really.

But I wanted to know what you thought? Is it even worth getting my hopes up? I don't hate the job but I do travel for 4 hours a day and I'm exhausted and I would like to work closer to home and my little girl (I would have to get another job as soon as possible as if I got this, I'd want it to be money in the bank / pay off debts and some mortgage rather than an opportunity to sit back).

Browntoa · 7 February 2018 at 5:17PM

It's who is easiest to lose at least cost to the business

You may be refused if you have unique skills

jodenice · 7 February 2018 at 5:21PM

We're all in a niche role really. So my higher redundancy offer would effectively rule me out then really wouldn't it?

!!!!!!!

getmore4less · 7 February 2018 at 5:23PM

They can pick whoever they like.

often the real issue is for those staying as they end up picking up the slack unless it is clear that the workloads is really down and there are too many people.

Sometime a bit of playing the game can make you a preferred option.

jodenice · 8 February 2018 at 10:51AM

thank you both for replying. and getmore, what do you mean playing the game? :clueless:

getmore4less · 8 February 2018 at 11:52AM

jodenice wrote: »

thank you both for replying. and getmore, what do you mean playing the game? :clueless:

Very much depends on the dynamics

Often the nice person that is always putting themselves out becomes preferred keeper over the jobs worth as those left will be needing to pick up the slack.

If a Mr/Mrs nice, might need to make the position clear that that will be stopping if they try to keep you and overload going forward.

or look for reasons keeping someone else would be much better and seed that into the decision makers.

if you are in different types of niche rolls then it might be those that are around you can pick up your work easier than those around one of the others(you say this even is not really true).

Seems to be a big difference in package for a "slighty less" salary but 5 years more service?

jodenice · 8 February 2018 at 12:27PM

Yes I was once slightly more senior but they demoted me when I came back after maternity leave because I wanted to come back over 4 days rather than 5. I accepted on the condition that I kept the same salary. So we're same grade now but I get pay of the grade I used to be.

Peelerfart · 8 February 2018 at 10:46PM

Of course the stress of all that travelling and being away from DD might also have to be considered.

If it were an issue of course !

sangie595 · 9 February 2018 at 10:01AM

Peelerfart wrote: »

Of course the stress of all that travelling and being away from DD might also have to be considered.

If it were an issue of course !

But of course it isn't. The OP already does that travelling and it was their choice both to travel and to be away from DD. That's their existing job and their existing choice. So attempting to coerce the employer by hinting at potential discrimination might very well backfire. They might be more inclined to keep the OP so that it doesn't appear their choice was informed by discrimination. The OPs reference might take a nose dive. Or they might decide that if the OP is fishing for a court case because they want to leave anyway, that getting rid of someone else will achieve twice the savings by making someone else redundant and then waiting for the OP to leave anyway.

This is voluntary redundancy - so not redundancy at all. And we are not discussing suitable alternative employment, but existing roles. And attempts at "clever" coercion and blackmail very frequently blow up in people's faces - especially when the advice they have been given is wrong!

skadupuk · 9 February 2018 at 12:06PM

I think the "most expensive to make redundant" is a bit of a red herring.

That's a one off cost and you are the highest earner, so the other question is:

If they chose to keep the lower paid staff member, how long before they recoup the difference?

If they'd make it back in a year then from year 2 onward they are saving money making you a more attractive option for redundancy, if it would take 20 years it's less of a factor.

The fact that you work 4 days a week is also helps you (from the perspective of you wanting the redundancy) as retaining you and losing two 5 days a week folk only increases the pressures on the business for that day you aren't in.

scd3scd4 · 9 February 2018 at 12:31PM

There is a point system. You can get an idea on line. Stuff like attendance record, sick, time keeping, skill set, flexibility, approach to H&S and cost to business....and so on.

What it cost to get rid of you is balanced with all the other criteria.

Voluntary redundancies...

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free