Unemployment cover

regularsaver1

I was having a discussion with a friend today re unemployment and redundancies in relation to insurance.

With regards to a scenario such as:

a manager with a company on £25k, is threatened with redunancies - however, instead they offer them another job within the company, but on £10k, possibly to avoid redundancy pay outs. Would any insurance cover this? and can companies do this to staff?

I was really unsure on this one, and knew where to ask
Thanks guys

payless

If he takes it then can't see that insurance co would payout ( not even proportionally)

HOWEVER if he does not take the lower paid job , I would be surprised that he still would not be entitled to claim redundancy/ sign on -
see http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/redundancy/payments-pl808a.htm#If%20you%20are%20offered%20a%20new%20job

IMHO a cut from £25k to £10K would be classed as a major difference in the conditions of the contract of employment ( my opinion not saying its right)

and therefore would not expect this to effect any cover.

regularsaver1

Yes i don't think its right, but suppose it is possible (major DIY firm have apparently done this)

ash333

regularsaver1 wrote:

Yes i don't think its right, but suppose it is possible (major DIY firm have apparently done this)

Good. Capitalism rules once more. Although I always was a bit Tory, IMO staff should be paid for the work that they do. If the job is no longer available, then they don't get paid - simple as.

Why should a company pay somebody when leaving the company - they are no longer putting the hours in so they dont recieve a paycheck.

Unfair maybe, but why should our capitalist business structure suffer, even more, we already have pay rates approx 15 times higher than India etc, if British companies are penalised for having offices/factories etc in the UK then they will just outsource abroad more and more.

Wake up and smell the coffee people - if you want money then earn it.

Ash333

Dora_the_Explorer_5

It's the post that becomes redundant not the person. If someone is offered another different post with the same company the orignal post is still redundant and the worker entitled to redundancy pay if they don't wish to take up the offered post - which might be in the outer Hebrides !

exil

I wonder what job ash333 does....

Well he does have a point, but it's still an extremely unpleasant thing to happen to you. You may have worked your backside off for years, never had a day off sick, but
the company still gives you the order of the boot. We are talking "redundancy" here, not "being sacked for being bone idle".

I do wonder that if the export of jobs to India continues, whether people from Bradford will go to Calcutta to get jobs....

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Don't see why not Exil, the reverse has been happening for years.

regularsaver1

Ash

In some contracts there must be some job security clauses regarding positions, and therefore the money involved

ash333

regularsaver1 wrote:

Ash

In some contracts there must be some job security clauses regarding positions, and therefore the money involved

Why - If the work evaporates over night then it would be reasonable for the employer to pay workers for an extra week or so, but if they are going through some !!!!!! anyway, which would usually be why redundancies are required, the company is likely to be having cash flow problems anyway, and would be unable to pay.

Surely any employee can see that it is more important to keep the company running, so that friends and family can work their in the future, rather than milking the company dry and turning it bust.

Anyway, I still maintain that staff should be paid by the hour, and as such, if they don't put the hours in they don't get paid - no need for complicated contracts, just pay staff officially the way that all of the illegal cash paid workers are anyway.



Ash333