Employer using redundancy as a way of getting the same job done for less

techmob

The more mistakes and mess they make out it, the better for you

Take a recording device to your meetings, tell them you are going to record it for your records

Just in case

aitch-aitch

techmob wrote: »

The more mistakes and mess they make out it, the better for you

Take a recording device to your meetings, tell them you are going to record it for your records

Just in case

Don't you have to get their agreement to use a recording device?

SarEl

Emmzi wrote: »

No, not on title. The job needs to be substantially different. So some level of responsibility taken out of it (budgets, people manegment, something) would be typical. Or servicing a smaller client base. etc. Then they start redundancy proceedings. Read the new job description carefully and find your current one.

Sorry Emmzi - have to disagree with you on a technical point. They cannot make a position redundant purely on a change of job title. But the job title isn't the only thing that has changed. The pay grade has too. It is therefore not the same job, even if the responsibilities remain broadly the same. The error here appears to be contaned in your second point - not that they haven't changed the job (because they have) but that they have not considered whether this may still be considered a suitable alternative by the employee (i.e. taking a pay cut).

As EssexGirl has observed, the basis of the redundancy is re-structuring for business needs (to reduce costs one assumes). That justifies the redundancy, but not a failure in process. On the other hand, advertising a job isn't a process failure either - yet. If the OP states, as they must, during consultation, that they will take the pay cut to stay in employment, then the recruitment process can be halted. And that may in fact be the employers strategy. The OP, knowing that there are plenty of applicants, may be placed in a position of having no choice if they wish to remain in employment.

It is not only the employers responsibility to offer solutions / alternatives. Consultations work two ways - the OP is equally obliged to say "I can do that job and am willing to take a pay cut" - if they do not then the employers defence is that the job is not in law a suitable alternative employment because of the lower pay rate (which would be a correct statement - in law it isn't a suitable alternative if the pay and conditions are lower). So sitting back and "letting the employer make mistakes" is not in fact a good strategy - it could easily backfire, and the employer may not actually be quite as stupid as you think. Because it assumse that the employer is making mistakes, and so far it is far from clearcut that they have in fact made any!

Deano123

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

The result is that I have retained my job & job title but have taken a few £000 pay cut for 1 year - To be negotiated after that time.

Better than JSA I suppose but I still think the way it was done was rather sly.

Hey ho, just have to get on with it at the end of the day as it could have been much worse.

Thanks again.

SarEl

Deano123 wrote: »

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

The result is that I have retained my job & job title but have taken a few £000 pay cut for 1 year - To be negotiated after that time.

Better than JSA I suppose but I still think the way it was done was rather sly.

Hey ho, just have to get on with it at the end of the day as it could have been much worse.

Thanks again.

There's a lot of this going around, so yes, I suppose you are right. A pay cut isn't ideal, but no job is less ideal.

Trudy_jane

Hi, my husband will probably have to do the same. His work say there are too many managers at his level so they want one at that level and then four at a lesser grade. The ones at lesser grade will essentially be doing the same job, dealing with disciplinaries, health and safety, staff costs, but report to the one they leave at the current level. They have already chosen the one who will keep his grade and salary, and have not even given the others a chance to apply. Their reason being that this person, although the same grade, had a slightly different job description than the others. These changes come into place after Xmas, when we will lose a third of his pay (which includes a car). I always thought that a company could downgrade you but you kept your salary, although as a result of the downgrade future bonus and pay increases would eventually affect the overall package. As a manager he is not in a union, it's a huge company so what they want to do will happen. We will really struggle on a third less salary, worst case losing our house. It's hard.