Employer uses redundancy as means to fire people

jobbingmusician

Unless of course they have changed the town to protect the guilty

tizerbelle

ieatcandy wrote: »

A friend of mine is now gone and I'm afraid I'll be next.

Funny how OP seemingly wasn't concerned about these "redundancies" before despite it apparently going on for some time but now her friend's been made redundant, it's all a bit too close to home for her now.

ieatcandy

Thank you everyone for the great replies, most appreciated (regardless if you agreed with my approach or not! ) :rotfl:

I suspect the emphasis was too much on the employees that didn't necessarily performed as expected. The question is on employees that
are actually performing, but are dismissed through redundancy even though the company is largely profitable.

Evilm

ieatcandy wrote: »

I suspect the emphasis was too much on the employees that didn't necessarily performed as expected. The question is on employees that
are actually performing, but are dismissed through redundancy even though the company is largely profitable.

There are no requirements to not be 'largely profitable' in order to have redundancies. A lot of companies have a nice profit margin in their last accounts and yet still have redundancies.

Honestly, if they want rid of me and are prepared to pay to do that... Its better than getting sacked for some made up reason that will stop me getting jobs in the future.