Ageism and redundency

janz70

Hi all, the company I work for still gives / will give a higher redundancy payment to people based on age even if you have the same amount of years in service.

I have tried to discuss this with a union rep and he agrees that older employees should get a higher payment as they will find it harder to find work after redundancy - this I think goes against the ageism laws, as now, age should not be a factor when applying for job.

are my employers acting illegally?

Ps my union rep is over 50 and will benefit from the redundancy
situation even though we have nearly the same amount of service - therefore he is unwilling to peruse this.

LittleVoice

Look at the statutory redundancy scheme - you will find that pays more to those who are older.

dandelionclock30

No age shouldnt be a factor when applying for jobs, but it is unfortunatley, age discrimination is rife. The fact is if your over 50 you are going to find it very hard to get another job in todays climate.
I know people over 50 who havent worked again after redundancy. So I think it s only fair that they get extra money.
I doubt they will be acting illegally.

Hezzawithkids

LittleVoice is correct - the statutory laws on redudancy put in an age split, not sure but I think it's 41. Your employer is simply complying with the law.

getmore4less

Hezzawithkids wrote: »

LittleVoice is correct - the statutory laws on redudancy put in an age split, not sure but I think it's 41. Your employer is simply complying with the law.

For each full years service over the age of 41 statutory redundancy is enhanced by 50%.

ILW

janz70 wrote: »

Hi all, the company I work for still gives / will give a higher redundancy payment to people based on age even if you have the same amount of years in service.

I have tried to discuss this with a union rep and he agrees that older employees should get a higher payment as they will find it harder to find work after redundancy - this I think goes against the ageism laws, as now, age should not be a factor when applying for job.

are my employers acting illegally?

Ps my union rep is over 50 and will benefit from the redundancy
situation even though we have nearly the same amount of service - therefore he is unwilling to peruse this.

Are you asking for payments to be cut to older employees?

System

getmore4less wrote: »

For each full years service over the age of 41 statutory redundancy is enhanced by 50%.

I thought it was 1.5 week's pay for each additional year? Does someone made redundant at 61 really get ten times as much?

janz70

ILW wrote: »

Are you asking for payments to be cut to older employees?

All I am asking for is equality, an equal redundancy payment for equal amount of service. If a person has 20 years service, as does another. I believe you should be paid a set amount per year of service regardless of age.

Why should one person get 50% increase simply because they joined the company when they were in their 30's when the other joined in their 20's and more than likely got better pay as they were 30 and not 20.

The argument that people over 50 are on the scrap heap is total nonsense and the agism law was brought in to stop this - therefore a persons age shouldnt be a factor and if it does they are acting illegally and need to be prosecuted.

annie1975_2

janz70 wrote: »

All I am asking for is equality, an equal redundancy payment for equal amount of service. If a person has 20 years service, as does another. I believe you should be paid a set amount per year of service regardless of age.

Why should one person get 50% increase simply because they joined the company when they were in their 30's when the other joined in their 20's and more than likely got better pay as they were 30 and not 20.

The argument that people over 50 are on the scrap heap is total nonsense and the agism law was brought in to stop this - therefore a persons age shouldnt be a factor and if it does they are acting illegally and need to be prosecuted.

Im afraid its always been like this,it is harder to get a job when you get older.
Its like people working along side each other doing the exact same job,and one gets more money than the other,its legal to do that as well.

sleepless_saver

janz70 wrote: »

The argument that people over 50 are on the scrap heap is total nonsense and the agism law was brought in to stop this - therefore a persons age shouldnt be a factor and if it does they are acting illegally and need to be prosecuted.

On the contrary, they would be acting illegally if they didn't pay it. The 1.5 weeks pay per year for the over 40s compared to 1 week for people up to and including 40 is a legal requirement.

Of course there is nothing to stop a company paying the 1.5 weeks to all their employees, but they can't pay less than 1.5 weeks to the over 40s.

ETA: I agree that they shouldn't be on the scrap heap and I know over 50s who have managed to get work, but it is more difficult whatever the law says and the redundancy pay arrangements reflect that.

ILW

janz70 wrote: »

All I am asking for is equality, an equal redundancy payment for equal amount of service. If a person has 20 years service, as does another. I believe you should be paid a set amount per year of service regardless of age.

Why should one person get 50% increase simply because they joined the company when they were in their 30's when the other joined in their 20's and more than likely got better pay as they were 30 and not 20.

The argument that people over 50 are on the scrap heap is total nonsense and the agism law was brought in to stop this - therefore a persons age shouldnt be a factor and if it does they are acting illegally and need to be prosecuted.

By your argument everyone should be entitled to a full pension at 50.

It doesn't work like that though.