Ageism and redundency

getmore4less

getmore4less wrote: »

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

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

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?

only the payment for those years, 1.5 weeks is 50% more than 1 week.

getmore4less

sleepless_saver wrote: »

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.

this only applies to statutory redundancy enhanced payment just have to pay this as a minimum.

Its full years over 41 to qualify for the extra so you have to be 42 or over.

sleepless_saver

getmore4less wrote: »

Its full years over 41 to qualify for the extra so you have to be 42 or over.

No, it's as I said - 41 and over. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Redundancy/DG_174330 .
e.g. if you start work at 41 years 1 month and are made redundant at 43 years 2 months then your entitlement is 2*1.5= 3 weeks pay.

CFC

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.

You must be young to be so naive.

CKhalvashi

ILW wrote: »

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

Never a good idea!

I know a good few employees that after 50 haven't been able to find work again.

We have an average worker age of 32.6, with 2.7 years service, and 20% of ours are over 40, but in many companies, it's unfortunately nothing like that.

Our oldest member of staff is our Acoustics, who at 79 says he won't be going anywhere. He worked for one of the predecessor companies since he was 27, and I couldn't bear to get rid of him!

CK