Does redundancy also mean letting you go and not strictly making redundant?

Mischa8

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Imagine you are a boss with deadwood and a shrinking profit margin.

Less income and less work, are you going to get rid of the dead wood or risk losing the staff that are more profitable?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out.

Never claimed to be a rocket scientist!

You're what, a laymans HR/employment law specialist eh sambuca?!

Sambucus_Nigra

Mischa8 wrote: »

Never claimed to be a rocket scientist!

You're what, a laymans HR/employment law specialist eh sambuca?!

What's it to you?

Looks to me like your friend got it spot on.

SarEl

I wonder why it is that people ask questions and then have a go at the people who try to answer them? If you don't want the answers, then don't ask.

FYI everything that has been said here is true. Redundancy is supposed to be redundancy of a position and not a person. People are never redundant - what people call redundancy is actually a dismissal. It just happens to be a fair reason for dismissal. However it is incredibly naive to think that employers don't use it as an excuse to get rid of people for all sorts of reasons. And it is also arguable that redundancy is always about getting rid of the "deadwood" (if you must think of it in those terms) anyway - in a fair dismissal the employer is selecting those people who they think are "least useful" to the business in the future.

Perhaps a more interesting question is why a "friend" would say such a thing to you. Are they incredibly brave and trying to drop you a heavy hint? Or just not a friend?

KiKi

Mischa - redundancy is when a position has been made redundant because the work is no longer there, or has been redistributed. If the position is made redundant, then the role holder will - obviously - no longer be required.

But as SarEl says, many organisations use the word 'redundancy' to get rid of people they don't want, as it's a fair reason for dismissal. Perhaps this is what they did to you, perhaps not!

getmore4less

KiKi wrote: »

Mischa - redundancy is when a position has been made redundant because the work is no longer there, or has been redistributed. If the position is made redundant, then the role holder will - obviously - no longer be required.

But as SarEl says, many organisations use the word 'redundancy' to get rid of people they don't want, as it's a fair reason for dismissal. Perhaps this is what they did to you, perhaps not!

Allthough smart employers can ustilize bumping to get rid of people.

ditzyat50

At my last job I was told I was being let go because I wasn't working as well as they expected. I interpreted it as being sacked. However when I apply for future jobs I say I was made redundant and my job was absorbed by other workforce. What ever wording is used, it still boils down to the same thing.

Mischa8

KiKi wrote: »

Mischa - redundancy is when a position has been made redundant because the work is no longer there, or has been redistributed. If the position is made redundant, then the role holder will - obviously - no longer be required.

But as SarEl says, many organisations use the word 'redundancy' to get rid of people they don't want, as it's a fair reason for dismissal. Perhaps this is what they did to you, perhaps not!

Hi Kiki - I understand what you're saying.

In my case - 1 company was bought out - the excuse was *no need for me* as I was Chairman's PA but they also wanted to bring in their own staff. They *could* have used me but didn't.

The 2nd one though - it was a huge architects and they re-employed someone else to do my job albeit with a different title. Some of the other architects they weren't needed but I would have been. It was a large company.

So I understood it (but about 39 other people were got rid of) that they just got rid of me.

Mischa8

SarEl wrote: »

I wonder why it is that people ask questions and then have a go at the people who try to answer them? If you don't want the answers, then don't ask.

FYI everything that has been said here is true. Redundancy is supposed to be redundancy of a position and not a person. People are never redundant - what people call redundancy is actually a dismissal. It just happens to be a fair reason for dismissal. However it is incredibly naive to think that employers don't use it as an excuse to get rid of people for all sorts of reasons. And it is also arguable that redundancy is always about getting rid of the "deadwood" (if you must think of it in those terms) anyway - in a fair dismissal the employer is selecting those people who they think are "least useful" to the business in the future.

Perhaps a more interesting question is why a "friend" would say such a thing to you. Are they incredibly brave and trying to drop you a heavy hint? Or just not a friend?

Sambucus wasn't particularly nice or clever in another post - hence her snippy comment to me and mine back. That's all that was.

But I really don't know how/what they made people redundant especially in examples I gave. I do know now though. Your "dismissal" comment makes it much clearer to me. But like I said, architects can be very up and down eg if they lose a huge contract for financial reasons they are faced almost certainly with *ditching half the staff* - this is not because they want to, or dismiss for unkind reasons - simply because the drawing work to build the building IS NOT THERE and in most firms there's little other work to give to other architects!

My *friend* was trying to maybe make me sit up (I was upset at how I left) and take notice of my behaviour. Which I did so. They said it reluctantly and I knew them for years, hence it was probably a heavy hint. But about 2 years ago we fell out big time, so the friend isn't a friend anymore. Who knows what they meant?? and how? I can't ask her now.

but thanks for your reply

Mischa8

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

What's it to you?

If I want advice or opinions then I'd prefer to deal with people like SarEl, Kiki, zzzLazyDaisy who AFAIK are retired or working employment lawyers with knowledge of HR etc rather than someone who AFAIK (and IIRC) doesn't have HR quals/employment law quals. Of course correct me if I'm wrong here!

Having said that I also work with employment solicitors so could ask them but hardly likely to ask this Q about me, now am I?! Plus both are very busy normally.

Sambucus_Nigra

Mischa8 wrote: »

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

What's it to you?

If I want advice or opinions then I'd prefer to deal with people like SarEl, Kiki, zzzLazyDaisy who AFAIK are retired or working employment lawyers with knowledge of HR etc rather than someone who AFAIK (and IIRC) doesn't have HR quals/employment law quals. Of course correct me if I'm wrong here!

Having said that I also work with employment solicitors so could ask them but hardly likely to ask this Q about me, now am I?! Plus both are very busy normally.

You asked a question and got an answer from someone (me) who has been a manager, a director and a small business owner. Perhaps if you only want specific people to answer your questions you should direct your query to them and them alone.