PMQs - strange attitude towards redundancy payments - or am I a retard

nicko33

nightsky224 wrote: »

the word "retard" is offensive and not appropriate.

Its use might not have been appropriate, but the word is not offensive.

nightsky224

nicko33 wrote: »

Its use might not have been appropriate, but the word is not offensive.

The word retard was used with negative connotations (as an insult) Although the OP may not of intended it to be it is offensive.

Mr._Pricklepants

nightsky224 wrote: »

The word retard was used with negative connotations (as an insult) Although the OP may not of intended it to be it is offensive.

I'd say you're overreacting.
I get constant abuse thrown at me on this forum....just for making high-quality posts. Water off a duck's back.

nicko33

nightsky224 wrote: »

The word retard was used with negative connotations (as an insult) Although the OP may not of intended it to be it is offensive.

You have decided to find it offensive. That's all.
How do you think the OP should have insulted himself?

nightsky224

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

I'd say you're overreacting.
I get constant abuse thrown at me on this forum....just for making high-quality posts. Water off a duck's back.

I don't want to throw abuse at anyone (and apologies if it felt like that to anyone) I doubt the OP meant it as offensive but I felt that I needed to make my point - Small steps lead to progress and all that but your right I have made my point now time to move on

chewmylegoff

nightsky224 wrote: »

I don't want to throw abuse at anyone (and apologies if it felt like that to anyone) I doubt the OP meant it as offensive but I felt that I needed to make my point - Small steps lead to progress and all that but your right I have made my point now time to move on

Given the context the only person who has a right to get offended by this is me. If I had called you a retard then it would have been potentially offensive, but I didn't. I want to say something disparaging about people desperately trying to get offended on behalf of other people in a faux-righteous manner but because the forum rules require me to be nice to other users I will just post this smiley face instead:

chewmylegoff

lemonjelly wrote: »

It would set a legal precedent though...

The interpretation in the OP is correct. However that staff member may have built up several years of employment rights, which will now be lost in new employment & will not be accrued until he has completed 2 years service.

That is true but the way I see it he intention of having a statutory right to receive a redundancy payment is to compensate you for the loss of employment and to provide you with money to find your living costs whilst you search for a new job. From the employers point of view it serves a purpose to incentivise people to remain in employment until the 'bitter end' and not take a job elsewhere immediately so that they can wind down the business in an orderly fashion.

If you could just instantly leave and still claim statutory redundancy then that would be a serious issue for employers and somewhat unfair on the employees who do stay until the end and don't have a job to go to.

adouglasmhor

nightsky224 wrote: »

I am sure no offence was intended and this is off topic but the word "retard" is offensive and not appropriate.

So you're offended

chewmylegoff

mcfisco wrote: »

It's reasonably normal [albeit I have a relatively small sample to base it on] to be allowed to leave for another job and still get redundancy payment if your new employer wants you to start before your final day.

Found this but not sure what the specific procedure should be




Here's some more info
http://www.xperthr.co.uk/faqs/topics/9,85/contractual-rights-on-termination.aspx?articleid=62117

Thanks. So I guess it depends to some extent (assuming due legal process has been properly followed by remploy - I think the PMQ stated that remploy had objected) whether remploy is acting reasonably by objecting as to whether this is "disgraceful" or not. If he wanted to leave one day before the redundancy date and there was no work for him to do then remploy are being t0ssers, however if they need him to work during that period and he wants to leave 3 months early perhaps he is being unreasonable.

nightsky224

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Given the context the only person who has a right to get offended by this is me. If I had called you a retard then it would have been potentially offensive, but I didn't. I want to say something disparaging about people desperately trying to get offended on behalf of other people in a faux-righteous manner but because the forum rules require me to be nice to other users I will just post this smiley face instead:

What your question actually translates as is "strange attitude towards redundancy payments - or am I as stupid as someone who has a learning disability" .......