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

Mr._Pricklepants

chewmylegoff wrote: »

t0ssers

Now I'm offended.

chewmylegoff

nightsky224 wrote: »

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

It only translates to read that if you are desperately trying to translate it to read that in an effort to get all cranky about something for no reason what so ever.

lemonjelly

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

Agreed, & I'm not saying that someone should get recompense automatically.
But would the person in question have been looking for alternative employment were they not at risk of redundancy? Quite possibly not. & they will be leaving what was previously secure employment, with associated & accrued employment rights to a position of having significantly less, and are therefore in a worse position?

This position has arguably been caused by a result of their current employer making them redundant, has it not?

MacMickster

nightsky224 wrote: »

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

Per the dictionary it would translate more like
"strange attitude towards redundancy payments - or am I behind in development and progress?"

The word "stupid" seems to have been introduced by you. Why do people get offended on behalf of other people who they don't know - in this case the OP himself (or herself in case I have incorrectly attributed the wrong gender to the OP)?

On this particular board you are likely to come across some fairly robust debate, but this is the first time that I have seen anyone taken to task for supposedly being abusive towards himself (oops! no offense intended).

I suppose that if you consider that the OP may have offended himself, he could always apologise to himself, but I would suggest he do it by PM so that he could let himself know in private whether he accepted his own apology.

CLAPTON

'voluntary' redundancy is quite common in large companies.

they often offer a generous package to people willing to volunteer

they often give more than the minimum legal amount

they sometime allow you to leave with the package at a time of your choice

we don't know the facts about remploy so it's all a bit academic to give a view on what the MP actually meant

Graham_Devon

nightsky224 wrote: »

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

The OP only asked if he was a word that I better not say.

The answer is quite simple. Just say yes

Spirit_2

MP was doing a PR thing. Of course it is reasonable that employers do not make payouts to people they no longer employ.

The remploy staff should not be singled out and given additional entitlements as they are being treated as anyone without a disability would be treated.

That's equality for you. You get the downs and the ups. In employment tribunals it is the "B*stard" defence. My terrible behaviour does not mean it was discriminatory to you...I am ab*stard to everyone.

purch

I was going to be made redundant by Marine Midland Bank in the mid 80's, after they were taken over by HSBC. I left before the date, so didn't get the package. I found out later that I would have received the payment and also been offered a position at HSBC.

I was certainly a RETARD to miss that golden opportunity :eek:

chewmylegoff

lemonjelly wrote: »

Agreed, & I'm not saying that someone should get recompense automatically.
But would the person in question have been looking for alternative employment were they not at risk of redundancy? Quite possibly not. & they will be leaving what was previously secure employment, with associated & accrued employment rights to a position of having significantly less, and are therefore in a worse position?

This position has arguably been caused by a result of their current employer making them redundant, has it not?

Yes that is true - but when you're made redundant I think you're effectively offered the choice: you can either exercise your contractual notice to leave of your own accord or you can wait to be redundanated (an official word) and get the pay off. Wanting to leave now and still get your statutory redundancy is a bit like wanting your cake and eating it (especially as I believe your employer has to allow you time off to retrain and go to job interviews - or have I just made that up?).

In any case it's a bit rich for politicians to say that it is disgraceful for a company to follow what the law says. Let's not forget who created the law (politicians) and who did nothing to change it in 13 years of government (the specific politicians complaining about it).

On the point of equality raised by other posters, it's about time that politicians were treated in the same way as everyone else and only given a parachute payment when they are made redundant - which is pretty much only when their constituency is abolished.

BobQ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

As has been stated above, the ERA 96 requires the employee to have been given legal notice of redundancy. A statement of intention is not sufficient. Assuming notice is given the employee can tender a formal notice to terminate early and keep the redundancy pay which the employer can reject but an employment tribunal can overturn as unreasonable. You speak of leaving instantly, but this is not what the ERA96 states. Say you have a six weeks left, you might offer your resignation in four weeks.

I understand the point you are making but fairness would suggest that if an employee is given notice of redundancy no reasonable employer (who after all wants the employee to leave in the near future anyway) should deny the employee the opportunity of another job by being held to such a notice. Of course many employers are not reasonable which was why the law was introduced (by a Tory Government!) It may be that the employee is forced to take a low paid job for example. Equally, the redundancy pay is also compensation for the fact that he no longer has the same protection in the new job as he had in the old one.

Also note that an ET may decide that the employee had a valid reason for leaving early and has behaved reasonably in accordance with the ERA96 or that they have not or that they are entitled to some of the redundancy pay.