Why would my employer pay me more redundancy that contracturally required

WobblyDog

I work in the UK for a big multinational company. It's fairly likely there will be a need to reduce staff levels in my office in the next year. I've been there 8 years and have a 3 month notice period. My contract says I am only entitled to the minimum redundancy payment required by law. I'm probably one of the more productive people in the office.

When I've mentioned the situation to friends, they seem to think I might be offered considerably more than the minimum required if redundancies occur. This surprises me - why should any company in a competitive environment offer more than the minimum required? Do companies often behave generously in redundancy situations?

Brenny

I think the answer is you don't know until it happens. My husband has been under threat a few times. The first couple of times the payout would have been over and above the minimum required. The next couple was set at statutory minimum and again this time, when he is very likely to go, the company has said it will only be statutory minimum. Probably based on the health of the company at the time.

Gothicfairy

My last company were looking for people to volunteer rather then have to go through the process of making them, so they offered more then they were legally required to.
Worked well for everyone concerned but then it doesn't alway

Goldiegirl

When they shut down our office and we were all made redundant, we got a lot more than the statutory minimum.

Under the circumstances, we were treated very well - we got help with our CV's and guidance for job interviews too.

Not all companies do the bare minimum.

Annisele

I think it's about keeping the remaining staff.

If you see your colleague has just been made redundant, you'll be worried about your own job. If your colleague only got the statutory minimum redundancy pay, you're very likely to jump ship as soon as you can - but if he got a large payoff, you might be more likely to stay with your current employer in the hope that if you do lose your job, you'll get that too.

paddyrg

Companies are still run by people, and people don't like making other people jobless. If the company has to lose say 10% of their staff, rather than the expensive process of going through evaluating which of several similar roles to make redundant, and scaring a lot of people they may offer a bit of a premium for volunteers. Those volunteers get a bit more cash, less 'process' overhead for the company, colleagues get to keep their jobs. Of there aren't volunteers, compulsory redundancies may well be at legal minimums due to the sheer stress and cost of doing the legal process.