Help with handling VR

AinslieP

My workplace has asked for requests for VR with about 180 staff currently identified at risk. I am retireable age, earn around 50k and will be making a request to be considered for VR. My questions are as follows;
1) how should I handle my request and the meeting between me and my manager in particular so that I can maximise my chances of my request for VR being accepted
2) how will my age, length of service and experience impact on me (adversely or otherwise) and the consideration of my request

Comms69

What are the terms of the VR? Presumably better than statutory?

Andy_L

AinslieP wrote: »

My workplace has asked for requests for VR with about 180 staff currently identified at risk. I am of retireable age, earn around 50k and will be making a request to be considered for VR. My questions are as follows;
1) how should I handle my request and the meeting between me and my manager in particular so that I can maximise my chances of my request for VR being accepted
2) how will my age, length of service and experience impact on me (adversely or otherwise) and the consideration of my request

2) will generally mean you are more expensive to get rid off than a youngster so they might rather wait for you to go via retiring.

When you say "retireable age" do you mean over state pension and/or occupational pension scheme age?

AinslieP

Enhanced VR has been mentioned in all staff briefings so I guess yes it will be better than statutory

AinslieP

I have nearly 39 years pensionable age with teachers pension agency

Berkshire_Beancounter

The trouble is, all the redundancy rounds that I've ever been involved in may involve different criteria and subjective judgements by management as to who they want to lose and who they want to keep. (Even when there are clear criteria these can be tweaked to achieve the outcome the employer wants to get, e.g. in my company, it wasn't uncommon during times of reorganisation to see new organisation charts drawn up, miraculously retaining roles which were being performed by the folk they wanted to keep and removing the roles of those they didn't.)

The proportion of the workforce to go may also be a factor in the final decision - you've said 180 roles at risk but I'm not clear how many redundancies are actually planned. 'At risk' may mean many people in large teams impacted, but it might only be a handful of roles to be lost. If the number of jobs lost is relatively small, my guess is an employer could be pickier and choose to lose the worst performing staff or those who they have to pay the least to go.

In your 'favour' is the fact that the employer has asked for volunteers - management often do realise that a willing volunteer to go saves someone who may not want to go and keeps people 'happy' - a very relative term during times of reorganisation!

On the other hand, if your salary and length of service means you're expensive to let go, or if you have particular skills that others in the team don't have, or you're the star performer in the team, there may be more of an incentive for the employer to put you into the 'we'd like to keep you' box.

I think all you can do is say that you would like to be considered for VR, unless you think there are particular factors in your circumstances which make the case for your redundancy.

Good luck, I know how morale-sapping these sort of things can be, even if you think you'll get the outcome you want.

AinslieP

Thanks for your response. There is a feeling of weeding out with much talk of new ways of working therefore new approaches and behaviours being needed! There is also a feeling that asking for Volunteers will help the way things are perceived, appearing less harsh than losing x amount of people through compulsory redundancies. Our HR partner said publically that 25% of those at risk can typically be made redundant through voluntary or compulsory. In my naive way of thinking I would have thought that broad criteria for selection for VR would be made available but this detail has not appeared yet.

On a slightly different matter I have been asked to attend a 1-2-1 but am slightly concerned that I have not been told whether I am at risk or not (other staff in other areas have however been quickly told that they are at risk , which seems slightly anomalous to me).

tetley

My company is offering the same, a notice went on the board yesterday, those going on VR/ER can expect 3 weeks pay per year, up to a maximum of 90 weeks.

Linton

AinslieP wrote: »

My workplace has asked for requests for VR with about 180 staff currently identified at risk. I am retireable age, earn around 50k and will be making a request to be considered for VR. My questions are as follows;
1) how should I handle my request and the meeting between me and my manager in particular so that I can maximise my chances of my request for VR being accepted

Nothing clever, just be straightforward. If asked, say that you are looking to take early retirement at some stage and VR presents a sensible time. I assume you are some way from State Pension Age.

2) how will my age, length of service and experience impact on me (adversely or otherwise) and the consideration of my request

Depends on the situation. Generally a large company with the resources to pay above statuary redundancy rates will accept VR requests as it reduces staff upset and disruption. The cost of the redundancy would probably be a secondary concern. The managers you talk to will have been instructed to get rid of a specified number of employees. You asking for VR would make their life easier.



The main problem could be if you are a key employee with knowledge or skills they cannot easily replace. Under those circumstances you may meed to come to an agreement with them on how your role can be transferred. You would of course have told your manager that you will be happy to do this.

AinslieP

Thanks taking the time to reply Linton. Part of the problem is that I don't want (if indeed I am needed - currently I don't Feel as if I am) to stay on as i have nearly 40years pension and am not to far off state pension. I really am in a quandary about how to play it (I have been quite vocal about delays in knowing the outcomes of reorganisation) and wondered about continuing in this vein so that they will offer enhanced VR just to get rid!



in my first 1to1they never asked and I didn't tell them my intentions but your opening statement (be straightforward) seems the right way to play it which I will do in my second 1to1.