Natural Wastage?

CloesUnc

Good morning all,

I was please wondering about the policy of "natural wastage" and a manager telling six of his employees that only five are needed.

In my mind if a company is implementing natural wastage to reduce staff numbers, then surely there is no need to announce it to staff.

Particularly if there are only a handful of employees in the first place.

Does anyone please have any comments on the fairness of this?

Thanks all,

Tim

 

TadleyBaggie

Probably to head off the query why the person leaving isn’t being replaced. 

Sandtree

It would certainly be unusual to announce it, most companies are always worried that something could trigger redundancy processes, but that aside it generally doesn't do much for moral unless that is already low because the team is underutilised and people are twiddling their thumbs. 

At the end of the day it at least helps you in any career thoughts you've been having... if you are currently underworked then it may be getting better soon, if you are overworked then its going to get worse. 

When I have known it to be announced is really part of a wider "recruitment freeze" but that isn't stated as a specific objective to drive down particular team's sizes.

Andy_L

It what way is it not "fair"? Plus "fair" is not a synonym for "legal"

Announcing it means that staff know there is no intention of making redundancies. If it was kept quite but staff knew there were problems with the business they would be worrying about being made redundant, this approach avoids that problem.

Those who were thinking of leaving, but were hanging on in the hope of a redundancy payment, now know its not worth waiting

CloesUnc

Andy_L said:

It what way is it not "fair"? Plus "fair" is not a synonym for "legal"

Announcing it means that staff know there is no intention of making redundancies. If it was kept quite but staff knew there were problems with the business they would be worrying about being made redundant, this approach avoids that problem.

Those who were thinking of leaving, but were hanging on in the hope of a redundancy payment, now know its not worth waiting

So you don't think that telling six people that only five are needed would instill an uncessessary sense of competition among those people? Or have a risk of some of the group feeling vulnerable? If I thought that I may not be needed, then I would question my value to the company and it would definitely affect my morale. 

The_Unready

Are you confusing ' natural wastage ' with redundancy?

The former implies that when someone leaves by their own volition they won't be replaced. The latter is a process for actively reducing existing staff numbers.

CloesUnc

The_Unready said:

Are you confusing ' natural wastage ' with redundancy?

The former implies that when someone leaves by their own volition they won't be replaced. The latter is a process for actively reducing existing staff numbers.

No I'm not confused. A small team was told that their posts would be subject to natural wastage, and when one of the team leaves, that person's role would be replaced with a more junior position. However, there have been several instances where one or two members HAVE been replaced by the same level post, and now someone has complained that the "natural wastage" that management is waiting for is them!

Ath_Wat

CloesUnc said:

The_Unready said:

Are you confusing ' natural wastage ' with redundancy?

The former implies that when someone leaves by their own volition they won't be replaced. The latter is a process for actively reducing existing staff numbers.

No I'm not confused. A small team was told that their posts would be subject to natural wastage, and when one of the team leaves, that person's role would be replaced with a more junior position. However, there have been several instances where one or two members HAVE been replaced by the same level post, and now someone has complained that the "natural wastage" that management is waiting for is them!

If that's how they feel, and they think that's "not fair", I would suggest they find another job.  Why on earth would they stay? 

Undervalued

CloesUnc said:

Andy_L said:

It what way is it not "fair"? Plus "fair" is not a synonym for "legal"

Announcing it means that staff know there is no intention of making redundancies. If it was kept quite but staff knew there were problems with the business they would be worrying about being made redundant, this approach avoids that problem.

Those who were thinking of leaving, but were hanging on in the hope of a redundancy payment, now know its not worth waiting

So you don't think that telling six people that only five are needed would instill an uncessessary sense of competition among those people? Or have a risk of some of the group feeling vulnerable? If I thought that I may not be needed, then I would question my value to the company and it would definitely affect my morale. 

It may well do but neither of those consequences are illegal in themselves.

You only have to obey the law in running a company. You don't have to run it "well" or show any consideration beyond that required by law!

Dakta

The company has told it's staff about a plan not to replace people when they leave. Alternative is just not to tell them.

If keeping people in the loop is causing trouble then definitely a controversial nod towards keeping them out of it in future. I don't think employees need to know this info but if it's a fairly transparent organisation then a manager may chose to do so just for the spirit of openness and if there is any worry of redundancies it might even serve a purpose.

I would never complain about being given information 

Ath_Wat

I think the main reason they would have said this has already been stated, they are afraid someone or multiple people  is hanging on waiting for redundancy and they want to make it clear that's not an option.

Quite possibly one of the team is contributing so little they know they can do without them, but they have to replace anyone else who goes as they were actually useful.