Are full-time staff more likely to be made redundant than part-time ones?

Conrad3000

Hi all.

As the thread title states, are full-time staff more likely to be let go than part-time ones?

In my mind I'd probably say yes, since more money is spent on wages for the former., but I could be wrong.

Bear in mind it's the same job that's being referred to here.

Thanks.

singhini

In my personal opinion i would only have part time employees if it was possible. 
My reasoning is:

1 - if their paid <£10,000 youi don't have to enrol them into a company pension
2 - potentially more people available to cover sick leave.
3 - more people means bigger talent pool.
4 - potential for more flexibility i.e. some people prefer working mornings while others afternoons or weekends.

MyRealNameToo

Conrad3000 said:

As the thread title states, are full-time staff more likely to be let go than part-time ones?

In my mind I'd probably say yes, since more money is spent on wages for the former., but I could be wrong.

Bear in mind it's the same job that's being referred to here.

Normally with redundancies you work out what FTE you need to lose and then go through the process of consultation, volunteers etc. 

You would need to know what correlation there is between FT and PT and any other considerations to know if the outcome is going to be biased towards one group or the other. For example in my first job most the full timers were weekday morning-early evening. The part timers did most the late evening and weekend work. So if the phones were too quiet at weekends you'd probably be biased towards losing PTs as losing full timers who work mon-fri on its own doesnt solve the problem. 

singhini said:

In my personal opinion i would only have part time employees if it was possible. 
My reasoning is:

1 - if their paid <£10,000 youi don't have to enrol them into a company pension
2 - potentially more people available to cover sick leave.
3 - more people means bigger talent pool.
4 - potential for more flexibility i.e. some people prefer working mornings while others afternoons or weekends.

As countenance...

1) More people to train when there are systems changes or the annual health and safety refresher
2) More line management to do as the quarterly review takes 30 minutes per head irrespective if they are FT or PT
3) Part timers can be less flexible at times, hence why they arent full time
4) With more people there is greater chance people are off sick or have compassionate leave or such. Covering a short shift with someone coming in to do it is difficult as who wants the cost/time of commuting to only get 2 hours pay. 

Andy_L

Statutory redundancy is based on what you're paid rather than the full-time equivalent so PT staff are going to be cheaper to pay off, unless there are contractual rights to a better package.

<2 years service makes it easier to make someone redundant so length of service is more likely to be a decider than PT vs FT 

lincroft1710

If possible the prudent employer will try to retain the best staff whether they be FT or PT, and how best the organisation will function either with FT or PT or a combination of both

MyRealNameToo

Andy_L said:

Statutory redundancy is based on what you're paid rather than the full-time equivalent so PT staff are going to be cheaper to pay off, unless there are contractual rights to a better package.

<2 years service makes it easier to make someone redundant so length of service is more likely to be a decider than PT vs FT 

how do you work that out?

I need to lose 1 FTE, I can either let go one person on £40,000 or two people who work 50% on £20,000 each. Assuming all other considerations are the same its the total settlement is going to be identical. I can't just let one part timer go and say I've achieved the objective.

If you can solve the problem simply by dismissing those with under 2 years service why would you go through the pain of redundancy?