Reorganising but can't tell individuals what will happen with their role

[sincitylover]

I work in public sector where they are 'modernising the structure' and creating new vacancies which are only open to internal candidates based in the depts where the reorganisation is taking place.

These new vacancies are very unappealing call centre type roles/or in my case managing staff within. And I am not keen nor is my colleague.

Parts of our existing roles could be moving to the new departments.

Employers have said no redundancies but at the same time can't tell us what will happen if we don't apply and parts of our job move away because they haven't worked that out yet.
I am highly suspicious and the organisation is no stranger to being quite ruthless when it has to be.

What do you think?

[flowerybeanbag]

What are you suspicious of? When you say 'ruthless' what do you think they are going to do?

Presumably this new structure is going ahead, so the existing structure wil no longer exist, so what happens next will be about whether the new alternatives are 'suitable' or not, presumably.

I'm not really sure what you're asking.

[sincitylover]

It isn't clear to staff whether their job is 'safe' or likely to move partially or wholly to a new department.

But at the same time new vacancies are being advertised and all staff are being encouraged to apply. Again they say no rendudancies but have not said what will happen if people don't apply.

I suppose what I am saying is that if I knew my job was at risk then I might consider applying but if it isn't then I am happy to remain where I am managing a wide variety of activities whereas the new departments are one trick ponies.

I have known them in the past to be ruthless where they made someone take leave and when that person returned back their job had been changed from a more practical job to a desk job.

[flowerybeanbag]

I see what you mean. No that is not on. If there is restructuring it's not good enough to just 'encourage' people to apply for new jobs, people need to know what is happening to their own jobs to make the decision as you say.

If it's public sector presumably there is a union or unions? Are they involved?

[sincitylover]

Yes I asked about the union involvement - there are two unions and I am a member of one of them. I was told that they haven't said much yet - presumably because they are as much in the dark as we are!!

[flowerybeanbag]

If they haven't said much yet they need to start. If there is a significant restructuring going on and employees are being encouraged to apply for jobs in it, there is a reason to believe not doing so may affect the employee's employment in future.

Employees should not apply for new jobs without being clear on the alternatives are, what the structure change will involve and how it will impact their roles. Even if there is a definite commitment to no redundancies there is likely to be an impact and employees should understand what that is before committing themselves.

I think you should raise some hell with your union rep asap. The unions should be approaching the employer and insisting on more involvement and more information - that's what they are there for. Being in the dark is even more reason for them to make some noise, rather than a reason not to say anything.

[sincitylover]

Thanks Fbb will contact them today.

Will update when they respond.

[notsoclever]

I did some work in a public sector organisation where something similar happened. The difficulty was that because the department was extremely large there were several unrelated processes going on simultaneously.

There were 2 sections where there was an organisational review which was likely to result in significant restructuring and potential redundancy. These reviews were expected to take 6 - 9 months. At the same time another section was creating new posts (which were not directly related to the areas under review, nor replacements for those posts which might be affected). It was recognised that some people might have transferable skills and it was agreed that new posts would be offered in the first instance to staff in the areas where the reviews were underway.

In the area I was working in it was not possible to co-ordinate both changes (there were external pressures which demanded different timescales). Offering the posts to some staff was seen as a way of being able to reduce uncertainty for some staff in the review areas and also potentially minimising redundancies in the long term.

This is an example, and will not help in your situation, but perhaps there are similar complexities in your department.

[sincitylover]

The union have come back and said that this item is under discussion at their various meetings have invited me to their next meeting and also to join a group campaigning against it (what specifically it is I am not sure).

So I will prob go to next meeting but am wary of being identified as part of a campaign group.

Because I am not against change per se but would like some more information from 'management'. The culture here has changed considerably over the past few years.

[notsoclever]

Excellent! Involvement is just what is needed. You will understand more about the decisions that are being made, and you will be able to represent the concerns that you and others have.

Go for it. And keep coming back here. Others on her will have good advice about how to proceed.