To think the law on redundancy is unfair

[NameChange30]

If you have been working at an organisation for less than 2 years, they can make you redundant with just ONE MEASLY WEEK of notice and NO redundancy pay.

This is fucking unfair. I know I'm not being unreasonable. Which Government made this law?! It was the fucking Tories wasn't it?!

FFS the comment about Thatcher was light hearted, stop taking yourselves so seriously.

Agree with the point a few people have made that if it's been the case for so long it's not the fault of one government but most of them.

I am just outraged and the Tories were someone convenient to blame, get over it.

Luckily employment contracts often have longer notice periods. But I still think if someone has been a good employee for 23 months they deserve more than 1 week's notice that they are going to lose their job without pay. If they are being sacked because of a disciplinary issue or poor performance, which I guess they would usually get warnings about before being sacked, then 1 week seems fair enough.

The UK does not have a low skilled workforce.

There are now some great opportunities for young apprentices across a range of sectors. Now students have to stay in education or training until they are 18 it will increase their life chances.

Looks like I've touched a nerve, so the 'in jest' was maybe slightly loaded, I don't need to get over anything as I didn't bring partisan politics into question.

As I said there needs to be an arbitrary cut of point, what is your opinion on this, where is your cut of considering that in some jobs the probation period is merly a basic understanding of the role and can assimilate into the environment, within some environments your not showing your true worth until 8/12 even 18 months after employment.

Even negating the fact that you sign the contract which usually highlights your limited rights within the first 2 years and depending on your role can still have up to 3 months notice, what is inherently unfair?

Actually it was the Thatcher government that introduced this rule along with statutory redundancy pay of a week for every years service so it's been in force since the late 80's. My poor Dad was made redundant that many times the whole family were experts. Most large companies offer enhanced packages but that is at their discretion although they tend to stick to the 2 year rule. Can't see it changing anytime soon though.

Can I also just add it's also half If your under 21! So at 20 with a mortgage and a baby, I was not as important when being made redundant!!

I was right then, it was the Thatcher Government. Thanks MrsPinotGrigio (excellent name btw)

Jelly that's awful! Did you find something else quickly?

Oh dear, so sorry to hear that Dawn. Hope he finds something else quickly.

I was made redundant in Dec 2013 but was lucky (?) enough to get a really good enhanced package & I'd been in my job for 19 years. As far as I can remember the reason for introducing the current rules was the sheer amount of people who lost their jobs during the recession of the 1980's. The rules may have actually come into effect later in the 90's but as far as I m aware they do stem from the Tory government of the time. It's such a shame subsequent governments haven't thought to change these rules especially as jobs aren't as long term as they used to be.

i was right then, it was a thatcher government

Your nievity and ignorance is at least noble, I give you that.

Cherry picking answers and not actually discussing your question is the sure fire way of elevating yourself as being one of the political astute...

Dawn, when did this happen, haven't you been a carer long before those nasty tories came to power?

You know when labour was in power to address the issue?

No one is disputing that subsequent governments haven't addressed the issue but it doesn't mean the current rules are fair. There also seems to be more contracting jobs & long term temporary contracts which don't fall under the existing redundancy rules meaning no pay off even if you've worked for the same company for more than 2 years. It's not a case of 'Tory bashing' just stating the facts of where the existing rules originate from & how long they've been in existence.

Actually, this conversation is turning into complete rubbish. I accept you're not all lawyers but surely everyone can google (that's all we lawyers do )

The redundancy payments act 1965 was a labour government initiative Harold Wilson. Nothing to do with Thatcher or the tories at all.

Similarly the minimum notice provisions were also Harold Wilson's government.

Where I am currently there is no statutory redundancy - some companies (particularly if unionised) may have contractual agreements but otherwise you could work somewhere for 15 years and get one week of notice and nothing else.

The redunancy "rights" of civil servants is ridicolous. I don't understand why this has not been changed.

I feel that there has to be a balance between giving employers flexiblity and employee rights. If its too hard to fire the utterly impossible employee then small companies will be reluctant to hire.

"If you have been working at an organisation for less than 2 years, they can make you redundant with just ONE MEASLY WEEK of notice and NO redundancy pay."

Are you sure? I thought you got 1 month notice after you have completed your probation. I thought that legally probation periods were limited to 6 months.

I agree its really unfair. If an employee is required to give a month notice then I feel an employer should be required to give double the amount of notice they ask of the employee.

Most employment legislation was introduced over the years to implement European law, as it is harmonised to a certain extent. The Thatcher Government was in power when a lot of harmonisation of employment law was done. It actually sets out a lot of minimum rights which didn't exist before, but there were also negotiated opt outs (most memorably the Working Time rules) which were designed to be tailored to the British economy.

There has never been such a history in the UK of consultation and influence from Trade Unions in the same way as in France and Germany, and certainly not in the same way as in the Scandinavian countries, and it would probably be rather unpopular if a UK government tried to introduce completely alien practices on the British economy (which is rather successful compared to most European countries).

Its worth remembering that the revenue generated by the City of London alone is larger than the economy of the whole of The Netherlands for example. And the British do simply do things differently from other countries, but very well.

But one week's minimum notice up to two years employment is very low. In Belgium, I believe it is 3 months, and 1 month in both The Netherlands and Germany (irrespective of how long you have been working) (the purpose is to give employees under notice of dismissal time to find another job).

On the other hand, the UK has enough resources to provide benefits to dismissed employees as soon as their dismissal becomes effective...

Couldnt agree more as poor dh been thought that twice. Very common to get rid of someone just before 2 years!!!!!

Reallytired that's the legal minimum but it depends on the employee's contract. In my case it's one month. But I am just thinking how much worse it must be for people who don't have the right to more than a month's notice in their contract.

Really you are conflating two separate points though.

It is relatively easy to fire the 'impossible employee' before two years are up, for practically any reason apart from discriminatory ones.

It is slightly more tricky to make a post redundant, because you are removing a post from your organisation.

If you are made redundant before two years you do get your contractual notice period (or pay in lieu of that). So if your notice period is one month, that's what you'll get.

^^

And, whoever introduced the current rules, we need to know if what existed before was better or worse, before we start throwing stones.

This is fucking unfair. I know I'm not being unreasonable. Which Government made this law?! It was the fucking Tories wasn't it?!

I think redundancy is fucking unfair. Why should employers have to pay money to people for not working? I bet it was those bloody commies hiding in the Labour party who did it.

I have been in a highly skilled job for nine years. I am only entitled to statutory redundancy pay,which is bugger all.

"If you have been working at an organisation for less than 2 years, they can make you redundant with just ONE MEASLY WEEK of notice and NO redundancy pay."

Are you sure? I thought you got 1 month notice after you have completed your probation. I thought that legally probation periods were limited to 6 months.

No, and no. Many contracts may say that. By law they can have a notice period of one week, up to two years of service. When you reach two years it goes up to two weeks, and then goes up a week a year until you reach 12.

Probation periods have no legal status as such in the UK. They are simply an internal mechanism. Shorter notice periods or reduced benefits often apply by contract during a probationary period. However, legally it is as easy to dismiss the employee a day after their probationary period as they day before it ends (subject to any contractual changes), provided they haven't reached two years of service.

Regarding redundancy pay, bear in mind that statutory redundancy is pretty minimal. It's a week's pay per year of service (less for younger employees, more for years over 41). A week's pay is capped at £464 (which means that anyone who earns over £24k a year doesn't get a week's pay). So at two years it's £1,200 at most.

Yes, that's enough to make a difference to people, but it's hardly going to tide most people over to the next job unless they are very employable. You could easily get made redundant with two years' service and walk away with the equivalent of only 6 weeks' pay (or less if you earn over £24k).

Sorry, typo right at the end there. 4 weeks' pay (2 weeks' notice, 2 weeks redundancy). And as I said, less if you are young, and the two weeks' redundancy will be less than a week's pay if you earn over £24k.

I think the whole linking to service is a bit rubbish really.