Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To think the law on redundancy is unfair

69 replies

NameChange30 · 01/04/2015 20:42

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?!

OP posts:

Ratfinkandbobo · 02/04/2015 14:21

We have the Tories to thank for this. If they get in again more employment protection will be eroded, ditto ukip. I bet this isn't in their manifestos!

19lottie82 · 02/04/2015 14:36

I wish people would stop going on about how apprentices "pay" is ridiculous. It is not a "job" as such", it is training, to prepare them for a job at the end of it. It's an alternative to college / uni and students don't get paid anything to go there, in fact they get in debt!

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 02/04/2015 14:38

Ratfink - did you read the thread? Redundancy laws are something both parties are equally responsible for the state of. Neither is better than the other on this one.

WetAugust · 02/04/2015 14:45

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

You may wish to know that the redundancy rights of Civil Servants has been changed by the coalition. I know because I was one of those 500,000 public servants who took redundancy under the coalition.

The maximum amout vaiable and the reckonable service were both reduced when calculating redundancy compensation.

WetAugust · 02/04/2015 15:07

19Lottie82

You dont appear to know much about apprenticeships.

They are not unpaid.

Apprentices under the Govt scheme get paid as little as 2.73 an hour.

This rate applies to apprentices aged 16 to 18 and those aged 19 or over who are in their first year.

You must be paid at least the minimum wage rate for your age if youre an apprentice aged 19 or over and have completed your first year.

Hairdreeser, nursery nurse, welder and chef are some of the apprenticeships offered in my local area.

In the 1970s many of these skills would have been learnt in the workplace, by learning 'on the job', and good employers would have invested in training of younger staff. The apprentice would have received a low but living wage.

2.73 is an insulting amount to pay for someone's effort.

Andrewofgg · 02/04/2015 15:08

I think it goes back to 1965.

DidoTheDodo · 02/04/2015 16:22

I was made redundant in 2004, after 1year and 11 months FT service. I got nothing. That was the mean law.

ReallyTired · 02/04/2015 22:19

A lot of jobs done by "apprentices" aren't particularly skilled. As soon as the apprentice finishes they are fired and replaced with a new apprentice.

19lottie82 · 02/04/2015 22:19

WetAugust, I didn't say that apprentices were unpaid. I know they get a low "wage". But they come out with a qualification and usually a job at the end of it.

I went to Uni where I had to pay them to learn and wasn't guaranteed a job at the end of it.

What's the difference?

caroldecker · 03/04/2015 00:06

In the 70's, accountants and lawers had to pay for thier training whilst working for the firm

EBearhug · 03/04/2015 00:15

Which Government made this law
1965 Redundancy Payments Act. (There have been updates since, but that was when the idea of redundancy payments with a minimum 2 years of service came in.)
Harold Wilson's Labour government.

EBearhug · 03/04/2015 00:23

I dont understand the hysteria about zero hours contracts. Or casual labour, as it was known 25 years ago (when I was employed on this basis as a lifeguard for the local council).

One of the clauses you get in a lot of zero hours contracts is that you're meant to be available exclusively for the company on that contract - so you can't work for other companies (In the holidays, I had two other jobs besides my lifeguard jobs when I was doing it a similar time ago). You're contracted to work for Company X, who might not give you any hours, and therefore might not give you an income, but you're also not free to work for anyone else. That's not the same as the casual contracts we used to have.

ReallyTired · 03/04/2015 00:28

I feel it's strong for a company to demand exclusivity and have zero hours contract. There is nothing with a zero hours contract. There is everything wrong with not being allowed to do other work when laid off. Outlawing an exclusivity clause in a zero hours contract would not hurt business.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 03/04/2015 00:44

The real difficulty with zero hours contracts is supporting a regular lifestyle such as rent\mortgage, bills and groceries on an erratic pay scale. If your zero hour contract is supplementary income then that can be great. So a student picking their hours during holidays and term time is a good thing. If you have rent to pay and all your income is zero hours+ then you can't get cover from benefits for 0 hour weeks. So you might make minimum wage every other week but your landlord and bills don't give you a 0 hours week.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 03/04/2015 00:48

Agree with ReallyTired that exclusivity is a problem as is the inclusion of zero hours contracts in the employment stats. Every adult in the UK could be signed up to a zero hours contract and be given 5 hours a week. Nobody gets unemployment benefit.

Amummyatlast · 03/04/2015 09:16

Yes exclusivity clauses are a problem. Which is why the coalition plans to ban them for workers who earn below a certain minimum (part of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and the draft Zero Hours Workers (Exclusivity Terms) Regulations 2015).

ReallyTired · 03/04/2015 15:51

I feel that only companies that pay a living wage should be allowed an exclusivity clause or an limitations on who someone works for. Ie. A company must pay a minimum 2k a month for an exclusivity clause to be valid.

nf1morethanjustlumpsandbumps · 03/04/2015 16:19

I was made redundant just two months after returning from maternity leave, previously I had worked full time for 5 years I came back on a part time basis. My redundancy pay was calculated on my part time rate and i was one day short of 6 years so I only got paid for 5. I came out with nothing basically. Out of 9 of us made redundant 7 had just came back part time within the last year.

inabeautifulplace · 03/04/2015 16:41

"I went to Uni where I had to pay them to learn and wasn't guaranteed a job at the end of it.

What's the difference?"

You were spending all your time learning and none working. From my experience, apprentices do a combination of these things, with most emphasis on the work aspect. As such, they are productive employees and deserving of more than a few pounds an hour! Of course, it's helpful for employers, especially small businesses.

Flip

1 2 3