to think that being made redundant means you are no good at your job

[user1498911470]

If somebody is made redundant, would you automatically think it's because they are no good at their job? I mean if only 3 people are being made redundant then presumably they are the 3 people that the management consider to be the weakest members of the team?

Sometimes roles are scrapped altogether and outsourced at a fraction of the cost, so sometimes it's nothing to do with the individuals' competence and all about cost.

Many companies have a “last in, first out” approach. I assume it reduces redundancy payments?

Yes but not always. Other reasons could be. The company has a last in, first out policy. Or they will get rid of the most expensive Same role higher paid) employees.

I can only imagine you're being goady, I've been made redundant a number of times and it was due to companies reducing numbers. Someone had to go, I scored lowest. Not because I was shit, because they wanted to amalgamate roles and the other person had done both sides

I am taking redundancy at work. My role is being moved to another area so they offered me a package. I’m
More expensive than others to pay. Don’t think They offered it to me because I am bad at my job (maybe I am wrong)

Nope. I was consultant of the year and I got made redundant. Too expensive and they were cutting costs (aka removing all senior roles)

No not at all. If someone’s crap at they’re job they’re either fired or paid off.

If you’ve made someone redundant, you then can’t employ another person to do that job.

No, not being goady - I am one of the three.

Not at all.

No. It means that they are getting rid of x number of positions and x people are the best people to get rid of either because their redundancy payments will be low or they are paid more than others, because they are less good at the job, the company feels that they are likely to leave soon anyway. G. They are a woman of childbearing age who recently got married, they are approaching retirement age etc. Lots of reasons, but of course being a rubbish employee could be one of them.

It’s roles that are made redundant, not people.

ime it's the cheapest one that goes - so least redundancy pay or highest salary

No I wouldn’t. It’s often the position rather than the person who is actually made redundant.

Tiers/structures within a firm are changed/streamlined, etc.

I was made redundant because the whole company was being shut down. Of course I was amazing at my job

No, if you’re the most expensive you can be cut first, happened to me and I was a big fee earner but had the highest salary too as had been there longest.. if you’re not good there are processes where they can get rid of you without a redundancy payout..

I don't believe companies are allowed to select on basis on last in first out...

But no. Companies change all the time. Workforces are fluid. Redundancy is just a consequence of that.

No. There could be loads of reasons behind it.

Not necessarily. There are lots of reasons.

I’ve been made redundant and I was a top performer.

If you are one of the three you must know if you are good at your job or not though.

Sometimes it’s because they’re crap, but there are loads of other possible reasons as per pp’s suggestions. I’ve been made redundant twice when my entire branch was closed: I didn’t take it personally. I’ve hired a couple of people who had been recently made redundant and they were both great.

I was made redundant due to last in, first out policy.
I had recently been promoted due to being really good at my job and then numbers were cut at supervisory level.
If I hadn't been promoted I would have kept my job so the opposite was true for me OP.

That's the stigma but rarely the case. Some just operate a 'last in first out' or looking at the relative costs or skillsets where there are more employees the roles for a certain function.

I don't think it's based on who's good at their job at all - I think it should be (in a way, as long as those choosing are able to be objective.) I took voluntary redundancy from teaching. They looked at disciplinaries, time keeping, absences, length of service (though I don't think that counted for much, but under 2 years did make a difference) and (I think) appraisals.

Good people volunteer for redundancy all the time.
Companies get rid of people for all sorts of reasons, the cheapest payoff, biggest saving and yes sometimes the shit people.

I was made redundant recently. I was the longest serving member of staff with a wage to match. I was also 6 months pregnant.
I wasn’t surprised that I was the one selected for redundancy.

It depends on what the company policy is.

At my workplace it's usually '30% of the [role]s need to go' - and it's performance based. So yes, it's very obviously the poorest performers that leave.

If there are 3 out of X going, you have a right to ask what the selection criteria was.