Following a restructure I've been at risk of redundancy for nearly 4 months, I've applied for other roles and been for interviews within the organisation but these haven't been a close enough match to my skills and experience. I didn't apply for voluntary redundancy, although many staff have, many were accepted and a few rejected.
I didn't match to the new version of my job (which I feel I've been doing well and now feel confident doing), so had to reapply, and a younger member of staff at a grade lower who was already safe in the new structure applied, and he got the job.
I've currently got an application in for another permanent role I think I would be well-suited to, and it's at my grade, but they are delaying the shortlisting, apparently the managers of that department are extremely busy. This and the length of time it's dragged on for means I'm being pushed into going for maternity cover roles for 12 months (although these won't be starting just yet, as the babies aren't due for a while). My union rep has advised me that if I take one of these, there should be no issues for me to move across to any other roles within university after commencing a fixed-term job - my director has said this too, that they would not stand in my way of taking up a permanent role elsewhere.
I've had advice from ACAS that I cannot insist on this being a secondment (I've asked for this). HR just vaguely said they would commence redundancy consultation with me at the end (did not mention voluntary or compulsory).
VR is still available but probably won't be next year. They don't want compulsory due to any bad publicity - at the moment, but may be happy for one compulsory when everyone's forgotten about the union's dispute over job losses. ACAS said If they are considering possible redundancy now that could well be the same scenario come the end of the fixed term period, whether that would be compulsory or voluntary would depend at the time on the situation and what else is available. I'd just need to see the new role as an opportunity to keep working for another 12 months. VR here offers no enhancement for long-term workers as it is capped at 6 months (I've been there 23 years), so we are talking very similar payoffs whether VR or compulsory.
The other thing is that, with the local govt pension, from age 55 redundancy becomes very expensive for them, which is why some staff were denied VR, so unless they can afford to retire in their late 50s, they are trapped, because the pension is reduced for retiring early. I get the feeling they would prefer those of us coming up to age 55 to take VR now as the finance director will have told them how expensive to them any future compulsory redundancies would be, ie they are trying to keep and recruit younger workers who are relatively cheap to let go, should they need to bring in compulsory redundancies in the future.
I feel this is age discrimination and that the 50-54 group have been targeted - other staff have also been targeted, but in different ways, and they would argue that some have now secured new roles. The union seem happy to let this go. In the last restructure I was 49 and did OK out of it. I think the employer used organisational change as a pretext to see how far they could push staff and who would crumble under the pressure and sign up for VR. It's probably all legal but there is still an element of bullying about the whole thing, although to be fair my director is, the union said, much better than some...
So the question is, should I go now, which would be in 3 months, have a short break in the summer and then risk the jobs market (admin work, but quite specialised), or take the 12 month job and see what happens next year? That would take me a year nearer to the pension - 55, but it would be considerably reduced at that age. Coming up to 52, so would be nearly 53 next year at the end of the fixed-term job.
I have 3 DC, age 12-16, so I'm in the expensive years for a while yet, with a mortgage and bank loan (no credit card debt) for another 5-6 years.