How are redundancies decided?

[ILikeGlitter]

I have worked at the company for 10+ years but only ever part time.

When choosing who is made redundant what is factored in?

Me and my colleague , who is full time but has only worked for the company for 9 weeks prior to lockdown, are both concerned as we are both still furloughed. We both work doing the same thing.

Should we both be equally concerned or do you think there is a better chance for either of us not to be made redundant?

Also colleague is much more flexible than me when it comes to changing work hours.

I have just been through the process and was told they are not allowed to use a 'last in, first out' tactic anymore. We were interviewed and given a score based on our interview, any disciplinaries we may have had and previous development reviews and it was decided that way, different companies may have different ways though!

Must add i was last in but the person who had a poor development review recently was the one made redundant...

As far as I know there isn't one set way to do it. As long as the employer does it legally it's up to them, I think you can still use last in first out, a friend is going through the process and I'm pretty sure that what she said.

Our company has recently made redundancies and each colleague was scored on flexibility, how much they can add/bring to the business etc. Lots of us who have been there a relatively short length of time have remained whilst long term employed have been let go because they were very stuck in their ways and not prepared to change when they were called in for a review.

Generally, I believe, they decide who they want to leave and fit the criteria around that potentially using a scoring system. So, if the person they want to lose has had a lot of sick leave, for example, they'll weight that higher in the criteria they've set. I've been through a redundancy process (but kept my job) and when the criteria was released to the people in the pool it was pretty obvious who would be leaving.

The company will choose the criteria that are relevant. You should be informed of how the process would work. No one else can tell you the likelihood of you being made redundant.

In theory, using criteria such as performance, attendance, length of service (not in isolation), knowledge etc.

In practice it is very easy for managers to pick their favourites and tweak the ratings to fit. Or sometimes just to favour the less expensive redundancy figures. Been asked to do this many times as a HR person.

@PleasantVille

As far as I know there isn't one set way to do it. As long as the employer does it legally it's up to them, I think you can still use last in first out, a friend is going through the process and I'm pretty sure that what she said.

It's not usually used in isolation due to the age discrimination risk, but can be combined with other criteria Think I've only ever seen it used once after the age discrimination rules came in in 2006.

@CloudsCanLookLikeSheep

In theory, using criteria such as performance, attendance, length of service (not in isolation), knowledge etc.

In practice it is very easy for managers to pick their favourites and tweak the ratings to fit. Or sometimes just to favour the less expensive redundancy figures. Been asked to do this many times as a HR person.

I agree. No matter what any employer says, I do not believe for one second that the outcome of a redundancy selection is anything other than the result they want. There might be "good reasons" to do that, such as saving money; or there might be "bad reasons", such as keeping the brother in law. But there is no such thing as an entirely neutral selection process, and that's why there is little point beating yourself up about being made redundant, as some people do. It is rarely a reflection on the people selected, and more often just the luck of the draw and the boxes you ticked or didn't tick - even if you didn't know the box was there!

@CloudsCanLookLikeSheep

In theory, using criteria such as performance, attendance, length of service (not in isolation), knowledge etc.

In practice it is very easy for managers to pick their favourites and tweak the ratings to fit. Or sometimes just to favour the less expensive redundancy figures. Been asked to do this many times as a HR person.

Same, 100% it will appear to be a quantitate but it won't be.

Having said that you do occasionally get a situation where the manager will rate fairly and say 'let the best man(woman) win'. But it is rare. How can it not be, when the person doing the rating and the person doing the selecting are the same? Even when you get a junior manager to do the initial ratings, the manager in charge of the redundancies will usually ratify it. Put it this way, if they really don't want you there, you won't be getting through selection.

Although LIFO (last in first out) is rarely used now, it did make sense in terms of limiting the cost of redundancies. Now, when someone due a big redundancy payment scores low on selection we have to scrabble about to make sure they score high enough to stay (unless manager really doesn't like them) as the company is very cost conscious and can't afford to be paying £5-10k redundancy packages when someone with less than 2 years service (no package) can go instead.

so it's all smoke and mirrors really

If it makes you feel any better, your colleague will be very cheap to let go as they unlikely to be entitled to a redundancy payment (only their notice) . Youd be entitled to a payout so will carry a cost for them if they make you redundant.

Whoever/whichever team the senior partners (i'm in a large private company) feels like behind closed door meetings. HR exists purely to faciliate a legal and vaguely justifiable facade, alongside other management cronies.

I imagine it is the same in public companies.

It sucks to be the Proleteriat, eh?

Generally, I believe, they decide who they want to leave and fit the criteria around that potentially using a scoring system
This is so true

If there are a number of redundancies to be made they will likely use a point scoring system - I got made redundant but someone who had been there less than a year didn't - id been there 15 years!!

... I was told by friends etc it's a chance to get rid of 'dead wood' so I felt I was going to be ok - but some of the scoring criteria was if you had been a fire warden 😬😬 absolute b*llox!!

The recent round of redundancies at my work got rid of the least productive people. Everybody knew who they were. It's very hard to sack useless people with all the HR rules, so when redundancies became inevitable, it was a welcome relief to get rid of the ones who were taking the piss.

In my case, it was a question of me or my boss's wife's best mate. Given the meteoric rise of some of her other protegées in the same organisation, I knew I didn't stand much chance. We were invited to express an interest in the newly created roles within the new structure, and there would have been an interview process. I didn't bother expressing an interest, though, as I knew the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Tbh, I was happier to just take the redundancy money and run!

In my last job there were redundancies In one particular department (not mine) and they exclusively got rid of all the women over 45. It was so blatant I couldn’t believe they’d got away with it.

In my job before that there were also redundancies - they got rid of all the best performing but highest paid employees. I was included in that round. I found out a long time afterwards that at the time my colleagues and I were made redundant, the company had just found out it had been defrauded by the CFO! So it was a panic, money-saving exercise. CFO eventually went to prison

Point is, you never really know. So don’t worry about it.

I know a company making redundancies now and they are basing decisions on who has the skills and aptitude to get the company through a major downturn in business. Staff will help to retain and gain new clients and who are flexible with workloads. There was quite a "whinge" culture, with a few divas who were regularly rude to other members of the team, and they can't afford that now.
I think people know if they have been flexible and team players with a good sick record. So then it just comes down to skills required.

If your colleague has only been there a short time, they may not be entitled to redundancy. At my company, you have to have worked 2 years.

For statutory redundancy 2 years service is required where ever you work

@CloudsCanLookLikeSheep

In theory, using criteria such as performance, attendance, length of service (not in isolation), knowledge etc.

In practice it is very easy for managers to pick their favourites and tweak the ratings to fit. Or sometimes just to favour the less expensive redundancy figures. Been asked to do this many times as a HR person.

Yep, this is exactly what happened in my experience of going through 3 restructures....