Lay off clauses

[OfUselessBooks]

I have a new job and have been given a contract with a lay off clause in it. I've never had one of these before and it's making me uneasy...am I right to be?

It worries me that it's taking away some of the security of having an employment contract and fixed hours. I was made redundant from my last job and if I'd had one of these clauses then we would have been in real trouble. I've looked it up and I know that you can claim redundancy if they use it too much, but is there anything to stop them using it just enough to not come under the redundancy claim criteria?

I don't work in a job where the work will dry up, but the nature of the work means that it isn't time sensitive and I don't want to be in a position where they can lay me off for, say, 1 week every two months if times are hard, and there's nothing I can do about it. It's a professional, desk based role.

There are so few jobs around and this one is very flexible with hours, which is great, but I do need those hours. Would you see if they would remove it? I can't afford to walk away but it's a worry, especially having lost my last job, which has left me very insecure.

What does it say?

It says that I can temporarily br out on reduced hours or laid off if there is a shortage of work or if they're unable provide me with work for another reason. It also includes a furlough clause, which I assume is the equivalent of what i signed in my last job, but obviously I'd be signing this without knowing what scheme would be in place at the time.

Is this kind of thing becoming more normal? I expect they are t as simply covering themselves and wild be unlikely to use it in normal circumstances but it just doesn't sit right with me. We would manage, and I guess if they were at the point they were doing that i would be at risk of redundancy anyway. My work would never dry up, but they could decide not to do it for a ahole, if that makes sense (without outing myself!).

Sorry for all of the careless typos, I hope it makes sense!

Given that you wouldn't get redundancy for 2 years I would be less concerned about redundancy protection in the current climate.
The furlough clause sounds very reasonable and sensible.
The lay off clause sounds as though it goes hand in hand with the furlough clause, but also again something that's realistic of them to include from their perspective. Yes it could be shit, but I'd assume that given the role you've said it is, that wouldn't be expected to be acted on, but perhaps would become necessary if there was a full lockdown for example.

Lay off clauses have always been standard in some industries.

I've always had one in my own contracts.

They were considered quite old fashioned and unnecessary until really recently! I'm seeing a lot of organisations now amending contracts to add these in. Some are even asking existing employees to sign new contracts with them in.

I think if you are joining somewhere new now, I'd expect them to have a clause as standard.

It's unnerving, but it is what it is I guess?

I work in HR BTW!

Thank you for the replies. That's good to know. I suppose at least if we know about it in advance we can make sure we know what we would do if the worst happened.

It seems to me that if an employer wanted to get rid of you, they could lay you off just enough, but let you back before the right to claim redundancy kicked in and keep doing it as much as they were allowed, which would probably make you leave anyway.

Can you tell I've had a rough time this year with work??! My new employers seem very nice, but it's once bitten twice shy. I was very glad of my legal protections throughout my redundancy. The whole world seems less secure at the moment.