Threat of redundancy

[hinbauble]

Are you at higher risk if you’ve been employed under 2 years?

I’ve been in my role almost two years but not quite for another few months. Very large employer. There is going to be a handful of redundancies to save money but as yet unclear when and where, just that there will be several. They’re hoping to avoid compulsory redundancies and hoping some people will voluntarily go, but if it comes to compulsory is it risky to be one of the only ones who has been there under 2 years?

FWIW there is probably 70-80 people in total that this could include and several of these posts will be redundant. I know stats wise that looks fairly fine but nervous all the same because I love my role and would hate to move

IME there's usually people who have been there a while who opt to take redundancy if it's a reasonable offer.

They have to be fair so technically you're not disadvantaged but if it comes to compulsory then someone with under 2 years is the more cost effective option. It all depends on what role you're in, if it's one that is affected and how many people take voluntary.

I've been there a few times and it's awful when it's all unknowns.

Under 2 years, they could just dismiss you without having to follow a process (protected characteristic caveats apply) - so if they don't get the voluntary takers they want, realistically you probably are at greater risk as you're easier and cheaper to dismiss.

But the organisation culture and reputation (or how much they wish to protect a reputation) might influence that decision.

Is this Big4? Because they made a show when announcing redundancies that they would "protect" the newest staff because they're the cheap disposable labour whose tears the business is built on.

Sorry - where I work you'd be the choice before we even started considering "real" redundancies - whether voluntary or compulsory. Because you cost nothing but notice pay. That's public sector.