News from a mate got me thinking so wanted to ask. Few years ago got made redundant along with many other people from company X (do not want to name). After about 6 months seen company advertising for position with job description that was the same but less money and new title. Since then I know they advertised few more time. Last time it was about April 2012 when I even applied, got the job but it did not feel right so did not take it. After chatting with said mate I found out that company had several redundancies since my one. What is interesting is they are always just before their quiet time and affect new starters for obvious reasons. It sounds somewhat illegal is it not? It looks like they advertise and hire people before busy period (last one was Olympics mostly for short term contract) the make them redundant 9 months later. Did they found a legal way to dismiss people?
Sounds like company x has found a reasonable formula for staying afloat in these straitened times. It may not be palateable to all, but this way at least the company survives to provide at least some local employment; far better, surely, than to struggle on overstaffed into bankruptcy..?
perfectly legal but completely wrong in a moral sense unfortunately we live in a society ruled by money and short term gains
It sounds like what they are doing is legal. If you have been there less than one year you are not entitled to redundancy, or to make claims for unfair dismissal etc. I've "let people go" with 6 months service and immediately replaced them with someone competent on the same money with same job title.
Why is it immoral? If they don't need them then they let them go. It makes no sense to pay someone to do nothing. Because they haven't been there long enough then they are not entitled to redundancy. Plus Lucasz says some of these people are on short term contracts. That's what they are for
That is the part I do not get. In general no they are not on short term contracts as many in that industry would nit apply then. Olympics was the only exception and only for few out of all employed. Figaro said company is huge, international one. I can tell you this much bigger then Hilton world wide to put it in perspective. They are on stock market that is how big they are, corporation.
simply because they are lead to believe that they are on permanent jobs when there is clearly no intention of the jobs remaining permanent the employer has misrepresented the truth, if they were taken on as temporary fixed term contracts then that is a completely different slant on events as the employer is open and honest about what they are offering if you think misprepresnting the truth is moral, then you should seriously consider politics as a career move
So it is not only me then? I would not flinch if they had short term contracts in place but they do not for most part. Due to fact travel is involved with that company plus work in certain areas (depending which cluster you are on) I have no doubts some people moved for the job, there must have been. I did to SE London for it.
I see where you are coming from, but do you really believe any job is a job for life. I have been made redundant twice in my life, once after 6 years service and the other after 18 months. That's why I became self employed - so that I would be last out of the door. When I hire it is usually due to expansion, new customer or existing customer expanding. When I hire I explain this to applicants and I tell them that if the growth is permanent then hopefully they will have a long term job, but if it doesn't work out then they will be leaving. They always take the job. Because of this uncertainty I generally only hire people who are unemployed as I would feel bad luring someone away from a job and then letting them go later.
Gilps I think we had this one before?! Anyhu. Don't you think that if you decide to expand your company due to business demand it should be your risk alone not employee? Sorry but if you get more business from client and not certain if it is long term you have many options before offering full time employment. OT for existing one's for a but of time, contractors or fixed contract for new employee with provision to go permanent if business stays. Any company that expands and decides to take on more people takes a risk of it all failing and that risk should be calculated in by them not employees that for most part want a stable job. Sorry but are you aware how stressful it is for employee to look for new place as they have to, last minute as well. I somehow doubt you keep those new people in the loop 100% updating them the least every month about how big chance they have of staying in for next 2 - 3 months or more.
Also if you expect your employees to be so flexible as to be told get out as we have no business do you offer same in return? If they get new job they say so and go or you expect them to stay full notice period?
The best senario would be temporary contracts at busy times eg Olympics That way all concerned know where they stand and if I full time position becomes available then temps get first choice After options evening for my son the teachers are saying a job is now not for life as when I left school but that a person on leaving school will see at least 15 job placements in their work life!!! Restructuring has now become quite normal in companies in times of idle business It doesn't seem right but this practice has gone on for years
was made redundant 7 years ago and been on short term contracts ever since keep looking at permamnent jobs but financially I am better off on short term contracts as for security, have only had 2 weeks not working in last 3 years and usually go from one contract straight onto the next
Whenever we expand we always max out overtime first. If that fails to keep up, or if business looks secure then we hire. I won't use contractors as I am then stuck with employees for balance of contract if things quieten down. Contractors are suitable when you have won work for a contract ie Olympic work, or you have project with an end goal. They are not a viable option for growth. Life is full of risks, for everybody. When you leave a job to go to another, presumably for more money or better prospects, then you take a risk. When you decide to leave the comfort of your sofa and the benefits cushion that you are sitting and take a job then you are taking a risk. Employers investing their money in a business are taking a risk. I am well aware of the stresses of moving. I grew up in Sheffield, was made redundant at 24, moved to Tunbridge Wells to work, bought a house, company sold out to company in Reading so moved there, moved company to one in Slough, who relocated to Reading 6 months later, 3 years later we merged with another company, job relocated to Marlow, 6 months later company relocated all sites to new head office in Hemel Hempstead. I stayed 18 months before switching jobs to one based in Farnborough, one year later they relocated to Hook. At the age of 40 and had lived in 21 different homes, some rented, some owned. Last year my landlord at work gave me 2 months notice to quit, as per the terms of my licence. I had to find new premises and relocate a business at a cost of 15k, whilst trying to keep lost work time down to 1 week. I know about moving. That's why I laughed when some of my staff moaned about travelling an extra 2 miles per day to work, yet I still adjusted everyone's wages to compensate them for any loss incurred by them, but I got no refund from staff whose travelling had been reduced. I'm fortunate that I still have my business, and my employees are fortunate that they still have their jobs.
If my employees get offered more money or better conditions then they leave. I would expect them to. It's the way the world works. You have to buy loyalty. They very rarely work their notice, probably one person in the 40 or so that I have hired in the past 10 years. For what its worth, one of the hardest working employees that I have had, (not the most skilled though) was a Polish guy. He put some of my staff to shame with his work ethic, but he left giving me no notice because someone else on the other side of town was paying 30p per hour more. I had a choice, pay more or say goodbye. We parted company and I haven't hired another Pole since. Why bother training somebody when they are going to clear off for a few pence more. I understand that its all about the money. I'm sure the guy didn't come all the way over here for the weather, but I'm sure he didn't stay long in hid next job, or the one after that, but eventually he will become unemployable due to jumping around so much.
You seem to be a bit like a fair employer on one hand and bad on the other so a norm Whenever I hire people almost half of my questions are to try and establish why they want the job, how long they plan to stay, what they want to do as career and as rule do not employee people who do not want to do it. Exception students, if they say working hours around uni fits them and they have the least 1y of uni left good on that part.
...but only if you've been employed for over 1 year. You can dismiss someone inside that year and they have little recourse in law, unless you breach the terms of their employment contract in which case they can argue breach of contract. Let's see if Cameron manages to get the law changed as he wants to make it easier to dismiss staff.
I saw this repeatedly whilst at ntl. They made an entire department redundant. The employees set up their own company and charged their services back to ntl at a higher cost. Madness.
Or disguise it as a good tool for small business but in reality make it easier for his fat cat company bosses and shareholders to make more money and take away even more rights from the vulnerable on the ground floor.....
