If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

leolion855 · Post by **leolion855** » 23 Sep 2019, 15:17

itinerant · Post by **itinerant** » 23 Sep 2019, 15:26

i know you are addressing this to tbt/postman but i attended a CWU meeting yesterday and the advice stated there from the member of the postal executive was that if there were compulsory redundancies it would be based on seniority (ie last in first out). This would be cheaper for the company.

As I understand it we currently have legal protections that we cannot be given compulsory redundancy notice (although I believe this may be one of the areas RM are looking at "reviewing" from what was said at the meeting).

EDIT 18:45 23/9 - clarified first statement as I was talking about compulsory redundancies and not voluntary which caused some confusion

Post by **stodgy88** » 23 Sep 2019, 15:57

Does full time versus part-time have any bearing on how seniority is used ?

Woody Guthrie · Post by **Woody Guthrie** » 23 Sep 2019, 15:59

stodgy88 wrote:Does full time versus part-time have any bearing on how seniority is used ?

No.
That would be unlawful.

Post by **stodgy88** » 23 Sep 2019, 16:01

Thought seniority was based on longest serving,not last in first out as stated in earlier post ?

Acca Dacca · Post by **Acca Dacca** » 23 Sep 2019, 16:32

stodgy88 wrote:Thought seniority was based on longest serving,not last in first out as stated in earlier post ?

Thats what he means - it will be based on lowest seniority out first

itinerant · Post by **itinerant** » 23 Sep 2019, 16:46

Acca Dacca wrote:
stodgy88 wrote:Thought seniority was based on longest serving,not last in first out as stated in earlier post ?
Thats what he means - it will be based on lowest seniority out first

Yes. Those with lowest seniority would be most at risk. That's what the CWU chap said anyway. Obviously it's all speculation at the moment.

hans solo · Post by **hans solo** » 23 Sep 2019, 16:54

that would be compulsary redundancy vrs have to be offered first and that would go top to bottom of seniority list

leolion855 · Post by **leolion855** » 23 Sep 2019, 17:40

Would it go seniority per unit or seniority national and then having to relocate the people left over?

Post by **wacko74** » 23 Sep 2019, 18:33

I think the fairest system for the workforce and most cost effective system for the employer should be a compromise where all and any job losses are to only be via VR... but NOT based on seniority.

Instead those volunteers who would cost the least to pay off should get priority.

(Que the usual frothing of mouths from the 30-40 year guys, with their various money for nothing grandfather rights payments and cushy little duties that haven't been altered ever since they picked them in 1983)

yellowbelly · Post by **yellowbelly** » 23 Sep 2019, 19:25

Acca Dacca wrote:
stodgy88 wrote:Thought seniority was based on longest serving,not last in first out as stated in earlier post ?
Thats what he means - it will be based on lowest seniority out first

This is why everybody needs to vote - particularly recent joiners who have been recruited on PT contracts (which I still class myself as,
compared to some of the old and bold), PT'ers - VOTE & MAKE SURE YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!!!

Woody Guthrie · Post by **Woody Guthrie** » 23 Sep 2019, 19:39

Instead those volunteers who would cost the least to pay off should get priority.

Those would by definition be those on the lowest contracted hours.
That would be counterproductive for the business model and probably unlawful.

Idealy they want rid of full-time staff but cannot deliberately target only full time staff so length of service makes sense to the business.

postslippete · Post by **postslippete** » 23 Sep 2019, 20:18

At ours there was one senior guy that the managers were that desperate to get rid of I think they offered him a lot more redundancy money than what he should have got!!

He was one of those that often used to work till 5pm using his trolley and claim loads of excess hours. His round wasn't that big actually, it was just that he used to walk as if he had a wooden leg, poor b*stard.

Ren Hoëk · Post by **Ren Hoëk** » 23 Sep 2019, 20:36

Iv worked in a large RM unit that under went quite extensive VR's through a number of waves. It was done on seniority. I can't see RM doing it any other way. I think if there are to be job cuts id hope VR was used as there are allot of guys who want out but not for nothing.

Like another poster. My question would be how would they organise it. Would it be unit based or area based with the prospect of some posties having to relocate if their unit couldn't achieve the VR's required but others being able to fulfil more etc.

Post by **wacko74** » 24 Sep 2019, 05:52

Woody Guthrie wrote:
Instead those volunteers who would cost the least to pay off should get priority.
Those would by definition be those on the lowest contracted hours.
That would be counterproductive for the business model and probably unlawful.

.

I'd disagree, there are plenty of full timers who are no where near the top of the seniority list but would want out, probably mainly due to still being reserves after 10,15 years or more, whilst those senior senior to them haven't done a single day on any duty other than their own (3 hour) delivery since the day they picked it 20 or 30 years ago.

ROYALMAILCHAT