For people saying that selection for redundancy using seniority will be more expensive have got it wrong.
It is more cost effective to get rid of your most expensive staff first, especially those with most allowances and full 6 week leave entitlement, which will be in general the most senior staff.
It won't come down to seniority. Their aim is compulsory redundancies so they can get rid of the people they want rid of. The older timers, sickies and slow one's basically.
Their aim is to save as much money as possible so they will most probably want to rid themselves of the expensive senior staff.
Hopefully I'm one of them!
Royal Mail is pretty toxic at the moment and I can't see much benefit in staying.
Yep, I have a buddy who is a business consultant primarily dealing with companies that are close to collapsing. He has told me the first thing he does in a rescue mission is to find out what are the companies most expensive fixed expenditure and to work on reducing them as quickly as possible. Often this is wages hence job losses always appear to be the first casualty. Therefore getting rid of those on extra allowances and maximum holiday benefits and more senior is often seen as the most prudent. Voluntary redundancy using seniority is the option of least hassle regarding legality and saving more money and fewer staff.
As a consultant he only offers a road map it is for the board or CEO to choose weather to take the advice or not.
My view is that the mostly costly fixed expenditure are middle managers, the vast majority of these jobs are no productive. Therefore maintaining money for the jobs that move and transport letters and parcel as without the ability to do this there is no income generated.
Yep, I have a buddy who is a business consultant primarily dealing with companies that are close to collapsing. He has told me the first thing he does in a rescue mission is to find out what are the companies most expensive fixed expenditure and to work on reducing them as quickly as possible. Often this is wages hence job losses always appear to be the first casualty. Therefore getting rid of those on extra allowances and maximum holiday benefits and more senior is often seen as the most prudent. Voluntary redundancy using seniority is the option of least hassle regarding legality and saving more money and fewer staff.
As a consultant he only offers a road map it is for the board or CEO to choose weather to take the advice or not.
My view is that the mostly costly fixed expenditure are middle managers, the vast majority of these jobs are non productive. Therefore maintaining money for the jobs that move and transport letters and parcel as without the ability to do this there is no income generated.
Yep, I have a buddy who is a business consultant primarily dealing with companies that are close to collapsing. He has told me the first thing he does in a rescue mission is to find out what are the companies most expensive fixed expenditure and to work on reducing them as quickly as possible. Often this is wages hence job losses always appear to be the first casualty. Therefore getting rid of those on extra allowances and maximum holiday benefits and more senior is often seen as the most prudent. Voluntary redundancy using seniority is the option of least hassle regarding legality and saving more money and fewer staff.
As a consultant he only offers a road map it is for the board or CEO to choose weather to take the advice or not.
My view is that the mostly costly fixed expenditure are middle managers, the vast majority of these jobs are non productive. Reducing these numbers would maintain money for the jobs that move and transport letters and parcel as without the ability to do this there is no income generated.
Yep, I have a buddy who is a business consultant primarily dealing with companies that are close to collapsing. He has told me the first thing he does in a rescue mission is to find out what are the companies most expensive fixed expenditure and to work on reducing them as quickly as possible. Often this is wages hence job losses always appear to be the first casualty. Therefore getting rid of those on extra allowances and maximum holiday benefits and more senior is often seen as the most prudent. Voluntary redundancy using seniority is the option of least hassle regarding legality and saving more money and losing fewer staff.
As a consultant he only offers a road map it is for the board or CEO to choose weather to take the advice or not.
My view is that the mostly costly fixed expenditure are middle managers, the vast majority of these jobs are non productive. Reducing these numbers would maintain money for the jobs that move and transport letters and parcel as without the ability to do this there is no income generated.
For people saying that selection for redundancy using seniority will be more expensive have got it wrong.
It is more cost effective to get rid of your most expensive staff first, especially those with most allowances and full 6 week leave entitlement, which will be in general the most senior staff.
It won't come down to seniority. Their aim is compulsory redundancies so they can get rid of the people they want rid of. The older timers, sickies and slow one's basically.
For people saying that selection for redundancy using seniority will be more expensive have got it wrong.
It is more cost effective to get rid of your most expensive staff first, especially those with most allowances and full 6 week leave entitlement, which will be in general the most senior staff.
It won't come down to seniority. Their aim is compulsory redundancies so they can get rid of the people they want rid of. The older timers, sickies and slow one's basically.
ageist twat !
In what way?
Being older in Royal Mail doesn't necessarily equate with being senior.
It stated on the preference exercise, upto 9 months money and an extra £6,000 for anyone that applies by the 27th of November and sign an agreement to leave by 31st of January, outside of that, who knows? I hope I will get it, a message to the CEO, let me go tomorrow, I will sign and take the 9 months, you can keep the extra 6 grand, oh and my 12 weeks ILON. BE about 20 grand and one happy ex postie I would be.
For people saying that selection for redundancy using seniority will be more expensive have got it wrong.
It is more cost effective to get rid of your most expensive staff first, especially those with most allowances and full 6 week leave entitlement, which will be in general the most senior staff.
It won't come down to seniority. Their aim is compulsory redundancies so they can get rid of the people they want rid of. The older timers, sickies and slow one's basically.
ageist twat !
In what way?
Being older in Royal Mail doesn't necessarily equate with being senior.
He was having a go at me, I think. I'm not saying I agree with it in any case. That's just what I think they'll do.
The issue of using seniority as the sole criterion nowadays is that it leaves the door wide open for action under the equality act. It's much safer in that sense to use a skills/experience/attendance//cost based system (ie who will be of most 'value' going forwards). While experience does equate to seniority, experience is generally seen as a 'positive' attribute and so more senior staff are more likely to be retained.
I know a lot of you will be upset by that, and I'm not ecstatic about it myself. But it is what it is. 'Suitability' is what a tribunal would judge things on. And you can see RM's criteria and thinking in their criteria for planned compulsory redundancy.
Granted voluntary redundancy modifies things a bit (you must select from only the pool wishing to leave), but the need for 'fairness' remains. Seniority won't hack it at tribunal.
The issue of using seniority as the sole criterion nowadays is that it leaves the door wide open for action under the equality act. It's much safer in that sense to use a skills/experience/attendance//cost based system (ie who will be of most 'value' going forwards). While experience does equate to seniority, experience is generally seen as a 'positive' attribute and so more senior staff are more likely to be retained.
I know a lot of you will be upset by that, and I'm not ecstatic about it myself. But it is what it is. 'Suitability' is what a tribunal would judge things on. And you can see RM's criteria and thinking in their criteria for planned compulsory redundancy.
Granted voluntary redundancy modifies things a bit (you must select from only the pool wishing to leave), but the need for 'fairness' remains. Seniority won't hack it at tribunal.
Most senior staff will get to leave whatever criteria they use as they are most likely to have the least to lose financially by leaving.
Few people in their 30's and 40's with young families are going to take up the offer of VR.
