Redundancy......how can this not be age discrimination?

[Raumarik]

You interview two people for a job, one you think you will be able to train quickly, has a hunger for knowledge and is egar to get on and climb the ladder, the other looks like they will be hard to train, quite stuck in their ways and just seems to want the job to pay the bills.

which to you employee ?

Did i forget to mention each of their ages ?

Its not age discrimination, its a general fact of life, an older person is going to have more trouble getting a job of simular wage potential to the younger person if they are made redundant.

Next you'll be saying its age discriminate that 22year olds don't get bus passes.

Older people are:

1. More polite and approachable in the workplace.
2. Stress out less.
3. Dont' bring personal lives into the workplace.
4. Vastly more reliable.
5. Willing to go the extra mile more often.

That's my experiences of working with people 55 and 60+ frankly I'd take one of them over 3 people under 23 any day of the week!

 

[Cosimo]

my last employer was 1 month for every year.

That is exactly what my last employer paid. I didn’t complain either.

 

[peige]

I work for a large U.S. company and it's only 1 week for every year, my last employer was 1 month for every year. I'd worked there for 9 years so I was a happy camper when I got made redundant and walked straight into another job!

My cousin was made redundant from Barclaycard and got a really good payout with garden leave, walked into a job two weeks later so really did quite well.

My sister has also done well.. she is being made redundant from Cannon but its going to run into her Maternity leave which they are also paying.. her boyfriend who has also just lost his job is finding it tough to find a new job, he's working nights temporarily and seeking jobs during the afternoons.

Tough times out there, i'm betting we all know somebody affected by it.

 

[peige]

Older people are:

1. More polite and approachable in the workplace.
2. Stress out less.
3. Dont' bring personal lives into the workplace.
4. Vastly more reliable.
5. Willing to go the extra mile more often.

That's my experiences of working with people 55 and 60+ frankly I'd take one of them over 3 people under 23 any day of the week!

Your not wrong, we can quote examples that would serve both of our arguments well

I think the catch is that the younger person will be more likely to step back into a job of the same earning potential of the one they were made redundate from than the older person.

 

[Delvis]

Hey guys,

In this age of equal rights and discrimination acts etc, how can it be legal for the government to be enforcing a blatantly age discriminatory policy when it comes to redundancy?

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page33157.html

If you are under 22, you're only entitled to HALF a weeks wages for every year of employment? What the hell? Why does age even come into this in the real world? Surely length of service is enough?

FYI I've not been made redundant (yet ) but looking at the discussion on the intranet between colleagues that have been and my HR department made me aware of this, and I'm outraged that this is in place :|

Tom.

Yep...That's what I got paid....As I joined the company when I was 17, yet made redundant when I was 22 turning 23 in a few months.

To be fair I'm not even sure if me being 22 for nearly a year was taken into account.

And yes, it does suck.

 

[a1ex2001]

which to you employee ?

Did i forget to mention each of their ages ?

If you make that decision based on age then you are breaking the law, it is age discrimination which is illegal. You can make that decision based on other factors but if you decide that purley because of age they are the things you listed above then you have broken the law.

 

[Delvis]

Older people are:

1. More polite and approachable in the workplace.
2. Stress out less.
3. Dont' bring personal lives into the workplace.
4. Vastly more reliable.
5. Willing to go the extra mile more often.

That's my experiences of working with people 55 and 60+ frankly I'd take one of them over 3 people under 23 any day of the week!

1. I've always been polite regarding work and people I don't know, from as little as I can remember.

2. I rarely get stressed unless someone is literally out to annoy me.

3. I never did that...Even when a close family member of mine was in hospital because they tried to kill themselves numerous times I didn't let it affect my work, nor did the death of my grandfather.

4. I was never off 'sick' (Cold etc)...only time I was off ill was when I had to have an operation...That and I was never late, usually in to work way before start time, as opposed to most people strolling in just gone nine.

5. I did way more over time than the older people...I was generally harder working and wanting to learn.

See....works both ways

 

[a1ex2001]

See....works both ways

Thats the trouble with generalisation.

 

[Delvis]

Thats the trouble with generalisation.

Indeed

I was merely throwing it into the conversation, so hopefully no one takes it negatively

 

[rG-tom]

That person of 50 will have trouble retraining, trouble convincing a new employer he is a better prospect than the younger employee.

Its right imho, say your 22 and your dad is 55, you both get made redundant.. which of you is more likely to get a job and go forward with a career that earned what you did before you were made redundant ?

First of all, the need to retrain etc and get out of stuck ways is more to do with service length, someone who is constantly moving around every few years gaining experience in different parts of his field is still going to have no trouble.

on the second part, my dad is FAR more likely to get a job with the same earning potential as he has more experience........

also, my dad's mortgage is practically paid off and as neither me or my sister live at home anymore has very little outgoings, where as I have rent to pay etc, and could quite easily have been supporting a sprog.

It should be based purely on your wage, and service length.....surely saying "he is more likely to need more money than you" is daft, as if he did he'd not be surviving on the same wage as me?

Still believe it's totally ridiculous, it should be flat rate, whether your 50 or 18, based on service, therefore the guys who have worked for the company all their lives and are going to struggle to retrain have the SERVICE years behind them to bump the redundancy up.

 

[rG-tom]

Most organisations offer an "incentive" to people who take voluntary redundancy.

Not at the moment they don't, and definitely not mine....and also where has voluntary come into it? I'm talking about the high likelihood that i have to take forced redundancy. I'll be taking home less redundancy than a bloody sales advisor who is 22, despite me being the store manager, how does that work?

 

[peige]

If you make that decision based on age then you are breaking the law, it is age discrimination which is illegal. You can make that decision based on other factors but if you decide that purley because of age they are the things you listed above then you have broken the law.

I know how it works, the decision would have been based on the reasons I listed, your the one who assumed the older person was the one with then less desirable list of factors

 

[Nitefly]

Hey guys,

In this age of equal rights and discrimination acts etc, how can it be legal for the government to be enforcing a blatantly age discriminatory policy when it comes to redundancy?

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page33157.html

If you are under 22, you're only entitled to HALF a weeks wages for every year of employment? What the hell? Why does age even come into this in the real world? Surely length of service is enough?

FYI I've not been made redundant (yet ) but looking at the discussion on the intranet between colleagues that have been and my HR department made me aware of this, and I'm outraged that this is in place :|

Tom.

The government doesn't have to justify it's policy decisions in such circumstances. Equal rights have to be balanced with other policy concerns, whatever those may be. The only people to make such decisions are the ones who put forward the policy.

Sadly, your complaint isn't going anywhere.

I'm pretty sure that if someone challenged it in the European courts they would win as it is blatant age discrimination what ever the reasoning.

I would imagine they would respect they are not in a possition to comment on such decision making.

 

[peige]

Still believe it's totally ridiculous, it should be flat rate, whether your 50 or 18, based on service, therefore the guys who have worked for the company all their lives and are going to struggle to retrain have the SERVICE years behind them to bump the redundancy up.

Well our opinions differ then. The combination of service and age make the multipliers work correctly imho.

Age 30, ten years service at 330 a week £2970
Age 40, ten years service at 330 a week £3300
Age 50, ten years service at 330 a week £4785
Age 60, ten years service at 330 a week £4950

Although its unlikely all of those ages would be on the same wage the person aged 60 basically has 6 weeks more at the same wage before he has run out of money.. I think thats a fairly realistic generalisation of how likely it could take them to find a job again earning that same £330 a week.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Come on mate, its shop work, where the vast majority of under 22's are employed, having to retrain isn't an issue as you never had to really train in the first place. You fire a 50 year old shop worker and who is going to employ him? You fire a 20 year old shop worker and he'll get another job far far more easily.

 

[EffBee]

One point no one has raised....

In times of recession companies like to restructure.

What this means in effect is get rid of people who are expensive.

Expensive people tend to be those who have been in a job for years getting pay rises, and service dependent perks like extra holiday. Cheap people tend to be young, not in the post long types.

A middle aged person is more likely to be made redundant - ie restructured out of work, than a young one.

A middle aged person tends to have more financial committments and dependents than a younger.

And -to the person who was going on about middle aged people being more likely to have equity in property - please explain how to convert that into monthly cash to pay the bills while out of work please?

 

[GinG]

I got done by this, worked for a company since I was 18, got made redundant at 22. The comapny being the tight ass they are based it on the government minimum. I got £1000 in redundancy rather than the £3000+ I would have got if it was based on the 22!

Turned out a good deal though, got a job straight away and its helped me bump up my savings

 

[a1ex2001]

I know how it works, the decision would have been based on the reasons I listed, your the one who assumed the older person was the one with then less desirable list of factors

Read what I said, I never said wether the old person or the young person fitted your list, age discrimination works both ways it's not just to protect the old.

If the decision was based purely on those factors then age does not come into it so your point actually now supports the argument that all employees should get the same redundancy regardless of age.

 

[rG-tom]

And -to the person who was going on about middle aged people being more likely to have equity in property - please explain how to convert that into monthly cash to pay the bills while out of work please?

what can't you fathom? Someone who is in rented accommodation runs out of money and cant pay the bills anymore, they have no equity so end up losing their house and no equity to do anything about it.

The person with £100k of equity in the house they bought 10 years ago for pennies compared ti its current value, sells it for slightly below market for a quick sale, downsizes and has a nice lump sum behind him to keep him going for a bit until all else is well.




And to fox, the redundancy structure isn't anything to do with just retail, same applies to any sector so my exact situation isnt the problem. I'm not trying to say that im hard done by, i still think it'd be wrong even i was on a higher tariff as such, why should age come into it what so ever becase someone might have higher outgoing than the other person?

 

[peige]

Read what I said, I never said wether the old person or the young person fitted your list, age discrimination works both ways it's not just to protect the old.

If the decision was based purely on those factors then age does not come into it so your point actually now supports the argument that all employees should get the same redundancy regardless of age.

My decision would be based on those factors and this is where age discrimination falls down, by turning a plan business decision into a discrimination issue.

Your saying that if I choose Martin middle age because I can train him and get 30 years good service instead of Sixty Steve because he's only going to be useful for a few I am discriminating on age rather than making a good decision.