Job Security - What is it worth?

[RedvGreen]

Some roles, such as those in Government, Civil and Public sectors are deemed by many to be one/several of the following:

- Cushy (feet up, do as little as possible)
- Healthy pensions
- Job security/Permanent Contracts

However, with recent recession impacting on new/existing positions, contracts are getting axed, permanency is getting fixed-termed, the non-management salaries are getting reduced, pensions are becoming targeted, and the perceived complacency is being jeopardised.

As one who has worked for the Public/Gov all their life, with a recent reduction in my contract from permanent to 6-month fixed, I am forced to reflect upon the value of job security.

I took up my current post three years ago; it offered a token-gesture pay increase, but had job security which was what I was after due to my last workplace going through huge severance and job cuts. It also allowed my pension to carry over, and provided me with some solid on-the-job training/experience that I would never get anywhere else.

Now that all the benefits of that position have dried up, I am left with no job security, no more training and my pension will be equally at threat with my job contract. Naturally, the job hunt begins, and I am ever looking for that 'job security' - however what is it worth? This job had it, and then it was revoked. I am therefore casting my gaze to the dreaded private sector, where, apparently there is money, reward and also risk.

Do you have job security? Do you feel at risk/vulnerable about it? Does it motivate you being fixed-term?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

It sounds like the primary appeal with your lower paid job is that it would be harder to sack you but now you'e gone to essentially 6 months notice.

How much job security is worth is dependant on a number of so many things but here a couple of obvious ones:

* Current life situation
* Your skills and their requirement in the workplace
* Your risk/reward appetite

 

[badcompany]

I had a finally salary pension up to 4 years ago would have netted me 2/3 my final salary now I have to pay *3 as much and will end up getting 1/8 of my b current salary.

The threat of closure is a constant worry now as the big multinational I work for has a habit of sudden closures and reallocation of resources. The only good thing is my redundancy terms which are at very good and I have done 17 years.

 

[Begbie]

I currently have job security for the next 6 years, at promotion I will be able to have a further 12 years on top (22 all in).

I would sign on the line right now if I could to even stay at my level and be gaurnteed a job for the next 18 years. It takes a little stress off knowing I'm secure for at least a little longer.

 

[Puzzled]

I've always seen the idea of job security as a bit of an illusion as in reality there isn't much stopping a company getting rid of you when things turn sour. Those years of loyal service may mean a bigger redundancy payout but some places will happily take the hit to get some younger (cheaper) blood in the company.

My work is based on a client accepting an annually renewed contract so I'm a bit more at risk than others but a lot of people I know have moved to being a contractor or self employed after the recession cost them their jobs.

 

[diamount]

I currently have job security for the next 6 years, at promotion I will be able to have a further 12 years on top (22 all in).

I would sign on the line right now if I could to even stay at my level and be gaurnteed a job for the next 18 years. It takes a little stress off knowing I'm secure for at least a little longer.

I'm assuming you work in the public sector too?

 

[Third Opinion]

I thought a job for life went the way of the Dodo years ago.

To keep my job I had to agree to even more hours (I currently do 50) for a 3% pay rise. If I failed to agree they were going to replace my role with a job share to cover the hours. I was told my hours would drop to less than 16 a week if I didn't agree.

 

[peterwalkley]

Job security is an illusion. Keep your skills as up to date as possible. If you're not learning, you won't be earning.

 

[RedvGreen]

I've always seen the idea of job security as a bit of an illusion as in reality there isn't much stopping a company getting rid of you when things turn sour. Those years of loyal service may mean a bigger redundancy payout but some places will happily take the hit to get some younger (cheaper) blood in the company.

This is what I am coming to realise, too.

For each year of service, you get 1 months salary, in essence. Obviously they may try to sweeten the deal with a course (to help with re-employability) or a severance package. We have seen £40k salaried staff members be cut, and replaced with (exactly the same role) persons with no experience on £22k.

If any employer wants rid, you really don't have any leg to stand on, whether private or public sector, unless you have some sort of grounds for constructive dismissal, discrimination or other extremes occurrences.

With this in mind, if people obey the 2-3yr rule (when younger) of job hopping, and if they accept that there is no 'job for life' anymore, then any job of a minimum of 2yr Fixed Term should be acceptable then?

Also, pensions are appearing to be less valuable, as they are getting placed in jeopardy - so the census appears to be, earn as much as you can, and invest it wisely for your own pension.

 

[dowie]

For each year of service, you get 1 months salary, in essence. Obviously they may try to sweeten the deal with a course (to help with re-employability) or a severance package. We have seen £40k salaried staff members be cut, and replaced with (exactly the same role) persons with no experience on £22k.

That isn't what redundancy is for - you're supposed to make a role redundant not a person. If you're paying someone too much then your HR dept has screwed up and you'll just have to suck it up by limiting future pay increases. You're not supposed to be able to make a role redundant and then employ someone in the same role again... you either need that role or you don't - if you want to get rid of the specific employee occupying that role because they're bad at it then redundancy isn't designed for that... performance reviews etc.. then eventually sacking them is the process to take.

 

[Puzzled]

That isn't what redundancy is for - you're supposed to make a role redundant not a person. If you're paying someone too much then your HR dept has screwed up and you'll just have to suck it up by limiting future pay increases. You're not supposed to be able to make a role redundant and then employ someone in the same role again... you either need that role or you don't - if you want to get rid of the specific employee occupying that role because they're bad at it then redundancy isn't designed for that... performance reviews etc.. then eventually sacking them is the process to take.

Not supposed to be able to do it but companies do.

I've seen it happen a few times, last one was to get rid of a guy who wasn't performing as expected. They then created a new role with a different name but same duties.

I'm sure some companies do take care of their employees but the majority seem happy to screw you over.

 

[Rroff]

Agree with the job security is an illusion comment, but after a few years of relatively well paying jobs but high frequency of having to find a new job due to mostly the onset of economy issues I've stuck with a lower paying job that at face value has higher job security.

Its been interesting lately how often we only take people on with fixed term contracts and/or move them on before 2 years are up so as to not get stuck with people :S (Also an illustration on a wider level of just how morally bankrupt our society really is).

 

[Angilion]

That isn't what redundancy is for - you're supposed to make a role redundant not a person. If you're paying someone too much then your HR dept has screwed up and you'll just have to suck it up by limiting future pay increases. You're not supposed to be able to make a role redundant and then employ someone in the same role again... you either need that role or you don't - if you want to get rid of the specific employee occupying that role because they're bad at it then redundancy isn't designed for that... performance reviews etc.. then eventually sacking them is the process to take.

Fake redundancy is easier and quicker and you don't need a reason, so of course it's done. Besides, it's not usually about sacking people for being bad at the job. It's usually about reducing costs by employing someone else at lower cost. Employers aren't supposed to do it, but they can and therefore some do. It's easy enough to hide it with a change in job title and some pretence, if anyone who can do anything about it shows any signs of caring.

 

[Duke]

Personally I wouldn't want to stay in the same role more than a few years without progressing. So whether thats with the same company or another doesn't matter too much. If you keep learning as others have said and can make yourself needed and not easily replaced, then you will do better than those clocking in and doing the minimum.

Its been interesting lately how often we only take people on with fixed term contracts and/or move them on before 2 years are up so as to not get stuck with people :S

Maybe the role is only needed for that time (we have that where I work - extra people are taken on for certain contracts or one off projects) or don't want to commit to having a large amount of staff without stability of income? i.e. business isn't going well enough or unpredictable. It would be odd to change staff for no real reason.

(Also an illustration on a wider level of just how morally bankrupt our society really is).

...what?

 

[Slam62]

If you have kids at school a wife with a decent job, nice house , family and friends nearby, job security is very important.
If you have no ties then go for the money.

Plus it can be very difficult to get another job.

 

[R4z0r]

I work in technology and job security is a about as good as your own skills. If you want to be employed/paid, you need to be useful to the company which means keeping up to date and delivering value. If you're not doing this, then it's only a matter of time before you end up without a job and become irrelevant in the market place.

Only seems to be getting worse as well so I would stop looking for "job security" and make yourself as desirable as possible to employers so you don't have to worry about it.

Of course, other sectors may be different but in general, I don't think people have any magical right to be employed, you have to offer something.

 

[jon86]

...
Its been interesting lately how often we only take people on with fixed term contracts and/or move them on before 2 years are up so as to not get stuck with people :S (Also an illustration on a wider level of just how morally bankrupt our society really is).

...
...what?

Rroff was referring to how companies deliberately let go of employees before the end of their two year contract so they don't have to keep them on as permanent employees, and how that might be seen as 'morally wrong'.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, you're only as good as your company thinks you are. I believe most companies have lost all sense of loyalty. They're not loyal to you, and you shouldn't necessarily be particularly loyal to them (anymore). Gone are the days of 'a job for life'*.














* unless you're a politician; then you can be complete rubbish at your job, get fired and still find another job.

 

[Duke]

If its a two year contract, then they wouldn't automatically become employees though? Contractors get paid more knowing they have to find a new temp job every few months / year.

 

[HangTime]

No job security for me (moving from job with 9 week notice period to 4 and obviously will be much easier to get rid of until I've been there a while). Has never really bothered me, I'm confident I can get myself another job before savings run out.

 

[Rich_L]

Working in the US, 'lol job security' is the name of the day, half the people in our company are on 'at will' contracts meaning they can be told at the end of the day not to come in tomorrow, or ever

On the other hand, I have on a number of occasions seen the flipside where employees have got new jobs and said 'hey today is my last day btw see ya!' and enjoyed watching the chaos unfold