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

rG-tom · 24 Feb 2009 at 17:50

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? :mad:

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.

Manlove is my forte · 24 Feb 2009 at 17:55

IIRC at 41 you get 1.5 weeks wages for every years employment

Skull · 24 Feb 2009 at 17:59

A fifty year old who has been in the same job for the last 20 years is, in many cases, less likely to be able to find a new job, outside of a few high-tier profession where someone who is 50+ is at the top of the game. An older person is more likely to have dependants etc. A 22 year old is unlikely to have dependants and is extremely like to find another job.

rG-tom · 24 Feb 2009 at 18:00

Manlove is my forte said:
IIRC at 41 you get 1.5 weeks wages for every years employment

indeed you do, but again, WHY? What gives someone the right, who is on the same wage and has served the same length of time in the company, to half as much money again just because they were born perhaps even a day later?

In my position another manager on the same wage as me, who was in his late 40s and joined the company at the same time as me they would get TRIPLE?

:|

rG-tom · 24 Feb 2009 at 18:03

Skull said:
A fifty year old who has been in the same job for the last 20 years is, in many cases, less likely to be able to find a new job, outside of a few high-tier profession where someone who is 50+ is at the top of the game. An older person is more likely to have dependants etc. A 22 year old is unlikely to have dependants and is extremely like to find another job.

your first sentence is exactly why it should be linked to service time, NOT age.....

also you can't make laws like this based on assumptions like a 42 year old is more likely to have dependants, that's entirely possible at 20, and teh 42 year old is FAR more likely to already have a property with equity etc.

sidthesexist · 24 Feb 2009 at 18:14

Manlove is my forte said:
IIRC at 41 you get 1.5 weeks wages for every years employment

But isn't there a limit that says they only have to pay out a maximum of up to 18 years worth of redundancy? someone i worked with who had worked for LSUK for 40+ years was made redundant just a year or so before retiring and was told this :mad:

rG-tom · 24 Feb 2009 at 18:20

sidthesexist said:
But isn't there a limit that says they only have to pay out a maximum of up to 18 years worth of redundancy? someone i worked with who had worked for LSUK for 40+ years was made redundant just a year or so before retiring and was told this

yup, look at the link in my op

Johnny Girth · 24 Feb 2009 at 18:23

rG-tom said:
your first sentence is exactly why it should be linked to service time, NOT age.....

also you can't make laws like this based on assumptions like a 42 year old is more likely to have dependants, that's entirely possible at 20, and teh 42 year old is FAR more likely to already have a property with equity etc.

I would argue that you have to make laws like this based on assumptions. You have to look at probabilities and make laws based on the population as a whole. A 42 year old is much more likely to have a mortgage and children to feed. a 20 year old is much more likely to be living with their parents.

mame · 24 Feb 2009 at 23:26

I took voluntary redundancy at 23 (now 30) from a job I wanted out of anyway. Didn't get a huge amount (£2500) but as said, wanted to leave anyway. I still lived at home then, already sorted a job starting the following week. No responsibilities so basically just bagged the 2.5k with no intended use. Most older people would be in a different situation I suppose but I see your point.

Skeeter · 24 Feb 2009 at 23:30

There has to be a cutoff somewhere, just happens to be 22...

If it was 24 and you were 2 years older you would be having the exact same argument.

fullspizz · 25 Feb 2009 at 04:59

This has been in place for many years.
I didn't have a problem with it when I was younger and haven't got a problem with it now.
It only really comes into effect if you have to take the government minimum. Most organisations offer an "incentive" to people who take voluntary redundancy.

SexyGreyFox · 25 Feb 2009 at 08:10

I had 2 age/money issues when I was made redundant.

I was 49 and worked there for 27 years but a friend was 64 and worked there for 12 years.
7 years of my time was not counted and because he was older he got more redundancy than me.

RDM · 25 Feb 2009 at 08:19

Our copmapny changed it's policy a few years back when the age discrimination legislation came in. They removed the age bands entirely and it is now 3.5 weeks pay per year of service for everyone (Max 70 weeks).

a1ex2001 · 25 Feb 2009 at 08:26

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. If for example they assumed a man was more likely to be the major earner in a family (Which is reasonably true) and therefore paid him more for redundancy the courts would be all over it like an asda suit and this boils down to the same thing.

As a side note I'm never quite sure how they've managed to get away with the age split in the minimum wage. it's another that I'm sure the European court would outlaw.

peige · 25 Feb 2009 at 08:33

Its due to the lightly hood of you getting another job, its not descrimination, its fact.. at 22 you will more than likely find yourself something to do in less time than somebody of 50. 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 ?

a1ex2001 · 25 Feb 2009 at 08:37

peige said:
Its due to the lightly hood of you getting another job, its not descrimination, its fact.. at 22 you will more than likely find yourself something to do in less time than somebody of 50. 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 ?

Fact or not it's still discriminating on the basis of age, it's fact that a man is less likely to take maternity leave than a women your not allowed to base an employment decision on that.

peige · 25 Feb 2009 at 08:50

Fact or not it's still discriminating on the basis of age, it's fact that a man is less likely to take maternity leave than a women your not allowed to base an employment decision on that.

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.

HEADRAT · 25 Feb 2009 at 08:53

I think the statutory redundancy payout is terrible!

peige · 25 Feb 2009 at 09:07

I think the statutory redundancy payout is terrible!

Its not great, certainly never as much as people think it will be. Kinda works though, if your lucky enough to have got in a company with all the perks and a company redundancy scheme with garden leave and all that then its kind of gone in hand with where you are on the career ladder. If you working for a little outfit employing a dozen people then your in a different world really.

Making somebody redundant (which i've personally had to do) is not a light decision and its quite a costly one, you make the decision based on their position being redundant and you needing to make a cost saving on the payroll due to that, but due to the redundancy payout you won't see that cost saving of making that person redundant for 4 or 5 months in some cases.

HEADRAT · 25 Feb 2009 at 09:10

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!