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

Whilst we are at it why not whinge about other ageist issues

You cant legally buy Alcohol under 18
You cant legally learn to drive a car until 17
You cant legally have sex until 16
You cant legally buy a lottery ticket until 16
You cant vote until 18
the minimum wage at 16 is lower than 18 which IIRC is lower than 21.

You have to stop work at 70 if you are a man and 65 if you are a woman

All Ageist.


To the OP stop being such a whiny brat and consider yourself lucky that you are entitled to severance pay in the first place. Not all country's mandate such policy.

You get less because you are younger, because statistically speaking you are not going to spend as long looking for a new Job and you are less likely to have as great a financial burden, further more you are more statistically to have a family that you can turn to in situations of hardship.

The older you are the more you tend to specilise, and the harder it is to retrain, which means you will tend to be looking for similar roles that you are currently performing. However the skills you have will most likely be in short demand due to the fact the world has changed significantly since you left school.
 
Last edited:
Manlove is my forte said:
Whilst we are at it why not whinge about other ageist issues

You cant legally buy Alcohol under 18
You cant legally learn to drive a car until 17
You cant legally have sex until 16
You cant legally buy a lottery ticket until 16
You cant vote until 18
Click to expand...

Nice straw man, you can't compare adults with non adults.

The uk has many sexist and ageist laws, yet another reason to leave the country.
 
My girlfriend worked part time for Woolworths for 4 years, shes 21 and her redundancy pay was £92.80!! She was only contracted 8 hours a week but usually did around 20-25hours earning around £600 a month. So after 4 years hard work for Woolworths she got 2 weeks base rate pay. Very unfair policy i think.
 
Bennie-Mac said:
My girlfriend worked part time for Woolworths for 4 years, shes 21 and her redundancy pay was £92.80!! She was only contracted 8 hours a week but usually did around 20-25hours earning around £600 a month. So after 4 years hard work for Woolworths she got 2 weeks base rate pay. Very unfair policy i think.
Click to expand...

That's how it works sadly :(
 
Manlove is my forte said:
All Ageist.


To the OP stop being such a whiny brat and consider yourself lucky that you are entitled to severance pay in the first place. Not all country's mandate such policy.

You get less because you are younger, because statistically speaking you are not going to spend as long looking for a new Job and you are less likely to have as great a financial burden, further more you are more statistically to have a family that you can turn to in situations of hardship.

The older you are the more you tend to specilise, and the harder it is to retrain, which means you will tend to be looking for similar roles that you are currently performing. However the skills you have will most likely be in short demand due to the fact the world has changed significantly since you left school.
Click to expand...

As said above, compare adults to none adults first, and I do disagree with minimum wage having a boundary at 21 despite it not affecting me in the slightest little bit.

Everything you've said with regards to having specialised within the company etc is EXACTLY why the service related pay works, as if you've been in one company for longer, you get more than somebody who has got a decent portfolio of jobs behind him who has only been with the company for a few years.

if it's statistically more likely for over 42s to need more money, why isnt there another minimum wage for over 42s? it seems this "bracket" only comes into play in redundancy and that's it, when the bias with service and actual wage seems fair enough anyway.

I don't appreciate being called a whiny little brat, and why should i thank myself lucky that an unreasonably biased system means I get absolutely bugger all, despite people who have done exactly the same work and exactly the same service length, who are accustomed to exactly the same wage packet etc and thus are living to them means in the same way as me, end up with triple the amount?

I really can't understand how people can't see the service length and pay relation as being a strong enough bias to help those who have been stuck in one company for years and will find it harder to get another job.

I know by posting this im not going to change anything, i never for one second thought "Oh, by posting in general discussion on ocuk I might get a law changed". It's more of a rant.

Tom.
 
When it comes down to it the state redundacy package is absolutely pathetic anyway regardless of age. Redundancy should be earnings linked. You'd have paid more taxes so should get more benefit.
 
Energize said:
Nice straw man, you can't compare adults with non adults.

The uk has many sexist and ageist laws, yet another reason to leave the country.
Click to expand...

Leave the county because....like the rest of the world there are age limits on certain activities? :-/
 
Energize said:
A good place to start would be somewhere you can't be arrested for writing stories, where human rights aren't constantly infringed.
Click to expand...

And where is this place you talk of ? I for one can't think of a place that is oh so much better.
 
peige said:
And where is this place you talk of ? I for one can't think of a place that is oh so much better.
Click to expand...

Even countries like the usa protect against self incrimination, which breaches article 6 of the european convention on human rights. Let's just say that it's laws are more favourable to me.
 
Last edited:
didnt read any of the other replies but concerning the OP
rG-tom. I wonder if your view would be the same if you were the other side of 50.
also if you think about it, this is a benefit you also have, just not yet, so how is it unfair, its just bad timing in your life, we all see both sides of the coin before we die...
 
statutory redundancy is based on real factors, average time taken to find a new job for a given age, and its impact on social security benefits.

The govt doesnt concern itself with joe sprogg fighting to keep his HP car on the road, it concerns itself more with older people with families and children and mortgages that cost a lot in terms of social security.
 
Skeeter said:
There has to be a cutoff somewhere, just happens to be 22...
Click to expand...

Why though.... why does there have to be a cut off? If we are so sure that we need to give older people more money, why can't we have a smooth escalation where redundancy is directly proportional to age over the threshold (or similar)? So instead of redundancy pay suddenly jumping up overnight once you hit the 22/41 targets, make it gradually increase year on year. So under that system, a 22 year old would get marginally more than a 21 year old (maybe an extra 5% say). A 23yo would get 10% extra, all the way up to a 41 year old getting 100% extra. You might even want to make it even more precise, although I suspect the administration overheard would start to get prohibitive.

I empathise with the person below who knows someone who got 2 weeks pay after 4 years of service at the age of 21, half what a 22 year old would get.
 
Last edited:
finga said:
didnt read any of the other replies but concerning the OP
rG-tom. I wonder if your view would be the same if you were the other side of 50.
also if you think about it, this is a benefit you also have, just not yet, so how is it unfair, its just bad timing in your life, we all see both sides of the coin before we die...
Click to expand...

I have said in this thread, it doesnt matter which side of the coin it is i dont think it's a fair policy, even if was 50....like I said about minimum wage, I dont think it's a fair policy that there is a divide at 21, even though it hasnt affected me for years.
 
HangTime said:
Why though.... why does there have to be a cut off? If we are so sure that we need to give older people more money, why can't we have a smooth escalation where redundancy is directly proportional to age over the threshold (or similar)? So instead of redundancy pay suddenly jumping up overnight once you hit the 22/41 targets, make it gradually increase year on year. So under that system, a 22 year old would get marginally more than a 21 year old (maybe an extra 5% say). A 23yo would get 10% extra, all the way up to a 41 year old getting 100% extra. You might even want to make it even more precise, although I suspect the administration overheard would start to get prohibitive.

I empathise with the person below who knows someone who got 2 weeks pay after 4 years of service at the age of 21, half what a 22 year old would get.
Click to expand...


it does KIND of work like that as it's done in a split, ie you get 1.5 weeks per year that you have worked that you are over 42, 1 week for every year over 22 and half a week for every year below 22, so if you were made redundant at 45 after 10 years of service, you'd get 7 weeks + 4.5 weeks.
 
Dr Who said:
statutory redundancy is based on real factors, average time taken to find a new job for a given age, and its impact on social security benefits.

The govt doesnt concern itself with joe sprogg fighting to keep his HP car on the road, it concerns itself more with older people with families and children and mortgages that cost a lot in terms of social security.
Click to expand...

if that is a dig at me (due to my sig), my money isn't in my car, that was a relatively cheap purchase, my significant cash commitment is in my photography equipment which is my long term future.....so technically almost a business expense which are starting to pay themselves off but still not a rate that i can afford to be without work :(
 
rG-tom said:
it does KIND of work like that as it's done in a split, ie you get 1.5 weeks per year that you have worked that you are over 42, 1 week for every year over 22 and half a week for every year below 22, so if you were made redundant at 45 after 10 years of service, you'd get 7 weeks + 4.5 weeks.
Click to expand...

Oh OK, I get it. Doesn't seem quite so dodgy now. Effectively that's not dissimilar to what I was suggesting so seems OK to me, although I'm not not 100% convinced that older people should get more cash. I guess it all boils down to what the rationale behind paying redundancy in the first place is, if it is supposed to be some kind of buffer to tide people over until they get another job then maybe it's ok.

But even then, what happens if a 64yo gets made redundant? They get a massive payout less than a year from their pensionable age, so arguably (if redundancy pay is supposed to be related to that loss of potential future earnings) they need the money less than someone who's still got decades before they can can start drawing their pension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom