Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:48 pm  

Heard a piece on radio yesterday about Edinburgh council choosing people for redundancy by putting names in a hat and drawing them out, there was a number of callers who got a bit hot under the collar about this and one employment lawyer who was ranting on about its unfairness. Maybe I am wrong, but if there are 10 jobs to go from a pool of 50, then surely this method is the fairest of all, if its left for managers to decide who goes then this would introduce bias (subconsciously maybe) against some in the mix.

Does anyone else think its a fair way of deciding when all other things are equal.

Re: Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:54 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Heard a piece on radio yesterday about Edinburgh council choosing people for redundancy by putting names in a hat and drawing them out, there was a number of callers who got a bit hot under the collar about this and one employment lawyer who was ranting on about its unfairness. Maybe I am wrong, but if there are 10 jobs to go from a pool of 50, then surely this method is the fairest of all, if its left for managers to decide who goes then this would introduce bias (subconsciously maybe) against some in the mix.

Does anyone else think its a fair way of deciding when all other things are equal.

Doing it that way can only be fair if they were all the same level of skill, expertise and effort.
Within the grade-bands, they should be taking into account the employees' appraisal results, contributions to the overall department etc etc.

Re: Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:55 pm  

All other things are very rarely equal in my experience.
The selection criteria should be published before selection takes place, usually in conjunction with a union if it is council staff.

Re: Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:56 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Heard a piece on radio yesterday about Edinburgh council choosing people for redundancy by putting names in a hat and drawing them out, there was a number of callers who got a bit hot under the collar about this and one employment lawyer who was ranting on about its unfairness. Maybe I am wrong, but if there are 10 jobs to go from a pool of 50, then surely this method is the fairest of all, if its left for managers to decide who goes then this would introduce bias (subconsciously maybe) against some in the mix.

Does anyone else think its a fair way of deciding when all other things are equal.

It depends, if the 50 people were doing the same job, with the same skills and on the same pay scale then maybe it could have worked but if they were all doing different level jobs and had different skills then imo not fair at all because its the job thats been made redundant not the person.

Re: Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:11 pm  

I'd say drawing them out of a hat is a great way to do it. That way, the 40 not drawn get to keep their jobs, and the 10 drawn out max out on an automatic unfair dismissal payout on top of their redundancy.

Result!

Re: Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:17 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

It depends, if the 50 people were doing the same job, with the same skills and on the same pay scale then maybe it could have worked but if they were all doing different level jobs and had different skills then imo not fair at all because its the job thats been made redundant not the person.

I think you might be wrong on the job being made redundant, my company went through this a while back and selection was made on a scoring system, not jobs. They wanted 3 to go and it was clear that the individual was assessed not the post. A builder I am dealing with has also done this, they made several managers and supervisors redundant while sites were live and just moved others into their place, it was done on 'competency' and the lower your score the more at risk.

Three people from my team of ten were made redundant last year and as we are all doing the same job on the same salary scales, I would have not objected to been put in a hat and taking that risk, it just seems a fairer way of doing it. Selection itself becomes a problem as there are certain people at my company that would not have been in the mix if they had took a year off, come back and shot the CEO and it has nothing to do with ability and more to do with percentages.

Re: Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:20 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I'd say drawing them out of a hat is a great way to do it. That way, the 40 not drawn get to keep their jobs, and the 10 drawn out max out on an automatic unfair dismissal payout on top of their redundancy.

Result!

'look, sorry to tell you this but 10 post have to go, no if or buts, ten of you are going. All of you are equally qualified, equally able and get equal salaries, so it really difficult to select ten of you, so we thought we would put you in a hat and the first ten drawn out will be going'

Sounds fair to me, no ambiguity about it.

Re: Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:43 pm  

rover49 wrote:

'look, sorry to tell you this but 10 post have to go, no if or buts, ten of you are going. All of you are equally qualified, equally able and get equal salaries, so it really difficult to select ten of you, so we thought we would put you in a hat and the first ten drawn out will be going'

Sounds fair to me, no ambiguity about it.

Last 10 in, first 10 out may have been a fairer system?

Maybe I am wrong, but I've been made redundant a few times and have always been told its not me or my work but the company has to save money and its that particular job that has to go. I thought they couldn't get someone else in to do that job either for so many months after the person is made redundant?

Re: Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:56 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Last 10 in, first 10 out may have been a fairer system?

Maybe I am wrong, but I've been made redundant a few times and have always been told its not me or my work but the company has to save money and its that particular job that has to go. I thought they couldn't get someone else in to do that job either for so many months after the person is made redundant?

Used to be that way, but one of my builder clients has changed senior management and they have made several managers redundant (some with very long service) and brought direct replacements in from their previous company to take over the same sites. I am guessing the law has changed on this.

Re: Choosing people for redundancy : Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:04 pm  

rover49 wrote:

'look, sorry to tell you this but 10 post have to go, no if or buts, ten of you are going. All of you are equally qualified, equally able and get equal salaries, so it really difficult to select ten of you, so we thought we would put you in a hat and the first ten drawn out will be going'

Sounds fair to me, no ambiguity about it.

Except I'm not certain that this would quite count as using objective selection criteria. Sounds like a cop-out. Would be funny listening to them trying to persuade a tribunal that the procedure was fair and reasonable! Still, if it is really true that the pool all 100% agree this, then get on with it, as (obviously) there is zero risk of a tribunal claim being brought by an unlucky worker.

Yeah, right! I'd deffo take that risk if I was the employer!!

However, if it is true that the pool all agree on it, there IS a way to do it, outside the workplace, by the pool of workers themselves.

The employer selects nobody. They ask for 10 VOLUNTEERS for redundancy. The pool then go away somewhere quiet and draw lots, as a purely personal thing, and the "winners" go and volunteer for redundancy. Job done. The employer neither knows, nor cares, why they got the 10 volunteers they wanted, and everyone is seemingly happy.