If Cameron has his way companies will be able to sack anyone at any-time for any-reason … or no reason 
Redundancy could become a thing of the past.
tachograph:
If Cameron has his way companies will be able to sack anyone at any-time for any-reason … or no reasonRedundancy could become a thing of the past.
Thats why I won’t vote for the barsteward.
I think UKIP may be the way to go (again).
schrodingers cat:
Carryfast:
So a firm takes on new staff because business seems to be on the upturn but the things go downhill again then you’re saying it’s fair to get rid of the long standing loyal workforce to keep the new starters in a job.
If you were to actually read my post you would see that the long standing loyal workforce that you are talking about actually want the [zb] out. They had volunteered for redundancy because they saw the way the job was going. However this was denied to them onely because it was cheaper to get rid of us shorter time people.
Get your lefty facts right before you start criticising people who are just trying to keep employment when others are looking for an easy way out.
In which case if you’ve got some being subject to compulsory redundancy while others are being refused voluntary redundancy just to save the firm money that’s more like a case of unfair dismissal that’s got nothing whatsoever to do with the last in first out type of situation in which no one has offered to accept voluntary reduncancy.Which seems to be what the OP was talking about. 
Those are two totally different situations and issues,in which if the idea of last in first out is got rid of affects everyone in every case not just the type of case which you were referring to.
But left wing yeah right so take what Cameron’s lot would prefer instead in which it would be no reduncancy for anyone just sacked as an when the guvnor feel like it with no reason and with no come back or pay outs for anyone.As they say be careful what you wish for.
neilf:
Carryfast:
So a firm takes on new staff because business seems to be on the upturn but the things go downhill again then you’re saying it’s fair to get rid of the long standing loyal workforce to keep the new starters in a jobThis is the kind of [zb] usually sprouted by the laziest man on the firm who thinks his job should be secure just because he hasn’t bothered to better himself for donkeys years.
Really.So are you saying that’s what I should have said in the case of the example in which I went voluntarily to save the job of a longer serving driver than me,from a totally different depot over 150 miles away,in which the only requirement for holding the job was that we were both class 1 night trunkers.The only difference being that he had a lot more service time and seniority in the job than I had being that I had started only months previously whereas he’d been there for over 20 years.
It seems to me that the new generations are just out for themselves with no respect for their elders and with entitlement issues who think that just because they are younger they are more entitled than their elders to everything.Which probably explains why all we keep hearing on the news is about youth unemployment and how the young can’t get jobs blah blah.When if they’d have been working in the 1980’s or before they’d have got a shock to find out that just about everything in life was (rightly) run on the basis of the opposite.It’s just blatant selfish ageism and lack of respect by the new generations towards the older ones.
Carryfast:
It seems to me that the new generations are just out for themselves with no respect for their elders and with entitlement issues who think that just because they are younger they are more entitled than their elders to everything.
I for one have respect for and have learnt most of the useful stuff I know from drivers who were both older and more experienced than myself. In fact I’ll openly admit I’m still learning to this day and will continue to do so until the day I drop off this spinning ball.
When it comes to a redundancy situation it’s all about the best man for the job. That could be the longest serving hand or the newest man through the door. Its all about their suitability for the job when compared to others. ie: Best, read most suitable, man wins.
Yes long service is to be admired and as I pointed out earlier a fair appraisal will factor this in. This in itself though shouldn’t mean a guarantee of job security.
Last in, first out harks back to the days of heavy union influence within industries. Just for a brief minute have a think about all those industries that we’re heavily regulated by the unions during the 70s. Mining, steel, car manufacturing to name but 3. Where are all the jobs in these industries now?. Gone…
I’m not for one minute laying the entire blame at the feet of the unions but lets be honest here, some of their refusal to pull the heads out of the sand and adapt to the modern day requirements was significant contributing factor.
Cheers
Neilf
Carryfast:
schrodingers cat:
Carryfast:
So a firm takes on new staff because business seems to be on the upturn but the things go downhill again then you’re saying it’s fair to get rid of the long standing loyal workforce to keep the new starters in a jobIf you were to actually read my post you would see that the long standing loyal workforce that you are talking about actually want the [zb] out. They had volunteered for redundancy because they saw the way the job was going. However this was denied to them onely because it was cheaper to get rid of us shorter time people.
Get your lefty facts right before you start criticising people who are just trying to keep employment when others are looking for an easy way out.
In which case if you’ve got some being subject to compulsory redundancy while others are being refused voluntary redundancy just to save the firm money that’s more like a case of unfair dismissal that’s got nothing whatsoever to do with the last in first out type of situation in which no one has offered to accept voluntary reduncancy.Which seems to be what the OP was talking about.
Those are two totally different situations and issues,in which if the idea of last in first out is got rid of affects everyone in every case not just the type of case which you were referring to.
But left wing yeah right so take what Cameron’s lot would prefer instead in which it would be no reduncancy for anyone just sacked as an when the guvnor feel like it with no reason and with no come back or pay outs for anyone.As they say be careful what you wish for.
That would be a good argument if I hadn’t taken my redundancy to appeal, I was a member of UNITE union and I had my UNITE union rep with me at my appeal, I was simply informed that all of my arguments against my appeal had been previously approved by my union he had nothing to say to contradict this. Seems unions are a ■■■■■■■ waste of time.
By the way I think the Conservatives are a ■■■■■■■ waste of middle ground time, I’m heading to the right and looking to keep British jobs for the British, in that I include everyone born in the UK whatever race colour or creed (as long as they want to work), just don’t let any more cheap labour in, this Country is full to the brim.
neilf:
Carryfast:
It seems to me that the new generations are just out for themselves with no respect for their elders and with entitlement issues who think that just because they are younger they are more entitled than their elders to everything.I for one have respect for and have learnt most of the useful stuff I know from drivers who were both older and more experienced than myself. In fact I’ll openly admit I’m still learning to this day and will continue to do so until the day I drop off this spinning ball.
When it comes to a redundancy situation it’s all about the best man for the job. That could be the longest serving hand or the newest man through the door. Its all about their suitability for the job when compared to others. ie: Best, read most suitable, man wins.
Yes long service is to be admired and as I pointed out earlier a fair appraisal will factor this in. This in itself though shouldn’t mean a guarantee of job security.
In which case how would you answer that question in my example in which there was nothing to seperate the two employees except length of service.In this case with the added issues of it being job losses at a different depot with a driver with more service seniority who was willing to re locate and another driver working at a depot not subject to any job losses but who gave up a position voluntarily to save the job of the driver with longer service from the depot that was subject to the job losses.So the question remains was that the right decision or wrong .
If that decision was right then there’s no way that the idea of last in first out shouldn’t be applied generally unless some very special reason can be shown and if it’s a case of redundancy then that can’t be for any other reason than redundancy or it would have to mean dismissal for a given reason instead.
In which case if a driver with more service has been made redundant instead of one with less service that would obviously mean that ‘other reasons’ would apply which actually affects the sacked employee’s future employment credibility because it would actually be a case of dismissal not redundancy.
Which therefore creates a minefield for the defence of unfair dismissal cases if that type of situation is allowed to get established throughout industry in general.
I’ve worked with some great old timers, and some cantankerous old gits who will do something in the most inefficient and awkward way “because they’ve always done it.”
For those familiar with the A40, our old timers would always stop at the layby near Eynsham, westbound. Smiths lorries end to end, drivers sat in a manky smoke filled old caravan/trailer from 11 until 12. If you didn’t stop there with them for a whinge and moan, you were talked about and looked down on, accused of being a creep arse etc.
Some of these lot were actually amongat those let go during the recession.
Carryfast:
In which case how would you answer that question in my example in which there was nothing to seperate the two employees except length of service.In this case with the added issues of it being job losses at a different depot with a driver with more service seniority who was willing to re locate and another driver working at a depot not subject to any job losses but who gave up a position voluntarily to save the job of the driver with longer service from the depot that was subject to the job losses.So the question remains was that the right decision or not?.
In a case where there is nothing to separate two employees then the guy with the longest service will score higher in his appraisal as part of that appraisal will include a mark for his length of service. I still stand by my original point that length of service alone should not be used when making decisions on redundancy.
In your particular case you state that you gave your position up voluntarily thereby creating a vacancy for the redundant man at the other depot if he was willing to relocate. Had your not have fallen nobly on your sword or he wasn’t willing to relocate he would still have been redundant. Therefore even in this case his length of service wasn’t taken into consideration or else they would have shuffled drivers between the depots getting shot of those with shorter service records. You have stated that this was not the case.
Cheers
Neilf
neilf:
Carryfast:
In which case how would you answer that question in my example in which there was nothing to seperate the two employees except length of service.In this case with the added issues of it being job losses at a different depot with a driver with more service seniority who was willing to re locate and another driver working at a depot not subject to any job losses but who gave up a position voluntarily to save the job of the driver with longer service from the depot that was subject to the job losses.So the question remains was that the right decision or not?.In a case where there is nothing to separate two employees then the guy with the longest service will score higher in his appraisal as part of that appraisal will include a mark for his length of service. I still stand by my original point that length of service alone should not be used when making decisions on redundancy.
In your particular case you state that you gave your position up voluntarily thereby creating a vacancy for the redundant man at the other depot if he was willing to relocate. Had your not have fallen nobly on your sword or he wasn’t willing to relocate he would still have been redundant. Therefore even in this case his length of service wasn’t taken into consideration or else they would have shuffled drivers between the depots getting shot of those with shorter service records. You have stated that this was not the case.
Cheers
Neilf
In my case it was more an issue that he was the only one who was willing to re locate and I had the shortest service time among all the depots and it was more like an offer I couldn’t refuse anyway with only a few months service 
.It’s just that in this case I agreed with the management on the basis of the OP’s question that I’ve always agreed with the last in first out rule since starting work anyway.Which as I’ve said paid dividends a few months later when I was called back. :idea
Redundancy which is decided on anything other than that basis (arguably) isn’t really redundancy because it implies dismissal for ‘other reasons’ not connected with just being made redundant.
It always amazes me when in the name of saving a 5 figure sum making someone senior redundant, they’ll get rid of someone under 40 who could have been a loyal driver for another quarter of a century!. As previous posts here indicate, they’ll keep the 50 something class 2 moaner, the about-to-retire guy who’s only taking the 65 option because he’s not gonna pass his eyesight test, and of course the teararse who trashes corners off vehicles in the yard, knocks down walls, and turns up late for work all the time, 'cos he’s knocked up some bird again! 
(The ‘bird knocked up’ probably had two girl names on the front, but that’s another story!)