Last in first out???

Karmaa

As we all know with a recession brings job losses and now we are seeing a lot of people lose their jobs.
I really feel for anyone who has or will lose his or her job at this time of year. A friend of mine is not sure whether he will lose his job, as there is an argument now between his Union and the HR dept of his job regarding the following question..
[FONT=&quot] So just a quick question for you all, in your opinion should it be, last in first out or those less experienced should go first
[/FONT]

seamus

The business should make people redundant based on the value they provide to the business. Cut the fat first.

For example, if you have two guys who've been doing the same job at the same level of quality, one's been there 3 years, the other's been there six months, but the former makes €10k more than the latter, then you get rid of the guy who's paid more.

Bob the Builder

It depends on a lot of stuff.

I would generally get rid of the one who is giving less value for pay to the company. Whether that is your friend or not, i don't know.

Business is Business. Experience means that you have extra skills or qualities gained over your time performing specific tasks. If you are not exercising your skills as good as another person, and your pay is proportionate, then I would get rid of you because you have less potential/values than the other person.

AARRRGH

In theory you would think the expensive, useless people would be let go first, but in my experience it's normally last in, first out.

Voluntary redundancy is a different matter; this normally targets the established, crappy employees.

Karmaa

seamus wrote: »

The business should make people redundant based on the value they provide to the business. Cut the fat first.

For example, if you have two guys who've been doing the same job at the same level of quality, one's been there 3 years, the other's been there six months, but the former makes €10k more than the latter, then you get rid of the guy who's paid more.

Even if the guy who is paid more makes more profit for the company

Karmaa

AARRRGH wrote: »

In theory you would think the expensive, useless people would be let go first, but in my experience it's normally last in, first out.

Voluntary redundancy is a different matter; this normally targets the established, crappy employees.

Yes in my experience in the past it has been the same also,but there was never anything written in stone I suppose. But now it seems this is been brought to the Labour Court....

Eoin

Karmaa wrote: »

Even if the guy who is paid more makes more profit for the company

He said "For example, if you have two guys who've been doing the same job at the same level of quality"

Which implies that one is not generating more money than the other. In the company before last, it was done purely on business needs; it made no difference on how long you were there.

However, it was a new enough company, and I think the statutory redundancy was a bit less back then so there were no people with 10+ years of service so payouts were pretty cheap.

lukin

I am fairly worried myself as I only started my job last January and a guy who started just before me was let go this week.

Jo King

Unfair selection for redundancy is grounds for a claim of unfair dismissal. A redundancy situation cannot be used to get rid of under-performers. If there are under performers they have to be dealt with in the usual way with warnings and an opportunity to improve. Selection for redundancy must be objectively justified, otherwise the employer will be facing claims. It is acceptable for example where two jobs are being combined in a re-organisation to retain the employee who has the skills to do both jobs in favour of one who does not have
the skills to take on a new task set.
The result of this is that last in, first out is usually the safest selection method for the employer to avail of.
Other methods may be availed of but they must be carefully thought out to avoid successful claims of victimisation.

Joey_Joe_Joe

AS you all know companies employee structure can be seen as a triangle with big fat guns at top and new/minnows at bottom and plentiful. I would say that they should just slice the trianlge down the middle (or whatever proportion needed obviously) and fire proportionately so they essentially keep the same structure. Fire the bad eggs of each level.