Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Last in first out???

  • 08-11-2008 10:19am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭


    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 :confused:
    [/FONT]


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,919 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭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 :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭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....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,263 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Karmaa wrote: »
    Even if the guy who is paid more makes more profit for the company :confused:

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10 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.


Advertisement