Preference excercise

[dam52]

Disability should not be asked when asking if your interested in VR .
At least RM should make it transparent to all as to why they have asked if you have a Disability. This could open a can of worms!
Not sure if it's legal either!

[Murdoch]

If it came to compulsory redundancies then maybe though I thought it'd be last in first out but I very much doubt they would give enhanced VR terms ( compared to compulsory ) to those with poor sick records

Well, look at it like this. You want to avoid compulsory redundancies, you have a small delivery office, of 20 people, two of them want VR. Both would cost the same, 39 weeks pay + 6k. One has a poor sick record, the other has never been off. Who do you chose?

[Acca Dacca]

If it came to compulsory redundancies then maybe though I thought it'd be last in first out but I very much doubt they would give enhanced VR terms ( compared to compulsory ) to those with poor sick records

Well, look at it like this. You want to avoid compulsory redundancies, you have a small delivery office, of 20 people, two of them want VR. Both would cost the same, 39 weeks pay + 6k. One has a poor sick record, the other has never been off. Who do you chose?

If they ever did that they could never let it be known that’s how it was decided

Like I say, people would just think any future VR possibility would go against them if they had a good sick record

So ultimately that’s not the route I would go down if I was deciding

Of course it would be better for the business to get rid of the poor sick record employee but it sends out the wrong message to the other 19 employees so it would only be a short term gain - in the long term it would go against the business with people not caring as much about maintaining a good sick record to ensure they get VR in the future. It would be the opposite. Needing to maintain a poor sick record ( without getting dismissed ) to have a better chance of getting it

[chickenwittle]

If it came to compulsory redundancies then maybe though I thought it'd be last in first out but I very much doubt they would give enhanced VR terms ( compared to compulsory ) to those with poor sick records

Well, look at it like this. You want to avoid compulsory redundancies, you have a small delivery office, of 20 people, two of them want VR. Both would cost the same, 39 weeks pay + 6k. One has a poor sick record, the other has never been off. Who do you chose?

If they ever did that they could never let it be known that’s how it was decided

Like I say, people would just think any future VR possibility would go against them if they had a good sick record

So ultimately that’s not the route I would go down if I was deciding

Of course it would be better for the business to get rid of the poor sick record employee but it sends out the wrong message to the other 19 employees so it would only be a short term gain - in the long term it would go against the business with people not caring as much about maintaining a good sick record to ensure they get VR in the future. It would be the opposite. Needing to maintain a poor sick record ( without getting dismissed ) to have a better chance of getting it

Which is why the union are not endorsing this , yet people are ploughing ahead anyway, good luck , we are playing straight into Royal Mails hands.

[Acca Dacca]

If it came to compulsory redundancies then maybe though I thought it'd be last in first out but I very much doubt they would give enhanced VR terms ( compared to compulsory ) to those with poor sick records

Well, look at it like this. You want to avoid compulsory redundancies, you have a small delivery office, of 20 people, two of them want VR. Both would cost the same, 39 weeks pay + 6k. One has a poor sick record, the other has never been off. Who do you chose?

If they ever did that they could never let it be known that’s how it was decided

Like I say, people would just think any future VR possibility would go against them if they had a good sick record

So ultimately that’s not the route I would go down if I was deciding

Of course it would be better for the business to get rid of the poor sick record employee but it sends out the wrong message to the other 19 employees so it would only be a short term gain - in the long term it would go against the business with people not caring as much about maintaining a good sick record to ensure they get VR in the future. It would be the opposite. Needing to maintain a poor sick record ( without getting dismissed ) to have a better chance of getting it

Which is why the union are not endorsing this , yet people are ploughing ahead anyway, good luck , we are playing straight into Royal Mails hands.

Yeah I’ve been saying the same thing - some can’t see the wood for the trees

[Murdoch]

Of course it would be better for the business to get rid of the poor sick record employee but it sends out the wrong message to the other 19 employees so it would only be a short term gain - in the long term it would go against the business with people not caring as much about maintaining a good sick record to ensure they get VR in the future. It would be the opposite. Needing to maintain a poor sick record ( without getting dismissed ) to have a better chance of getting it

From an employer's perspective. There is nothing in law, against them using Attendance records to decide who to make redundant. The only legal issue, is if that sick absence is disability related. So they'd need to discount any disability related absence. Not to say, a disabled person couldn't get voluntary, it's just the absences relating to disability couldn't be used in the decision making process.

I don't have a better theory as to why the question was asked.

I'm guessing the company thinks that the new sick pay reduced terms, will solve the attendance issue going forward. People won't lose money in the short term, by actively trying to play for a hypothetical VR payout sometime in the future, people aren't wired to think like that.

[Judgee]

My guess is they would prioritise full timers first and then full timers with the longest to go ie youngest first? After all why pay some who's 60 to leave when they will be going in a few years anyway?

Just paying Devils advocate here!

[chickenwittle]

My guess is they would prioritise full timers first and then full timers with the longest to go ie youngest first? After all why pay some who's 60 to leave when they will be going in a few years anyway?

Just paying Devils advocate here!

Which again is why the union can’t endorse it , there’s a way of doing this and this isn’t it.

[Schiff]

My guess is they would prioritise full timers first and then full timers with the longest to go ie youngest first? After all why pay some who's 60 to leave when they will be going in a few years anyway?

Just paying Devils advocate here!

Age is one of the protected characteristics in law. They can't discriminate on the basis of age in making their selections.

[grchpo]

So does that mean it will be on seniority

[mags999]

Should be done on seniority it's the only fair way of doing this end of but who knows with this lot

[grchpo]

Or they could say anybody who wants it can go & be replaced by new starters on lower wages

[ProudhonPJ]

Should be done on seniority it's the only fair way of doing this end of but who knows with this lot

Yeah, because doing everything on 'seniority' is so fair....

[Postmangit]

Seniority is fair, we have put the years in etc. tough.

[antcpfc]

Yes it is.