Preference exercise

[rambo1]

Also, anyone who registered for voluntary redundancy will probably be first out when it comes to compulsory

I f*cking hope so if i don't get voluntary

Would you take legal minimum?

(A week's pay per year of service, up to a max of 20)

Yup if it came to that.

[norris9]

Also, anyone who registered for voluntary redundancy will probably be first out when it comes to compulsory

I doubt it.

I only have 3 years service, but registered for voluntary as an insurance policy, I don't necessarily want to take it if offered it, I signed up incase something in the next weeks/month made me realise the future here is too bleak.

If I was told I was one of the people chosen to leave on compulsory because I signed up for voluntary that would be ridiculous.

Compulsory would surely be done on seniority, last in first out as they'd cost £0 to get rid of and it's fairer. They'd also maybe get rid of the odd person with a lot of sickness/injury issues.

[sindba]

Also, anyone who registered for voluntary redundancy will probably be first out when it comes to compulsory

I doubt it.

I only have 3 years service, but registered for voluntary as an insurance policy, I don't necessarily want to take it if offered it, I signed up incase something in the next weeks/month made me realise the future here is too bleak.

If I was told I was one of the people chosen to leave on compulsory because I signed up for voluntary that would be ridiculous.

Compulsory would surely be done on seniority, first in first out as they'd cost £0 to get rid of and it's fairer. They'd also maybe get rid of the odd person with a lot of sickness/injury issues.

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

[antcpfc]

If RM were going to choose who they want to go they wouldn’t have asked for volunteers.

[norris9]

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

There's a big difference in getting Voluntary redundancy of £8,500 and £360 or whatever tiny amount I'd get in Compulsory.

Why the heck would I want compulsory redundancy?

Might be ok for someone with 40+ years service, but not someone with 3.

CR fairly would be last in, first out.


I was at a company before and they had to get rid of 1 person.....the person who went was the last one to come in.....that was me.

[Halfhappy]

Also, anyone who registered for voluntary redundancy will probably be first out when it comes to compulsory

I doubt it.

I only have 3 years service, but registered for voluntary as an insurance policy, I don't necessarily want to take it if offered it, I signed up incase something in the next weeks/month made me realise the future here is too bleak.

If I was told I was one of the people chosen to leave on compulsory because I signed up for voluntary that would be ridiculous.

Compulsory would surely be done on seniority, first in first out as they'd cost £0 to get rid of and it's fairer. They'd also maybe get rid of the odd person with a lot of sickness/injury issues.

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

Do you mean last in, first out? That would be cheapest, as length of service would accrue a larger payout. I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think an employer can dismiss an employee with less than 12mths service and not pay any compensation. So, first in first out is the most expensive, for the employer, way to do it.

[sindba]

If RM were going to choose who they want to go they wouldn’t have asked for volunteers.

It was a big information gathering exercise. Who is willing to be made redundant, willing to change hours or offices etc.

Massive scam. As the CWU warned.

[antcpfc]

They couldn’t get rid of people by compulsory means and then replace them. I’m not sure if that applies to voluntary though.

[Halfhappy]

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

There's a big difference in getting Voluntary redundancy of £8,500 and £360 or whatever tiny amount I'd get in Compulsory.

Why would it be fairer to make an employee that's, say put 20yrs of their life, into a business redundant, and keep the employee who's been there 8mth? Just for this scenario, let's say both employees are 40yr old? I don't know how they decide, I imagine the cheapest way is a factor. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. You ignored it and now you're on here trying to get piece of mind, cos some one has told you a rumour, that's totally unsubstantiated.

Why the heck would I want compulsory redundancy?

Might be ok for someone with 40+ years service, but not someone with 3.

CR fairly would be last in, first out.


I was at a company before and they had to get rid of 1 person.....the person who went was the last one to come in.....that was me.

[norris9]

Do you mean last in, first out? That would be cheapest, as length of service would accrue a larger payout. I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think an employer can dismiss an employee with less than 12mths service and not pay any compensation. So, first in first out is the most expensive, for the employer, way to do it.

yes, last in - first out.

I believe if less than 2 years service they can get rid of you for nothing.


My depots probably 30% short staffed as it is so I am not sure anyone will be going.

[walthmstowman]

If RM were going to choose who they want to go they wouldn’t have asked for volunteers.

Previously people were offered transfers to other MC's and DO's if they were surplus to requirements at their current workplace . Therefore would people not be offered transfers before the imposition of compulsory redundancies ? Anyway , imagine management coming out with this type of announcement then having no answers to all the obvious questions . At times it feels like they are just making things up as they go along .Then they wonder why we think we have tin pot standard management .

[Halfhappy]

Do you mean last in, first out? That would be cheapest, as length of service would accrue a larger payout. I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think an employer can dismiss an employee with less than 12mths service and not pay any compensation. So, first in first out is the most expensive, for the employer, way to do it.

yes, last in - first out.

I believe if less than 2 years service they can get rid of you for nothing.


My depots probably 30% short staffed as it is so I am not sure anyone will be going.

Right, that makes more sense. The last quote messed up so I'll post this bit again. I've noticed it's already been mentioned. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. Unfortunately, you ignored that and now you're on here trying panicking over an unsubstantiated rumour. Personally, I feel this was more about collecting data, than VR.

[norris9]

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

There's a big difference in getting Voluntary redundancy of £8,500 and £360 or whatever tiny amount I'd get in Compulsory.

Why would it be fairer to make an employee that's, say put 20yrs of their life, into a business redundant, and keep the employee who's been there 8mth? Just for this scenario, let's say both employees are 40yr old? I don't know how they decide, I imagine the cheapest way is a factor. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. You ignored it and now you're on here trying to get piece of mind, cos some one has told you a rumour, that's totally unsubstantiated.

1. I am on here to here to discuss... that's what this forum is for.

2. I did not hear or read anything from the CWU about not engaging in the 'exercise'.... feel free to link the source for that. I saw one of their youtube lives where they said something along the lines of 'if you want to go for the voluntary redundancy then that's your choice'. What's the issue in engaging - it's not binding.

also, it's win-win for both sides if it's data gathering - if people want to move depots or change hours then that's their prerogative. They can now discuss that with their manager if there are options for them. If Royal Mail think they are going to get a massive % of people willing to change their start times - I doubt it - will probably be less than 3%

[Halfhappy]

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

There's a big difference in getting Voluntary redundancy of £8,500 and £360 or whatever tiny amount I'd get in Compulsory.

Why would it be fairer to make an employee that's, say put 20yrs of their life, into a business redundant, and keep the employee who's been there 8mth? Just for this scenario, let's say both employees are 40yr old? I don't know how they decide, I imagine the cheapest way is a factor. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. You ignored it and now you're on here trying to get piece of mind, cos some one has told you a rumour, that's totally unsubstantiated.

1. I am on here to here to discuss... that's what this forum is for.

2. I did not hear or read anything from the CWU about not engaging in the 'exercise'.... feel free to link the source for that. I saw one of their youtube lives where they said something along the lines of 'if you want to go for the voluntary redundancy then that's your choice'. What's the issue in engaging - it's not binding.

I'm discussing not arguing. I just happen to be saying something you don't like, obviously.

[Surreypostie]

If you make someone compulsory redundant and then employ someone to do the same work for less money you can leave yourself open to a claim for unfair dismissal and likely the claimant will win.

If you offer voluntary redundancy, there is no chance of that person taking you to a tribunal and winning.

This is why they pay you more if you go voluntarily as if they didn't, nobody would take it.

All you conspiracy theorists out there want to take your tin foil hats off, this guy wants to get rid of us and replace us with people on lesser terms and conditions, he can only do this successfully and easily by paying people off that want to go.

Dear Simon, I am here, I want to go. Cheque in the post please and I am gone, I will go today. I don't require one to one's or anything else, just gimme the cash.