Redundancies

[Realist78]

We lost many good men and women in the redundancy rounds of the 90s and 00s; this is no different. The more interesting question is why, given that morale has been very low for an extended period, people are not queuing up to leave. I'm sure the answer does not lie solely in the state of the economy - people of talent and resource still have the opportunity to do well for themselves.

Can you remember the first rounds? If the criteria this time has been to (largely) select those at the bottom of their trade, then this is different from the early 90s IIRC. Is it completely open and above board this time? Also, there will be some seriously p1ssed of folk who did apply and not get it, are they going to be motivated in the future? I suspect not.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Yes, I've been around long enough to remember Options for Change, despite my youthful good looks! And you are absolutely right that the group of people who will be most p1ssed off will be the unsuccessful applicants. I suspect many of those will PVR by Friday, or will perhaps wait to see what Tranche 2 offers before making that decision.

Those of us who are left will have to find a way to deal with the fallout and in that respect, this round of redundancies is no different to those which have gone before.

 

[applecruncher]

Legal matters

Legal matters

No matter what happens on Thursday there is a legal nightmare on the horizon.
I am sure people will take out their frustrations of positions they find themselves in, voluntary or not.
I can't help but think the legal profession will take the 'new' jigsaw apart, bit by (expensive) bit.
If someone is kept in to replace someone that has been made redundant, why wasn't that person in that job in the first place........I guess the government are hedging their bets that the Military is different to it's civilian counterpart.....when it suits. They still have the Human Rights legislation in the Statute book, so here goes.

 

[Stevienics]

Exactement.

It's a brave new world out there when it comes to open communications, access to the right help and getting your due, and one in which the armed forces do not have tje best of records at keeping pace with.

I too predict legal interventions, sans vaseline - and not without some cause.

 

[Climebear]

No matter what happens on Thursday there is a legal nightmare on the horizon.
I am sure people will take out their frustrations of positions they find themselves in, voluntary or not.
I can't help but think the legal profession will take the 'new' jigsaw apart, bit by (expensive) bit.
If someone is kept in to replace someone that has been made redundant, why wasn't that person in that job in the first place........I guess the government are hedging their bets that the Military is different to it's civilian counterpart.....when it suits. They still have the Human Rights legislation in the Statute book, so here goes.

Just out of interest, how do you see the Human Rights Act 1998 being evoked here?

Human Rights Articles:

SCHEDULE 1
The Articles

PART I
The Convention
Rights and Freedoms​

Article 2 - Right to life

Article 3 - Prohibition of torture

Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Article 7 - No punishment without law

Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life

Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10 - Freedom of expression

Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association

Article 12 - Right to marry

Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination

Article 16 - Restrictions on political activity of aliens

Article 17 - Prohibition of abuse of rights

Article 18 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights

Part II
The First Protocol​

Article 1 - Protection of property

Article 2 - Right to education

Article 3 - Right to free elections

PART 3
ARTICLE 1 OF THE THIRTEENTH PROTOCOL​

Abolition of the death penalty

Off Topic The Act's Schedule 1 does not include the European Convention on Human Rights Article 1 (as that is satisfied by the Act itself) Article 13 (an effective remedy if an individual's rights are violated) or Article 15 (War and great public emergency).

 

[Stevienics]

So if you were to disestablish a post for, e.g., a marketing director, that marketing director would be made redundant. That obviously fits very well in civvy street but in the musical chairs world of the Armed Forces it's just not practical. Therefore other criteria must be applied and those criteria have been laid bare for all to see. Everyone in the field has been subject to exactly the same criteria, which in this instance is absolutely fair.

I am afraid it is not fair at all, nor is it equitably delivered, even using boards. Boards may only deliberate upon factual value as given by qualifications, time served and remaining, records of service etc, which is fine, and then the more remote views expressed in the annual reporting. Stick to the 100% factual aspects and there will be no problem.

Calling something "redundancy" which has a specific definition under employment law, and then removing people under some arbitary competency threshold based in part upon any performance evaluations by third parties is, (and I stand to be corrected here), dismissal. this is a whole other ball game and, as stated earlier, other protocols MUST be observed.

If this has occurred, the penalties will become apparent in due course.

 

[vim_fuego]

We lost many good men and women in the redundancy rounds of the 90s and 00s; this is no different. The more interesting question is why, given that morale has been very low for an extended period, people are not queuing up to leave. I'm sure the answer does not lie solely in the state of the economy - people of talent and resource still have the opportunity to do well for themselves.

Who on earth do you hang around with to get that opinion? The state of the economy, if you listen to anyone talking about how bad their lot is, is THE major driver in guiding them as to stay or go...There are other factors that in my opinion deter people from making the leap such as lack of civilian recognised qualifications...now these are reasonably easy to obtain with a modicum of gumption and funding but a deal of people I came across in the sunset of my career exhibted exhasperation because they couldn't find the time due to workload and deployments...and a 'groupthink' mentality where if the strong character in the social melee deems it safer on the inside the quieter ones follow which is aided by reason one. I'm sure there are trades that could still be fruitful in these austere times, perhaps like HR(?), but with the country teetering on the edge of a double dip recession and a government struggling to get and keep a grip on the economy the military has and will always be an easy target...

 

[propersplitbrainme]

If someone is kept in to replace someone that has been made redundant, why wasn't that person in that job in the first place........I guess the government are hedging their bets that the Military is different to it's civilian counterpart.....when it suits.

I recall having this discussion sometime before. Perhaps the answer is that in a civilian company an individual is usually employed to fill a particular job slot, and they could fill that slot indefinately if the circumstances were right, i.e. the job slot is effectively theirs.
Service personnel are employed as a pool of manpower in particular ranks and trades; there is an expectation and often need for personnel to move from job slot to job slot. Nobody has 'ownership' (for want of a better word) of the slot they currently fill, they just occupy it until such a time as the need arises to move on.
Well thats my theory anyway.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Vim, are you not an example of someone who has left recently and successfully embarked on a second career? The state of the economy is of course a major factor in people's decision to stay or go but I am still surprised at the proportionally low number of applicants for redundancy. I think there may be more to that than worry about what waits outside, that's all.

 

[vim_fuego]

Vim, are you not an example of someone who has left recently and successfully embarked on a second career? The state of the economy is of course a major factor in people's decision to stay or go but I am still surprised at the proportionally low number of applicants for redundancy. I think there may be more to that than worry about what waits outside, that's all.

I have just left and my success is subjective...My journey to this place was populated with hundreds if not thousands of conversations as I drained the knowledge banks of all I respected (and some I did not but still valued) and the common denominator in a generalised fashion was 'you're brave with things the way they are'.

There are some who can't do anything else...there are some who just would not survive outside the wire due to various eccentric [for that read wierd] character traits and there is the majority who switch on the news and make their judgements and decisions based on it and it alone...

 

[Stevienics]

In fairness to you TBJ, you are by and large correct. IMHO there are many people who could more than make it good outside, yet are reluctant because of their perception of the opportunities, or lack thereof. The good money will walk, but much of it stays as well.

If I were to offer any advice to a service-person who is on the fence right now, it would be that you don't have to know any more to get on out here, you simply have to un-know some of the more entrenched stuff, and sing the happy song of the less enlightened.

 

[Joe_90]

My reason for staying is purely the pension, I'm not in a trap, that phrase winds me up, but it is designed as an incentive to stay and that is what it's done. I despise my trade and do my best to avoid it as much as possible volunteering for a number of out of trade posts but being told repeatedly that I can't move outside of trade boundaries. If I could have the pension I've earned already I'd leave, unfortunately by the end of all these redundancies I'll just be hitting my 18 year point. I know what I want to do when I leave and the pension will help keep me in a similar wage to what I'm on now. Until my 22 I will continue to plod along doing a job I hate most days. I still enjoy the RAF just not the grind of chasing non existant spares and doubling up on work by robbing all the time.

I don't like most of the Army ethos but at least it is easier to move between jobs if you have the apptitude.

 

[busby1971]

Bumping

Bumping

I think you'll find that grouping people in similar jobs (military speak Branches/Trades) can expand your Redundancy pool and allow you to keep staff employed if they are good and their particular job is going whilst a poorer performer whose actual job is staying can be bumped out.

Completely legit but has to be carefully managed. (Linky)

As others have said just because you apply the same criteria to all people in your redundancy pool does not make it fair unless the criteria you have are fair, including staff who are down graded due to industrial injuries is a bit risky if you ask me.

Finally the forces cannot hide behind employment law get outs, an employment tribunal would look at the reasonable actions of an employer, some thing the forces are more than aware of but tend only to change their rules when forced to do so.

 

[Climebear]

I think you'll find that grouping people in similar jobs (military speak Branches/Trades) can expand your Redundancy pool and allow you to keep staff employed if they are good and their particular job is going whilst a poorer performer whose actual job is staying can be bumped out.

Completely legit but has to be carefully managed. (Linky)

As others have said just because you apply the same criteria to all people in your redundancy pool does not make it fair unless the criteria you have are fair, including staff who are down graded due to industrial injuries is a bit risky if you ask me.

Finally the forces cannot hide behind employment law get outs, an employment tribunal would look at the reasonable actions of an employer, some thing the forces are more than aware of but tend only to change their rules when forced to do so.

IIRC, as the redundancy elements of the Employment Rights Act do not apply to the Armed Forces, an employment tribunal would not have the jurisdiction to hear a claim against the process. That said, an aggrieved individual could seek a Judicial Revue that would consider wether the actions are reasonable.

 

[Stevienics]

Bang on, and a sound quote, but where in this:

- whether there is a vacancy;
- how different the two jobs are;
- the difference in remuneration between the two jobs;
- the two employees’ relative length of service;
- the qualifications of the employee in danger of redundancy.

.........and especially in the last 2 points, is there a cop out clause which states "well, over the populus, thse guys were less well professionally regarded than the others, so they have to go".

You start using qualitative performance assessments from third parties - no coverage whatsoever.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Stevie, I'm not going to argue legalese with you, I am not qualified to do so. But I would like to know how you would go about reducing the size of the RAF by 5000 personnel and posts by 2015 in a fair and equitable manner?

 

[Dixie68]

There'll be a get-out clause for the MOD anyway won't there? I mean, how many times have we heard that such-and-such isn't allowed... unless it's for Operational reasons? They'll have made sure they covered their arses before starting the whole process.

 

[busby1971]

There'll be a get-out clause for the MOD anyway won't there? I mean, how many times have we heard that such-and-such isn't allowed... unless it's for Operational reasons? They'll have made sure they covered their arses before starting the whole process.

I doubt they will have totally covered their backsides and will hope that people don't take matters further, appealing in house (which must be meaningful) and if required taking it to a tribunal, a right that isn't precluded from service personnel.

Fair criteria in my opinion would normally be tied to capability and disciplinary, length of service can be valid in the forces as they have a strong argument here and get away with it in recruitment, although then again the forces once banned gays and pregnant women so nothing is set in stone forever.

In the civil service they are selling their souls to avoid compulsory redundancy and only get rid of volunteers, so it seems odd that this isn't mirrored by all government departments.

Sent from my View pad apologies for the spelling

 

[CC]

But I would like to know how you would go about reducing the size of the RAF by 5000 personnel and posts by 2015 in a fair and equitable manner?

TBJ, so what happens after 2015 when the RAF will be reduced by half? if you believe the rumours and what was written in The Sunday Times (which was neither confirmed or denied by the MoD spokesman).

Following the recent announcement of 9000 (I think) additional civvy jobs to go, I believe the 900, or so, Tranch 1 posts to go is merely the tip of the iceberg!

Did we ever get an honest explanation as to why Tranch 2 has slipped to the right?

 

[Joe_90]

The way I understad the explantation for Tranche 2 is they want to make sure they work out the numbers properly. What this means is they've rushed the first part of the SDSR and made decisions they regret but don't have the political courage to reverse them. Who'd have thought it, spineless and worthless politicians? They really are the most loathsome group of people, regardless of the coulour of their ties, from Edinburgh City Council with their effing trams all the way up to our Government and their decisions designed only to keep them in power.