Human Capital forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Clearing the ‘deadwood’: Voluntary vs forced redundancy

Notify me of new replies via email
HC Online | 19 Apr 2012, 12:00 AM Agree 0
The controversy that engulfed Toyota this week begs the question – when redundancies are a business necessity, don’t organisations have the right to layoff the worst performers?
  • Peter Macdonald | 19 Apr 2012, 02:10 PM Agree 0
    The "legal" dilemma for Toyota if challenged is to prove that their rating scale is so accurate that it can accurately determine the difference between a worker who is last on the list to be sacked and the next one on the lit who just scrapes in. If I were one of the unlucky ones I would be talking to my lawyers right now.
  • David | 19 Apr 2012, 03:48 PM Agree 0
    The PR sledging appears to be coming only from Unions who do not want performance to be a factor in the workplace. I hope the broader public can see through this as the alternative, as outlined in the above article, limits businesses of the opportunity to be successful.
    Plus, the government subsidies that the car industry receives are already too high; forcing them to maintain a sub-optimal workforce will only cost the broader community more.
  • Sarah | 19 Apr 2012, 04:56 PM Agree 0
    It is also important to note that many businesses Enterprise Agreements state that in the event of organisational change, that there will be no voluntary redundancies - something many unions fight to have included in an EA....yet they also don't want forced redundancies to be based on performance. EA's refer to redeployment being the best option, but in the event of a downsize, this is usually not possible therefore it comes down to roles that are no longer required, and id there are multiple people in those roles - sorry but businesses will always choose based on performance.
  • Tim | 19 Apr 2012, 05:08 PM Agree 0
    To opt for voluntary redunancies, a management team is essentially admitting they lack the courage to make the hard decisions or that all of their employees are equally good / bad. Neither bodes well for the leadership of an organisation.
  • Charles | 19 Apr 2012, 07:18 PM Agree 0
    The reality is that even if EBA's include redundancy arrangements, that it has become standard practice for Australian unions to try and renegotiate additional redundancy benefits once a major restructuring takes place.
    Having conducted a similar exercise, with legal challenges, I respect Toyota's decision to apply specific criteria. Companies should be able to apply objective criteria.
    I am appalled how many ignorant people are jumping to conclusions without all the facts. Two of my previous HR managers worked for Toyota and they were good HR people, so I applaud Toyota for courageous leadership.
Post a reply