# Why do employers make people reapply for their own jobs?



## Cloo (Sep 16, 2009)

I've heard of this happening quite a lot lately - making everyone reapply for their own jobs, I think officially making everyone redundant first. And sometimes everyone just gets their job back, and sometimes a few people don't. Given the obvious expense of doing this, I can only assume it's to get around some aspect of employment law.  Anyone know?


----------



## marty21 (Sep 16, 2009)

Cloo said:


> I've heard of this happening quite a lot lately - making everyone reapply for their own jobs, I think officially making everyone redundant first. And sometimes everyone just gets their job back, and sometimes a few people don't. Given the obvious expense of doing this, I can only assume it's to get around some aspect of employment law.  Anyone know?



to get rid of staff they don't like probably


----------



## strung out (Sep 16, 2009)

because they're cunts


----------



## Biddlybee (Sep 16, 2009)

Cloo said:


> Given the obvious expense of doing this, I can only assume it's to get around some aspect of employment law.  Anyone know?


I think it's to stay within the law, rather than get around it. It's hard to make someone redundant (unless they volunteer) without giving them the opportunity to apply for other jobs within the company. If that means that you end up reapplying for your own job, then that's what happens - but it's got to be open to all that have the skills.

Also, like marty says - it's to filter out who they don't want in the company anymore


----------



## pirates! (Sep 16, 2009)

because they usually make some kind of contract change that allows them to get rid of people they don't want, and make people they do want sign up to a contract with less options (which of course they sign cause they don't want to be out of a job)

then after the legally required period of time, they take on new staff 

we're in the process of doing this at my work, and while it is costly, it means the staff now have to consent to learn to drive and work a 24hour rota, potentially single shift which allows for HUGE savings. all done terribly apologetically 'oh you know, it's just tough times atm, shucks, gee whizz'


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2009)

Cloo said:


> Given the obvious expense of doing this, I can only assume it's to get around some aspect of employment law.  Anyone know?



I think if someone's made redundant you cannot replace that person with someone else to do the same job. However if you have (say) four current employees suitable to cover 2 jobs you can hold an interview process too ascertain who gets the jobs and who is made redundant. This means of course that 2 people are effectively interviewing for their own positions.

Not sure though, Cesare will know for sure.


----------



## Biddlybee (Sep 16, 2009)

That is pretty much it ^


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 16, 2009)

The company I was temping for had a major reorganisation and sent a lot of depts to 'teh regions' Everyone was graded and then given the choice of applying for ANY job at any grade and they could relocate etc etc. They would certainly not have done that without it being lawful as they are a govt dept.


----------



## Upchuck (Sep 16, 2009)

Govt departments do it as it's the only way to get rid of people they don't want as none of them ever leave and just continue to leech, and also to screw older people for their early retirement.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 16, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> Govt departments do it as it's the only way to get rid of people they don't want as none of them ever leave and just continue to leech, and also to screw older people for their early retirement.



My line manager took early retirement and got around £60k, the rumour was. How is he screwed?


----------



## Upchuck (Sep 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> My line manager took early retirement and got around £60k, the rumour was. How is he screwed?



Not all of them, just some.  

I have little truck for government departments.


----------



## Biddlybee (Sep 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> My line manager took early retirement and got around £60k, the rumour was. How is he screwed?


Some people still have final salary pensions don't they?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 16, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> Not all of them, just some.
> 
> I have little truck for government departments.



No?!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 16, 2009)

BiddlyBee said:


> Some people still have final salary pensions don't they?



Regarding him I really don't know. He'd been there for ages but wasn't on a very high grade...tho I assume the top whack at his grade.


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Sep 16, 2009)

From what I've seen it's not to get people out, but to get people in. I know people who have been contracting in a role (even perm in one case) and have had to reapply for their job. It was all a formality though, the job was theirs before the interview. 

In all the cases I know it was the govt, and I guess they probably just needed to tick some boxes. It's frustrating because they are wasting their time, the candidate's time and leading people to believe they have a chance at something which they don't.


----------



## zippyRN (Sep 16, 2009)

the main reason to do rather than just make people redundant is that it allows the organisation to get rid of the people it wants rid of rather than the people with shortest time served/ worst discipline / worst sickness/ least qualifications ... which are the kind of things that go into a not making people reapply set of at risk / redundancy criteria...


----------



## catinthehat (Sep 16, 2009)

Kills several birds with one stone.  Get rid of any 'troublemakers', appoint people lower down salary scale than current incumbents, divide extra workload between the newly appointed happy they have not lost their jobs persons who will accept the extra work, if the maths works out well you save money even though you may have had to pay a few off.  Often a mini cull before the big one - take out those who are most able and likely to organise resistance.  Im sure that there will be some who will say its needed for streamlined profitability bla bla but the above has always been my experience of how its gone about - albeit my experience is limited to civil service and education.

Its the post that is made redundant rather than the individual - but there are a multitude of ways of getting round that one.


----------



## soulman (Sep 16, 2009)

As has been said it's a way of employers getting rid of who they consider to be troublemakers. The other thing is they're not actually making anyone redundant, with the lawful payments that would incur for them.

Join a union now.


----------



## Spark (Sep 17, 2009)

It's not necessarily an alternative to redudnancy.  It's just a different way of deciding who to make redundant.  There aren't fixed selection methods which must be followed with redundancies.  The employer must ensure is that the procedure they use is fair and applied consistently.  Making everyone apply for their own jobs is just a different way of doing it, ie everyone is theoretically in the same position.  

Also if there is a restructuring procedure taking place at the same time it could make more sense, eg. if some of the roles are the same but some have changed it's a way of trying to figure out who goes where.

The people who weren't selected usually would generally qualify for redundancy payments (if they have more than 2 years' service) because they will probably be dismissed for redundancy reasons, ie the number of people needed overall has decreased.


----------

