What is this Fire and Re-Hire business

Discussion in 'Employment & HR' started by Chris Ashdown, Jul 2, 2021.

  1. Chris Ashdown

    Chris Ashdown Contributor

    12,350 2,590
    Notice today that Clarks Shoes are looking at Firing employee's and then offering them to re hire at 15% less pay and this is apparently allowed and has been done by British Airways and other big companies

    How is this done and do the fired employees get redundancy etc

    In the new BBC online

    \header should read Fire and rehire
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2021 By: Chris Ashdown Member since: Dec 7, 2003
    #1
  2. japancool

    japancool Contributor

    5,042 1,149
    Does that include the directors?
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2021 By: japancool Member since: Jul 11, 2013
    #2
  3. Newchodge

    Newchodge Contributor

    15,871 4,466
    There is no redundancy as the work is still required - otherwise they would not be re-hired. The employees are dismissed. They are offered new jobs with different terms of service. The dismissals can be taken to tribunal as unfair dismissals, if the staff have enough service. A defence is that this is a reasonable business requirement. If the staff win at tribunal their compensation is reduced if they have found new employment, as this reduces their loss. If they refuse the new employment and win an unfair dismissal claim thier compensation may be reduced as they have failed to mitigate their losses by accepting alternative new employment.

    As is often said, employment law is heavily biased in favour of employees (not).
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2021 By: Newchodge Member since: Nov 8, 2012
    #3
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. OldWelshGuy

    OldWelshGuy Moderator
    Verified Business ✔️
    Contributor

    15,826 6,855
    It's totally immoral, a friend has just had this, he now works 5 more hours a week for £2500 a year less money. and his company made a bloody fortune. It's pure greed
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2021 By: OldWelshGuy Member since: Jun 12, 2008
    #4
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. OldWelshGuy

    OldWelshGuy Moderator
    Verified Business ✔️
    Contributor

    15,826 6,855
    Fixed it :)
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2021 By: OldWelshGuy Member since: Jun 12, 2008
    #5
  6. ctrlbrk

    ctrlbrk UKBF Regular

    208 56
    What company is it? Not asking for the name, but an idea of the sector/business they are in?
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2021 By: ctrlbrk Member since: May 13, 2021
    #6
  7. OldWelshGuy

    OldWelshGuy Moderator
    Verified Business ✔️
    Contributor

    15,826 6,855
    delivery company
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2021 By: OldWelshGuy Member since: Jun 12, 2008
    #7
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. DontAsk

    DontAsk Contributor

    2,141 360
    Clark's shoes are trying it on as well.
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2021 By: DontAsk Member since: Jan 7, 2015
    #8
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  9. Bob Morgan

    Bob Morgan Contributor

    1,189 384
    "Clarks was 84% owned by the Clark Family, with the remaining 16% held by employees and related institutions. In November 2020, after a Company Voluntary Arrangement, Clarks was rescued through a £100 million investment by the Hong Kong-based private equity firm LionRock Capital, in which the Clarks family lost overall control of the company. In January 2021, Viva China Holdings agreed to acquire 51% of LionRock Capital, so has a substantial stake in the Clarks brand."
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: Bob Morgan Member since: Apr 15, 2018
    #9
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  10. Newchodge

    Newchodge Contributor

    15,871 4,466
    British Gas did the same thing to their engineers recently.
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: Newchodge Member since: Nov 8, 2012
    #10
  11. Financial-Modeller

    Financial-Modeller Contributor

    1,137 439
    It partially depends whether 100% of the workforce taking a 15% pay cut is a better outcome than 15% of the workforce being sacked. I suspect that for most of those concerned, it is.
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: Financial-Modeller Member since: Jul 3, 2012
    #11
  12. Newchodge

    Newchodge Contributor

    15,871 4,466
    That assumes that there is a need for a 15% reduction. In some organisations there may be, in many that use fire and re-hire they already have large profit margins and huge reserves. That is why there is a defence to an unfair dismissal claim that there was a sound business reason for the decision. Preventing the business becoming insolvent would count. Wanting to increse profits from 50% of turnover to 75% may not.
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: Newchodge Member since: Nov 8, 2012
    #12
  13. UKSBD

    UKSBD Moderator
    Verified Business ✔️
    Contributor

    10,919 2,230
    It's about 100 people
    I suspect most of the other staff will be thinking why are they getting 15% more than me

    Edit to add: Especially if they are men
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: UKSBD Member since: Dec 30, 2005
    #13
  14. atmosbob

    atmosbob Contributor

    4,938 1,211
    There is a major flaw in this idea. Suppose you fire a load of staff intending to re-hire them on a different contract and they don't come back? Suppose the ones who don't come back were the brainy ones that the company needed.

    Happened many years ago at an obscure division of BT. What the bosses didn't realise is that headhunters had been sniffing around for years.
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: atmosbob Member since: Oct 26, 2009
    #14
  15. Newchodge

    Newchodge Contributor

    15,871 4,466
    Another major flaw is the demoralisation of the workforce who have been shown exactly what their employers think of them.
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: Newchodge Member since: Nov 8, 2012
    #15
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  16. DontAsk

    DontAsk Contributor

    2,141 360
    That happens even with redundancies IME. The ones not made redundant, i.e. the ones the business wants to retain, see their redundant mates getting new jobs. I have always seen a "long tail" of resignations after any redundancies, at least in the business I used to work in (multi-national tech).
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: DontAsk Member since: Jan 7, 2015
    #16
  17. UKSBD

    UKSBD Moderator
    Verified Business ✔️
    Contributor

    10,919 2,230
    There is far more to it than the simple headline
    "Clarks are Firing employee's and re hiring them at 15% less pay"

    Lets assume,
    100 people working in distribution unit are earning 15% more than 10,000 working in stores

    If 90% of the people working in distribution are men, 90% of people working in stores are women, there is a potential sex discrimination claim about equal pay.

    What can the company do - Give the 10,000 workers a 15% pay raise to bring them in line with 100 people or give the 100 people a pay cut to bring them inline with the 10,000?
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: UKSBD Member since: Dec 30, 2005
    #17
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  18. ctrlbrk

    ctrlbrk UKBF Regular

    208 56
    It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the press is not objective, creates biased headlines and so misleads its readers.

    I am shocked!
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: ctrlbrk Member since: May 13, 2021
    #18
  19. Jeff FV

    Jeff FV Contributor

    3,785 1,817
    I live in Clarkestown (not literally named that, but the town in which Clarke’s are based)

    It is happening, it’s not just media spin.


    Throughout the years, the Clarke’s family were good employers and benefactors to the town. I am not sure if they were Quakers, but in a similar mould to, say, Cadbury’s who looked after their workers well.

    But the family have lost control of the company, and now it’s all about the bottom line and not the community.

    Fortunately, neither I nor anyone in my immediate family is employed by Clarke’s, but there are many disgruntled residents in my town.
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2021 By: Jeff FV Member since: Jan 10, 2009
    #19
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  20. Chris Ashdown

    Chris Ashdown Contributor

    12,350 2,590
    Different skill sets maybe,
     
    Posted: Jul 4, 2021 By: Chris Ashdown Member since: Dec 7, 2003
    #20