Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Allbids online auctions - awesome bargains everyday

De-merit based selection – who put the V in VR?

By weeziepops - 10 April 2009 31

A friend of mine is seeking a Voluntary Redundancy (VR). 

He has worked hard for several government departments for around 30 years and is prepared to make way for other staff who want to continue on in the public service. 

On putting his hand up, however, he has been told that he won’t be getting a VR.  This is despite other people who do not want to leave and – importantly – who have not been counselled for under-performance being offered one.  

So, on the face of it, there are people who do not want to leave and who are performing at an appropriate level of capability being offered VRs which they do not want while people who do want to leave are being told that a VR is not an option for them. 

Doesn’t sound like a fair and equitable process to me. 

Surprising? No.  Disappointing?  Yet again, yes.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
31 Responses to
De-merit based selection – who put the V in VR?
1
mred 12:32 pm
10 Apr 09
#

Surprising? No. Disappointing? Maybe for people who want to cash in on a redundancy, but why would an employer pay to get rid of a good employee when they could pay to get rid of a bad one.

Report this comment

2
neanderthalsis 1:07 pm
10 Apr 09
#

Maybe it’s a money saving ploy. Why pay someone to leave when they will soon be on their way anyway.

Report this comment

3
weeziepops 1:15 pm
10 Apr 09
#

It indicates to me that the service is gutless when it comes to performance management and so the staff who aren’t operating effectively get the option of a reward (in this case, a VR) whereas others are told they can’t have one – even when the length of service (and therefore cost) is similar. Golden handshakes should not be used to shift dead wood.

Report this comment

4
SkipDaRoo 1:42 pm
10 Apr 09
#

Your friend has been identified as under performing and he wants a golden payday?
This may sound harsh to you, but that is not something to be proud of, he should be fired instead of paid out a rather sizeable amount of money.

Lets not reward incompetence.

Report this comment

5
jessieduck 1:46 pm
10 Apr 09
#

SkipDaRoo said :

Your friend has been identified as under performing and he wants a golden payday?
This may sound harsh to you, but that is not something to be proud of, he should be fired instead of paid out a rather sizeable amount of money.

Lets not reward incompetence.

I don’t think she was saying that her friend was under performing- just that people who either want a vr OR people that are under performing should go ahead of people who don’t want to go and are doing a good job…

Report this comment

6
weeziepops 1:47 pm
10 Apr 09
#

No – the point is that he is not getting a VR because he IS performing. They are using the VR process to instead get rid of under-performers rather than deal with the under-performance!

Report this comment

7
jessieduck 1:47 pm
10 Apr 09
#

* weeziepops may or may not be female- not sure why I said she.

Report this comment

8
s-s-a 2:01 pm
10 Apr 09
#

The same year as I asked for (and received) a VR, a colleague of mine was told “you’re not the kind of person we’d want to lose”. I don’t care AT ALL that nobody ever said that to me – at the time $$$ was more valuable than any amount of flattery. My colleague just ended up quitting.

Of course, that year there were also a whole bunch of people exiting the department clutching their VRs who were within a bee’s d*ck of retirement anyway. Explain to me how THAT makes sense?

Report this comment

9
phototext 3:13 pm
10 Apr 09
#

I’ve read the original post a few times and cannot work out how SkipDaRoo came to the conclusion the person being discussed was incompetent.

Weird.

Report this comment

10
emd 3:28 pm
10 Apr 09
#

People are not made redundant. Positions are made redundant.
So if you want a VR and your position is not redundant (ie if you quit, the organisation would have to hire someone else to do your job), then you need to swap with someone else whose position is no longer needed in the department. Which means the person you swap with needs to be capable of doing your job so they can swap with you.

Another problem is that, in some departments anyway, the cost of the VR package comes out of the losing section’s cost centre. This means the losing section will be happier to allow their no-longer-needed VR-eligible staff to swap with someone who has been employed for a shorter time than the person who owns the position.

So your friend needs to find someone who has been employed for more than 30 years, and would be happy to do your friend’s job, AND is eligible for a VR. Good luck with that.

Report this comment

11
Woody Mann-Caruso 3:38 pm
10 Apr 09
#

cannot work out how SkipDaRoo came to the conclusion the person being discussed was incompetent.

It’s this phrase here:

“This is despite other people who do not want to leave and – importantly – who have not been counselled for under-performance being offered one.”

This could be interpreted as a statement that the friend does want to leave and is being counseled. I think what weezie meant, though, was that “you’re a good employee, we can’t lose you” isn’t a valid argument because other people good performers are getting handshakes.

Anyways, as emd said, you package out people because their position is redundant and because redeployment isn’t feasible, not because you do or don’t like a person. It doesn’t have anything to do with dead wood or performance. It’s not a reward or a punishment. The ‘voluntary’ bit refers to ‘jump now on good terms, or be pushed later on bad terms’.

Report this comment

12
weeziepops 3:44 pm
10 Apr 09
#

Just to be sure that my point is clear… I understand the theoretical VR process, redundant positions and so forth. I am saying that, in my opinion, this set of parameters is not being applied fairly and consistently in the public service.

Report this comment

13
vg 4:08 pm
10 Apr 09
#

A 30 year vet of the PS may cost the organisation a lot more in VR than a 1 year person. Purely financial decision. Makes perfect sense to me

Report this comment

14
sepi 5:01 pm
10 Apr 09
#

Yep. A VR for someone with 30 years service would cost a motza, and why would the organisation want to do this, when the person will clearly retire in the near future.

It may not seem fair, but it makes business sense.

VRs in fact are often used to get rid of dead wood, and why not? People who underperform, but not badly enough to get the sack can be got rid of via a VR.

Report this comment

15
I-filed 5:16 pm
10 Apr 09
#

weeziepops said :

No – the point is that he is not getting a VR because he IS performing. They are using the VR process to instead get rid of under-performers rather than deal with the under-performance!

But that’s the whole idea! Why would they get rid of a good employee, and cost the taxpayer to train up a replacement? Sounds like a bizarre attitude to me. Why doesn’t your friend just leave? Why should the taxpayer fund early retirement? Out in the real world, VR is used to assist companies under stress to restructure. It isn’t a “lifestyle option of choice”.

Report this comment

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site