Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

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, or connect with
31 Responses to
De-merit based selection – who put the V in VR?
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
bd84 8:19 pm 11 Apr 09

vg said :

Call me crazy, but offering under-performers a VR IS a way of dealing with under-performance.

So is sacking people when the performance is bad enough.

Every department that offers VRs always gets more applicants than VRs available. Do you think he’s the only person who missed out. In a roundabout way its a pat on the back if you want to look at it from another perspective

This thread is a non-issue

Dealing with underperformers with a VR is crazy, no matter how many years they have been employed in the department. VRs are extremely expensive due to the payments normally involving pay out of all leave balances + normally about 6 weeks pay + a years service based payment + assistance to find a new job etc.. They’re designed for large cost outlay in the short term for long term cost savings. Departments normally have better results giving bad performance appraisals and suggesting peoples departure before sacking.

Anyway, the redundancy selection process would be at the discretion of the entity. Firstly it would depend on where they were looking at obtaining the cost savings and secondly, they would want to keep the best people and lose the dead wood. Naturally, everyone hears the word redundancy and automatically think job uncertancy. The ultimate result is normally losing all the people they want to keep (VR or otherwise) and keep all the people they want to lose. Hardly surprising they said no to your friend.

Lenient 8:45 am 11 Apr 09

VR is about removing redundant positions. This is achieved by offering VRs to persons in those positions. If an occupant of a non-redundant position wants a VR in some case the organisation may allow a job swap with someone in a redundant position. VR is a tool for an organisation’s managament not a working condition.

vg 10:48 pm 10 Apr 09

As opposed to private industry, where the CEOs of large private firms get massive bonuses for taking their company to the brink of financial extinction.

Do you know the what the financial ramifications of being made redundant in the PS are? Quitting you get nothing, made redundant is a different story.

Its easy to quit working the checkout at Coles to move over to Woolies. Bit of a different story when your pulling close to 3 figures in the PS and there ain’t similiar incomes awaiting you if you leave

josh 10:18 pm 10 Apr 09

Do Canberrans/public servants not understand the notion of quitting jobs? You know, four weeks notice and all that. There’s a big difference between being made redundant (and volunteering to accept) and opting to leave.

If you want to leave, quit. Simple. Don’t whinge that someone isn’t paying you to do so.

If the Public Service weren’t so gutless and politically correct, none of this would be an issue as people would get “fired” for under performing (crazy, I know)

ant 10:04 pm 10 Apr 09

It’s been said above, but there’s two likely factors there. The higher expense of paying out to a person with a long time in the service, plus in order to be redundant, they have to lose the FTE position, too. If that position can’t be shed, then they can’t give the occupant a VR. In those cases, they sometimes try to arrange VR swaps, but they’re a bit more complicated to pull off.

vg 9:02 pm 10 Apr 09

I thought the general idea was to package out f*ckwits

s-s-a 9:00 pm 10 Apr 09

you package out people because their position is redundant and because redeployment isn’t feasible

Oh yes on paper that is supposed to be how it works, but it definitely doesn’t in practice.

vg 8:59 pm 10 Apr 09

Workplace nudity should be a good one. The boss will be too scared to sack lest someone claim it was a stress related thing or psychological issue, and a VR would remove the problem nicely.

Good lateral thinking

sepi 8:48 pm 10 Apr 09

The trick is trying to pick the line between sackable behaviour, and just annoying enough to get a VR.

weeziepops 8:18 pm 10 Apr 09

Last on first off then?

Sepi – I suggested my friend try workplace nudity. As this person deals direct with the public, I think this is likely to get attention.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site