Time to give redundancy the chop?

Redundancies aren't the most effective way to cut labour costs, says the CIPD. But is it that simple?

by
Last Updated: 06 Nov 2012

Put that axe down for a moment: a new survey from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that alternatives to redundancy, such as recruitment freezes and unpaid leave, can save businesses at least £10k a year per employee more than imposing redundancies.

In what has to be good news for the nation's increasingly bloodied workplaces, the survey found that introducing a recruitment freeze and terminating contracts with temp agencies were found to save companies £27k per employee - compared with the £16.4k a company would typically save through a redundancy.

That CIPD argues that redundancy only really works if there's a long-term reason to get rid of people. In cyclical downturns like this one is (hopefully), by getting rid of people you're only shooting yourself in the foot, as you need staff to bring business in and to capitalise when things pick up.

The benefits to morale and reputation that come with keeping your team together are clear, so many companies may be reassured by being able to add a financial element too. And the good news is that companies seem to be cottoning on: a previous survey by the CIPD and KPMG this winter found that half of British businesses are introducing recruitment freezes and 44% terminating temp agency contracts.

The CIPD's bean counters also worked out potential savings from a range of other alternatives: dropping down to a four-day week saves £5.5k per employee; introducing six-month sabbaticals saves £13.5k; and pay freezes £750. All calculations were made for someone on a median private-sector salary.

Which is all well and true from a long-term, annual budget point of view. But if you're facing an increasingly tight cash-flow situation, there's nothing like being able to shave a few quid off the salary bill each month.

To back up its calculations, the CIPD cites the example of Serco - which it says has successfully redeployed over 100 people in roles within company and with rivals. Which all seems jolly nice. But we couldn't help noticing that in its choice of company, the organisation has selected one with a uniquely wide reach, and a potentially unrivalled record for thriving during recessions, the latter for reasons more complex than a kindly approach to HR. Whether the average company has the clout to do a Serco so successfully is another thing.  

Find this article useful?

Get more great articles like this in your inbox every lunchtime

Want to encourage more female leaders? Openly highlight their achievements

A study shows that publicly praising women not only increases their willingness to lead, their...

Message to Davos: Don't blame lack of trust on 'society'

The reason people don't trust you is probably much closer to home, says public relations...

Dame Cilla Snowball: Life after being CEO

One year on from stepping back as boss of Britain's largest advertising agency, Dame Cilla...

How to change people's minds when they refuse to listen

Research into climate change deniers shows how behavioural science can break down intransigence.

"Paying women equally would cripple our economy"

The brutal fact: underpaid women sustain British business, says HR chief Helen Jamieson.

Why you're terrible at recruitment (and can AI help?)

The short version is you're full of biases and your hiring processes are badly designed....