Redundancy time to be cut in half.

They're already doing a lot worse, in so many policy areas.

Most MPs are now from too narrow and privileged social, educational and work backgrounds. They've never personally experienced how hard, tiring and frightening life is for the vast majority of voters (those totally dependent on low to average salaries, doing insecure jobs and renting their homes).

MPs are far too complacent about their skill sets, I feel. They don't seem aware they're doing (badly) a job that's been dumbed down into what is essentially a junior office manager's job, for twice the pay that job's worth.

Should I put this in the rants section Steve???

Sounds like a very difficult situation. Hope that they can find a better solution to fix things.

Duly moved, about time we had a good rant

Cant see the problem - if you have to shelve workers to protect the business why should you have to wait for "negotiations"?

Ive been made redundant, it sucks but the company i was working for at the time bought another business that dragged down the 1st & jobs had to go.

The way I see it, the old redundancy limits directed the initial pain towards those less likely to suffer because they have broader "shoulders" (most businesses have more money and more secure finances than the individuals who'll lose their jobs). That strikes me as being ethically right.

The businesses don't usually suffer much financially from an enforced pause in their redundancy programmes while the redundees gain a short breathing space to start job search, sort out their finances and find out about how to claim unemployment pay.

The main reason behind a longer redundancy limit, though, is to provide all parties with a chance to consider alternatives to job loss (eg working reduced hours, finding new jobs for employees at sister companies and the like). Germany uses this approach, I think.