I'm being made redundant, no biggie, I've kind of been expecting it for a while now, so I've already got a few irons in the fire. The problem is my redundancy entitlement.... It's pretty crap. I'm currently in discussions with my employer and trade union about it, and the reaction of my employer is making me wonder if what i'm asking for is unreasonable. So I thought I'd canvas some opinion over what I'm asking and whether you guys think I'm right to keep pressing on about it. I'm well aware of the pitfalls of discussing things like this on an open forum so, the names have been changed to protect the not so innocent....

Okay, now things could get a little complicated so I'm going to draw a little diagram of the company structures before and after. The vertical position in the stack denotes the company hierarchy (ie. C and D are the main parent groups)


I've worked for my employer (A) for nearly seven years now and survived two waves of redundancy and also the transfer of the business. My employer was part of a larger company (B) which itself was part of a large(ish) UK based media and publishing group (C). Now, a couple of years ago (B) was sold off to (D) and my company was retained by the group and placed into another parent company within the group (E). Just prior to this, everybody except myself and another colleague were made redundant and the two of us moved into the new parent company and assured that nothing was going to change. We'd still be paying into the group pension, we'd still be entitled to the same private healthcare scheme etc.

All employees made redundant up to this point had been offered the same terms, which were actually quite favourable, these were the same terms offered to people in the parent company (both B and C) since the late 70's, and when it (B) was sold, one of the stipulations placed on the sale was that any future redundancies in B would follow the same rules as before, despite them quite a bit better than the buyer (D) would've normally offered to its staff in its other businesses.

I had, up until this point, assumed the group would've ensured the same for me and my colleague, after all, we're still ultimately part of the same group (C). So when I was told that we would actually get a much less favourable deal (the deal our new parent company offers to all its employees apparently) I was understandably miffed.

My question is: Is it right for me to try and push for the same terms my ex-colleagues got, and people in B still get from their new employer (D)? I'm not talking about legal entitlements here, I'm looking for an opinion on a moral standpoint. Is what I'm asking for wrong?

Now, the group publicly prides itself on being honourable, trustworthy and fair. In fact, its publications frequently point out the wrongdoings of other businesses and gives off the impression of being a bit self-righteous. Does this sound like the actions of an honourable and fair employer?

Now I'm sure many UK members can hazard a guess at who my employer might be, and I'd appreciate, for the sake of keeping this out of google, to keep it to themselves, or send me a pm to confirm if they really want to know.

What do you guys think? Am I being greedy and unreasonable, or do I have a point? My friends and family agree with me, but of course they're my friends and family. I'd appreciate the opinions of people with a little more detachment from the immediate situation.