Mixing
![What action or reaction should be taken against a backbiting senior [closed]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjbpfN9tAutmK93bJRC3ZoROZzi2TJDms5n8_qJuhgE0a9b52OOHayv3NGT8igAdFL7byXNst-_1DZK5SjrIJ28_6RQPUpBROqMs5s6jo-ZsjX8kjDwfxJufIitH3TaQRXWaGSQKRQib-f/s72-c/1.jpg)
Potential Company Merger
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
It it highly rumoured that our company may be bought out and merged with a bigger competitor. If this happens we are presuming there will be redundancies. Is there a minimum time from a company taking over another company before they can make people redundant?
Currently I have been at the company just under a year (3 weeks to hit the year mark) and I have a 3 month notice period if that makes any difference.
united-kingdom redundancy
edited Sep 6 '12 at 14:22
acolyte
3,0531632
asked Sep 6 '12 at 13:36
John
25125
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
It it highly rumoured that our company may be bought out and merged with a bigger competitor. If this happens we are presuming there will be redundancies. Is there a minimum time from a company taking over another company before they can make people redundant?
Currently I have been at the company just under a year (3 weeks to hit the year mark) and I have a 3 month notice period if that makes any difference.
united-kingdom redundancy
edited Sep 6 '12 at 14:22
acolyte
3,0531632
asked Sep 6 '12 at 13:36
John
25125
possible duplicate of Is there anything wrong with asking about job security?
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:51
1
Not an exact duplicate, but certainly going to cover the same ground. There is no minimum time before they can make people redundant, but it's rarely immediate, in my experience.
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:53
4
I'd disagree - the question cited as a duplicate here is about a downsize, not a merger and seems more focused on manager/employee communication and less on the overall logistics.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 14:16
Would hitting the 1 year mark make any difference of will things stay the same?
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:53
1
@John: It'll make a massive difference to your rights in the UK. careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-blog/… "You cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal unless you have been employed for at least one year. You therefore have very limited protection when you start a job and your employer could dismiss you without having to justify it during the first year."
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 15:23
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
It it highly rumoured that our company may be bought out and merged with a bigger competitor. If this happens we are presuming there will be redundancies. Is there a minimum time from a company taking over another company before they can make people redundant?
Currently I have been at the company just under a year (3 weeks to hit the year mark) and I have a 3 month notice period if that makes any difference.
united-kingdom redundancy
edited Sep 6 '12 at 14:22
acolyte
3,0531632
asked Sep 6 '12 at 13:36
John
25125
It it highly rumoured that our company may be bought out and merged with a bigger competitor. If this happens we are presuming there will be redundancies. Is there a minimum time from a company taking over another company before they can make people redundant?
Currently I have been at the company just under a year (3 weeks to hit the year mark) and I have a 3 month notice period if that makes any difference.
united-kingdom redundancy
edited Sep 6 '12 at 14:22
acolyte
3,0531632
asked Sep 6 '12 at 13:36
John
25125
edited Sep 6 '12 at 14:22
acolyte
3,0531632
edited Sep 6 '12 at 14:22
acolyte
3,0531632
edited Sep 6 '12 at 14:22
acolyte
3,0531632
3,0531632
asked Sep 6 '12 at 13:36
John
25125
asked Sep 6 '12 at 13:36
John
25125
asked Sep 6 '12 at 13:36
John
25125
25125
possible duplicate of Is there anything wrong with asking about job security?
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:51
1
Not an exact duplicate, but certainly going to cover the same ground. There is no minimum time before they can make people redundant, but it's rarely immediate, in my experience.
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:53
4
I'd disagree - the question cited as a duplicate here is about a downsize, not a merger and seems more focused on manager/employee communication and less on the overall logistics.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 14:16
Would hitting the 1 year mark make any difference of will things stay the same?
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:53
1
@John: It'll make a massive difference to your rights in the UK. careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-blog/… "You cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal unless you have been employed for at least one year. You therefore have very limited protection when you start a job and your employer could dismiss you without having to justify it during the first year."
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 15:23
 |Â
show 4 more comments
possible duplicate of Is there anything wrong with asking about job security?
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:51
1
Not an exact duplicate, but certainly going to cover the same ground. There is no minimum time before they can make people redundant, but it's rarely immediate, in my experience.
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:53
4
I'd disagree - the question cited as a duplicate here is about a downsize, not a merger and seems more focused on manager/employee communication and less on the overall logistics.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 14:16
Would hitting the 1 year mark make any difference of will things stay the same?
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:53
1
@John: It'll make a massive difference to your rights in the UK. careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-blog/… "You cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal unless you have been employed for at least one year. You therefore have very limited protection when you start a job and your employer could dismiss you without having to justify it during the first year."
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 15:23
possible duplicate of Is there anything wrong with asking about job security?
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:51
possible duplicate of Is there anything wrong with asking about job security?
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:51
1
1
Not an exact duplicate, but certainly going to cover the same ground. There is no minimum time before they can make people redundant, but it's rarely immediate, in my experience.
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:53
Not an exact duplicate, but certainly going to cover the same ground. There is no minimum time before they can make people redundant, but it's rarely immediate, in my experience.
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:53
4
4
I'd disagree - the question cited as a duplicate here is about a downsize, not a merger and seems more focused on manager/employee communication and less on the overall logistics.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 14:16
I'd disagree - the question cited as a duplicate here is about a downsize, not a merger and seems more focused on manager/employee communication and less on the overall logistics.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 14:16
Would hitting the 1 year mark make any difference of will things stay the same?
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:53
Would hitting the 1 year mark make any difference of will things stay the same?
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:53
1
1
@John: It'll make a massive difference to your rights in the UK. careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-blog/… "You cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal unless you have been employed for at least one year. You therefore have very limited protection when you start a job and your employer could dismiss you without having to justify it during the first year."
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 15:23
@John: It'll make a massive difference to your rights in the UK. careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-blog/… "You cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal unless you have been employed for at least one year. You therefore have very limited protection when you start a job and your employer could dismiss you without having to justify it during the first year."
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 15:23
 |Â
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
I'd be willing to believe that national laws may have some impact and that I won't know enough about UK law to address that part. But I'm also willing to bet that there's some general strategies that apply across the board.
Nature of the Merger
A lot of the dynamics will depend on the nature of the merger. In particular - how eager is your company to be part of it? For many small companies looking to grow, being merged or acquired is part of the game plan, in which case, your company may well do a downsize or other strategic reorganization before the acquisition goes through.
In other cases, if your company is unwillingly acquired, the layoffs will come after the merger or acquisition, as an outside entity can't force the change.
Size of Organizations
Needless to say, big organizations move more slowly than small ones. The sheer number of employees is a big factor here, as organizing a layoff takes more time if there are more people. In a really big company, it can be years before the big layoffs come, as they will take a LONG time figuring out what is actually redundant.
In an enormous company merger, I would likely not expect much change to happen before the paperwork is signed, and afterwards I'd expect very little change in the first year, unless there is a dramatically obvious and very expensive redundancy.
What are they buying/merging you for?
Mergers have different flavors - and a competitive one is particularly tricky. Are they trying to get your company out of the marketplace? Or are they tryng to add a feature or suite of product/service that gave your current company a competitive advantage and it will offer the new merged company a new revenue stream?
These kind of things will make a big difference in how rapid and dramatic layoffs will be. The trick is, I'm never willing to believe the line "we purchased you for your brain trust - it's the people that make you and asset and we respect that." - it's too soft a phrase and too easy to forget about later when you can't meet the bottom line. The big question is how quickly can the acquired group become an asset. Which is probably a question for your management.
Individual Employee Agreements
Usually as part of a merger, there is a recomputation of employee/employer agreements. Taht usually doesn't happen quickly, but at least in the US, it's part of the merger negotiation. So your 3 month notice requirement will hold for at least a little while, but you can expect that it might change, particularly if you have a sweeter deal than the standard industry expectation in your area. I've seen negotiations include a hands-off period of 6 momths to 1 year - where the new company was not allowed to change any employee benefits - but at least in the US, that's a matter of the contract between the organizations.
Being in a new hire position is particularly tricky because if your employment agreement includes a trial period where you can be let go with minimal paperwork if you are not a "good fit", you can be in a tenuous position. Since these sort of arrangements are deliberately designed to make it easy to let go a new person when they haven't lived up to the expectation set in the interview cycle, it is deliberately rather vague and aimed at saving the company the hassle and cost of the formality that you would otherwise be entitled to. Which makes is also fairly easy for them to say "oops, our needs changed, we don't need you anymore".
Yeah, but will I be laid off?
Thanks for not asking that one, because it would be the classic "it depends" - any given individual in any given company is going to be unique. I've seen plenty of layoff situations where the long-term 'we can't imagine living without him, he knows everything' guy got laid off and the newbie with less than 6 months time and no product knowledge was retained. Why? Because in that sitation, the long-term history products they wouldn't be selling didn't really matter, but the fact that the new guy had a depth of experience in a highly used technology made him the key ingredient for the new world order.
You never really know - it's just helpful to havea look at why the merger is happening, what the new company's strategy might be, and how you'll play into it. The company's goals for PR, legal requirements and company culture will play into it as well.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:36
bethlakshmi
70.4k4136277
Looking at my team my role is unique. Which is good and bad. Realistically I think I would have a 50:50 chance of surviving round 1 of redundancies. Weirdly I think the less work I do now the more chance I have of staying on as no one else could do it.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:59
1
Yes, but the less you accomplish, the more they will ask the question - why continue to pay for work that isn't getting done? A bad performer is unlikely to become a good performer in the future so retaining a poor performer when you can get a less skilled solid performer almost never makes sense.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 16:00
@John - If you stop doing your job you can expect to be let go. You can be replaced, you have only been there a year, your knowlege can easily be picked up by somebody else. Since they have to give you 3 months notice, you could find yourself, training the person who replaces you. This would be true even if there was not a merger. Poor performance will effect you, so please do your career a favor, don't slack off.
– Ramhound
Sep 6 '12 at 16:22
@John - If no one else can do it they are more likely to replace the process altogether. During a shake up from a merger is a great time to get old products and processes working with current solutions. I have seen companies cut profitable groups because they were niche and not part of the core business process.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Sep 6 '12 at 20:36
um US law is very different id be wary of using any advice outwith the UK TUPE applies in the UK and there is NO renegotiation of contracts. <br> ACAS say "The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions."
– Neuro
Sep 17 '12 at 23:20
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
The only limitations are the notice periods. They can issue layoff notices on the day the merger completes if they like.
In practice, even if the executives already know what they want to do, they'll at least make a show of trying to figure out which people to keep and where to keep them.
If they are honestly merging to try to make the companies better, then it's possible that they'll even move some people from one location to another, or keep parts of your company and ditch corresponding jobs elsewhere, if they decide your version of that department is better than theirs. This isn't that likely, but can happen.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:18
Michael Kohne
3,28111327
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In general, no, there wouldn't be any specific minimum amount of time before layoffs may start. Your company could even start the process before the merger if they really wanted to, though that would be a poor business move on their part. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a delay, as your company might put that into the terms of the merger/acquisition agreement.
Your three month notice period will/should remain valid, so you can count on having at least that much time. And three months is a huge notice period, so you personally do not seem to have much to worry about.
However, I think you may be jumping the gun. A merger doesn't necessarily mean layoffs, and even if there are layoffs they may primarily affect the other company rather than yours (it depends why they're merging with your company; it could be they want your staff, or maybe they just want your IP, or maybe they want to buy out their competitor so that they can shut you down completely). If the other company wants to do it right they'll first evaluate all of their "new" employees before they start just arbitrarily laying people off left and right.
So there shouldn't be too much to worry about unless/until people start getting sent to meet with some upper-level representative from HR to discuss their current roles and responsibilities. That's usually a red flag that bad things will happen in the relatively near future. Until then just try to relax and enjoy the ride. Change isn't always a bad thing.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:19
aroth
8,29812646
Directors joining recruiters on LinkedIn looks to be a good sign that something is happening. Complete company spending freeze.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:51
add a comment |Â
StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();
);
);
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
I'd be willing to believe that national laws may have some impact and that I won't know enough about UK law to address that part. But I'm also willing to bet that there's some general strategies that apply across the board.
Nature of the Merger
A lot of the dynamics will depend on the nature of the merger. In particular - how eager is your company to be part of it? For many small companies looking to grow, being merged or acquired is part of the game plan, in which case, your company may well do a downsize or other strategic reorganization before the acquisition goes through.
In other cases, if your company is unwillingly acquired, the layoffs will come after the merger or acquisition, as an outside entity can't force the change.
Size of Organizations
Needless to say, big organizations move more slowly than small ones. The sheer number of employees is a big factor here, as organizing a layoff takes more time if there are more people. In a really big company, it can be years before the big layoffs come, as they will take a LONG time figuring out what is actually redundant.
In an enormous company merger, I would likely not expect much change to happen before the paperwork is signed, and afterwards I'd expect very little change in the first year, unless there is a dramatically obvious and very expensive redundancy.
What are they buying/merging you for?
Mergers have different flavors - and a competitive one is particularly tricky. Are they trying to get your company out of the marketplace? Or are they tryng to add a feature or suite of product/service that gave your current company a competitive advantage and it will offer the new merged company a new revenue stream?
These kind of things will make a big difference in how rapid and dramatic layoffs will be. The trick is, I'm never willing to believe the line "we purchased you for your brain trust - it's the people that make you and asset and we respect that." - it's too soft a phrase and too easy to forget about later when you can't meet the bottom line. The big question is how quickly can the acquired group become an asset. Which is probably a question for your management.
Individual Employee Agreements
Usually as part of a merger, there is a recomputation of employee/employer agreements. Taht usually doesn't happen quickly, but at least in the US, it's part of the merger negotiation. So your 3 month notice requirement will hold for at least a little while, but you can expect that it might change, particularly if you have a sweeter deal than the standard industry expectation in your area. I've seen negotiations include a hands-off period of 6 momths to 1 year - where the new company was not allowed to change any employee benefits - but at least in the US, that's a matter of the contract between the organizations.
Being in a new hire position is particularly tricky because if your employment agreement includes a trial period where you can be let go with minimal paperwork if you are not a "good fit", you can be in a tenuous position. Since these sort of arrangements are deliberately designed to make it easy to let go a new person when they haven't lived up to the expectation set in the interview cycle, it is deliberately rather vague and aimed at saving the company the hassle and cost of the formality that you would otherwise be entitled to. Which makes is also fairly easy for them to say "oops, our needs changed, we don't need you anymore".
Yeah, but will I be laid off?
Thanks for not asking that one, because it would be the classic "it depends" - any given individual in any given company is going to be unique. I've seen plenty of layoff situations where the long-term 'we can't imagine living without him, he knows everything' guy got laid off and the newbie with less than 6 months time and no product knowledge was retained. Why? Because in that sitation, the long-term history products they wouldn't be selling didn't really matter, but the fact that the new guy had a depth of experience in a highly used technology made him the key ingredient for the new world order.
You never really know - it's just helpful to havea look at why the merger is happening, what the new company's strategy might be, and how you'll play into it. The company's goals for PR, legal requirements and company culture will play into it as well.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:36
bethlakshmi
70.4k4136277
Looking at my team my role is unique. Which is good and bad. Realistically I think I would have a 50:50 chance of surviving round 1 of redundancies. Weirdly I think the less work I do now the more chance I have of staying on as no one else could do it.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:59
1
Yes, but the less you accomplish, the more they will ask the question - why continue to pay for work that isn't getting done? A bad performer is unlikely to become a good performer in the future so retaining a poor performer when you can get a less skilled solid performer almost never makes sense.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 16:00
@John - If you stop doing your job you can expect to be let go. You can be replaced, you have only been there a year, your knowlege can easily be picked up by somebody else. Since they have to give you 3 months notice, you could find yourself, training the person who replaces you. This would be true even if there was not a merger. Poor performance will effect you, so please do your career a favor, don't slack off.
– Ramhound
Sep 6 '12 at 16:22
@John - If no one else can do it they are more likely to replace the process altogether. During a shake up from a merger is a great time to get old products and processes working with current solutions. I have seen companies cut profitable groups because they were niche and not part of the core business process.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Sep 6 '12 at 20:36
um US law is very different id be wary of using any advice outwith the UK TUPE applies in the UK and there is NO renegotiation of contracts. <br> ACAS say "The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions."
– Neuro
Sep 17 '12 at 23:20
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
I'd be willing to believe that national laws may have some impact and that I won't know enough about UK law to address that part. But I'm also willing to bet that there's some general strategies that apply across the board.
Nature of the Merger
A lot of the dynamics will depend on the nature of the merger. In particular - how eager is your company to be part of it? For many small companies looking to grow, being merged or acquired is part of the game plan, in which case, your company may well do a downsize or other strategic reorganization before the acquisition goes through.
In other cases, if your company is unwillingly acquired, the layoffs will come after the merger or acquisition, as an outside entity can't force the change.
Size of Organizations
Needless to say, big organizations move more slowly than small ones. The sheer number of employees is a big factor here, as organizing a layoff takes more time if there are more people. In a really big company, it can be years before the big layoffs come, as they will take a LONG time figuring out what is actually redundant.
In an enormous company merger, I would likely not expect much change to happen before the paperwork is signed, and afterwards I'd expect very little change in the first year, unless there is a dramatically obvious and very expensive redundancy.
What are they buying/merging you for?
Mergers have different flavors - and a competitive one is particularly tricky. Are they trying to get your company out of the marketplace? Or are they tryng to add a feature or suite of product/service that gave your current company a competitive advantage and it will offer the new merged company a new revenue stream?
These kind of things will make a big difference in how rapid and dramatic layoffs will be. The trick is, I'm never willing to believe the line "we purchased you for your brain trust - it's the people that make you and asset and we respect that." - it's too soft a phrase and too easy to forget about later when you can't meet the bottom line. The big question is how quickly can the acquired group become an asset. Which is probably a question for your management.
Individual Employee Agreements
Usually as part of a merger, there is a recomputation of employee/employer agreements. Taht usually doesn't happen quickly, but at least in the US, it's part of the merger negotiation. So your 3 month notice requirement will hold for at least a little while, but you can expect that it might change, particularly if you have a sweeter deal than the standard industry expectation in your area. I've seen negotiations include a hands-off period of 6 momths to 1 year - where the new company was not allowed to change any employee benefits - but at least in the US, that's a matter of the contract between the organizations.
Being in a new hire position is particularly tricky because if your employment agreement includes a trial period where you can be let go with minimal paperwork if you are not a "good fit", you can be in a tenuous position. Since these sort of arrangements are deliberately designed to make it easy to let go a new person when they haven't lived up to the expectation set in the interview cycle, it is deliberately rather vague and aimed at saving the company the hassle and cost of the formality that you would otherwise be entitled to. Which makes is also fairly easy for them to say "oops, our needs changed, we don't need you anymore".
Yeah, but will I be laid off?
Thanks for not asking that one, because it would be the classic "it depends" - any given individual in any given company is going to be unique. I've seen plenty of layoff situations where the long-term 'we can't imagine living without him, he knows everything' guy got laid off and the newbie with less than 6 months time and no product knowledge was retained. Why? Because in that sitation, the long-term history products they wouldn't be selling didn't really matter, but the fact that the new guy had a depth of experience in a highly used technology made him the key ingredient for the new world order.
You never really know - it's just helpful to havea look at why the merger is happening, what the new company's strategy might be, and how you'll play into it. The company's goals for PR, legal requirements and company culture will play into it as well.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:36
bethlakshmi
70.4k4136277
Looking at my team my role is unique. Which is good and bad. Realistically I think I would have a 50:50 chance of surviving round 1 of redundancies. Weirdly I think the less work I do now the more chance I have of staying on as no one else could do it.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:59
1
Yes, but the less you accomplish, the more they will ask the question - why continue to pay for work that isn't getting done? A bad performer is unlikely to become a good performer in the future so retaining a poor performer when you can get a less skilled solid performer almost never makes sense.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 16:00
@John - If you stop doing your job you can expect to be let go. You can be replaced, you have only been there a year, your knowlege can easily be picked up by somebody else. Since they have to give you 3 months notice, you could find yourself, training the person who replaces you. This would be true even if there was not a merger. Poor performance will effect you, so please do your career a favor, don't slack off.
– Ramhound
Sep 6 '12 at 16:22
@John - If no one else can do it they are more likely to replace the process altogether. During a shake up from a merger is a great time to get old products and processes working with current solutions. I have seen companies cut profitable groups because they were niche and not part of the core business process.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Sep 6 '12 at 20:36
um US law is very different id be wary of using any advice outwith the UK TUPE applies in the UK and there is NO renegotiation of contracts. <br> ACAS say "The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions."
– Neuro
Sep 17 '12 at 23:20
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
I'd be willing to believe that national laws may have some impact and that I won't know enough about UK law to address that part. But I'm also willing to bet that there's some general strategies that apply across the board.
Nature of the Merger
A lot of the dynamics will depend on the nature of the merger. In particular - how eager is your company to be part of it? For many small companies looking to grow, being merged or acquired is part of the game plan, in which case, your company may well do a downsize or other strategic reorganization before the acquisition goes through.
In other cases, if your company is unwillingly acquired, the layoffs will come after the merger or acquisition, as an outside entity can't force the change.
Size of Organizations
Needless to say, big organizations move more slowly than small ones. The sheer number of employees is a big factor here, as organizing a layoff takes more time if there are more people. In a really big company, it can be years before the big layoffs come, as they will take a LONG time figuring out what is actually redundant.
In an enormous company merger, I would likely not expect much change to happen before the paperwork is signed, and afterwards I'd expect very little change in the first year, unless there is a dramatically obvious and very expensive redundancy.
What are they buying/merging you for?
Mergers have different flavors - and a competitive one is particularly tricky. Are they trying to get your company out of the marketplace? Or are they tryng to add a feature or suite of product/service that gave your current company a competitive advantage and it will offer the new merged company a new revenue stream?
These kind of things will make a big difference in how rapid and dramatic layoffs will be. The trick is, I'm never willing to believe the line "we purchased you for your brain trust - it's the people that make you and asset and we respect that." - it's too soft a phrase and too easy to forget about later when you can't meet the bottom line. The big question is how quickly can the acquired group become an asset. Which is probably a question for your management.
Individual Employee Agreements
Usually as part of a merger, there is a recomputation of employee/employer agreements. Taht usually doesn't happen quickly, but at least in the US, it's part of the merger negotiation. So your 3 month notice requirement will hold for at least a little while, but you can expect that it might change, particularly if you have a sweeter deal than the standard industry expectation in your area. I've seen negotiations include a hands-off period of 6 momths to 1 year - where the new company was not allowed to change any employee benefits - but at least in the US, that's a matter of the contract between the organizations.
Being in a new hire position is particularly tricky because if your employment agreement includes a trial period where you can be let go with minimal paperwork if you are not a "good fit", you can be in a tenuous position. Since these sort of arrangements are deliberately designed to make it easy to let go a new person when they haven't lived up to the expectation set in the interview cycle, it is deliberately rather vague and aimed at saving the company the hassle and cost of the formality that you would otherwise be entitled to. Which makes is also fairly easy for them to say "oops, our needs changed, we don't need you anymore".
Yeah, but will I be laid off?
Thanks for not asking that one, because it would be the classic "it depends" - any given individual in any given company is going to be unique. I've seen plenty of layoff situations where the long-term 'we can't imagine living without him, he knows everything' guy got laid off and the newbie with less than 6 months time and no product knowledge was retained. Why? Because in that sitation, the long-term history products they wouldn't be selling didn't really matter, but the fact that the new guy had a depth of experience in a highly used technology made him the key ingredient for the new world order.
You never really know - it's just helpful to havea look at why the merger is happening, what the new company's strategy might be, and how you'll play into it. The company's goals for PR, legal requirements and company culture will play into it as well.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:36
bethlakshmi
70.4k4136277
I'd be willing to believe that national laws may have some impact and that I won't know enough about UK law to address that part. But I'm also willing to bet that there's some general strategies that apply across the board.
Nature of the Merger
A lot of the dynamics will depend on the nature of the merger. In particular - how eager is your company to be part of it? For many small companies looking to grow, being merged or acquired is part of the game plan, in which case, your company may well do a downsize or other strategic reorganization before the acquisition goes through.
In other cases, if your company is unwillingly acquired, the layoffs will come after the merger or acquisition, as an outside entity can't force the change.
Size of Organizations
Needless to say, big organizations move more slowly than small ones. The sheer number of employees is a big factor here, as organizing a layoff takes more time if there are more people. In a really big company, it can be years before the big layoffs come, as they will take a LONG time figuring out what is actually redundant.
In an enormous company merger, I would likely not expect much change to happen before the paperwork is signed, and afterwards I'd expect very little change in the first year, unless there is a dramatically obvious and very expensive redundancy.
What are they buying/merging you for?
Mergers have different flavors - and a competitive one is particularly tricky. Are they trying to get your company out of the marketplace? Or are they tryng to add a feature or suite of product/service that gave your current company a competitive advantage and it will offer the new merged company a new revenue stream?
These kind of things will make a big difference in how rapid and dramatic layoffs will be. The trick is, I'm never willing to believe the line "we purchased you for your brain trust - it's the people that make you and asset and we respect that." - it's too soft a phrase and too easy to forget about later when you can't meet the bottom line. The big question is how quickly can the acquired group become an asset. Which is probably a question for your management.
Individual Employee Agreements
Usually as part of a merger, there is a recomputation of employee/employer agreements. Taht usually doesn't happen quickly, but at least in the US, it's part of the merger negotiation. So your 3 month notice requirement will hold for at least a little while, but you can expect that it might change, particularly if you have a sweeter deal than the standard industry expectation in your area. I've seen negotiations include a hands-off period of 6 momths to 1 year - where the new company was not allowed to change any employee benefits - but at least in the US, that's a matter of the contract between the organizations.
Being in a new hire position is particularly tricky because if your employment agreement includes a trial period where you can be let go with minimal paperwork if you are not a "good fit", you can be in a tenuous position. Since these sort of arrangements are deliberately designed to make it easy to let go a new person when they haven't lived up to the expectation set in the interview cycle, it is deliberately rather vague and aimed at saving the company the hassle and cost of the formality that you would otherwise be entitled to. Which makes is also fairly easy for them to say "oops, our needs changed, we don't need you anymore".
Yeah, but will I be laid off?
Thanks for not asking that one, because it would be the classic "it depends" - any given individual in any given company is going to be unique. I've seen plenty of layoff situations where the long-term 'we can't imagine living without him, he knows everything' guy got laid off and the newbie with less than 6 months time and no product knowledge was retained. Why? Because in that sitation, the long-term history products they wouldn't be selling didn't really matter, but the fact that the new guy had a depth of experience in a highly used technology made him the key ingredient for the new world order.
You never really know - it's just helpful to havea look at why the merger is happening, what the new company's strategy might be, and how you'll play into it. The company's goals for PR, legal requirements and company culture will play into it as well.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:36
bethlakshmi
70.4k4136277
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:36
bethlakshmi
70.4k4136277
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:36
bethlakshmi
70.4k4136277
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:36
bethlakshmi
70.4k4136277
70.4k4136277
Looking at my team my role is unique. Which is good and bad. Realistically I think I would have a 50:50 chance of surviving round 1 of redundancies. Weirdly I think the less work I do now the more chance I have of staying on as no one else could do it.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:59
1
Yes, but the less you accomplish, the more they will ask the question - why continue to pay for work that isn't getting done? A bad performer is unlikely to become a good performer in the future so retaining a poor performer when you can get a less skilled solid performer almost never makes sense.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 16:00
@John - If you stop doing your job you can expect to be let go. You can be replaced, you have only been there a year, your knowlege can easily be picked up by somebody else. Since they have to give you 3 months notice, you could find yourself, training the person who replaces you. This would be true even if there was not a merger. Poor performance will effect you, so please do your career a favor, don't slack off.
– Ramhound
Sep 6 '12 at 16:22
@John - If no one else can do it they are more likely to replace the process altogether. During a shake up from a merger is a great time to get old products and processes working with current solutions. I have seen companies cut profitable groups because they were niche and not part of the core business process.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Sep 6 '12 at 20:36
um US law is very different id be wary of using any advice outwith the UK TUPE applies in the UK and there is NO renegotiation of contracts. <br> ACAS say "The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions."
– Neuro
Sep 17 '12 at 23:20
add a comment |Â
Looking at my team my role is unique. Which is good and bad. Realistically I think I would have a 50:50 chance of surviving round 1 of redundancies. Weirdly I think the less work I do now the more chance I have of staying on as no one else could do it.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:59
1
Yes, but the less you accomplish, the more they will ask the question - why continue to pay for work that isn't getting done? A bad performer is unlikely to become a good performer in the future so retaining a poor performer when you can get a less skilled solid performer almost never makes sense.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 16:00
@John - If you stop doing your job you can expect to be let go. You can be replaced, you have only been there a year, your knowlege can easily be picked up by somebody else. Since they have to give you 3 months notice, you could find yourself, training the person who replaces you. This would be true even if there was not a merger. Poor performance will effect you, so please do your career a favor, don't slack off.
– Ramhound
Sep 6 '12 at 16:22
@John - If no one else can do it they are more likely to replace the process altogether. During a shake up from a merger is a great time to get old products and processes working with current solutions. I have seen companies cut profitable groups because they were niche and not part of the core business process.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Sep 6 '12 at 20:36
um US law is very different id be wary of using any advice outwith the UK TUPE applies in the UK and there is NO renegotiation of contracts. <br> ACAS say "The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions."
– Neuro
Sep 17 '12 at 23:20
Looking at my team my role is unique. Which is good and bad. Realistically I think I would have a 50:50 chance of surviving round 1 of redundancies. Weirdly I think the less work I do now the more chance I have of staying on as no one else could do it.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:59
Looking at my team my role is unique. Which is good and bad. Realistically I think I would have a 50:50 chance of surviving round 1 of redundancies. Weirdly I think the less work I do now the more chance I have of staying on as no one else could do it.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:59
1
1
Yes, but the less you accomplish, the more they will ask the question - why continue to pay for work that isn't getting done? A bad performer is unlikely to become a good performer in the future so retaining a poor performer when you can get a less skilled solid performer almost never makes sense.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 16:00
Yes, but the less you accomplish, the more they will ask the question - why continue to pay for work that isn't getting done? A bad performer is unlikely to become a good performer in the future so retaining a poor performer when you can get a less skilled solid performer almost never makes sense.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 16:00
@John - If you stop doing your job you can expect to be let go. You can be replaced, you have only been there a year, your knowlege can easily be picked up by somebody else. Since they have to give you 3 months notice, you could find yourself, training the person who replaces you. This would be true even if there was not a merger. Poor performance will effect you, so please do your career a favor, don't slack off.
– Ramhound
Sep 6 '12 at 16:22
@John - If you stop doing your job you can expect to be let go. You can be replaced, you have only been there a year, your knowlege can easily be picked up by somebody else. Since they have to give you 3 months notice, you could find yourself, training the person who replaces you. This would be true even if there was not a merger. Poor performance will effect you, so please do your career a favor, don't slack off.
– Ramhound
Sep 6 '12 at 16:22
@John - If no one else can do it they are more likely to replace the process altogether. During a shake up from a merger is a great time to get old products and processes working with current solutions. I have seen companies cut profitable groups because they were niche and not part of the core business process.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Sep 6 '12 at 20:36
@John - If no one else can do it they are more likely to replace the process altogether. During a shake up from a merger is a great time to get old products and processes working with current solutions. I have seen companies cut profitable groups because they were niche and not part of the core business process.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Sep 6 '12 at 20:36
um US law is very different id be wary of using any advice outwith the UK TUPE applies in the UK and there is NO renegotiation of contracts. <br> ACAS say "The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions."
– Neuro
Sep 17 '12 at 23:20
um US law is very different id be wary of using any advice outwith the UK TUPE applies in the UK and there is NO renegotiation of contracts. <br> ACAS say "The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions."
– Neuro
Sep 17 '12 at 23:20
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
The only limitations are the notice periods. They can issue layoff notices on the day the merger completes if they like.
In practice, even if the executives already know what they want to do, they'll at least make a show of trying to figure out which people to keep and where to keep them.
If they are honestly merging to try to make the companies better, then it's possible that they'll even move some people from one location to another, or keep parts of your company and ditch corresponding jobs elsewhere, if they decide your version of that department is better than theirs. This isn't that likely, but can happen.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:18
Michael Kohne
3,28111327
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
The only limitations are the notice periods. They can issue layoff notices on the day the merger completes if they like.
In practice, even if the executives already know what they want to do, they'll at least make a show of trying to figure out which people to keep and where to keep them.
If they are honestly merging to try to make the companies better, then it's possible that they'll even move some people from one location to another, or keep parts of your company and ditch corresponding jobs elsewhere, if they decide your version of that department is better than theirs. This isn't that likely, but can happen.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:18
Michael Kohne
3,28111327
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The only limitations are the notice periods. They can issue layoff notices on the day the merger completes if they like.
In practice, even if the executives already know what they want to do, they'll at least make a show of trying to figure out which people to keep and where to keep them.
If they are honestly merging to try to make the companies better, then it's possible that they'll even move some people from one location to another, or keep parts of your company and ditch corresponding jobs elsewhere, if they decide your version of that department is better than theirs. This isn't that likely, but can happen.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:18
Michael Kohne
3,28111327
The only limitations are the notice periods. They can issue layoff notices on the day the merger completes if they like.
In practice, even if the executives already know what they want to do, they'll at least make a show of trying to figure out which people to keep and where to keep them.
If they are honestly merging to try to make the companies better, then it's possible that they'll even move some people from one location to another, or keep parts of your company and ditch corresponding jobs elsewhere, if they decide your version of that department is better than theirs. This isn't that likely, but can happen.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:18
Michael Kohne
3,28111327
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:18
Michael Kohne
3,28111327
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:18
Michael Kohne
3,28111327
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:18
Michael Kohne
3,28111327
3,28111327
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In general, no, there wouldn't be any specific minimum amount of time before layoffs may start. Your company could even start the process before the merger if they really wanted to, though that would be a poor business move on their part. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a delay, as your company might put that into the terms of the merger/acquisition agreement.
Your three month notice period will/should remain valid, so you can count on having at least that much time. And three months is a huge notice period, so you personally do not seem to have much to worry about.
However, I think you may be jumping the gun. A merger doesn't necessarily mean layoffs, and even if there are layoffs they may primarily affect the other company rather than yours (it depends why they're merging with your company; it could be they want your staff, or maybe they just want your IP, or maybe they want to buy out their competitor so that they can shut you down completely). If the other company wants to do it right they'll first evaluate all of their "new" employees before they start just arbitrarily laying people off left and right.
So there shouldn't be too much to worry about unless/until people start getting sent to meet with some upper-level representative from HR to discuss their current roles and responsibilities. That's usually a red flag that bad things will happen in the relatively near future. Until then just try to relax and enjoy the ride. Change isn't always a bad thing.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:19
aroth
8,29812646
Directors joining recruiters on LinkedIn looks to be a good sign that something is happening. Complete company spending freeze.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:51
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In general, no, there wouldn't be any specific minimum amount of time before layoffs may start. Your company could even start the process before the merger if they really wanted to, though that would be a poor business move on their part. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a delay, as your company might put that into the terms of the merger/acquisition agreement.
Your three month notice period will/should remain valid, so you can count on having at least that much time. And three months is a huge notice period, so you personally do not seem to have much to worry about.
However, I think you may be jumping the gun. A merger doesn't necessarily mean layoffs, and even if there are layoffs they may primarily affect the other company rather than yours (it depends why they're merging with your company; it could be they want your staff, or maybe they just want your IP, or maybe they want to buy out their competitor so that they can shut you down completely). If the other company wants to do it right they'll first evaluate all of their "new" employees before they start just arbitrarily laying people off left and right.
So there shouldn't be too much to worry about unless/until people start getting sent to meet with some upper-level representative from HR to discuss their current roles and responsibilities. That's usually a red flag that bad things will happen in the relatively near future. Until then just try to relax and enjoy the ride. Change isn't always a bad thing.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:19
aroth
8,29812646
Directors joining recruiters on LinkedIn looks to be a good sign that something is happening. Complete company spending freeze.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:51
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
In general, no, there wouldn't be any specific minimum amount of time before layoffs may start. Your company could even start the process before the merger if they really wanted to, though that would be a poor business move on their part. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a delay, as your company might put that into the terms of the merger/acquisition agreement.
Your three month notice period will/should remain valid, so you can count on having at least that much time. And three months is a huge notice period, so you personally do not seem to have much to worry about.
However, I think you may be jumping the gun. A merger doesn't necessarily mean layoffs, and even if there are layoffs they may primarily affect the other company rather than yours (it depends why they're merging with your company; it could be they want your staff, or maybe they just want your IP, or maybe they want to buy out their competitor so that they can shut you down completely). If the other company wants to do it right they'll first evaluate all of their "new" employees before they start just arbitrarily laying people off left and right.
So there shouldn't be too much to worry about unless/until people start getting sent to meet with some upper-level representative from HR to discuss their current roles and responsibilities. That's usually a red flag that bad things will happen in the relatively near future. Until then just try to relax and enjoy the ride. Change isn't always a bad thing.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:19
aroth
8,29812646
In general, no, there wouldn't be any specific minimum amount of time before layoffs may start. Your company could even start the process before the merger if they really wanted to, though that would be a poor business move on their part. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a delay, as your company might put that into the terms of the merger/acquisition agreement.
Your three month notice period will/should remain valid, so you can count on having at least that much time. And three months is a huge notice period, so you personally do not seem to have much to worry about.
However, I think you may be jumping the gun. A merger doesn't necessarily mean layoffs, and even if there are layoffs they may primarily affect the other company rather than yours (it depends why they're merging with your company; it could be they want your staff, or maybe they just want your IP, or maybe they want to buy out their competitor so that they can shut you down completely). If the other company wants to do it right they'll first evaluate all of their "new" employees before they start just arbitrarily laying people off left and right.
So there shouldn't be too much to worry about unless/until people start getting sent to meet with some upper-level representative from HR to discuss their current roles and responsibilities. That's usually a red flag that bad things will happen in the relatively near future. Until then just try to relax and enjoy the ride. Change isn't always a bad thing.
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:19
aroth
8,29812646
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:19
aroth
8,29812646
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:19
aroth
8,29812646
answered Sep 6 '12 at 14:19
aroth
8,29812646
8,29812646
Directors joining recruiters on LinkedIn looks to be a good sign that something is happening. Complete company spending freeze.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:51
add a comment |Â
Directors joining recruiters on LinkedIn looks to be a good sign that something is happening. Complete company spending freeze.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:51
Directors joining recruiters on LinkedIn looks to be a good sign that something is happening. Complete company spending freeze.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:51
Directors joining recruiters on LinkedIn looks to be a good sign that something is happening. Complete company spending freeze.
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:51
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3756%2fpotential-company-merger%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
possible duplicate of Is there anything wrong with asking about job security?
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:51
1
Not an exact duplicate, but certainly going to cover the same ground. There is no minimum time before they can make people redundant, but it's rarely immediate, in my experience.
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 13:53
4
I'd disagree - the question cited as a duplicate here is about a downsize, not a merger and seems more focused on manager/employee communication and less on the overall logistics.
– bethlakshmi
Sep 6 '12 at 14:16
Would hitting the 1 year mark make any difference of will things stay the same?
– John
Sep 6 '12 at 14:53
1
@John: It'll make a massive difference to your rights in the UK. careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-blog/… "You cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal unless you have been employed for at least one year. You therefore have very limited protection when you start a job and your employer could dismiss you without having to justify it during the first year."
– pdr
Sep 6 '12 at 15:23