British airways sacking 300 employees

[Mike.Park]

BA has announces 300 voluntary redundancies

Passenger numbers for March down 7%

[ford cortina]

Any source, I cannot find anything on the BBC, SKY, AP or Reuters, other than this:
LONDON (Reuters) - British Airways (BAY.L (http://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/quote?symbol=BAY.L)) passenger volumes dropped by 7.3 percent in March, while persistent falling demand will hit full year revenue by up to 25 million pounds, it said on Friday.
The carrier said the March volume decline included a 13 percent drop in premium or business passengers, while the load factor -- a measure of how full its planes are -- dropped 6.4 points to 72.7 percent.
BA, which is in merger talks with Spain's Iberia (IBLA.MC (http://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/quote?symbol=IBLA.MC)), said revenue outlook for the year to end March would therefore be lower than expected but confirmed a February forecast that it was likely to make an operating loss of 150 million pounds, after severance costs of 75 million pounds.
But I can find quite a bit about Jade:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

[Deano777]

Sacking? Or making redundant? There's a difference

[Mike.Park]

Making redundant.
Does the label really matter? You've not got a job to go back to either way.

[L'aviateur]

On that line of thinking I suppose you could say:

Crashing vs Landing

Does the label really matter? You've on the ground anyway!

[Cirrus_Clouds]

BA traffic falls 7% in March as 300 staff leave (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article6030256.ece)

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

Not good news but no great surprise. I was talking to a guy who turns out to be fairly significantly involved with the BA/IBERIA merger earlier in the week and he said there's lot's of talk of 'streamlining' within said merger if it goes ahead (which according to him seems pretty certain at the moment), which is bound to lead to more job losses. This could be just round one of redundancies unless things turn around pretty sharpish. Sad times.

[Groundloop]

If anyone bothered to read the link it is 300 voluntary redundancies (so "sacking" definitely wrong) and the 300 concerned are actually part of a package announced back in January! So actually quite old news.

[The Old Fat One]

Sacking? Or making redundant? There's a difference

Actually there is not. In the eyes of UK employment law, both are considered as as "dismissal". Both are subject to the laws of wrongful and unfair dismissal. A "fair" redundancy can be considered as a "fair" form of dismissal. An "unfair" redundancy can be fought on the grounds of wrongful or unfair dismissal.

There are dozens of websites which will detail the grounds and procedures for redundancy. And also hundreds of solicitors who will take up your case if you consider you have been unfairly stitched up.

By definition, voluntary redundancy is going to be "fair". Compulsory redundancy on the other hand, is often challengable. You probably won't get your job back, but if spot a flaw in the way you were selected, or the way the process was conducted, you may be able to negotiate a better redundancy payment.

[Golf--Lima--Papa]

Expect an announcement from Virgin regarding Redundancies this coming week.

[Deano777]

The Old Fat One

I still disagree, to my mind redundancy means termination of employment through no fault of your own. Sacked means your employment was terminated because you broke company rules or terms of employment etc, i.e disciplinary reasons.
But hey, we're talking semantics, people are losing their jobs and that's never a good thing.