[Hayd94]

I've been working for B&Q for the last 2 months, I've done everything I've been told to do, haven't been told off and genuinely thought I was doing well. Then on Saturday my duty manager told me that they'd have to finish my contract and let me go due to having to cut costs. However, I only do 16 hours (weekends) and surely they wont save that much from my hours? Also nobody else has been let go yet either... So do you think they genuinely have to let me go due to cutting costs or are they not telling me something?

[JordanS93]

(Original post by Hayd94)
However, I only do 16 hours (weekends) and surely they wont save that much from my hours? Also nobody else has been let go yet either... So do you think they genuinely have to let me go due to cutting costs or are they not telling me something?

I don't know if you know this or not but B&Q do workfare with the job centre. They are probably just going to get somebody unemployed to do the job you were doing for free.
If you work for NMW they pay you a year £5058.56 (£6.08 per hour). So saving 5 grand a year is alot of money.

[Hayd94]

(Original post by JordanS93)
I don't know if you know this or not but B&Q do workfare with the job centre. They are probably just going to get somebody unemployed to do the job you were doing for free.
If you work for NMW they pay you a year £5058.56 (£6.08 per hour). So saving 5 grand a year is alot of money.

Why would someone do my job for free? And so do you think they actually need to cut costs?

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by Hayd94)
I've been working for B&Q for the last 2 months, I've done everything I've been told to do, haven't been told off and genuinely thought I was doing well. Then on Saturday my duty manager told me that they'd have to finish my contract and let me go due to having to cut costs. However, I only do 16 hours (weekends) and surely they wont save that much from my hours? Also nobody else has been let go yet either... So do you think they genuinely have to let me go due to cutting costs or are they not telling me something?

If there was a problem with your work, it would be a much stronger reason to let you go, so I suspect this is the truth. Make sure you ask your manager to confirm that this will not affect your reference from him/her.

You also need to include the 'on-costs' that an employer has to pay to employ anyone, they have to pay another amount of National Insurance, and often a pension equivalent (perhaps not in this specific jobs). So what any employee costs to an employer is probably about salary + 25%

[Hayd94]

(Original post by threeportdrift)
If there was a problem with your work, it would be a much stronger reason to let you go, so I suspect this is the truth. Make sure you ask your manager to confirm that this will not affect your reference from him/her.

You also need to include the 'on-costs' that an employer has to pay to employ anyone, they have to pay another amount of National Insurance, and often a pension equivalent (perhaps not in this specific jobs). So what any employee costs to an employer is probably about salary + 25%

Yeah I understand the reasons and why they would have to let me go. But ive only beent here for 2 months, so why employ me in the first place?

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by Hayd94)
Yeah I understand the reasons and why they would have to let me go. But ive only beent here for 2 months, so why employ me in the first place?

Because the order from regional HQ or Head office or whatever came after you were hired. You would have been hired based on the requirements of the specific store you were hired to. Then at a higher level in B&Q they decided they needed to make further manpower savings and told all the regional stores they had to make an X% saving. The Manager of your store then had to decide how to make that saving and probably thought 'well we were coping without that role (the one you were in) so that person will have to go'. First in last out is a fairly standard rule in most industries, which means the most recent hire is the first person to be let go (because they have the least company experience, are likely to be the least flexible workers because of knowledge levels etc) and unfortunately you were let go. Chances are that other people will follow, but because they have been there longer, they need to be given more notice.

[JordanS93]

(Original post by Hayd94)
Why would someone do my job for free? And so do you think they actually need to cut costs?

Yes they would do it for free. Have you not read any of the scandals about workfare alot of companies have done it: B&Q, Argos, Waterstones, HMV, Tesco, ASDA, the arcadia group. TK Maxx, Holland and Barrett etc. Basically people who are on jobseekers allowance have to do it if they are told to, otherwise they lose their benefits. They essentially have no choice.
They don't NEED to cut costs but they probably WANT to. Think about it if B&Q get rid of 100 staff (Low estimate, cause apparently they are a huge offender of this scam) they will save loads because these workfare people work full time for nothing. Its going to save them hundred of thousands .... So the reason they WANT to do it... Well it's extra money for the CEO's and Executives pay slips. Afterall they are the ones in charge.

EDIT: Basically what i'm trying to say is. If you were in charge (head office) why would you pay workers in the shop when you can get people to do it for free? As the government pays Job Seekers Allowance not the private company. Plus the money saved on the wages bill to the company (B&Q) can be used to give themselves a hefty pay rise.
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/ Heres a website, read about it. I refuse to shop in places that use this workfare, its causing low paid entry level work to disappear

[Herr]

(Original post by JordanS93)
Yes they would do it for free. Have you not read any of the scandals about workfare alot of companies have done it: B&Q, Argos, Waterstones, HMV, Tesco, ASDA, the arcadia group. TK Maxx, Holland and Barrett etc. Basically people who are on jobseekers allowance have to do it if they are told to, otherwise they lose their benefits. They essentially have no choice.
They don't NEED to cut costs but they probably WANT to. Think about it if B&Q get rid of 100 staff (Low estimate, cause apparently they are a huge offender of this scam) they will save loads because these workfare people work full time for nothing. Its going to save them hundred of thousands .... So the reason they WANT to do it... Well it's extra money for the CEO's and Executives pay slips. Afterall they are the ones in charge.

EDIT: Basically what i'm trying to say is. If you were in charge (head office) why would you pay workers in the shop when you can get people to do it for free? As the government pays Job Seekers Allowance not the private company. Plus the money saved on the wages bill to the company (B&Q) can be used to give themselves a hefty pay rise.
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/ Heres a website, read about it. I refuse to shop in places that use this workfare, its causing low paid entry level work to disappear

There isn't such a thing as a company that doesn't need to cut cost.

[JordanS93]

(Original post by Herr)
There isn't such a thing as a company that doesn't need to cut cost.

Well all companies do try and make maximum profit. But not employing staff and using slave labour is ethically wrong in my eyes. Since when was paying staff seen as an unnecessary expense.
All it means if this continues is that the working class will be stuck on JSA working for free. Whilst middle class parents will be able to secure their offspring paid positions in skilled jobs.
I worry for the future

[gribeiro94]

Be sure to ask for a nice shiny reference before you leave, if they offer that to you then chances are that's the reason.

They might have wanted to get rid of most of their part-time people and make everybody else work harder. Otherwise, as some have said, decided to go for free labour.

The site in my signature might help you find a job.