How can I prepare and negotiate to get a fair redundancy package after 20 years at my company?
APPRENTICE star and West Ham United vice-chair Karren Brady answers your careers questions.
Here, Karren gives advice to a reader who wants to negotiate a fair redundancy after 20 years at her job.
Q) I have recently realised that redundancy is likely on the horizon for my role, and I am keen not to be caught off guard.
I've been at my current company for 20 years, and am fine with the idea of moving on at this point, but I want to ensure the redundancy package I receive is fair and as beneficial as possible.
How do I go about negotiating this, and should I team up with others who are made redundant to petition for a better deal?
I've never been through this process before and want to avoid being taken for a mug – so is there anything I can do in advance to prepare?
Lianne, via email
A) If you suspect redundancy is coming, it's wise to prepare early.
In the UK, you're entitled to statutory redundancy pay after two years working for a business, but many companies do offer enhanced terms, especially for long-serving staff.
Check your contract for any clauses on redundancy and notice periods.
If others at your workplace have been made redundant, try to find out what packages they received, as this can give you a benchmark.
Don't wait to be told what is happening – instead, take the initiative yourself.
Arrange a chat with HR or your manager and explain that you'd like clarity around your situation.
Ask for a full breakdown of any potential packages in writing.
If other colleagues are affected, sharing information with each other can help – just be sure you trust who you're talking to.
Raising the subject yourself shows professionalism and may put you in a stronger position when it comes to negotiation, especially if management would rather avoid formal consultation or disputes.
Good luck – and remember, this is the start of a new and positive chapter for you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Modest fashion' headed for mainstream despite political hostility, say experts
Fashion influenced by Islam and other religions is expected to become 'mainstream' globally, in spite of politicians singling out the burqa and the hijab, as the rise of 'modest fashion' is powered by influencers, luxury brands and big tech. The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, has said employers should be able to ban staff from wearing face coverings, before adding that she was not in favour of a government ban. Her remarks came days after the Reform MP Sarah Pochin asked the prime minister, Keir Starmer, if he would ban the burqa, a veil which covers the face and body, following France's lead. Clothing worn by some Muslim women has become a lightning rod for arguments about integration, personal liberty, women's rights and Islamophobia on both sides of the Channel. A French ban on children under 15 wearing the hijab was proposed last month, and in 2023, France banned girls in state schools from wearing the abaya, the loose-fitting robe worn by some Muslim women. Nonetheless, recent research by Bath Spa University found that 'persistent and growing demand' for modest fashion internationally – typified by looser styles which cover the limbs with a high neckline – was driven by Muslim consumers and Instagram users, with Amazon and Farfetch emerging as market leaders at the affordable and luxury ends of the market respectively. Bournemouth University's Dr Samreen Ashraf, who has pioneered UK research into modest fashion, said its growth was also driven by women's desire to avoid objectification. She said the market remained underserved, with issues around clear labelling from big brands and affordability with smaller suppliers. 'It's not just women with strong religious beliefs,' she added. Women who have faced body shaming or body dysmorphia, who don't have any belief, turn towards modest fashion's more flowing designs. 'Reports have suggested growth of the European modest clothing market from €56.8bn to €72.5bn between 2021 and 2025 – 17.2% of that is UK, of which 6.5% identify themselves as Muslim. That has been one of the reasons why there's been an upward turn. 'Also, with social media, people are feeling: 'I can fully express my religious or cultural identity.'. Especially when the likes of M&S and Asos and Uniqlo and H&M are also offering modest clothing. 'It's not just one religion however, but all faiths, and also empowerment: that if I don't want to reveal my body to others, why should I? Blunt statements from people in power don't serve any good purpose to women. Individual liberty, respect and tolerance are British values.' Bath Spa University's 2025 research found that leading brands' production of hijab and Ramadan lines showed 'the evolution of modest fashion into a mainstream fashion subculture'. Significantly, Muslim influencers on TikTok, many of whom focus on modest fashion, exceeded 125m views in 2023, says the growth strategy research firm DinarStandard, which projects that 30% of the world's 15- to 29-year-olds will be Muslim by 2030. The purchasing power of Muslim shoppers – including from wealthy Gulf states – is credited with leading luxury brands to enter the space, joining independent Muslim retailers and female entrepreneurs worldwide. The aesthetic overlaps with 'quiet luxury' and 'old money' styles, with 'longer hemlines' in common, according to Vogue Arabia. A 2023, Bournemouth University study, led by Ashraf, found 'increasing stigma … associated with Islam post 9/11' had led Muslims to adopt a stronger sense of identity including through 'choosing modest clothing items'. After Pochin's comments, Muslim Women's Network said women who wore the burqa, or other religious dress, were 'simply exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief', while the Muslim Council of Britain said 'lazy tropes' were being used to malign a 'proudly British' community.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
British firms are being stifled by excessive regulation and bureaucracy
The all-party House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee which I chair has just completed a year-long inquiry into how effective the regulators are at fulfilling their duties to boost competitiveness and growth. It's a sad tale of a deeply entrenched culture of risk aversion, of disproportionately high costs of compliance, and of a complex regulatory landscape driven by expansion and overlap in the regulators' remits and by the volume and scope of regulatory activity. There is no doubt that operational inefficiencies and suffocating bureaucracy are damaging growth and place the UK at a competitive international disadvantage. Despite the regulators' growth mandate, the firms which gave evidence to the year-long inquiry say the system is slow and inflexible. Firms complain of being buried under regulatory paperwork and of facing a never-ending barrage of information requests from both the FCA and PRA. The CEO of Nationwide told the inquiry she received 4,519 pieces of direct correspondence in 12 months. Santander responded to more than 300 regulatory requests and managed 400 regular regulatory reports equating to over 2,500 submissions a year. One firm told us it employed 78 compliance officers for its UK operations compared with a total of 73 to cover the other 40 countries it operated in. We were dismayed by the evidence we received which highlighted long-standing issues that limit investment and the ability of financial firms to grow, innovate and compete. The lack of proportionality in the regulators' approach was evident in the FCA's failure to distinguish between wholesale and retail markets and the PRAs approach to capital requirements. The vagueness surrounding the Consumer Duty and the Financial Ombudsman's evolution into a quasi-regulator has created uncertainty and a worrying perception of a regulatory penalty for investment in UK businesses. It is essential for the FCA and FOS to be aligned on redress and interpretation. The FCA and the PRA alone employ around 6,500 staff at a cost of £1.1 billion. This results in an ever-rolling stream of consultation documents, regulatory changes and compliance advice which firms are expected to follow, communicated sometimes informally through speeches by senior regulators and letters to CEOs. My committee receives notice of these every week and it is frankly overwhelming. The regulators lack clear focus and appear to be still haunted by the 2008 financial crisis. This leads to excessive caution, sluggish approvals, high compliance costs and endless red tape. There is an urgent need for the FCA and PRA senior leadership to drive cultural change. This change should emphasise a more tailored and proportional approach to the risks posed by regulated firms, a culture of continual operational improvement and innovation, and a more transparent and trusting relationship with the businesses they regulate. An approach is needed which embraces technology and streamlines compliance for fintech and AI-driven firms. The skills and quality of staff are vitally important and that means addressing remuneration. A revolving door sees regulators losing some of their most talented people, recruited to advise the companies they once regulated at substantially higher salaries. We were surprised by the difference in candour between the evidence we received from the industry in public and the views expressed to us privately. We were obliged to take evidence in private in order to get many firms to share their concerns. At one meeting I attended, a CEO read out his brief from his compliance department which said that if Lord Forsyth invited him to give evidence to his committee under no circumstances should he agree to do so. This is not a healthy situation and there needs to be a much more open and trusting relationship between the regulators and the firms they regulate. In a competitive market, speed matters. Yet firms say UK regulators are lagging behind international rivals when it comes to authorising new products, people and operations. While official stats suggest improvements, they take too long and many say those numbers are misleading: they exclude the time regulators 'stop the clock' to request more data. If launching a new fintech product takes six months longer in London than in Singapore, investors and innovators will simply go elsewhere. We heard many positive reports of the success of the concierge approach of the Singapore regulator, which involved helping firms to grow and comply with regulatory provisions. Our regulators have much to learn from this approach. The Chancellor has placed a great deal of faith in the regulators stimulating economic growth. Our report makes one thing clear: the regulators can't do this alone. The Government must step up. That means clearer economic goals, better use of statutory guidance and more robust performance tracking. Right now, metrics are focused on operational inputs, not outcomes. Without stronger leadership from HM Treasury and without aligning regulators, industry and Parliament, the growth and competitiveness objectives will be little more than political window dressing.
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
UK interest rates predicted to stay at 4.25% with Bank ‘nimble' amid uncertainty
UK interest rates are set to stay at 4.25% after inflation jumped in April and policymakers remain 'nimble' to the evolving economic backdrop, economists have predicted. Most economists think the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) will opt to keep rates on hold when it meets on Thursday. The MPC has voted to cut rates at every other meeting since it started easing borrowing costs last August, from a peak of 5.25%. This has been possible while the rate of UK inflation has been steadily falling from the highs reached in 2023, at the peak of the cost-of-living crisis. However, inflation jumped to its highest level for more than a year in April, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation hit 3.5% in April, up from 2.6% in March. Since releasing the data, the ONS said that an error in vehicle tax data collected meant the April figure should have been 3.4%. Ellie Henderson, an economist for Investec, said monetary policy 'seems to be in a good position, allowing the Bank of England to wait and see how economic conditions and the international political backdrop evolve'. 'Ultimately, this is a highly uncertain time that requires a potentially nimble response from central banks, limiting any great foresight,' she said. 'Although the June decision might seem clear cut, how the MPC responds to the evolving economic backdrop thereafter much depends on the details of the world in which we find ourselves.' On Friday, oil prices were soaring after Israel launched an attack on Iran's nuclear programme, raising anxieties about possible disruption to the supply of the commodity in the Middle East. And ongoing uncertainty over US President Donald Trump's tariffs, which surveys suggest have dampened business confidence and reduced exports, also remains in focus for policymakers. Meanwhile, new official figures showed wage growth for UK workers eased sharply in the three months to April and the unemployment rate increased, as employers feel the effects of higher costs. Rob Wood and Elliott Jordan-Doak, economists for Pantheon Macroeconomics, said a weaker jobs market 'will reassure the MPC that it can plan on further rate cuts', but added that 'one month's data is far from enough to allow the MPC to bin its 'gradual and careful' approach to easing monetary policy.' Bank chief economist Huw Pill, who is also an MPC member, said last month that he thought rates had been cut too quickly partly due to the risk of 'stubbornly strong' pay growth on overall inflation. New UK inflation figures for May will be released on Wednesday, while the US central bank is also widely expected to keep its interest rates on hold.
