Virgin Media Closing Albert Dock

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well it's not much but at least it should make the move easier.

As for everyone else I'm sorry for them all.Indeed my sympathies go to everyone else facing redundancies at the moment.

Yes, I obviously can't post the exact details here, but it's some help to anyone who can relocate.

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The social cost of a long-distance job-move can be far higher than the basic financial cost of hiring a removal van and arranging house sale/purchase, though the emotional costs even of those things should not be under-stated.

I have taken the long-distance relocation option once before following a buy-out so I am well aware of the long-lasting implications, especially for those with families. I find the statement "they can move if they choose to" to be lacking in any understanding or empathy for the implications of it and I find the attachment of a smiley to that statement to be both highly patronising and, given the evident lack of understanding, misplaced in the extreme.

Totally agree, Chris.

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

Personally, I have a chance of a job with VM more close to home. Fingers crossed!

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Many people move all the time, either in order to keep their job when their employer relocates or to obtain promotion, it's commonplace.

It all depends on how seriously people wish to be in employment and/or work for VM in particular. In the current economic climate, I would advise staff to think very carefully indeed, if they are lucky enough to be jobmatched.

As you will be on virtually the same wage the is little incentive to move unless you are originally from the area or want to try living in another part of the UK.

Realistically it is not really viable to move and I would fully expect anyone doing so to quickly realise their error and return home.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Yes, I obviously can't post the exact details here, but it's some help to anyone who can relocate.

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------



Totally agree, Chris.

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

Personally, I have a chance of a job with VM more close to home. Fingers crossed!

I wish you luck with your application

An uncle of mine started off as an office junior at a well known insurance company.

As a child it seemed that my cousins were moving every six months! Looking back it can't have been that often.

He moved wherever he was needed by the company and was rewarded with promotion time and time again. His family were rewarded by an ever increasing standard of living.

He got to the top and is now enjoying himself after taking early retirement. His family were very supportive throughout his career and his children, far from suffering from having to change schools frequently, are now confident adults who are able to make new friends easily.

Whenever I have had to move because of work, I have viewed it as an exciting challenge. Meeting new people, making new friends and living in a different place is so refreshing.

Obviously, as I touched upon earlier, everybodys situation is different and moving may not be suitable for everyone eg those with an autistic child who is traumatised by change, but, for most people I would say go for it!!!

Originally Posted by Masque

As you will be on virtually the same wage the is little incentive to move unless you are originally from the area or want to try living in another part of the UK.

Realistically it is not really viable to move and I would fully expect anyone doing so to quickly realise their error and return home.

As I understand it, there will help available to deal with the costs of moving house.

I don't think the level of wage is an issue, as, if anything, the cost of living could possibly be cheaper at the new location.

Of course, those lucky enough to be offered employment in Swansea, who have no pressing circumstances that make such a move impossible, are free to turn the job down and remain in Liverpool, but may find it extremely difficult to find alternative employment should they choose this option.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I wish you luck with your application

An uncle of mine started off as an office junior at a well known insurance company.

As a child it seemed that my cousins were moving every six months! Looking back it can't have been that often.

He moved wherever he was needed by the company and was rewarded with promotion time and time again. His family were rewarded by an ever increasing standard of living.

He got to the top and is now enjoying himself after taking early retirement. His family were very supportive throughout his career and his children, far from suffering from having to change schools frequently, are now confident adults who are able to make new friends easily.

Whenever I have had to move because of work, I have viewed it as an exciting challenge. Meeting new people, making new friends and living in a different place is so refreshing.

Obviously, as I touched upon earlier, everybodys situation is different and moving may not be suitable for everyone eg those with an autistic child who is traumatised by change, but, for most people I would say go for it!!!



As I understand it, there will help available to deal with the costs of moving house.

I don't think the level of wage is an issue, as, if anything, the cost of living could possibly be cheaper at the new location.

Of course, those lucky enough to be offered employment in Swansea, who have no pressing circumstances that make such a move impossible, are free to turn the job down and remain in Liverpool, but may find it extremely difficult to find alternative employment should they choose this option.

Sorry ... could you clarify please, are you of the belief that only something as serious as a complex and incurable paediatric medical condition should preclude a family from relocating to a different part of the country to avoid redundancy?

I would really like to get this straight before I tell you what I think life on Planet Richard must be like.

[RichardCoulter]

No, that was only one example of reasonable situations where relocation could not be considered as a serious option.

Others could be a terminally ill relative living in close proximity to Liverpool or a partner who is unwilling to disrupt a good career.

Nobody who does not wish to go to Swansea will be forced to, they are free to seek alternative employment so that they can remain where they are, however, the current difficulties in obtaining employment should not be underestimated.

Those offered employment in Swansea, who turn it down without "just cause" and who do not obtain a replacement job at their current geographical location may face difficulties when trying to claim benefits.

There are regulations in place that the Department for Work and Pensions use to protect public funds.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No, that was only one example of reasonable situations where relocation could not be considered as a serious option.

Others could be a terminally ill relative living in close proximity to Liverpool or a partner who is unwilling to disrupt a good career.

Nobody who does not wish to go to Swansea will be forced to, they are free to seek alternative employment so that they can remain where they are, however, the current difficulties in obtaining employment should not be underestimated.

Those offered employment in Swansea, who turn it down without "just cause" and who do not obtain a replacement job at their current geographical location may face difficulties when trying to claim benefits.

There are regulations in place that the Department for Work and Pensions use to protect public funds.

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone does not wish to uproot themselves to move over 240 miles with an employer, they would be seen as making themselves unemployed and thus refused benefits? Surely this would only be valid if one's contract contained a mobility clause?

As has been stated, employees are being made redundant, not being fired for refusing to move.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No, that was only one example of reasonable situations where relocation could not be considered as a serious option.

Others could be a terminally ill relative living in close proximity to Liverpool or a partner who is unwilling to disrupt a good career.

Nobody who does not wish to go to Swansea will be forced to, they are free to seek alternative employment so that they can remain where they are, however, the current difficulties in obtaining employment should not be underestimated.

Those offered employment in Swansea, who turn it down without "just cause" and who do not obtain a replacement job at their current geographical location may face difficulties when trying to claim benefits.

There are regulations in place that the Department for Work and Pensions use to protect public funds.

I'm aware there are regulations that can prevent unemployment benefit payments if a reasonable job offer is turned down. However I would be immensely surprised if it were judged unreasonable to turn down a job offer requiring a displacement of some 250 miles (or 4 hours by car).

I think you're allowing your uncle's experience to skew your view of how this scenario might play out in other people's lives. Perhaps you place little value on community and extended family. It would appear your uncle's family saw things in that way (or else, perhaps the standard of living he pursued meant that getting back to visit was never a problem for them). That is not the situation most of the support personnel at VM are going to be in.

Incidentally, I never suggested you had held autism up as the only reason not to relocate. I asked if you thought only something as serious as autism was a good enough reason. Your alternative examples, of a terminal illness or a good career, suggest to me that my judgement of where you're coming from was not far off the mark. And I find that really rather sad.

My wife and I took the relocation option before we were even married and it took effect immediately after our honeymoon. We found the separation from friends and family very difficult but stuck with it for five years, moving back closer to family when our first child was pre-school age.

Ultimately I think a sense of community and extended family is infinitely more important than chasing money around the country. And in the absence of any empirical evidence I would also seriously doubt your assertion that your uncle's kids are confident individuals because they moved around so much. You could just as easily postulate that they may find it difficult to form deep relationships that mature beyond a few months due to lack of that experience. We simply don't know.

Those that are offered a move from Liverpool to Swansea will have all sorts of personal factors to weigh up. Whatever works for them is right for them, and implying that they are deficient in some way just because they may use a different measure than you or your uncle really isn't on.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As I understand it, there will help available to deal with the costs of moving house.

I don't think the level of wage is an issue, as, if anything, the cost of living could possibly be cheaper at the new location.

The are many people working at the Albert Dock who are married/living with a partner possibly have children and already have a mortgage and would have zero incentive to even consider such a move.

I myself have only a short time to run on my mortgage so to consider a move to another part of the country would be madness considering how much a comparative property would cost down there.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Of course, those lucky enough to be offered employment in Swansea, who have no pressing circumstances that make such a move impossible, are free to turn the job down and remain in Liverpool, but may find it extremely difficult to find alternative employment should they choose this option.

Does this mean that you consider Liverpool and the Northwest to have a few jobs available.

I personally will be going down the home working route and already have a position lined up.

I think that you should stop commenting on this subject now as you are just digging yourself ever deeper with every post.

[chrisidaho]

Sorry to hear this. have dealt with staff from Albert dock many times over the years and have always been impressed with both their honesty and professionalism when dealing with problems.

As to being forced to relocate or risk losing benefits I have never read such rubbish. How many employees at Albert dock would have homes to sell to facilitate a move? How easy do you think that is in the current climate. How many rely on friends and family for child care or provide it to others? How many are happy where they live and don't want to leave friends behind? If the move works for some then great, but it is more in VMs interest to save on redundancy, retraining etc than as a stick to beat employees with. It would take a heartless employer indeed to tell staff they must relocate when a site is closed in this way (maybe that explains your attitude on these forums?)

I hope VM are looking to provide the employees at Albert dock with a comprehensive package of support to find alternative employment either within or outside the company. Having worked with many companies in this situation over the last 5 years I know what a difference this can make for employees in this situation.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone does not wish to uproot themselves to move over 240 miles with an employer, they would be seen as making themselves unemployed and thus refused benefits? Surely this would only be valid if one's contract contained a mobility clause?

As has been stated, employees are being made redundant, not being fired for refusing to move.

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm aware there are regulations that can prevent unemployment benefit payments if a reasonable job offer is turned down. However I would be immensely surprised if it were judged unreasonable to turn down a job offer requiring a displacement of some 250 miles (or 4 hours by car).

I think you're allowing your uncle's experience to skew your view of how this scenario might play out in other people's lives. Perhaps you place little value on community and extended family. It would appear your uncle's family saw things in that way (or else, perhaps the standard of living he pursued meant that getting back to visit was never a problem for them). That is not the situation most of the support personnel at VM are going to be in.

Incidentally, I never suggested you had held autism up as the only reason not to relocate. I asked if you thought only something as serious as autism was a good enough reason. Your alternative examples, of a terminal illness or a good career, suggest to me that my judgement of where you're coming from was not far off the mark. And I find that really rather sad.

My wife and I took the relocation option before we were even married and it took effect immediately after our honeymoon. We found the separation from friends and family very difficult but stuck with it for five years, moving back closer to family when our first child was pre-school age.

Ultimately I think a sense of community and extended family is infinitely more important than chasing money around the country. And in the absence of any empirical evidence I would also seriously doubt your assertion that your uncle's kids are confident individuals because they moved around so much. You could just as easily postulate that they may find it difficult to form deep relationships that mature beyond a few months due to lack of that experience. We simply don't know.

Those that are offered a move from Liverpool to Swansea will have all sorts of personal factors to weigh up. Whatever works for them is right for them, and implying that they are deficient in some way just because they may use a different measure than you or your uncle really isn't on.

Measures are in place to prevent people claiming benefits instead of taking up the offer of a job. without "just cause", as is entirely reasonable.

In the modern world of work, many people have had to move to meet the needs of their employer or find another job instead, the latter being easier said than done in the current economic climate.

The current Government appear to agree with the view of Lord Tebbit that people should "get on their bike and look for work" and be prepared to move to where the work is. Changes to benefit and social housing rules have been/are planned to better facilitate this.

What "just cause" is depends upon an individuals circumstances. The rules, particularly in this redundancy/relocation situation, are complex, open to different interpretation and employment advisor discretion.

What is clear, however, is that people turning down work because they "didn't fancy it" or it "wasn't convenient" are likely to receive short thrift if they then turn to the benefits office for help.

Another thing to consider, is that any mortgage or credit card unemployment protection plans are unlikely to pay out if becoming jobless is viewed as a voluntary decision. All I will say on that is, in my experience, they often try to use anything they can to avoid paying out.

In relation to friends and family, I would say that providing for ones immediate family should be the major/deciding factor.

I find it "wet" to hear that people are prepared to limit themselves because they feel the need to be close to their family.

The world is growing ever smaller too, with contact through the internet/telephones having never been easier and the advent of modern transport.

I once had an 18 year old employee who was offered promotion. It involved him moving about two hours away by train. He started saying how he was close to his family etc.

I explained that one of the main roles of a parent is to bring up an individual to be an independent useful member of society. If his desire was to be forever attached to his mothers apron strings, then his parents had failed. I told him to man up, grow up and give me his decision the following morning.

He chose to relocate. As a result he made new friends, found a partner and moved out of the staff accommodation into his own home.

He keeps in regular contact with his family and travels down to one of our venues nearby to DJ once a fortnight. This allows him to see people and pays for his train fare.

That was two years ago, about five months ago, he wrote on facebook that he was really proud of what he had achieved for a 20 year old and thanked me, but not by name, one of those "you know who you are" scenarios. I couldn't help having a wry smile to myself as I read it...

I left home at 17, lived all over the UK and worked hard. I have had to move due to work in the past and still have to stay overnight in hotels to this day!

The days of being born in a town with everybody getting a 9-5 permanent job and living like the Walton family are long gone.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

<major snippage>What "just cause" is depends upon an individuals circumstances.

... which neatly side-steps the specific example offered by this discussion. I will stick my neck out and say that no Job Centre would rule the turning down of a job offer 250 miles away as voluntarily making oneself unemployed.

What is clear, however, is that people turning down work because they "didn't fancy it" or it "wasn't convenient" are likely to receive short thrift if they then turn to the benefits office for help.

Please don't hide behind generalisations. Under the circumstances I find your comments to be a wilful misrepresentation of the facts as clearly presented in the specific case under discussion.

In relation to friends and family, I would say that providing for ones immediate family should be the major/deciding factor.

I find it "wet" to hear that people are prepared to limit themselves because they feel the need to be close to their family.

While respecting your obvious right to live as you choose, in general I find this attitude repugnant. It saddens me to see people limiting their definition of 'providing' to purely financial considerations.

The world is growing ever smaller too, with contact through the internet/telephones having never been easier and the advent of modern transport.

Careful, you're starting to sound like a public information film. Believe it or not most of us are aware of the internet. And some of us still find personal contact with those we love and care for to be an infinitely richer and more rewarding experience.

I once had an 18 year old employee who was offered promotion. It involved him moving about two hours away by train. He started saying how he was close to his family etc. <major snippage>

That was two years ago, about five months ago, he wrote on facebook that he was really proud of what he had achieved for a 20 year old and thanked me, but not by name, one of those "you know who you are" scenarios. I couldn't help having a wry smile to myself as I read it...

I left home at 17, lived all over the UK and worked hard. I have had to move due to work in the past and still have to stay overnight in hotels to this day!

The days of being born in a town with everybody getting a 9-5 permanent job and living like the Walton family are long gone.

Congratulations, Mr Miyagi.

Again, let's talk about what's specific to the case in point. Masque has already volunteered that he has a mortgage mostly paid off. We can infer his family circumstances if he is at that stage in his life. He has also pointed out that there are others at Albert Dock with children settled in school.

Guess what Richard, a great many of us in this thread left home at 18 and went to university. There is nothing remotely unusual in someone of that age getting out into the world and enjoying the experience, even if they needed a little push to do it.

The point you are persistently, and wilfully, refusing to acknowledge is that there are lots of families represented at Albert Dock. Many of those employees are not 18, do not have a child with a chronic condition or a terminally ill mother or a well-paid spouse. But they are settled in their community with their family around them. Such things are still important to some people and they don't need patronised by people who have sold their souls to their career.

I, too, have done my fair share of travelling and hotel dwelling. I've been pretty well paid for it too. These days I work from home, working hard to try to build a business that pays a lot less but means I see my children before and after school every day and am able to take them to see members of the extended family -in person - without thinking about the logistics or the cost.

My bank balance is a mere shadow of what it was. And I wouldn't swap back for anything.

You, sir, have my pity.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Measures are in place to prevent people claiming benefits instead of taking up the offer of a job. without "just cause", as is entirely reasonable.

For one you are talking through your rear end as no is being told they must move to Swansea, because in the real world that does not happen because the employer in situations such as this one prefers to employ staff from the local area to ensure stability of the workforce.

Any offers towards the possibility is just the company paying lip service to laws of the land as under TUPE this must happen, but as you are still in the realms of victoriana you believe that we should all up sticks and move to the new place of work.

Oddly enough redundancy takes care of that and no one will be penalised for not taking up an offer be it a tenuous one of possible employment in the Swansea centre because the employer has to by law put in place Outplacement and Employment workshops to help facilitate their soon to be redundant employees help finding work.

So do please stop spouting carp about something you clearly have no idea about, if the company turned around to me and said the is a position for you in Swansea and I refused it then that would be the end of it, and if I could not find work in Liverpool I would still be entitled to claim Job Seekers allowance for six months along with every other person who has lost their job through no fault of their own.

Again Richard stop posting rubbish about a subject you clearly have no understanding about, as all you are doing is making yourself out to be a bigger fool with each post.

[RichardCoulter]

I am a realist and do not believe that, just because someone is settled and has children in school, that they should expect others to keep them because they are not prepared to move to where employment is available.

People have had to move and/or be apart from their families for centuries.

Children are very adaptable and it's a good lesson to learn early on in life ie we don't always get what we want and things don't always go to plan either.

How do you think army families cope when they are posted overseas?

You remind me of somebody who thinks everybody should have Christmas day off to sit by the fireside with their family...who then switches the light on and expects it to work, puts on the TV and expects it to be broadcasting or 'phones for an ambulance if somebody hurts themselves and expects it to turn up.

Do you seriously believe that those who do not wish to go to Swansea, who do not find alternative employment and have no exceptional reason not to relocate, should be entitled to claim state benefits at a time of such austerity measures?

You live in "nice world", a place that doesn't exist.

The Government are currently taking steps to get the sick/disabled off benefits next year, do you think that they are going to allow a healthy person to linger on benefits!!!

As previously explained, benefit rules are indeed very complex. Any redundancy pay which takes a persons savings over as little as £6,000 will find their JSA/IB affected.

Finding yourself without a job is not a good position to be in at this moment in time and I urge everybody affected by this closure to be realistic when considering their options- the best of luck to you all.

@ Masque, no-one, including myself, has suggested that going to Swansea is compulsory.

Virgin Media are committed to helping employees as much as they can and to suggest that it is merely "lip service" to comply with legislation is offensive to those working so hard to make the process run smoothly for all concerned- don't forget, management have feelings too.

I hope you have a pleasant evening.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Do you seriously believe that those who do not wish to go to Swansea, who do not find alternative employment and have no exceptional reason not to relocate, should be entitled to claim state benefits at a time of such austerity measures?

Yes. Because our society, thankfully, still places a certain level of value on social cohesion.

I snipped out your rant about Christmas shift workers as it is in no way relevant, even tangentially, to the subject at hand.

You live in "nice world", a place that doesn't exist.

An attitude that serves only to reinforce your need to find excuses for putting the pursuit of material gain ahead of everything else, whilst lying awake at night telling yourself you're doing the right thing by your family.

Keep repeating it. You might even believe it one day.

[chrisidaho]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I am a realist and do not believe that, just because someone is settled and has children in school, that they should expect others to keep them because they are not prepared to move to where employment is available.

People have had to move and/or be apart from their families for centuries.

Children are very adaptable and it's a good lesson to learn early on in life ie we don't always get what we want and things don't always go to plan either.

How do you think army families cope when they are posted overseas?

You remind me of somebody who thinks everybody should have Christmas day off to sit by the fireside with their family...who then switches the light on and expects it to work, puts on the TV and expects it to be broadcasting or 'phones for an ambulance if somebody hurts themselves and expects it to turn up.

Do you seriously believe that those who do not wish to go to Swansea, who do not find alternative employment and have no exceptional reason not to relocate, should be entitled to claim state benefits at a time of such austerity measures?

You live in "nice world", a place that doesn't exist.

The Government are currently taking steps to get the sick/disabled off benefits next year, do you think that they are going to allow a healthy person to linger on benefits!!!

As previously explained, benefit rules are indeed very complex. Any redundancy pay which takes a persons savings over as little as £6,000 will find their JSA/IB affected.

Finding yourself without a job is not a good position to be in at this moment in time and I urge everybody affected by this closure to be realistic when considering their options- the best of luck to you all.

@ Masque, no-one, including myself, has suggested that going to Swansea is compulsory.

Virgin Media are committed to helping employees as much as they can and to suggest that it is merely "lip service" to comply with legislation is offensive to those working so hard to make the process run smoothly for all concerned- don't forget, management have feelings too.

I hope you have a pleasant evening.

This post is so inaccurate it is untrue. I reply mainly because I fear an at risk employee could be scared by the inaccuracies you state.

1. IB is a legacy benefit. Someone losing their job now would not be able to claim it. It was replaced some time ago by ESA (employment support allowance) regardless the chance of someone moving directly from a job (fit to work) to ESA is minimal they would most likely move initially to JSA

2. Most employees made redundant would be entitled to contribution based JSA. This is non means tested and therefore unaffected by savings regardless of size. You are entitled to this for 6 months because you have paid NI as an employee and it is there to provide support whilst out of work. The vast majority of people not eligible for this are due to not contributing sufficiently to NI and therefore probably not employed for two years plus and therefore not entitled to redundancy.

3. Even this government are not so vicious to stops the benefits of those who are sick/disabled. They want to move people who they deem as fit for some type of work off IB OR ESA to JSA and "encourage" them into work with support

I work in a job centre on a weekly basis and whilst the staff there are realists and tough with claimants they believe to be evading work people made redundant would be supported to the best of their ability and certainly not given another kick on top of the pain of losing their job.

As other have said I really believe you should drop this, as it is evident you are gaining your expertise in this area from daily mail headlines....