A prominent company situated in Amata City Industrial Estate, Rayong, dismissed its newly recruited employees, providing only a single day’s notice. But the regular employees have not been spared either – they’ve been ordered to take a long leave of up to three months, receiving only 75% of their normal pay.

 

Glazer family 'set to snub Sir Bobby Charlton's funeral with Man United's owners fearing abuse from fans could overshadow the service', and other top stories from November 13, 2023.

This incident came to light today, December 6, when a Facebook page named Chon Buri-Rayong News reported the situation on the previous day. The company, a solar cell manufacturer in Amata City Industrial Estate, Rayong, had laid off all its new employees who had been with the company for less than a month, giving just a day’s notice. The permanent employees, too, have been ordered to take a long leave of up to three months, receiving only 75% of their regular pay. The contract workers were not renewed, reported KhaoSod.

 

The news resulted in numerous young men and women expressing their thoughts and opinions. Some have accepted the situation, saying that it’s good to get a lump sum of money to fund their job search elsewhere. Many have sent words of encouragement, telling each other to keep fighting. Meanwhile, others have shared that this is a common situation in many factories.

 

by Nattapong Westwood

Photo courtesy of KhaoSod

 

Full story: The Thaiger 2023-12-07

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Layoffs will be happening world wide in 2024, all part of the hard landing, the recession that the FED said wouldn't happen.

1 hour ago, soalbundy said:

Layoffs will be happening world wide in 2024, all part of the hard landing, the recession that the FED said wouldn't happen.

The FED never made such a statement. Only investors (err, wagerers).

Reading this it seems like the longer employed staff are getting a redundancy payment of 75 percent of 3 months of salary as a lump sum.  NOT 75 percent of salary for 3 months

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Glazer family 'set to snub Sir Bobby Charlton's funeral with Man United's owners fearing abuse from fans could overshadow the service', and other top stories from November 13, 2023.

What has this paragraph got to do with the story?????

19 minutes ago, DPKANKAN said:

What has this paragraph got to do with the story?????

Like you, I have no idea.....

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

Layoffs will be happening world wide in 2024, all part of the hard landing, the recession that the FED said wouldn't happen.

The US is facing a labor shortage! There are 4.7 million more job positions are available than people to fill them in the United States, and about 1.7 open jobs exist per unemployed worker.

"America's Labor Shortage: What Is It and What Can We Do About It?"

Sep. 27, 2023

https://www.ramseysolutions.com/business/labor-shortage

1 hour ago, DPKANKAN said:

What has this paragraph got to do with the story?????

Yeah, somebody needs to brush up on their cut'n'paste skills.

5 hours ago, RobU said:

Reading this it seems like the longer employed staff are getting a redundancy payment of 75 percent of 3 months of salary as a lump sum.  NOT 75 percent of salary for 3 months

That’s not what the article says. It says they were sent on leave with 75% pay. 
 

Redundancy payment would depend on the employee’s years of service and his last salary. The scheme is very simple and can quickly be googled. 

7 minutes ago, Tummamuang said:

That’s not what the article says. It says they were sent on leave with 75% pay. 
 

Redundancy payment would depend on the employee’s years of service and his last salary. The scheme is very simple and can quickly be googled. 

And then later on it says former employees were grateful for the lump sum payment to help them get jobs elsewhere

6 minutes ago, RobU said:

And then later on it says former employees were grateful for the lump sum payment to help them get jobs elsewhere

Right, the article doesn’t make sense.  
 

 

 

28 minutes ago, Tummamuang said:

Right, the article doesn’t make sense.  
 

 

 

I agree, the author obviously doesn't understand the concept of redundancy and redundancy payments

45 minutes ago, Tummamuang said:

That’s not what the article says. It says they were sent on leave with 75% pay. 
 

Redundancy payment would depend on the employee’s years of service and his last salary. The scheme is very simple and can quickly be googled. 

Perhaps redundancy payments would depend on the employee's years of service in the UK or US, however this is Thailand and the laws of foreign countries don't apply here

18 minutes ago, RobU said:

Perhaps redundancy payments would depend on the employee's years of service in the UK or US, however this is Thailand and the laws of foreign countries don't apply here

I wasn’t applying UK or US laws. If “redundancy payment” means severance pay (the amount of money an employer is obliged to pay the employee upon laying him off) then that’s exactly how the system works in Thailand (the only difference being that the scheme also applies for reaching retirement age). Like I said, it’s a very simple scheme; a simple table of two columns and six rows or so. Can easily find it in Google image search “Thai severance pay”. 

 

37 minutes ago, Tummamuang said:

I wasn’t applying UK or US laws. If “redundancy payment” means severance pay (the amount of money an employer is obliged to pay the employee upon laying him off) then that’s exactly how the system works in Thailand (the only difference being that the scheme also applies for reaching retirement age). Like I said, it’s a very simple scheme; a simple table of two columns and six rows or so. Can easily find it in Google image search “Thai severance pay”. 

 

Wrong

Section 120

Whereas an Employer relocates the place of business to another place and it significantly affects the normal living of an Employee or his or her family, the Employer shall notify the Employee of not less than thirty days prior to the date of relocation. For this purpose, if the Employee refuses to go to work in the new location, the Employee is entitled to terminate the Contract of Employment and receive Special Severance Pay of not less than fifty percent of the rate of Severance Pay he or she entitled to under Section 118.

22 minutes ago, RobU said:

Wrong

How can you prove something “wrong” by talking about something completely different? What I wrote is correct; what you quoted doesn’t change that. 

 

 

 

40 minutes ago, RobU said:

Wrong

Section 120

Whereas an Employer relocates the place of business to another place and it significantly affects the normal living of an Employee or his or her family, the Employer shall notify the Employee of not less than thirty days prior to the date of relocation. For this purpose, if the Employee refuses to go to work in the new location, the Employee is entitled to terminate the Contract of Employment and receive Special Severance Pay of not less than fifty percent of the rate of Severance Pay he or she entitled to under Section 118.

 

Irrelevant.

 

The company did not move premises.