One of the most common fears holding people back from changing jobs is the idea of being "last in, first out", the belief that if the economy takes a downturn, the newest employees are the first to be shown the door. Plenty of unhappy professionals who would normally move on from their current employer end up staying put because of this exact fear.

So is it a legitimate concern, or just a myth? Let's dig in.

The Industry Fundamentals Are Strong

First, some perspective on the market itself. Economic uncertainty comes and goes, but the fundamentals of construction and property remain very strong.

The UK has a significant housing shortage. We delivered around 208,000 net additional homes in 2024/25, at a time when the government's own target is 300,000 a year, a target it has since increased to 370,000. The government has invested heavily in major infrastructure projects, the MOD has released billions of pounds worth of construction contracts, universities and the tech sector are spending, London remains a global hub for finance and business, and the regions are busy.

On top of that, the industry faces a serious skills shortage. We haven't invested enough at trainee and graduate level, and we've relied heavily on a baby boomer generation that is now retiring. None of this suggests the industry is about to fall off a cliff and it means that if you're a talented individual, you should have real confidence that you'll never struggle to find work.

What Actually Happened in 2008

To understand how redundancies really work, look back to November 2008, one of the worst periods in modern economic history. Having recruited in construction for 20 years, I saw first-hand how organisations behaved, and in some businesses it was nothing short of a bloodbath.

During redundancy consultations, companies make a big deal about running a fair, robust, ethical process. Controversially perhaps, I'd argue that's largely baloney. In reality, businesses massage the process to remove exactly who they want to remove, and many used the recession as a ruthless opportunity to clear out what they perceived as "dead wood."

Who got let go? Broadly, three groups:

Perceived underperformers - those seen as not up to scratch, too slow, technologically outdated, or difficult to work with.

The overpaid - those viewed as too expensive for the value they delivered at their level.

Those without workload - people with no commission or client-secured fees to sit on.

Those who survived were seen as talented, culturally aligned, tech savvy, quick, and reasonably paid. And here's the crucial point: length of service was not a significant factor. If anything, it was often long-standing employees who suffered ahead of relative newcomers.

The Cost Argument Doesn't Hold Up

The assumption behind "last in, first out" is that established employees are too expensive to let go, so companies cut new joiners instead. The numbers tell a different story.

Most businesses follow standard statutory redundancy pay, and you can check the figures yourself using the calculator on gov.uk. The weekly pay used in the calculation is now capped at £751 (from April 2026). Some examples:

• A 30-year-old on £50,000 with five years' service: redundancy pay of £3,755 - less than a month's salary.
• A 42-year-old on £50,000 with ten years' service: £7,886 - around six weeks' salary.
• The same 42-year-old with ten years' service but on £70,000: still £7,886 - now less than six weeks' salary.

Yes, notice periods must be paid on top, and yes, someone with under two years' service is cheaper still. But these are not sums that will stop a company removing someone they no longer see as right for the business. Cost simply isn't the protective shield people imagine it to be.

The Question You Should Actually Be Asking

Here's where it gets uncomfortable. Knowing how straightforward and inexpensive redundancy really is, flip the question around: how secure are you in your current role?

Could you be the one perceived as dead wood? Are you still a cultural fit? How confident are you in your team's workload, your employer's pipeline, and the footing the business is on? Staying put doesn't make you immune.

And even if your job is genuinely secure, there's a longer-term cost to consider. Coming out of the last recession, some organisations simply plodded along - and their people effectively went backwards: no promotions for five years, no pay rises, benefits stripped away, with the recession used as a permanent excuse. Meanwhile, hungrier businesses grew, and their employees grew with them in salary and seniority.

So over a five-year horizon, ask yourself honestly: is staying in a business you know isn't right for you ...out of fear of what might happen elsewhere, really serving your career?

The Bottom Line

"Last in, first out" is a myth. Redundancy processes overwhelmingly target perceived underperformance, cost and lack of workload, not recent joiners, and statutory redundancy pay is nowhere near expensive enough to protect long-serving employees. Meanwhile, the fundamentals of construction and property remain strong, and the skills shortage isn't going away.

If you're fundamentally unhappy where you are, the smarter move is a calculated risk: join a business on a sound footing, with strong management, a clear vision and a growing client base, somewhere you can grow too. That beats standing still out of fear of what may never happen.