Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Feedback
View Statistics
Members
Current visitors
Buy Sell Trade
WTB
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Forums
The Social Lounge
General Talk
Education Career and Job Discussions
[HELP] Can my employer change notice period duration like this?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lord Nemesis" data-source="post: 2103934" data-attributes="member: 632"><p>When you decide to leave without completing the exit process in a clean manner after meeting the necessary stipulations, it is called absconding. You are also mistaken if you think every such situation turns into a court case. In many cases, the company wouldn't bother tracking down the employee and filing a case against them. It doesn't make sense for most companies whose primary reason for bonds or notice period is safe guarding their business interests rather than making money of employees.</p><p></p><p>For example, my present company doesn't have a bond system even for fresh campus hires. Employees can go when they please, but they just have to serve the notice period. If the employee is working on a critical project where immediate replacement cannot be put in place, he/she will have to serve the full/partial notice period as required. In other cases where the employee is non critical and can be let go, they can be allowed to go immediately upon resignation even if they are ready to serve the notice period.</p><p></p><p>Some years back, one guy recruited from an IIT left the company without notice. He apparently joined another company and he didn't want to serve the notice period and the company he joined was cool with taking him in without the exit documentation. At some point, he sent an informal mail to his manager stating that he is not coming back, but never completed the exit formalities even after being asked to.</p><p></p><p>With or without resignation letter, if you leave without completing the notice period and going through the exit process, the period is counted as absence without notification and after waiting for a sufficiently long period, the employee would be considered absconding. The company as per its due process waited for 6 months and marked him as absconding in its records. Nearly two years later, this guy was apparently trying to change jobs again and every time he was about to get an offer or got an offer, our company was contacted for background verification and the HR informed them about his status. I heard from some of his friends that he lost many offers because of this. Most good companies wouldn't like to hire people who have a track record of being irresponsible towards their commitments.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, It is not sufficient. The idea of a notice period in the first place is that a business should not suffer because of an employee leaving. Notice period is usually proportional to the responsibilities held by an employee. In services sector where employees are treated as easily replaceable grunts, notice period may not matter that much, but at least in product companies, two months is most often the necessary period to transition knowledge and responsibilities to others. As I said before, at my company, the notice period for Architects was increased from 2 months to 3 months and it was well justified given that even after 18 months of doing interviews, we still could find replacements for two openings we had after two people left. This goes up as your responsibilities increase. In the managerial grades, there are people with notice periods of even 4~6 months. In olden days, may businesses had the system where employees with important responsibilities could not leave till they train and get a replacement ready. This is now used only for senior executive level positions these days. They have stipulations in their contracts where they cannot often leave without first having somebody else capable of taking over their responsibilities. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That has more to do with Indians having a track record of behaving unprofessionally more than anything else. My last company used to give notice period to employees when they fired employees for non-disciplinary reasons. By non-disciplinary, I mean poor performance or even redundancy. But employees often resorted to various means of getting back at the company like sabotaging or damaging the company assets. One person even tried to destroy the data on the CVS servers and apparently succeeded partially. The systems had to be restored from backups. After such incidents, the company stopped the practice and always compensated with money.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Who says you don't have choice? If you don't like a policy change, you always have the right to reject it and resign from the company and only the old policy can be applied to you. For example, if the company updates their policy from 2 month notice period to 3 month. Refuse to accept it you can leave the company after serving the last agreed notice period of 2 months from the date the policy change was announced. It is "at will" employment for a reason. Either side can break the relationship once the minimal commitments for the break up are met.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That very legally binding contract will have in clause in every clear language that company policies are subject to change from time to time. Next time, read it properly and chose not to sign it. Also, nobody is stopping you from making your own policy changes either. If the company doesn't agree with your policies, they will let you go with the same terms as the last mutually agreed contract.</p><p></p><p>To be honest, this whole argument of yours is rather absurd. The service agreement also mentions your salary and role. Would you also like your salary and role to remain the same for all eternity based on this legally binding contract? What if the company introduces a new bonus or share plan as part of its new policy. Since its not part of the legally binding contract with you, should the company not give it you ?</p><p></p><p>You are not looking for a fair system as you seem to think, what you want is a one sided system where all rights are held by employees and employers have no rights. You want to be able to leave whenever you want regardless of damage done to the business, but don't want the company to be able to let you go whenever they want.</p><p></p><p>As I said before, either side can break the relationship when you don't want to continue anymore (be it because of a policy change that you don't like or a higher paying job offer or whatever) and all you need to do is complete the obligations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lord Nemesis, post: 2103934, member: 632"] When you decide to leave without completing the exit process in a clean manner after meeting the necessary stipulations, it is called absconding. You are also mistaken if you think every such situation turns into a court case. In many cases, the company wouldn't bother tracking down the employee and filing a case against them. It doesn't make sense for most companies whose primary reason for bonds or notice period is safe guarding their business interests rather than making money of employees. For example, my present company doesn't have a bond system even for fresh campus hires. Employees can go when they please, but they just have to serve the notice period. If the employee is working on a critical project where immediate replacement cannot be put in place, he/she will have to serve the full/partial notice period as required. In other cases where the employee is non critical and can be let go, they can be allowed to go immediately upon resignation even if they are ready to serve the notice period. Some years back, one guy recruited from an IIT left the company without notice. He apparently joined another company and he didn't want to serve the notice period and the company he joined was cool with taking him in without the exit documentation. At some point, he sent an informal mail to his manager stating that he is not coming back, but never completed the exit formalities even after being asked to. With or without resignation letter, if you leave without completing the notice period and going through the exit process, the period is counted as absence without notification and after waiting for a sufficiently long period, the employee would be considered absconding. The company as per its due process waited for 6 months and marked him as absconding in its records. Nearly two years later, this guy was apparently trying to change jobs again and every time he was about to get an offer or got an offer, our company was contacted for background verification and the HR informed them about his status. I heard from some of his friends that he lost many offers because of this. Most good companies wouldn't like to hire people who have a track record of being irresponsible towards their commitments. No, It is not sufficient. The idea of a notice period in the first place is that a business should not suffer because of an employee leaving. Notice period is usually proportional to the responsibilities held by an employee. In services sector where employees are treated as easily replaceable grunts, notice period may not matter that much, but at least in product companies, two months is most often the necessary period to transition knowledge and responsibilities to others. As I said before, at my company, the notice period for Architects was increased from 2 months to 3 months and it was well justified given that even after 18 months of doing interviews, we still could find replacements for two openings we had after two people left. This goes up as your responsibilities increase. In the managerial grades, there are people with notice periods of even 4~6 months. In olden days, may businesses had the system where employees with important responsibilities could not leave till they train and get a replacement ready. This is now used only for senior executive level positions these days. They have stipulations in their contracts where they cannot often leave without first having somebody else capable of taking over their responsibilities. That has more to do with Indians having a track record of behaving unprofessionally more than anything else. My last company used to give notice period to employees when they fired employees for non-disciplinary reasons. By non-disciplinary, I mean poor performance or even redundancy. But employees often resorted to various means of getting back at the company like sabotaging or damaging the company assets. One person even tried to destroy the data on the CVS servers and apparently succeeded partially. The systems had to be restored from backups. After such incidents, the company stopped the practice and always compensated with money. Who says you don't have choice? If you don't like a policy change, you always have the right to reject it and resign from the company and only the old policy can be applied to you. For example, if the company updates their policy from 2 month notice period to 3 month. Refuse to accept it you can leave the company after serving the last agreed notice period of 2 months from the date the policy change was announced. It is "at will" employment for a reason. Either side can break the relationship once the minimal commitments for the break up are met. That very legally binding contract will have in clause in every clear language that company policies are subject to change from time to time. Next time, read it properly and chose not to sign it. Also, nobody is stopping you from making your own policy changes either. If the company doesn't agree with your policies, they will let you go with the same terms as the last mutually agreed contract. To be honest, this whole argument of yours is rather absurd. The service agreement also mentions your salary and role. Would you also like your salary and role to remain the same for all eternity based on this legally binding contract? What if the company introduces a new bonus or share plan as part of its new policy. Since its not part of the legally binding contract with you, should the company not give it you ? You are not looking for a fair system as you seem to think, what you want is a one sided system where all rights are held by employees and employers have no rights. You want to be able to leave whenever you want regardless of damage done to the business, but don't want the company to be able to let you go whenever they want. As I said before, either side can break the relationship when you don't want to continue anymore (be it because of a policy change that you don't like or a higher paying job offer or whatever) and all you need to do is complete the obligations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
The Social Lounge
General Talk
Education Career and Job Discussions
[HELP] Can my employer change notice period duration like this?
Top
Bottom