# Notice handed in getting nasty



## Frank

My Fiancé handed in notice at work on Tue after receiving and offer for a new job.

 Contract states 3 months notice.

 My reading of citizens information is that a contract is a contract and the company can insist of the 3 months.

 Am I correct.
 Can holiday entitlement be used as part of notice?

 She put in for 5 weeks. initially they were shocked with offers of more, but now they have become nasty. 

 The worry is that the new opportunity may dry up.

 Any help much appreciated.


----------



## Setanta12

I think 3-months is unrealistic unless it is very high-powered, very skilled and in a very competitive field where the employer will have difficulty finding a replacement.

One month would do it for me -  irregardless of what it says in the Contract.  Whats the worst they could do - fire you?  (Perhaps - and illegally - hold back your wages ? A solicitor letter would sort that out pronto)

yes, holidays accrued are normally allowed in final months - but I think some latitude has to be given to the employer ie if they need you to work the final days/weeks - you should try to do so.  Are you entitled to 5 weeks?  If not, you can't claim for them.

*The above without looking Citizens Information which would be more authoritative*


----------



## Frank

After some of the nasty comments today she is going to leave regardless of the other job if it needs to be 3 months so be it.

 Agreed that 1 month to 6 weeks would seem to be plenty to any reasonable person but panic brings out the worst in people sometimes.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I think by law you have to work your notice. But its usually not as long as 3 months. Twice I have been asked to work my notice. One of those time was simply being vindictive, as there was no need for it. The other time they asked would I, and I agreed as it suited both parties.

I think its a little bit self productive, as the employee could cause a lot of problems, if they were very unhappy to work out their time. In some industries it would be seen as a security risk. Other its would be expected as a sign of professionalism to assist in transfer of the work/role to someone else.


----------



## Time

Normally security escorts you off the premises once notice is given.


----------



## mandelbrot

Time said:


> Normally security escorts you off the premises once notice is given.



Huh?


----------



## AlbacoreA

In some places, if its sensitive data or you can do harm, or steal customers, business, they'll remove you off the premises immediately. Lock down your access to the computers network etc. I've only seen that in a redundancy situation. Nasty though.


----------



## Steven Barrett

Time said:


> Normally security escorts you off the premises once notice is given.



If you're lucky! I've always had to work my time. 

Unless in a management position, 3 months is unrealistic. If they are getting nasty over her leaving, she should tell them that it is probably in all their interests if she leaves immediately. See what they say then. 

It amazes me how some employers take it personally when someone hands in their notice. These are usually the same people who don't think twice about shafting their employees. It's a two way street you know. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Time

In any job I have had once notice is given, you are given a box and told to clear your desk and get the hell off the premises. I think they were afraid you would take files, client lists etc.


----------



## Frank

Going on conversations they are being spiteful.
 Slating the new employer claiming the move will pigeon hole.
 MD is under pressure from above and lashing out.

 Time to just suck it up and hope the new place will wait.

 It's Friday a few drinks and a reminder of work to live not live to work I think.

 Thanks all for replies.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Frank; 
If they stay (crankey) they can hold you to the 3 months.
They could put you on (gardening leave) , ie pay you for 3 mths to do nothing.
Suggest;
On Monday meet the MD and impress on him ,that you have no issue with present job and did not in any way wish to upset them, but feel the new job suits you now.Could it be hours are better, nearer home, less stressful and pidgeon hole suits you?. In NO way infer your present job (sucks) (not saying it does).
 Ask him how you can help his company before moving to new job.
He may relent a little.
ie; Always good to leave on good terms.He may not hold to 3 mths.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> Contract states 3 months notice.
> 
> She put in for 5 weeks.




Presumably she read her contract when deciding on her current job? She saw the notice period of 3 months and signed the contract. 



> Time to just suck it up and hope the new place will wait.



Presumably when she  was offered the other job offer, she told them that she had to serve 3 months' notice?   And presumably they agreed to this.  So of course, they will wait.

As an employer, I would be very annoyed if someone said that they wanted to serve a shorter notice period in the contract.  If they came to me and gave me formal notice of three months and then asked nicely if they could go earlier, I would talk to them about it.  But I would react very negatively if someone "put in for 5 weeks" whatever that means. 

It seems to me that your fiancé is being nasty and not the employer.


----------



## Steven Barrett

Brendan

Unless she is in a very high position, 3 months notice is unenforceable. It is totally unreasonable for an employer to impose such a long notice period on a staff member who is not going in direct competition with them (and I mean going out on their own or running another company) as it can effect their ability to find another job. Unless they are of exceptionable ability, most potential employers will not wait that long. If it's a close race between two candidates, the one with 1 month notice will probably win out. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Janet

SBarrett said:


> Brendan
> 
> Unless she is in a very high position, 3 months notice is unenforceable. It is totally unreasonable for an employer to impose such a long notice period on a staff member who is not going in direct competition with them (and I mean going out on their own or running another company) as it can effect their ability to find another job. Unless they are of exceptionable ability, most potential employers will not wait that long.



In Germany three months is standard, in fact, three month from end of quarter (which could end up being nearly six months) is not unusual. And German companies now operating in Ireland (e.g. Aldi or Lidl) often just do what is normal to them. I had a friend who worked for a German company and had such a three-month notice period. When she actually handed in her notice though she was called into the MD's office and told she could finish up at the end of the week. They paid the three months but didn't want her around - the had the opinion (not entirely false IMHO) that once someone has handed in notice, they've mentally already left the job anyway. At any rate, although it's not standard in Ireland, if she's working for a foreign company that could be the reason for the long notice period.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

SBarrett said:


> Unless she is in a very high position, 3 months notice is unenforceable. It is totally unreasonable for an employer to impose such a long notice period on a staff member who is not going in direct competition with them
> http://www.bluewaterfp.ie



There is nothing unreasonable at all in this. She signed a contract. She knew that it was 3 months' notice. She could have asked for it to be reduced at that stage. 

It's not just for a senior position. She might be in a position which is difficult to fill and it could take the employer 3 months to find a replacement.


----------



## Setanta12

Time said:


> Normally security escorts you off the premises once notice is given.



Is this a US practice? I note in the States, if you are made redundant - but turn up for work the next day and actually work (!), you haven't been made redundant - hence the need for burly security guards to pack up belongings and escort you out.

If working in a sensitive area, then you might be placed on garden-leave - - but rarely escorted of the premises ... ... !?


----------



## Setanta12

Brendan Burgess said:


> There is nothing unreasonable at all in this. She signed a contract. She knew that it was 3 months' notice. She could have asked for it to be reduced at that stage.
> 
> It's not just for a senior position. She might be in a position which is difficult to fill and it could take the employer 3 months to find a replacement.



Hi Brendan, UK & ROI Courts have often taken a contary position.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

In some cases where people are fired, they are brought to their desk to take any personal belongings and are then escorted off the premises. 

It's a bit late doing it for someone who is resigning as they have had plenty of time to do any damage they wished. 

Brendan


----------



## Jim2007

SBarrett said:


> Brendan
> 
> Unless she is in a very high position, 3 months notice is unenforceable. It is totally unreasonable for an employer to impose such a long notice period on a staff member who is not going in direct competition with them (and I mean going out on their own or running another company) as it can effect their ability to find another job. Unless they are of exceptionable ability, most potential employers will not wait that long. If it's a close race between two candidates, the one with 1 month notice will probably win out.
> 
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie



Do you have a legal reference to support this?  I have an interest in this. Thanks.


----------



## Jim2007

Janet said:


> In Germany three months is standard, in fact, three month from end of quarter (which could end up being nearly six months) is not unusual. And German companies now operating in Ireland (e.g. Aldi or Lidl) often just do what is normal to them. I had a friend who worked for a German company and had such a three-month notice period. When she actually handed in her notice though she was called into the MD's office and told she could finish up at the end of the week. They paid the three months but didn't want her around - the had the opinion (not entirely false IMHO) that once someone has handed in notice, they've mentally already left the job anyway. At any rate, although it's not standard in Ireland, if she's working for a foreign company that could be the reason for the long notice period.



Yes it is normal for junior positions in Switzerland too and a minimum of 6 months from team lead up.  Swiss companies also apply the same rules abroad unless prohibited by law.


----------



## Jim2007

Kildavin said:


> Is this a US practice? I note in the States, if you are made redundant - but turn up for work the next day and actually work (!), you haven't been made redundant - hence the need for burly security guards to pack up belongings and escort you out.
> 
> If working in a sensitive area, then you might be placed on garden-leave - - but rarely escorted of the premises ... ... !?



It certainly is the norm here in Switzerland for banks and insurance companies.  You are required to send notice by registered post in most cases and once HR get the letter they send someone along to collect you... It is referred to as 'gardening leave' - you are not required to turn up for work, but you are not allowed to start the new job either, hence the gardening reference.


----------



## Leper

Whether contracted to or not three months is a ridiculous length of time to serve out notice for most jobs.  So unless this (current) job is of an extremely sensitive nature or the salary is inordinately high there is no use in pussyfooting.  Four to six weeks notice is more than enough.

So anybody who is an employer should know well to get on with the job and cease introducing loony time-scales that are of no help to anybody. If somebody wants to leave there is no benefit in forcing him/her to crazily lengthy notice.  This is the 21st century.


----------



## Kimmagegirl

I left the Bank of Ireland to go to a competitor and was asked to leave on the same day as I gave my notice.


----------



## Jim2007

SBarrett said:


> Unless she is in a very high position, 3 months notice is unenforceable.



Well having gone back and read the legislation, I would say yes it almost certainly is enforceable!  The law requires that the notice period must be stated in the contract and what the minimum period must be, but it sets no maximum period.

So as long as the three months was stated in the contract and it was signed by both parties, it is valid.  And the employer can required it to be served.


----------



## Leper

Let's say the job is not vital and not a mega-paying one.  The only reason an employer would introduce a three month notice period is because he/she can.  I can see no other reason outside an employer throwing his/her weight around abusing the current economic climate.

This is like the financial guy I saw on television some time ago telling newly unemployed people with families to support and in heavy negative equity that they were under contract to pay full mortgage repayments before any other outlay.  

Like I said earlier this is 2014 not 1814.  I don't care what is happening in Switzerland, USA or anywhere else.  Continuing to work in a "mundane" job for thirteen weeks after serving notice is like continuing to flog a dead prisoner.


----------



## Jim2007

Leper said:


> Like I said earlier this is 2014 not 1814.  I don't care what is happening in Switzerland, USA or anywhere else.  Continuing to work in a "mundane" job for thirteen weeks after serving notice is like continuing to flog a dead prisoner.



Well it really does not matter it is 2014 or 1814, a legally binding contract is still a legally binding contract.  No society could operate on the basis that people can walk from their obligations when it does not suit them.  Or do you think it would also be OK for the employer to give the employee 5 weeks notice as well, rather than the period agreed in the contract??


----------



## ang1170

Jim2007 said:


> Well it really does not matter it is 2014 or 1814, a legally binding contract is still a legally binding contract.



It's not as straightforward as that: not all terms in an employment contract are enforceable, as there is legislation that may take precedence.

People: I think some of you are being a little harsh on the OP, who came looking for some information and advice. There's a certain strain that is sometimes evident on this site by some commentators to the affect of "you signed it: tough on you, don't expect any sympathy, much less help".

As I said, all the OP was looking for was to know was the term enforceable, and advice on what to do.

As for the original query, some years ago I worked in a company that had a three month notice period. The reason it was there was that it was a small company that could be badly impacted if they couldn't plan the transition of people from projects with client companies. When I did leave, it was towards the end of a project, and I agreed amicably to leave when it finished (which I think was three or four weeks from the time of notice).

So, to those who say it's completely unreasonable to have such a long notice period, I'd say that there can be very good reasons for it, especially in small companies. To those who say you just have to stick with it, I'd say there's no harm in asking for a shorter period, and trying to negotiate a shorter term, which could well be acceptable or even advantageous to the employer. To the OP, I think it's possibly too late for such an amicable agreement, and you probably just have to stick with it, though I would make the effort in trying to reach agreement (for example, ask why it is needed, and see is there any scope for meeting their needs that doesn't involve the full period).


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ang1170 said:


> People: . There's a certain strain that is sometimes evident on this site by some commentators to the affect of "you signed it: tough on you, don't expect any sympathy, much less help".
> 
> As I said, all the OP was looking for was to know was the term enforceable, and advice on what to do.
> 
> .




Hi ang

I think you are being unfair to us "People" 


> She put in for 5 weeks. initially they were shocked with offers of more, but now they have become nasty.



The OP is clearly expecting to get the Joe Duffy reaction. "How dare the evil employer interfere with my fiancé's wishes!"

In general on Askaboutmoney, we don't promote illegality e.g pirating of software. Rather than explain how to do it, we allow posts which say it should not be done. 

There is no comparison between this situation and someone who can't afford to pay their mortgage.

This person has a contract which they signed. They could have sought to have the notice reduced at the time as part of the negotiations.  They should honour their contract, but as you say, they should also have friendly discussions to see if a shorter time suited both parties.

He has not answered my question. Did she accept the job without informing her new employer about the notice period? 

Jim2007: 



> Or do you think it would also be OK for the employer to give the  employee 5 weeks notice as well, rather than the period agreed in the  contract??



Excellent point.


----------



## Sunny

Any contract clause is technically enforceable but it is extremely unlikely that any company would try and enforce it. Why bother? It is also questionable if a Court would uphold the clause for the majority of roles unless there is very good reason. I think there is UK case law on this. Court's are reluctant to enforce anything that could be considered restraint of trade. Unless you are a senior executive with potential to damage the company when you leave, I don't see why any company would put in a three month clause. 

I also don't see what the company would gain? They would either have a very unhappy employee in the office for three months or they would have to pay her to sit t home for three months. It's all very well talking about enforcing contracts but sometimes you need to step back and see the wood from the trees and take the emotion out of it. 

I don't see the problem with you giving 5 weeks notice. Obviously you need to consider that you will be leaving your employer on bad terms which is never ideal but I wouldn't pass up the opportunity of a new job because of it.


----------



## TommyB

Contact clauses like this are not legal as they infringe on a persons free movement of employment. Below management level it is not easy to get a new employer to accept a 3 month wait.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> The OP is clearly expecting to get the Joe Duffy reaction. "How dare the evil employer interfere with my fiancé's wishes!"



I'm afraid you're just emphasising my point about the tone of some responses: you're using emotive language (e.g. "evil employer") to describe what you perceive someone to be saying. How exactly do you get they were "clearly expecting" this from the original post?

I didn't advise them to do anything illegal (nor would I): all I suggested they do was to try and negotiate a shorter notice period (any contract can be updated by mutual agreement), though given the apparent breakdown in relations, this may well be too late. The OP seems to have accepted this: "Time to just suck it up and hope the new place will wait", which I'd take to mean that they won't be appearing on Joe Duffy any time soon.

Although the employer would on the face of it hold all the cards in such a negotiation, in practice as others have pointed out they would be unlikely either to pursue the matter further, or if push came to shove they may well find it unenforceable.

One final point I'd make: it is never a good idea to leave an employer on bad terms, particularly in a country this size. Yet another reason for trying the negotiation route in preference to reaching for the lawyers.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ang1170 said:


> I'm afraid you're just emphasising my point about the tone of some responses: you're using emotive language (e.g. "evil employer") to describe what you perceive someone to be saying. How exactly do you get they were "clearly expecting" this from the original post?



Just read the original post



> She put in for 5 weeks. initially they were shocked with offers of more, but now they have become nasty.



The employer is becoming "nasty"?  That is an emotive word, which I am just reflecting.  The employer is just insisting that the employee should stick to their side of the contract.  There really is nothing nasty about this.


----------



## Jim2007

ang1170 said:


> It's not as straightforward as that: not all terms in an employment contract are enforceable, as there is legislation that may take precedence.



Well if you took the trouble like I just did to review the two acts involved you'd know that it is enforceable!



ang1170 said:


> As I said, all the OP was looking for was to know was the term enforceable, and advice on what to do.


Read the post again - the OP already knows the answer!


----------



## AlbacoreA

I think you are taking that out of context. Taking all the OP comments, they have implied there were things other than simply working the notice period that were unpleasant.


----------



## Jim2007

TommyB said:


> Contact clauses like this are not legal as they infringe on a persons free movement of employment. Below management level it is not easy to get a new employer to accept a 3 month wait.



Of course they are legal! Go read the Terms of Employment Act and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.

Do not confuse this with a restrictive practices clause, which is a very different thing.


----------



## Time

Whilst they may be legal, I doubt many employers would bother to go legal to enforce.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Time said:


> Whilst they may be legal, I doubt many employers would bother to go legal to enforce.


 
Unlikely but theycould do.

Still suggest , mend any fences with MD of present company .
He may well accept fiance acted without realizing the importance of the 3 month clause.
Leave on agreed/good terms if possible.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

This is where I have a problem. 

Do we recommend littering on the grounds that one is unlikely to be prosecuted? 

We don't because littering is wrong. 

Some posters seem to be suggesting that she should break her contract, because there is little that the employer can do about it. 

I think that she should honour her contract, because it's a reciprocal contract and it's the right thing to do, whether she gets pursued or not. 

Brendan


----------



## Gerry Canning

Brendan Burgess said:


> This is where I have a problem.
> 
> Do we recommend littering on the grounds that one is unlikely to be prosecuted?
> 
> We don't because littering is wrong.
> 
> Some posters seem to be suggesting that she should break her contract, because there is little that the employer can do about it.
> 
> I think that she should honour her contract, because it's a reciprocal contract and it's the right thing to do, whether she gets pursued or not.
> 
> Brendan


 ................................

I can read that some posters are going down the road of break the contract . 
That is unfair to employer. 
However 3 month notice seems to be a bit harsh for most jobs and would in an average job slow mobility of labour.
Like most things, an open conversation even at this stage  with employer may resolve things amicably. 
People need to understand that Employment Contracts are a two way safeguard, not a stick to beat either side up with.
Like all Contracts they can be reviewed.


----------



## Sunny

Brendan Burgess said:


> This is where I have a problem.
> 
> Do we recommend littering on the grounds that one is unlikely to be prosecuted?
> 
> We don't because littering is wrong.
> 
> Some posters seem to be suggesting that she should break her contract, because there is little that the employer can do about it.
> 
> I think that she should honour her contract, because it's a reciprocal contract and it's the right thing to do, whether she gets pursued or not.
> 
> Brendan


 
Brendan, I don't think anyone is suggesting that they simply tell the employer to take a jump and walk out. But at the same time, it is unreasonable to ask any potential employer to wait three months to fill a role for the majority of jobs. Both sides should be able to have a resonable conversation about this. 

Of course, people should honour contracts but employers change contracts every day to face economic reality. How many employees have been told that they will have to have pay cuts, lose their pension entitlements or change their working conditions under the threat of losing their jobs if they refuse to the change. Look at Baush & Lomb. They are not facing bankruptcy. They just want to reduce the cost base and are trying to change their employees contracts under threat. I don't remember too many people on AAM talking about how a profitable company like them should abide by the contract. And yet if an employee tries to leave to take up a better offer and have to threaten the employer, they are somehow immoral. 

If I got a better economic offer from another employer, I would try my hardest to leave my current employer on good terms and come to an arrangement with them but I wouldn't let them cause me to lose the potential job. Especially over something like a 3 month notice clause. It's a ridiculous clause for the vast vast majority of roles.


----------



## Jim2007

Time said:


> Whilst they may be legal, I doubt many employers would bother to go legal to enforce.



A large multinational may well do so otherwise they'd have everyone doing it.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> I think that she should honour her contract, because it's a reciprocal contract and it's the right thing to do, whether she gets pursued or not.


 
 That's where we part company, the attitude that says: "you signed a contract, live with the consequences, no matter what".

 The contract may well have been signed at a time when the employee was vulnerable (e.g. unemployed and desperate for a job), and they may never have liked the particular contract term.

 I am NOT saying they should simply break the contract. I said they should try and renegotiate the notice period, hopefully on amicable terms. They can use any doubt about its enforceability, either in legal or practical terms, as an (unstated) bargaining position.


----------



## Time

What would a company achieve by forcing a disgruntled employee who does not want to be there to work? It would do the company more harm than good. The potential for the employee to misbehave is there.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I presume if Bausch and Lomb do close down in Ireland, they will pay their employees their salaries up to the date of leaving. They will also pay them statutory entitlements. I don't think that they will break their contracts, but they might renegotiate them. 

Likewise the OP, could at any time, have applied for  a salary increase, a change in hours, or even a reduction in the notice period. She and her employer would have been free to negotiate that change. 

I am shocked by this 



> but I wouldn't let them cause me to lose the potential job.



Do you mean the employer by "they".  They are not causing her to lose the potential job.  The terms of the contract should have precluded her from accepting a job without discussing the notice period.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> ...but I wouldn't let them cause me to lose the  potential job. Especially over something like a 3 month notice clause.  It's a ridiculous clause for the vast vast majority of roles.



Another thing to be wary of here, Ireland is a small market, news travels. If the new employers found out she breached the terms of her previous employment, they may decide not to keep her on.


----------



## Sunny

Brendan Burgess said:


> I presume if Bausch and Lomb do close down in Ireland, they will pay their employees their salaries up to the date of leaving. They will also pay them statutory entitlements. I don't think that they will break their contracts, but they might renegotiate them.
> 
> Likewise the OP, could at any time, have applied for a salary increase, a change in hours, or even a reduction in the notice period. She and her employer would have been free to negotiate that change.
> 
> I am shocked by this
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the employer by "they". They are not causing her to lose the potential job. The terms of the contract should have precluded her from accepting a job without discussing the notice period.


 
Sorry Brendan but you are missing the point. They are telling employees that they will close the plant unless they agree to 20% pay cuts and jobs losses. Is that what you call negotiating?  What legal recourse do the employees have in this case? 

So you don't see what's wrong with the idea of a profitable company under no threat of bankruptcy telling their employees they will lose their jobs if they don't change the terms of their contracts while an employee can't tell their employer that they will work 5 weeks notice instead of the 12 weeks notice as per their contract on their contract or else they will simply walk. And even if this happens, the employer is perfectly entitled to try and legally enforce the contract if they so wish. If the OP walked in and annouced they were walking out tomorrow, I might have some sympathy but they have tried to negotiate by offering to work 5 weeks which is fair. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> I am shocked by this
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the employer by "they". They are not causing her to lose the potential job. The terms of the contract should have precluded her from accepting a job without discussing the notice period.


 
You might to join us in the real world Brendan. Maybe at the level of jobs you go for might be different but for the vast majority of us, going into an interview process and telling a company that there is a 3 month notice period is not realisitic. There is a reason why companies ask what the notice period is at the start of the interviewing process. And unless the role is very senior and specialised, no company will wait three months when the next in line can start in 4 weeks. So in your world, the only option the employee would have is to resign her job and try and find a new job in the next three months. Or else she stays in a job that she might be completely miserable in.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> Another thing to be wary of here, Ireland is a small market, news travels. If the new employers found out she breached the terms of her previous employment, they may decide not to keep her on.


 
I already said people should always try and leave on good terms with their employers but that's not always possible for different reasons. You need to decide and do what is best for you and deal with the consequences. Employers and Employees break contracts all the time. That is why we have employment tribunals, labour courts etc. 

I am simply saying that I might have signed a contract with an employer but that doesn't mean they own me. I will always try and be fair to them if I wanted to leave but I expect to be treated fairly in return. I didn't take it personally when my last company cut my pay by 15% and I was told to take it or leave it. I also don't expect my employer to take it personally when I tell that I cutting my notice period by 50% so I can take a new job and they can take it or leave it. That's simply reality. They are welcome to take me on legally if they want. I suppose I could have legally enforced my contract as well and not taken the 15% cut but what's the point?


----------



## 44brendan

I'm with Sunny on this issue. Very few employees take any note of the notice clause in an employment contract! Funnily enough I did on my last contract and mutually agreed to change the period from 1 month back to 3 (incidently the employer had never enforced the 3 month rule and as such never had a need to change it). I have been around the block a few times in differing employments and generally 1 month notice is the norm (if there are exceptions, there should be a logical reason for them). If it were me, would I risk losing a better job for the sake of fulfilling a 3 month notice period?  I don't think so! 
I would not take the "black & white" (contract is a contract) approach on this issue and while obviously would try to be as flexible as possible in leaving an employment where I was treated well in the lurch, would ultimately take the option of leaving early if this became necessary.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> They are telling employees that they will close the plant unless they agree to 20% pay cuts and jobs losses. Is that what you call negotiating?  What legal recourse do the employees have in this case?
> 
> So you don't see what's wrong with the idea of a profitable company under no threat of bankruptcy telling their employees they will lose their jobs if they don't change the terms of their contracts



I believe in the free market. 

If my salary is €40,000 and I think I am worth more, then I will ask my employer for more.  If he says no, I will get a job elsewhere on the higher salary. 

Bausch and Lomb are not breaking any contracts, as far as I can see. They are terminating employment contracts because they can rationalise the production. And they are dead right to do so.  

If they and the employees agree to vary the contracts, then that would be great. But B&L will not unilaterally break the contract as many posters in this thread have suggested that the Fiancé should do. 



> If the OP walked in and annouced they were walking out tomorrow, I might have some sympathy but they have tried to negotiate by offering to work 5 weeks which is fair.



The OP has the right to terminate the contract by giving 3 months' notice. They are perfectly entitled to ask to be allowed to leave early.




> You might to join us in the real world Brendan. Maybe at the level of jobs you go for



When anyone at any level asks my advice, I suggest reading the contract and asking for any unacceptable conditions to be changed.  That is my world, realistic or not. 





> And unless the role is very senior and specialised, no company will wait three months when the next in line can start in 4 weeks. So in your world, the only option the employee would have is to resign her job and try and find a new job in the next three months. Or else she stays in a job that she might be completely miserable in.



The option she had at the start was to refuse to sign a contract with a 3 month notice period in it. 

After that, she should morally and legally honour her contract.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> After that, she should morally and legally honour her contract.


 
The same way B&L are morally and legally obliged to pay the salaries in their employees contracts, rather than impose a 20% reduction? 

I'm afraid there's a lack of consistency in your position


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ang1170 said:


> The same way B&L are morally and legally obliged to pay the salaries in their employees contracts, rather than impose a 20% reduction?
> 
> I'm afraid there's a lack of consistency in your position



They are not imposing a reduction, although I can see how it might seem like this. 

They are terminating the contracts as they are fully entitled to do.  Or offering their employees the option of accepting reduced salary as an alternative to closing. 

The OP is terminating her contract and is fully entitled to do so.  She is not obliged to stay with her employer beyond the three months, but she is obliged to stay with them for three months.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Let's look at it another way.

Let's say she gave 3 months' notice as she planned to travel around the World from early September. And the employer then told her to leave at the end of June and paid her until the end of June. 

Would you all be happy to say that the employer was fully entitled to break the contract as why should they be obliged to keep her for 3 months? 

I think that the employer would be legally wrong.  And I am quite sure that the courts would award her the full salary for the two months. 

Contracts are mutual and should be respected by both sides.


----------



## Sunny

Sorry Brendan but are verging into the ridiculous if you don't see the double standards in supporting a companies right in going to their employees and saying that you either take a 20% pay cut or we move production to another country as not unilaterally breaking a contract but a employee going to their employer and saying I either cut my notice period by 50% or else walk out in five weeks anyway as somehow acting immorally.


----------



## 44brendan

> Let's say she gave 3 months' notice as she planned to travel around the World from early September. And the employer then told her to leave at the end of June and paid her until the end of June.


In all fairness, this really makes no sense as an arguement for anything!!!


----------



## markpb

Sunny said:


> Sorry Brendan but are verging into the ridiculous if you don't see the double standards in supporting a companies right in going to their employees and saying that you either take a 20% pay cut or we move production to another country as not unilaterally breaking a contract but a employee going to their employer and saying I either cut my notice period by 50% or else walk out in five weeks anyway as somehow acting immorally.



They're not breaking a contract - they're using a part of the contract (redundancy) to end the contract. There's nothing wrong with doing that, it's the same as when an employee uses part of the contract to end it.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> They are not imposing a reduction, although I can see how it might seem like this.


 
 That's more than a little disingenuous. It's "negotiating" new contract terms of a reduced salary, under a severe threat.

 How is that different from an employee negotiating new contract terms (i.e. shorter notice period)?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

44brendan said:


> In all fairness, this really makes no sense as an arguement for anything!!!



It's the exact same as she is doing. 

She has the right to terminate her contract by giving 3 months' notice. 

But it doesn't suit her, so she is giving 5 weeks' notice. 

The problem here is that people have a natural sympathy for the employee in a situation like this.  And it's blinding you to her legal and moral obligations. 

You have a standard for the employer - that they must adhere to their contract.  You would be appalled if they gave her one months' notice.  But you have a different standard for the employee - she should just walk out when it suits her, irrespective of her contract.

I see a contract as being two way. Both sides should honour it.  Or negotiate an alternative.


----------



## Mrs Vimes

As I read the OP, she wants to use up her holiday entitlement of 5 weeks during the notice period - ie work for 8 weeks and then fill the remainder of the 3 month period with holiday leave.

No-one has answered this question and I fear the OP has been scared away by the level of feeling apparent.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> You have a standard for the employer - that they must adhere to their contract. You would be appalled if they gave her one months' notice. But you have a different standard for the employee - she should just walk out when it suits her, irrespective of her contract.



You seem blind to your own lack of consistency. It's apparently OK for an employer to attempt to change a contract (the wage reduction example), but not OK for an employee to attempt to change the same contract (the shorter notice period example).

You keep claiming that anyone arguing against you is saying it's OK to break the contract. This is not the case: I said so explicitly. What I did say was that they should attempt to re-negotiate the contract. 

In any such negotiation the employer, if they have any degree of common sense, will realise that it is for all practical purposes unenforceable, whether they like it or not. The employee doesn't even have to mention this: it is a fact of life, whether you or I or anyone likes it or not.

This is exactly the same way as an employer who uses direct or implied threats when they're doing the negotiations. We're all big boys and girls.

 So, it is not true to say "a contract is a contract and must be observed in all cases": a contract is simply a legal agreement that is signed at some point in time, it is open to re-negotiation by the parties to a mutually agreeable position at any time. Saying "you must stick to the contract, no matter what" and be abused for asking is there another course available is neither true nor helpful.

 By the way: I'm with Mrs. Vimes: the OP seems to long since have fled, and I can well sympathise with them.


----------



## Setanta12

ang1170 said:


> You seem blind to your own lack of consistency. It's apparently OK for an employer to attempt to change a contract (the wage reduction example), but not OK for an employee to attempt to change the same contract (the shorter notice period example).



The employer in this case is stating that the positions will be redundant unless there are changes in the T&Cs.  The employees have a choice - be made redundant or accept new T&Cs.  An employee can always seek to change their contract - their employer will then have a choice; accept or reject.  Likely the latter in the majority of cases -  but maybe not when an employee is leaving anyway.


----------



## Setanta12

There are tonnes of references to B&L.  

These Waterford jobs, rather interestingly, happened when Rochester lost out in the late 80s.  Over 60% of their products was exported back to the States, where the Raw Materials / IP etc came from.    We won initially through the IDA and the old 10% rate - which increased by 25% to our new rate of 12.5%.

(You could say we borrowed these jobs for 25 years and now returning them)


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> I see a contract as being two way. Both sides should honour it.  Or negotiate an alternative.



She has requested 5 weeks. As of yet she has not broken her contract. 
If she walks out after 5 weeks without agreement then she will breaking it.

While contracts are a two way agreement restricting a person is a bigger deal than restricting a business.


----------



## ang1170

Purple said:


> She has requested 5 weeks. As of yet she has not broken her contract.
> If she walks out after 5 weeks without agreement then she will breaking it.
> 
> While contracts are a two way agreement restricting a person is a bigger deal than restricting a business.


 
 It's worth pointing out that the last post from the OP included the statement "Time to just suck it up and hope the new place will wait." That doesn't to me sound like they're about to break the contract. Small wonder it was their last post given the accusations and tone of some of the comments made.

 I'd also agree that while on the face of it a contract is a two way agreement, in many cases there is a very significant imbalance in the relative power of the parties involved.


----------



## Frank

Not looking for the Joe Duffy response just advice and experience the very reason for a forum.

 Am aware of the legal requirement.
 The biggest problem I have is the MD feeling he can talk down to and threaten whomever he feels like.


----------



## Leper

Let's assume the current job is not associated with the next attempt by NASA to put a man on the moon or that it is one which will immediately end starvation in Africa.  Let's make this a regular mundane job.  

If the employer introduces a clause into the employment contract like " Notice to Quit shall be six months" just because he can; do you think this is acceptable?  Let's be more adventurous and have him write "Notice to Quit shall be nine months".  

There will always be those on here who will say the contract is binding so stop moaning and serve out your nine months because that is what you signed.  This is the kind of person who has got Ireland into the dreadful state it is in. Ireland of the Sacred Cows.


----------



## Setanta12

I disagree.

If there is a dispute let it go to court - if the employer wins, he will be compensated for his loss.   How would that be valued?  (Ans:- it wouldn't be)


----------



## Setanta12

Leper said:


> This is the kind of person who has got Ireland into the dreadful state it is in. Ireland of the Sacred Cows.



A touch too much dramatic licence there, by any chance ?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Leper said:


> If the employer introduces a clause into the employment contract like " Notice to Quit shall be six months" just because he can; do you think this is acceptable?  Let's be more adventurous and have him write "Notice to Quit shall be nine months".
> 
> .



Hi Leper 

Would you sign a contract with a 9 month notice period in it? 

Brendan


----------



## Leper

Yes Brendan, I would, if I were looking for work.  Contracts of Nine Months, Six Months, Three Months - what's the difference in real terms? When you're goin' to leave, you are goin' to leave.  There is nothing wrong with four weeks notice for most jobs.

For the Record:- When I was an employer I had no difficulty in accepting notice of a few days to quit from any employee.  In fact, I hoped the employee would leave asap as training new recruits was not too difficult.  You do not have to be an Artist to draw conclusions and I believe employing somebody who wants to be part of the team is better than somebody who wants to get out of the team.  Common Sense is not so common, you know. In some cases where an employee left my employ I used to keep the post vacant for quite some time to enable him/her to come in from the cold, if necessary.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Leper said:


> Contracts of Nine Months, Six Months, Three Months - what's the difference in real terms? When you're goin' to leave, you are goin' to leave.



So you see the contract as one sided. 

It gives the employees rights but no obligations. 

That is just crazy.  

I agree with your approach as an employer. I would not put in a 3 months notice period. But if I did, I would respect it and I would expect the employee to respect it as well.


----------



## RainyDay

Maybe she should just declare bankruptcy? 

Because everyone on AAM knows and agrees that it's OK to walk away from your contractual commitments once you declare bankrutpcy? Hell, the AAMers will even tell you be way/place/judge to do your bankruptcy.


----------



## Time

Contrast that to the view a few years ago when any mention of bankruptcy brought on howls of "you must pay your debts, you signed a contract!".


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> So you see the contract as one sided.
> 
> It gives the employees rights but no obligations.
> 
> That is just crazy.


 
 No more crazy or one sided than an employer seeking a 20% pay cut, methinks.

 Just what is the big difference between this - which apparently is OK - and asking for a reduced notice period - which apparently is not OK?

 I keep saying it that someone should not just take the reduced notice period (i.e. break the contract), but have simply pointed out that it is in effect unlikely to be enforceable. Personally I wouldn't take that step, both on principle (don't break something you entered into if possible) and because it would not be good for one's reputation.

 The realities of life are such that regardless what's written into contracts, employers are able to ask for pay cuts and employees are able to ask for reduced notice periods. This is an entirely consistent position. It does not mean that anyone's suggesting anyone sees a contract as one sided, or there to be ignored.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Frank,

As I am sure you can see opinion is divided and has taken a direction that may be irrelevant to your enquiry.

You say that you are aware of your fiancé’s contractual obligations, but that your main concern is the behaviour of the managing director.

In this respect, I am not clear as to matter on which you seek advice, perhaps you would clarify.


----------



## Leper

Brendan Burgess said:


> So you see the contract as one sided.
> 
> It gives the employees rights but no obligations.
> 
> That is just crazy.
> 
> I agree with your approach as an employer. I would not put in a 3 months notice period. But if I did, I would respect it and I would expect the employee to respect it as well.



You said it yourself Brendan, you would not put in a 3 months notice period.  Then you go on to say "But if I did, I would respect it" - Come On! You and I know there is no need for a 3 months notice to quit period.  

Some other slave to Sacred Cows earlier pointed out that some companies insist on a 3 months notice to quit period but the start of the notice period is at the first day of the following quarter.  

Do these guys think that some Call Centre Jockey is going to wait around for  several weeks and then for a further three months before accepting a better job?  Would you think him disrespectful if he did?  The employee has obligations to himself and his family and probably to his mortgage supplier.

If I were employing this guy and he informed me that he is working out his months and months of notice because he is "contracted" I would inform him to keep working where he is and you ain't coming to my place. I would want people who can make decisions themselves.


----------



## Ceist Beag

RainyDay said:


> Maybe she should just declare bankruptcy?
> 
> Because everyone on AAM knows and agrees that it's OK to walk away from your contractual commitments once you declare bankrutpcy? Hell, the AAMers will even tell you be way/place/judge to do your bankruptcy.


 Love it, nail on head RainyDay!


----------



## Sunny

RainyDay said:


> Maybe she should just declare bankruptcy?
> 
> Because everyone on AAM knows and agrees that it's OK to walk away from your contractual commitments once you declare bankrutpcy? Hell, the AAMers will even tell you be way/place/judge to do your bankruptcy.



I don't get your point. You have a problem with people getting advice on bankruptcy on a site called askaboutmoney? I also don't get your point about people walking away from their contractual obligations. What do you think bankruptcy is? What do you think companies do with their contractual obligations when they go into liquidation?


----------



## elacsaplau

I agree with Brendan that the terms of the contract should be respected absolutely.

My problem is that I started a new job 2 weeks ago. On paper, it all looked good. A six figure basic, bonus up to 40%, car, pension, shares, healthcare, etc.

On Tuesday afternoon of last week, my boss asked me to have a report ready for him for first thing on Wednesday morning. When I told him that I anticipated that this would take at least 6 hours, he gave me a "and your problem is" type look.

My contract is 9 to 5, Monday to Friday with a reference to exceptionally having to work outside these hours. When I consulted my new colleagues, I was advised to get used to it as that's just the way it is around here.

So what do I do? I have noticed that pretty much all of my colleagues work in excess of the contracted hours and I really feel very uncomfortable about the prospect of having to work in an environment in which I am expected to consistently act in breach of my contractual terms.


----------



## Purple

elacsaplau said:


> I really feel very uncomfortable about the prospect of having to work in an environment in which I am expected to consistently act in breach of my contractual terms.


That's a big legalistic. How many hours a weeks are you talking about?  Is there any reciprocity from the employer if employees need some time off during the day etc.? You seem to have a very well paid job. Do you expect to just walk away from it at 5 each evening?


----------



## RainyDay

elacsaplau said:


> I agree with Brendan that the terms of the contract should be respected absolutely.
> 
> My problem is that I started a new job 2 weeks ago. On paper, it all looked good. A six figure basic, bonus up to 40%, car, pension, shares, healthcare, etc.
> 
> On Tuesday afternoon of last week, my boss asked me to have a report ready for him for first thing on Wednesday morning. When I told him that I anticipated that this would take at least 6 hours, he gave me a "and your problem is" type look.
> 
> My contract is 9 to 5, Monday to Friday with a reference to exceptionally having to work outside these hours. When I consulted my new colleagues, I was advised to get used to it as that's just the way it is around here.
> 
> So what do I do? I have noticed that pretty much all of my colleagues work in excess of the contracted hours and I really feel very uncomfortable about the prospect of having to work in an environment in which I am expected to consistently act in breach of my contractual terms.



WHat kind of research did you do on the employer and the job before you made the decision to join this firm?


----------



## Sunny

elacsaplau said:


> I agree with Brendan that the terms of the contract should be respected absolutely.
> 
> My problem is that I started a new job 2 weeks ago. On paper, it all looked good. A six figure basic, bonus up to 40%, car, pension, shares, healthcare, etc.
> 
> On Tuesday afternoon of last week, my boss asked me to have a report ready for him for first thing on Wednesday morning. When I told him that I anticipated that this would take at least 6 hours, he gave me a "and your problem is" type look.
> 
> My contract is 9 to 5, Monday to Friday with a reference to exceptionally having to work outside these hours. When I consulted my new colleagues, I was advised to get used to it as that's just the way it is around here.
> 
> So what do I do? I have noticed that pretty much all of my colleagues work in excess of the contracted hours and I really feel very uncomfortable about the prospect of having to work in an environment in which I am expected to consistently act in breach of my contractual terms.


 
I would find an employees attitude of 'a contract is a contract' with regard to working hours as annoying as I would find an employer saying a 'contract is a contract' with regard to a notice period. Especially at the level that you are obviously at. Most employer /employee relationships or at least the good ones are built on mutual flexibility. I have always worked as early and as late as was necessary despite my contract saying 9-5 but I would always expect my employer to be flexibile with me if I needed a few hours off and my work wouldn't be affected. 

As for what to do, apparently you simply work your contracted hours if you wish and walk out the door at 5 every day. What can your employer do? You signed a contract and morally and legally they will just have to accept it.


----------



## RainyDay

Sunny said:


> I don't get your point.


My point is about the remarkable difference between the advice given to someone trying to get out of their borrowing obligations and someone trying to get out of the employment obligations. I thought the difference was remarkable, so I remarked on it.


----------



## TTI

I previously had a job with 3 months notice in the contract, which was standard for the company. And due to it being a manufacturing company it was often very difficult to find someone suitable and give them handover training within that period of time.

That being said, most people left with shorter notice than that and the company was understanding about it. I've seen it before where people would arrange to leave and then come in for a few days when the company had found and hired someone.


----------



## Sunny

RainyDay said:


> My point is about the remarkable difference between the advice given to someone trying to get out of their borrowing obligations and someone trying to get out of the employment obligations. I thought the difference was remarkable, so I remarked on it.


 
What's the remarkable difference?


----------



## RainyDay

The remarkable difference is that with employment obligations, the general AAM advice is 'you signed the contract, suck it up', whereas with borrowing obligations, the general AAM advice is about how best to get out of your obligations at least cost to you (least return to your debtors) by moving to the UK.


----------



## ang1170

elacsaplau said:


> I agree with Brendan that the terms of the contract should be respected absolutely.
> 
> My problem is that I started a new job 2 weeks ago. On paper, it all looked good. A six figure basic, bonus up to 40%, car, pension, shares, healthcare, etc.
> 
> On Tuesday afternoon of last week, my boss asked me to have a report ready for him for first thing on Wednesday morning. When I told him that I anticipated that this would take at least 6 hours, he gave me a "and your problem is" type look.
> 
> My contract is 9 to 5, Monday to Friday with a reference to exceptionally having to work outside these hours. When I consulted my new colleagues, I was advised to get used to it as that's just the way it is around here.
> 
> So what do I do? I have noticed that pretty much all of my colleagues work in excess of the contracted hours and I really feel very uncomfortable about the prospect of having to work in an environment in which I am expected to consistently act in breach of my contractual terms.


 
 This is yet another example of those saying "a contract is a contract" do not apply it consistently. If an employee turns around and says "my contract terms are 9-5, it's 5 o'clock, so I'm off home", they are branded as being inflexible. And yet it is OK apparently for an employer to insist on (an unreasonably long) notice period, because "a contract is a contract".

 Funny how employers are allowed a bit of leeway, yet employees aren't, isn't it?

 By the way, I've been both an employee and an employer. As an employer I never put anything into an employment contract I wouldn't be prepared to accept myself.


----------



## Gerry Canning

RainyDay said:


> Maybe she should just declare bankruptcy?
> 
> Because everyone on AAM knows and agrees that it's OK to walk away from your contractual commitments once you declare bankrutpcy? Hell, the AAMers will even tell you be way/place/judge to do your bankruptcy.


 ................................
I understand the sarcasm and indeed your annoyance at people in AAM advising how to go bankrupt.

But I strongly believe most posters in AAM  are accepting of the reality that Bankruptcy is the final straw for most people. 
The Bankrupt  killed no one, and if the choice is to be between borrowers being  locked into unsustainable debt for years versus a new chance , what is the money point or indeed any point in prolonging the agony ?

I strongly hold the view and would think AAM posters would agree, that the Boyos who abuse Bankruptcy by hiding assets etc should be (hung)!


----------



## RainyDay

Gerry Canning said:


> ................................
> I understand the sarcasm and indeed your annoyance at people in AAM advising how to go bankrupt.
> 
> But I strongly believe most posters in AAM  are accepting of the reality that Bankruptcy is the final straw for most people.
> The Bankrupt  killed no one, and if the choice is to be between borrowers being  locked into unsustainable debt for years versus a new chance , what is the money point or indeed any point in prolonging the agony ?
> 
> I strongly hold the view and would think AAM posters would agree, that the Boyos who abuse Bankruptcy by hiding assets etc should be (hung)!



But do you see the irony of the very different advice given by most posters to the employee in this case? The employee never killed anyone. If the choice is to be locked into an unsustainable employment for months versus a new chance, what is the point in prolonging the agony?


----------



## Steven Barrett

elacsaplau said:


> I agree with Brendan that the terms of the contract should be respected absolutely.
> 
> My problem is that I started a new job 2 weeks ago. On paper, it all looked good. A six figure basic, bonus up to 40%, car, pension, shares, healthcare, etc.
> 
> On Tuesday afternoon of last week, my boss asked me to have a report ready for him for first thing on Wednesday morning. When I told him that I anticipated that this would take at least 6 hours, he gave me a "and your problem is" type look.
> 
> My contract is 9 to 5, Monday to Friday with a reference to exceptionally having to work outside these hours. When I consulted my new colleagues, I was advised to get used to it as that's just the way it is around here.
> 
> So what do I do? I have noticed that pretty much all of my colleagues work in excess of the contracted hours and I really feel very uncomfortable about the prospect of having to work in an environment in which I am expected to consistently act in breach of my contractual terms.



I'm sorry elacsaplau, but did you really think that you would get a package like that working a 35 hour week? 

My first boss told me "if you want to get cost of living pay increases, come in at 9 and go home at 5. If you want to get promoted and make good money, show us that you're putting in the hours and getting the work done."

I presume you didn't do 35 hours a week to get in a position where you earn €100+ a year? 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Steven Barrett

RainyDay said:


> But do you see the irony of the very different advice given by most posters to the employee in this case? The employee never killed anyone. If the choice is to be locked into an unsustainable employment for months versus a new chance, what is the point in prolonging the agony?



That's because everyone is looking as these things as either black or white. 

You signed the contract of employment, you serve the 3 months notice. But her boss is now being nasty because she's leaving and there may be a chance of her losing the new job. 

You borrowed the money off the bank, you pay it back. But the bank lent recklessly and unless you live on beans, you cannot afford to repay the money as per the contract.

Life changes and people's circumstances change all the time. Going back to the OP, if the MD isn't going to re-negotiate the contract, he'd want to grow up and stop being so nasty to his employee. If he's now decided he hates her,  either let her go after 5 weeks or start treating her properly. As for leaving on good terms, it seems as if that boat has already sailed. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Gerry Canning

RainyDay said:


> But do you see the irony of the very different advice given by most posters to the employee in this case? The employee never killed anyone. If the choice is to be locked into an unsustainable employment for months versus a new chance, what is the point in prolonging the agony?


 .............................

Yup. 

 Hard to get these things right , even more difficult to try to get between different  factions.
Glad I am not a judge ? 
I suppose even (bad)contracts have the merit of setting the base -line.


----------



## elacsaplau

To SBarrett

Hi Steven

Firstly, I'm at lunch in case anyone accuses me of reneging of my employment commitments!

It seems to me that you view certain terms in a contract as arbitrary. From your entries, you believe the notice period and working hour terms of contracts of employment are somehow to be seen as some form of discretionary guidelines. Just wondering whether you believe there are any other terms in a standard contract of employment that are similarly discretionary?

Also, presumably when you sign a letter of engagement with your clients, you have some means of showing them which terms are absolute/sacrosanct and which terms you apply a personal interpretation to?


----------



## ang1170

elacsaplau said:


> To SBarrett
> 
> Hi Steven
> 
> Firstly, I'm at lunch in case anyone accuses me of reneging of my employment commitments!
> 
> It seems to me that you view certain terms in a contract as arbitrary. From your entries, you believe the notice period and working hour terms of contracts of employment are somehow to be seen as some form of discretionary guidelines. Just wondering whether you believe there are any other terms in a standard contract of employment that are similarly discretionary?
> 
> Also, presumably when you sign a letter of engagement with your clients, you have some means of showing them which terms are absolute/sacrosanct and which terms you apply a personal interpretation to?


 
 Why do you and others persist with the accusation that some are advocating contracts are somehow optional? I'm sure Steven can defend himself, but maybe you should read what he actually said (which was "if the MD isn't going to re-negotiate the contract...") before making the sarcastic comments....


----------



## Sunny

elacsaplau said:


> To SBarrett
> 
> Hi Steven
> 
> Firstly, I'm at lunch in case anyone accuses me of reneging of my employment commitments!
> 
> It seems to me that you view certain terms in a contract as arbitrary. From your entries, you believe the notice period and working hour terms of contracts of employment are somehow to be seen as some form of discretionary guidelines. Just wondering whether there are any other terms in a standard contract of employment that are similarly discretionary?
> 
> Also, presumably when you sign a letter of engagement with your clients, you have some means of showing them which terms are absolute/sacrosanct and which terms you apply a personal interpretation to?


 
Of course there is always some flexibility shown with regard to some contractual terms in the real world. Why do you think trade unions use work to rule as a tool for industrial action? It's because they know employees working strictly to the terms of their contract can cause disruption to their employers. That doesn't mean that people don't respect contracts or think that employees are only looking for rights but no obligations.

Is there anyone here who hasn't worked late, opened e-mails or taken calls while at home or on holidays, taken on extra responsibilities, had lunch at their desk or just generally gone the extra mile for their company? 

If we all had the view held here by some that a contract is a contract, my company would cease to operate.


----------



## elacsaplau

Hi ang1170

I agree that Steven is more than capable of defending himself and I am just seeking to clarify which terms he feels are absolute and which terms he feels are arbitrary and how to distinguish one from the other. 

For clarification, my reference to the notice period term/clause relates to the implication of Steven's earlier comment:




SBarrett said:


> Brendan
> 
> Unless she is in a very high position, 3 months notice is unenforceable. It is totally unreasonable for an employer to impose such a long notice period on a staff member who is not going in direct competition with them (and I mean going out on their own or running another company) as it can effect their ability to find another job. Unless they are of exceptionable ability, most potential employers will not wait that long. If it's a close race between two candidates, the one with 1 month notice will probably win out.
> 
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Steven Barrett

elacsaplau said:


> To SBarrett
> 
> Hi Steven
> 
> Firstly, I'm at lunch in case anyone accuses me of reneging of my employment commitments!
> 
> It seems to me that you view certain terms in a contract as arbitrary. From your entries, you believe the notice period and working hour terms of contracts of employment are somehow to be seen as some form of discretionary guidelines. Just wondering whether you believe there are any other terms in a standard contract of employment that are similarly discretionary?
> 
> Also, presumably when you sign a letter of engagement with your clients, you have some means of showing them which terms are absolute/sacrosanct and which terms you apply a personal interpretation to?



Every contract of employment I have signed has stated that there may be times when you have to work additional hours. In the reality, this is the norm rather than the exception. In fact, I don't know anyone who comes in at 9 and clocks out at 5.  

As stated in a later post, not everything is black or white. If I have to work late or at weekends to get a job done, I will do it, even if it is outside me contracted hours (when I was an employee). The additional work I have put in has been recognised and I was rewarded for it. If people went unrewarded for putting in extra hours, it wouldn't take long for them to go back to the contracted hours. 

I give all my clients Terms of Business. It lays out what I do, how I do it and what regulatory protection there is. Nothing is absolute in it as being that inflexible is not commercial.


----------



## michaelm

Frank said:


> My Fiancé handed in notice at work on Tue after receiving and offer for a new job. Contract states 3 months notice. My reading of citizens information is that a contract is a contract and the company can insist of the 3 months.
> 
> Am I correct. Can holiday entitlement be used as part of notice? She put in for 5 weeks. initially they were shocked with offers of more, but now they have become nasty.
> 
> The worry is that the new opportunity may dry up.
> Any help much appreciated.


As a previous poster has said this reads like she has offered to work for 8 weeks and take 5 week holiday entitlement to make up the 3 months notice.  This seems reasonable.

I would approach the new employer and explain the issue with regard to notice and the adverse reaction from the current employer.  I would ascertain as to how long they would be prepared to wait.  If they could not wait the full 3 months then I'd tell them that I was prepared to leave sooner albeit likely without a glowing reference.  I'd accept any ramifications re breach of contract.  A contract is a contract but it's just a contract.  It's just business, not personal.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> As a previous poster has said this reads like she has offered to work for 8 weeks and take 5 week holiday entitlement to make up the 3 months notice.  This seems reasonable.
> 
> I would approach the new employer and explain the issue with regard to notice and the adverse reaction from the current employer.  I would ascertain as to how long they would be prepared to wait.  If they could not wait the full 3 months then I'd tell them that I was prepared to leave sooner albeit likely without a glowing reference.  I'd accept any ramifications re breach of contract.  A contract is a contract but it's just a contract.  It's just business, not personal.



Good advice.


----------



## Setanta12

RainyDay said:


> WHat kind of research did you do on the employer and the job before you made the decision to join this firm?



There is no real way of establishing work-practices in a company before you join them?  If there is, please enlighten the rest of us.  The rest of us hope the company adheres to the industry norm (whatever that may be).


----------



## Setanta12

Sunny said:


> What's the remarkable difference?



One being comparable to chalk; the other to cheese !

Other than both being contracts - there are no similarities !


----------



## RainyDay

Kildavin said:


> There is no real way of establishing work-practices in a company before you join them?  If there is, please enlighten the rest of us.



There are a few ways. One is to have an open and frank conversation at job offer stage about the working environment. Another option is to use your personal network to find a friend of a friend who works there, and have an off the record conversation with them before signing a contract.

Either way, it is incredible to me that anyone walked into a position with a 6-figure salary without having a very good understanding of the expectations of the role.


----------



## Setanta12

elacsaplau said:


> To SBarrett
> 
> Hi Steven
> 
> Firstly, I'm at lunch in case anyone accuses me of reneging of my employment commitments!
> 
> It seems to me that you view certain terms in a contract as arbitrary. From your entries, you believe the notice period and working hour terms of contracts of employment are somehow to be seen as some form of discretionary guidelines. Just wondering whether you believe there are any other terms in a standard contract of employment that are similarly discretionary?
> 
> Also, presumably when you sign a letter of engagement with your clients, you have some means of showing them which terms are absolute/sacrosanct and which terms you apply a personal interpretation to?



As part of my studies, I study international agreements and its remarkable how in those agreements some clauses are 'for show', others are going to be run rough-shod over (yet care is taken in their formulation) and others are sacrosanct.  So much so they even have an international agreement on contact (or to call contracts by another name; 'treaty') for it Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties - in the main, where one party overrides the Treaty, the offended party must either view the offence as 1) immaterial or 2) so sacrosanct and integral to the overall contract as a whole that if they knew the other party would at any stage override it; that they wouldn't have signed it in the first place.

I beg to argue - using the above hammer for this nutshell - that walking out on your job falls within 1) above. Immaterial.  Courts also, by other means, arrive at the same conclusion in majority of cases presented.


----------



## Setanta12

RainyDay said:


> There are a few ways. One is to have an open and frank conversation at job offer stage about the working environment. Another option is to use your personal network to find a friend of a friend who works there, and have an off the record conversation with them before signing a contract.
> 
> Either way, it is incredible to me that anyone walked into a position with a 6-figure salary without having a very good understanding of the expectations of the role.



I currently work somewhere where 20 hours overtime a week is expected.  Yet I was told of the work-life balance that the company maintains, I was shown the glowing references in those 'Best Workplace' surveys - yet I wasn't told about the expected unpaid/unreimbursed overtime or the practically zero payrises every year thereafter.

If I was interviewing and if someone asked me those questions - interview over; 'Next!' !!!


----------



## RainyDay

Kildavin said:


> I currently work somewhere where 20 hours overtime a week is expected.  Yet I was told of the work-life balance that the company maintains, I was shown the glowing references in those 'Best Workplace' surveys - yet I wasn't told about the expected unpaid/unreimbursed overtime or the practically zero payrises every year thereafter.


which is exactly why I recommended an off-the-record conversation with somebody on the inside.



Kildavin said:


> If I was interviewing and if someone asked me those questions - interview over; 'Next!' !!!


which is exactly why I recommended having that conversation at job offer stage, not at interview stage.


----------



## seantheman

RainyDay said:


> Maybe she should just declare bankruptcy?
> 
> Because everyone on AAM knows and agrees that it's OK to walk away from your contractual commitments once you declare bankrutpcy? Hell, the AAMers will even tell you be way/place/judge to do your bankruptcy.


 


Ceist Beag said:


> Love it, nail on head RainyDay!


 
I was going to post along these lines as i read through the thread and there are certainly similarities involved in both cases.
   I notice that one of the biggest advocates of breaking mortgage contracts and filing for bankruptcy hasn't come back since RainyDay's post


----------



## Setanta12

RainyDay said:


> which is exactly why I recommended an off-the-record conversation with somebody on the inside.
> 
> 
> which is exactly why I recommended having that conversation at job offer stage, not at interview stage.



Regarding the first; I know we be within six-degrees-of-separation from everyone else on this planet; and LinkedIn helps in this regard - - but still I imagine its pretty difficult to find someone you can trust in every prospective employer out there.

Re the job offer stage; my comments still stand.  I know of scenarios where there've been signed contracts and returned references to be told that the original offer was off the table -  but a different role available (take it/leave it decision to be made).  I've seen other scenarios where people have been turned away a day or two from starting their new job/role - having handed in notice elsewhere. (And no; nothing to do with the individual's references or the role disappearing - a change of mind!) (And this from a household-name MNC)


----------



## Brendan Burgess

For most people, there are few similarities between breaking a 3 month notice period and going into mortgage arrears. 

*The 3 month notice story 
*The employer and the employee signed up to a 3 month notice period. 
This has advantages and disadvantages for both the employer and the employee. 
The employee has a full and free choice whether to observe the contract or deliberately break it. 
Many posters on this forum have suggested that it doesn't matter and she should simply break it. 

I strongly disagree. 

*For most people in mortgage arrears 
*I would estimate that 70% of those in mortgage arrears generally and at least 90% of those on askaboutmoney are in arrears unwillingly. 
They are not deliberately choosing to break their mortgage contract. 
They have usually lost their job and they are very reluctant to go into arrears. 
Most make huge efforts to stay out of arrears. 

*Some people are strategic defaulters 
*They go into arrears without needing to do so. 
They lie about their income and their assets to get a deal. 

These usually get very little support on askaboutmoney. 

I would say someone who deliberately breaks a notice period in a contract is similar to a strategic defaulter. They are breaking their contract because it suits them to do so and not because it's forced on them. They do it because they know that the consequences are not very serious for them.  

But, as I say, most of the cases on Askboutmoney where bankruptcy is recommended is because the person is clearly insolvent. 

Someone who goes bankrupt when they have no other choice, should have no sense of shame.  They should not be compared to someone who deliberately breaks their contract with their employer.


----------



## Setanta12

IMHO, judging between employment contracts and mortgage-defaults; apples-and-oranges.

How they ever became entwined in this discussion escapes me.

I would leave it to the Courts who have let employees walk.  (Notwithstanding the almost infinitesimal part of the contract that the final-notice-period means in the context of the overall employment contract -  the present value of work to be done in final few disputed weeks/months must valued at close to negligible - - hence few employers take employees to court on this and even fewer win)


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> Many posters on this forum have suggested that it doesn't matter and she should simply break it.
> 
> I strongly disagree.


 
 As Ronald Reagan once said: "there you go again". I haven't the will to read over the entire thread again but I don't recall anyone saying that anyone should just break the contract. Saying it is unenforceable is not the same thing: I and others have mentioned this in the context of negotiating a change to the terms.

 The comparison with mortgage arrears is brought on by those with the absolutist position of "a contract is a contract". The same position has been expressed on both topics. The point in both cases is that a contract can be changed: it is a nonsense to say all terms of a contract drawn up at some point in the past must be met, with no possibility of change.


----------



## Purple

There is a difference between not wanting to honour a contract and not being able to honour it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Kildavin said:


> How they ever became entwined in this discussion escapes me.



Rainyday introduced it here 



RainyDay said:


> The remarkable difference is that with  employment obligations, the general AAM advice is 'you signed the  contract, suck it up', whereas with borrowing obligations, the general  AAM advice is about how best to get out of your obligations at least  cost to you (least return to your debtors) by moving to the UK.



I don't think that is the "general AAM advice at all".  In many cases when people provide the full information, they are told that they are not insolvent and that their mortgage is sustainable and that they should pay it.    There isn't "general AAM advice" anyway. There probably is a majority view on many issues, but as a discussion forum, there are opposing views on most subjects. 

My view is very clear, and I think, very consistent. 

If you have a contract, and you can adhere to it, you have a moral and legal obligation to do so. 
If you wish to renegotiate that contract, you should talk to the other side about renegotiating it. If you can reach agreement on the renegotiation, that's fine. If you can't, you can terminate the contract, but within the termination terms. 
If you break the terms of a contract because you cannot adhere to them, there should be no shame.  For example, if you lose your job and you can't pay your mortgage repayments.

I have been very clear that there should be no concessions for strategic defaulters. They should be pursued. 
I have also been very clear, that where a mortgage is unsustainable, that should be recognised by both sides early, and a deal done on the shortfall, if there is one.


----------



## Ceist Beag

ang1170 said:


> As Ronald Reagan once said: "there you go again". I haven't the will to read over the entire thread again but I don't recall anyone saying that anyone should just break the contract. Saying it is unenforceable is not the same thing: I and others have mentioned this in the context of negotiating a change to the terms.
> 
> The comparison with mortgage arrears is brought on by those with the absolutist position of "a contract is a contract". The same position has been expressed on both topics. The point in both cases is that a contract can be changed: it is a nonsense to say all terms of a contract drawn up at some point in the past must be met, with no possibility of change.


Exactly, and this is the point I believe RainyDay was making with the sarcastic comparison with bankruptcy (at least that was my take on it).
I think Brendan is fundamentally misrepresenting the OP here. The OP stated that the employee made an offer to the employer to come to some agreement on a reduction on the notice period (including using their holidays to be able to make up some of it). The employer would not agree to the terms and now the OP stated they would have to see out the full notice period.
On the other hand people on this site have suggested in other cases that where negotiation on changing the terms on a contract (lets call it a mortgage for example) fail then people should break that contract (lets call it bankruptcy for example). Obviously there is a difference in the situations and I'm not for a minute trying to compare the two - all I'm saying is that this just shows that those arguing that a contract is a contract is a contract are not exactly consistent and as ang says, contracts can absolutely be renegotiated if circumstances change as is the case with the OP here.



Purple said:


> There is a difference between not wanting to honour a contract and not being able to honour it.



True - there is also a difference in the return achieved by forcing someone to honour a contract versus negotiating a change in the contract. Does the employer really believe it is in their best interest to pay wages for an additional 5 weeks to keep an unhappy employee before they leave? I fail to see how that is in their best interest and it's hard not to conclude that it is the employer who is being unreasonable here, not the employee.


----------



## ang1170

Purple said:


> There is a difference between not wanting to honour a contract and not being able to honour it.



Yes, understood, but that's not the point I was making. 

There have been all sorts of claims and spurious arguments made trying to make out that I and others are advocating breaking contracts. This is not the case.

For example, Brendan drew a comparison between this situation and choosing to litter the streets because it's too inconvenient. The comparison makes no sense: the act of littering is illegal. I can't engage with the judicial system trying to get them to change the law because I don't like it (that's up to politicians, God help us). 

If I don't like a contract, on the other hand, I can engage with the other party to negotiate a change that we can both live with. I can use the fact that it is probably effectively unenforceable to strengthen my position in that negotiation, without even mentioning it. The fact that I wouldn't carry out the implied threat is neither here nor there.

I would have thought this was a simple enough point.

It's also entirely consistent across all the examples given: you should at all times live by the terms of a contract. However, if you are unable to meet them, or if circumstances have changed, you should engage with the other party to reach a mutually agreeable change.

This is in contrast to those advocating the absolutist stance of "a contract must be obeyed" who seem quite happy to advocate it's OK for one side to seek a change (employers, as in B&L example), but not the other (employee, as in notice period example). I've no problem with someone taking an absolutist stance, though I don't agree with it, but they should at least be consistent in it with the risk otherwise of being seen as hypocritical.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ang1170 said:


> This is in contrast to those advocating the absolutist stance of "a contract must be obeyed" who seem quite happy to advocate it's OK for one side to seek a change (employers, as in B&L example), but not the other (employee, as in notice period example). I've no problem with someone taking an absolutist stance, though I don't agree with it, but they should at least be consistent in it with the risk of being seen as hypocritical.



I am not sure if you are referring to me in this case? 

My position is quite clear, or I hope it is.  But I will say it again, just in case. 

A contract, freely entered into,  is legally and morally binding.  Either side, may at any time, seek to renegotiate its terms. This happens all the time. I have renegotiated employment and mortgage contracts often.  On some occasions, I have been unable to renegotiate them successfully, and so terminated them, but always within the terms of that contract.  I don't think that I have every broken a contract, which I was in a position to fulfill without the agreement of the other party. If there was some term hidden in small print, or a misunderstanding at the time of the contract, it would be a different matter.  

But one side should not unilaterally vary the terms of the contract, freely entered into, because there are no consequences to doing so.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Applying this to the current case, this is what I think should have happened.  I am not sure from the posts, what actually did happen.

1)  When signing the original contract, the fiancé should have asked for the 3 months notice period to be reduced to one month. If the employer refused, then she should have made her decision whether to accept the job or not.
2) Given that there was a 3 months notice period, she should have been upfront with the new employer and told them that they would have to wait 3 months. She should have said "The contract says three months and I will honour it if I have to. However, I will try to get my employer's agreement to  leave earlier"  ( This is very, very, common practice)  If they refused, then she would have had to turn down the offer. 

What she should not have done, and it's not clear to me what she actually did. 
A) Told the new employer that she could start in a month 
B) Told the existing employer that she was giving one month's notice, because 3 months is unreasonable or impractical. 

Does anyone disagree with any of these points?


----------



## ang1170

I think anyone can see that our summarised positions are essentially identical (i.e. contracts should be adhered to, but are always open to negotiation).

However, there has been a tone and emphasis in many of the posts in this thread, yours included, that was essentially saying: "you made the agreement, you chose to sign it, you now have to live with it". This is neither true nor helpful.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Brendan Burgess said:


> What she should not have done, and it's not clear to me what she actually did.
> A) Told the new employer that she could start in a month
> B) Told the existing employer that she was giving one month's notice, because 3 months is unreasonable or impractical.
> 
> Does anyone disagree with any of these points?



There you go again Brendan, fundamentally misrepresenting the OP. 
Here is what the OP stated.



Frank said:


> My Fiancé handed in notice at work on Tue after receiving and offer for a new job.
> 
> Contract states 3 months notice.
> 
> She put in for 5 weeks (holidays)





Frank said:


> After some of the nasty comments today she is going to leave regardless of the other job if it needs to be 3 months so be it.
> 
> Agreed that 1 month to 6 weeks would seem to be plenty to any reasonable person but panic brings out the worst in people sometimes.





Frank said:


> MD is under pressure from above and lashing out.
> 
> Time to just suck it up and hope the new place will wait.



Now it seems clear to me, maybe not to you, that the situation is that the OP made an offer of 1 month 6 weeks work, plus 5 weeks holiday (which presumably they had accumulated) as the notice period. In other words a little bit short of 3 months, half of which was made up with holidays earned.
This was an offer an negotiation. 
The employer flat rejected it.
The OP stated they would see out the contract.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> What she should not have done, and it's not clear to me what she actually did.
> A) Told the new employer that she could start in a month
> B) Told the existing employer that she was giving one month's notice, because 3 months is unreasonable or impractical.
> 
> Does anyone disagree with any of these points?



I agree with the first part (i.e. what she should have done), though this was not the advice you were handing out before. However, I've no idea where you get the points (A) and (B) above: it's reading far more into the OP than is there.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Ang

You first made this point back in your first post on the thread. 

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1388609&postcount=28

I have made it clear all along that she should ask to go early, but not insist on it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Ceist Beag said:


> There you go again Brendan, fundamentally misrepresenting the OP.



Hi Ceist , I think you are being totally unfair to me: 

As I pointed out twice 


> I am not sure from the posts, what actually did happen.


and 



> What she should not have done, and it's not clear to me what she actually did.


I did ask for clarification early on, but I didn't get it. 

I did misread this bit in the OP



> Contract states 3 months notice.
> 
> My reading of citizens information is that a contract is a contract and the company can insist of the 3 months.
> 
> Am I correct.
> Can holiday entitlement be used as part of notice?
> 
> She put in for 5 weeks.


I misread the 5 weeks as 5 weeks notice, but it seems to have referred to holidays. 



But we seem to be reaching a  majority view - contracts should be adhered to. Both sides can seek to renegotiate. One side should not simply ignore the contract. 

Some don't agree though. Kildavin was pretty clear in the very first response to the thread.  http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1388388&postcount=2



> One month would do it for me -  irregardless of what it says in  the Contract.



Kildavin is quite clear that he would break the  contract in this situation.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Ang
> 
> You first made this point back in your first post on the thread.
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1388609&postcount=28
> 
> I have made it clear all along that she should ask to go early, but not insist on it.



What point was that? I simply restated that the OP was asking was the clause enforceable. The answer by the way seems to be "legally, probably yes, practically, probably no". This is not either asking or answering if they should break the terms of a contract.

And, no, you didn't make it clear all along that she should ask anything: your first post on the issue made no mention of negotiation, and included a gratuitous insult, calling the questioner "nasty".

"Presumably she read her contract when deciding on her current job? She saw the notice period of 3 months and signed the contract. 

Presumably when she was offered the other job offer, she told them that she had to serve 3 months' notice? And presumably they agreed to this. So of course, they will wait.

As an employer, I would be very annoyed if someone said that they wanted to serve a shorter notice period in the contract. If they came to me and gave me formal notice of three months and then asked nicely if they could go earlier, I would talk to them about it. But I would react very negatively if someone "put in for 5 weeks" whatever that means. 

It seems to me that your fiancé is being nasty and not the employer."


----------



## Setanta12

Non-compete clauses in contracts have been held by the Courts to be unfair, yet were originally signed by both parties.  Contract terms are not inviolable.  Where the terms are such that they are outside the norm for the industry, then and only then would I consider a unilateral break.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ang1170 said:


> And, no, you didn't make it clear all along that she should ask anything: your first post on the issue made no mention of negotiation, and included a gratuitous insult, calling the questioner "nasty".



Hi ang

I thought that my first post, which you have helpfully quoted in full, was quite clear 

" If they came to me and gave me formal notice of three months and then  asked nicely if they could go earlier, I would talk to them about it. " 

As an employer, we always had one months notice in contracts as far as I can remember. 

I always asked employees who were thinking of leaving to let me know and many of them did, long before they got a job offer.  We often helped to find the person a new job, using our contacts.  We allowed people to leave before their official notice period, because their new employer needed them urgently.  And we also allowed new employees to go back for a day or two to their old employers to help with the handover. 

The first post referred to the employer as "nasty" when he seemed to be just insisting that the contract be adhered to. 

Kildavin suggested ignoring the contract.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Kildavin said:


> Where the terms are such that they are outside the norm for the industry, then and only then would I consider a unilateral break.



We have to agree to disagree.  

What is the point of having a contract? Why not just say "the norms for the industry apply"


----------



## Setanta12

Brendan Burgess said:


> We have to agree to disagree.
> 
> What is the point of having a contract? Why not just say "the norms for the industry apply"



You may as well ask, 'Why do Courts set aside agreements entered into ?' ... but they do.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> The first post referred to the employer as "nasty" when he seemed to be just insisting that the contract be adhered to.



Again, that's your interpretation: there's nothing in the OP to suggest this. My reading is that it was the response of the employer to attempts to negotiate.

Even if your interpretation was correct, you think it's OK to respond with similar language?


----------



## Ceist Beag

Ok so I think Brendan we're in agreement on some parts here although I still think you were implying that the OP was trying to do something they never claimed to, even if you put in the caveat of not being sure. But that aside, the main question from the OP remains open as far as I'm concerned.
There is a job offer and the OP's fiancée tried to negotiate leaving his/her current job earlier than the 3 month notice period (terminating employment in 9-11 weeks rather than 12 weeks as per the contract, but effectively leaving in 4 weeks and using 5 weeks holidays for the remainder). I think, if I were in this position, and if the employer point blank refused to negotiate, I would work for 7 weeks and then use the remaining 5 weeks holidays to fulfil the contract. This would mean informing the company who made the job offer that I could start in 8 weeks time. I think most companies would be ok to wait 8 weeks.
It would have been better, as Brendan said, to have thought this through before any job offer was made and to have informed the company of the notice period in advance. However given the situation the OP's fiancée is now in, I think this would be the best way out. It doesn't break any contract. The current employer might argue they are not obliged to allow the 5 weeks holidays be used but given it sounds like the employer is being very unreasonable here I personally would have no concerns about that - it sounds like there is no relationship to maintain there anymore anyway.


----------



## mandelbrot

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi ang
> 
> I thought that my first post, which you have helpfully quoted in full, was quite clear
> 
> " If they came to me and gave me formal notice of three months and then asked nicely if they could go earlier, I would talk to them about it. "
> 
> As an employer, we always had one months notice in contracts as far as I can remember.
> 
> I always asked employees who were thinking of leaving to let me know and many of them did, long before they got a job offer. We often helped to find the person a new job, using our contacts. We allowed people to leave before their official notice period, because their new employer needed them urgently. And we also allowed new employees to go back for a day or two to their old employers to help with the handover.
> 
> The first post referred to the employer as "nasty" when he seemed to be just insisting that the contract be adhered to.
> 
> Kildavin suggested ignoring the contract.


 
It's all well and good that you were a soft and cuddly employer Brendan but that is clearly not the case here.

I struggle to envisage a scenario other than perhaps at the very top end of the business world, where a role becoming available couldn't be filled in substantially less than 3 months, and any employer who is insisting on the contract being adhered to to the letter is clearly doing so simply out of spite and to make the transition difficult for the employee - that is what I would infer from the OP and the OP's further update confirms it.

I'm pretty sure everyone will agree that it is basic common sense that once you know someone is moving on, it is in both parties' best interests to conclude that move as soon as is convenient for both parties, having regard to the needs of the business.

To me, the comparisons to mortgage defaults and bankruptcies are a total red herring; those are purely financial relationships, whereas an employment is much more than that - i.e. the employee is contracting to work, and the employer to pay them for that work and fulfil various other obligations as an employer (Health & Safety etc...).

The bottom line for me is that it boils down to how and why the employer is insisting on the 3 month notice period being served - if they will already have a replacement in and motoring within 5 weeks, but are insisting on the contract being honoured just to be awkward, then I'd have no qualms about walking. If on the other hand, it was somehow the case that they would be at a definite loss and wanted to stick to the 3 months because of that, then I'd view it differently.

In other words I'd be guided by my own common sense and ethics; rather than blindly following a document I signed in good faith in the expectation of both myself and the other party being capable of exercising our own respective common sense and some level of mutual respect.


----------



## Sunny

Brendan Burgess said:


> We have to agree to disagree.
> 
> What is the point of having a contract? Why not just say "the norms for the industry apply"


 
Brendan, I think people are simply pointing out that employment contracts are not some sacrocent documents that have to be fulfiled no matter what. Employment contracts are broken every day. My employer broke mine last night by ringing me at 8pm. Maybe I should have pointed out the legal situation and told him that he was acting immorally but oddly enough I don't think he would appreciate that. Is that fair? No. Is that the real world? Yes. Unless you think everyone should work to rule? 

In the case of the situation with the OP, I think everyone agrees that people should try and fulfill their contractual obligations as much as possible. If the employee tried to re-negotiate the clause in her contract and failed, she is free to break that contract and accept the consequences. It doesn't make her actions wrong or immoral.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Ceist Beag said:


> However given the situation the OP's fiancée is now in, I think this would be the best way out. It doesn't break any contract. The current employer might argue they are not obliged to allow the 5 weeks holidays be used but given it sounds like the employer is being very unreasonable here I personally would have no concerns about that - it sounds like there is no relationship to maintain there anymore anyway.



I agree fully with this approach. If she is entitled to 5 weeks' holidays, then she is entitled to them. 

I don't think that they could argue that the 5 weeks can't be used? They could argue that she takes 5 weeks' holidays now and work the last 7 weeks of her notice. But that would be unreasonable.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

mandelbrot said:


> The bottom line for me is that it boils down to how and why the employer is insisting on the 3 month notice period being served - if they will already have a replacement in and motoring within 5 weeks, but are insisting on the contract being honoured just to be awkward, then I'd have no qualms about walking.



That is not the bottom line for me.  I respect contracts which I enter into. That is the bottom line for me.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> If the employee tried to re-negotiate the clause in her contract and failed, she is free to break that contract and accept the consequences. It doesn't make her actions wrong or immoral.



Of course, it makes it wrong and immoral.  

The consequences for the employer are disruption. There are virtually no consequences for the employee.  

I am fully open to consensual renegotiation of contracts. But what is being suggested here by some posters seems to be something different: "Please agree to reduce the notice to 4 weeks and if you don't I will break the contract anyway."


----------



## Jim2007

mandelbrot said:


> In other words I'd be guided by my own common sense and ethics; rather than blindly following a document I signed in good faith in the expectation of both myself and the other party being capable of exercising our own respective common sense and some level of mutual respect.



How can you sign a contract in good faith, if you only indent to carry it, if is suits you at the time???

But here is the thing, if you do break the contract and the employer is pig headed about, then you should not be surprised if he is will to also kick in a few hundred Euro to seek an injunction preventing you taking up the new position and naming your new employer as a party to the action...  it really does not matter if he gets it or not because the job offer will probably disappear - no one wants to get involved in a law suit if they can avoid it...


----------



## Steven Barrett

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't think that they could argue that the 5 weeks can't be used? They could argue that she takes 5 weeks' holidays now and work the last 7 weeks of her notice. But that would be unreasonable.



Of course they can refuse her 5 weeks annual leave. It is most probably in her contract that she gets a certain number of holidays a year and the time she takes them has to be agreed by the employer. 

Also, even if she did take the 5 weeks holidays, she would still be their employee for that period. There is probably a clause in her contract from having dual employment in the same industry, preventing her from taking up her new role during that period. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## mandelbrot

Brendan Burgess said:


> That is not the bottom line for me.  I respect contracts which I enter into. That is the bottom line for me.



So you will adhere to a contract blindly, without even attempting to renegotiate a term that you subsequently realise is unpleasant for you?


----------



## Sunny

Brendan Burgess said:


> Of course, it makes it wrong and immoral.
> 
> The consequences for the employer are disruption. There are virtually no consequences for the employee.
> 
> I am fully open to consensual renegotiation of contracts. But what is being suggested here by some posters seems to be something different: "Please agree to reduce the notice to 4 weeks and if you don't I will break the contract anyway."


 
I just told my boss he was immoral for ringing me last night outside my contracted working hours. I pointed out that we should have tried to consensually renegotiate my contract before the phone call and failing the successful negotiation, he shouldn't have unilaterally decided to break the terms. 

I have employed senior counsel and am planning to get an injuction against my employer to stop any furture transgressions. My employer and I continue to have a great working relationship and I see a long future for me in this company. He understands that a contract is a contract.


----------



## Purple

Lol


----------



## Brendan Burgess

mandelbrot said:


> So you will adhere to a contract blindly, without even attempting to renegotiate a term that you subsequently realise is unpleasant for you?



Hi mandelbrot 

I sign contracts in good faith. I realise that they give me rights and also commitments.  Do you know what? Sometimes, I regret having done so as the contract restricts me in some way.  I would try to negotiate a change, but I don't just break the contract because it's "unpleasant". I am astonished that some people seem to think that this is ok. 

I set out my full position above.  



Brendan Burgess said:


> If you have a contract, and you can adhere to it, you have a moral and legal obligation to do so.
> If you wish to renegotiate that contract, you should talk to the other side about renegotiating it. If you can reach agreement on the renegotiation, that's fine. If you can't, you can terminate the contract, but within the termination terms.
> If you break the terms of a contract because you cannot adhere to them, there should be no shame.  For example, if you lose your job and you can't pay your mortgage repayments.
> 
> .



I am sure that there are many tenants who found themselves  in leases which they considered "unpleasant" as rents had fallen.  They could ask their landlord for a reduction and if they were a good tenant, the landlord probably agreed.  Of course, they were free to move out as soon as the tenancy was up.


----------



## Sunny

Once again Brendan, no-one is saying that people should break a contract because it is "unpleasant". That is completely mis-representing what the argument is about. If a three month notice period is included in a contract for a very good reason i.e. very specialised role then employees should repsect the position that the employer is in. Chances are the new employer will have a similar clause. If there is a non-compete clause written into a contract, employees should also respect that because it is usually included for a very valid reason. The Courts can decide on the validity of the clause if there is a dispute.

The issue is with a clause like a 3 month notice period being inserted into a contract to act as some sort of detriment to leaving instead of trying to protect an employer from potential disruption or loss. Do you really think that minimum wage employees should have 3 month notice clauses inserted in their contract? You may very well say that people shouldn't sign a contract but try telling that to someone who knows that there are 1000 other people outside the door that will sign it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> Once again Brendan, no-one is saying that people should break a contract because it is "unpleasant".



Mandelbrot used the term "unpleasant". I think he implies that he would not be bound by it. But he can confirm himself whether that is his view or not.




> The Courts can decide on the validity of the clause if there is a dispute



There is a three month clause in this contract. It's not a non-compete clause. It's a 3 months' notice clause. It is valid. And it's not right to suggest that it should be unilaterally ignored.  



> Do you really think that minimum wage employees should have 3 month notice clauses inserted in their contract?



No I don't.  But people are free to enter into such contracts or to reject them as they see fit. 



> You may very well say that people shouldn't sign a contract but try telling that to someone who knows that there are 1000 other people outside the door that will sign it.



The three month term is of advantage and disadvantage to the employee.  They have to accept both if the employer is unwilling to change it.


----------



## Joe_90

How ironic!

There's an other post where the 3 months suits the employee!


----------



## mandelbrot

Jim2007 said:


> How can you sign a contract in good faith, if you only indent to carry it, if is suits you at the time???



Where did I say that Jim? It's not about solely what suits me - I specifically talked about a situation where the employer's business wouldn't be disrupted by the departure but they chose to enforce the notice period out of malice. In that circumstance then I'd have no ethical problem with breaking the term. 

The legal consequences, if any, are what they are; they're not part of the ethical/moral decision.


----------



## mandelbrot

Brendan Burgess said:


> Of course, it makes it wrong and immoral.
> 
> The consequences for the employer are disruption. There are virtually no consequences for the employee.
> 
> I am fully open to consensual renegotiation of contracts. But what is being suggested here by some posters seems to be something different: "Please agree to reduce the notice to 4 weeks and if you don't I will break the contract anyway."



Are you honestly saying Brendan that you don't / won't distinguish between something being morally wrong and legally wrong. I'm not sure that many, if any, posters would argue that breaking the 3-month term isn't legally wrong. 

But that is wholly separate from whether it is morally wrong. Whether its morally wrong is of course a matter of opinion, and to me the critical question is whether or not the breaking of the term actually causes a loss/disruption to the employer or whether they were just refusing to negotiate out of spite. If I knew I wasn't leaving them in the lurch and I'd done all I could to ensure this was the case, then I'd have no problem morally with breaking the term.

I've certainly signed at least one employment contract where I've been told in relation to some aspect or other "look, that's a standard term but we don't in reality ever enforce it". So as I said, good faith, common sense, mutual respect.


----------



## Time

Morals and the law are often strange bedfellows and often mutually exclusive.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

mandelbrot said:


> Are you honestly saying Brendan that you don't / won't distinguish between something being morally wrong and legally wrong.



Hi mandelbrot

What I said and what you quoted is very clear.



> Of course it makes it wrong and immoral.


I really don't think it can be any clearer. 

I am primarily saying that someone should not break a contract because it's morally wrong.  It's not morally wrong because it's some technical breach of a legally binding contract. It's morally wrong because if I enter into an agreement with you or anyone else, I would expect you and me to honour it without the need to go to court. 

Some people have implied that it's ok to break this contract, because, in practice, the employer has no legal redress.  That is not how I conduct my affairs. I don't litter because I can get away with it. I don't shoplift because I am unlikely to be caught. I don't drive drunkenly because I am unlikely to be stopped by the Gardai.  I don't do these things, not because they are against the law, I don't do them because they are wrong. 

Likewise someone should honour an employment contract because it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Setanta12

I see an immense overlap here between business and morality.  If Brendan was so inclined (after note re being stopped by Gardai etc), he could read up on 'social contracts' by Rousseau - an interesting fellow.

In essence, what any contract is - the laying down of a law between two parties. Pactum serva, and countless other latin phrases creep in here.  Breaking of laws can sometimes have consequences - normally set out in those contracts - and sometimes not.

Morality wouldn't be a good argument in front of a judge.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

And just to give you an example, here is a clear case where I recommend to someone to break their legally binding contract. 

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=187634

It would be much better in this case, if both borrowers and the bank could reach an agreement.  But the only way of getting his ex to an agreement, is for him to stop paying his mortgage.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> And just to give you an example, here is a clear case where I recommend to someone to break their legally binding contract.
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=187634
> 
> It would be much better in this case, if both borrowers and the bank could reach an agreement. But the only way of getting his ex to an agreement, is for him to stop paying his mortgage.



This just demonstrates your own lack of consistency! You are saying on the one hand people "should not break a contract because it's morally wrong", castigating anyone who suggests otherwise, and yet advising someone to do just that in a different circumstances.

Taking an absolutist stance on anything is rarely a good idea. Different circumstances apply, and people can and do have different opinions on the extent they impact on a decision.

Personally, in this case, I think the OP should do their level best to negotiate but if push comes to shove they should just live with the 3 month notice period. This decision would be influenced as much by concern over reputation than morality. But I can understand others who take a different view.

As an aside, I think unless and until the CEO of B&L is willing to accept a 20% pay reduction it is immoral to ask staff to do the same, but we'll see the pigs flying over Waterford before we see that happening. 

I raise this last point as a demonstration of the general principle that morality, the law and business are often strange bedfellows.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ang1170 said:


> This just demonstrates your own lack of consistency! You are saying on the one hand people "should not break a contract because it's morally wrong", castigating anyone who suggests otherwise, and yet advising someone to do just that in a different circumstances.
> 
> Taking an absolutist stance on anything is rarely a good idea.



My position is very consistent.  You simply misunderstand it, maybe because I have explained it improperly. 

In the employment notice case, she should not break her contract, because it's morally wrong to do so. Not because it's a breach of the law.  She has a full and free choice whether to honour her responsibilities and she should do so. 

Joint mortgages are the most appalling situations to be in.  If one partner refuses to pay the mortgage but continues to occupy the house and refuses to sell it, the other partner is in an impossible position.  They have no choice but to break the contract. They should of course try to negotiate a solution, but if one party simply won't even come to the table, they have no choice.  

Joint mortgages throw up this impossible dilemma where an unscrupulous person can exploit a scrupulous person. 

That is not the situation with the employment notice.  She is not in an impossible or even a difficult position.  

She should have told her new employer that she may be held to three months notice but that she would try to get out sooner.  
If her employer refused, then she must serve her three months notice. 

It's very simple and I think that most people now agree with this. Some don't. They think that they should ask for the notice period to be reduced to one month and then walk if the employer does not agree.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> My position is very consistent. You simply misunderstand it, maybe because I have explained it improperly.
> 
> In the employment notice case, she should not break her contract, because it's morally wrong to do so. Not because it's a breach of the law. She has a full and free choice whether to honour her responsibilities and she should do so.
> 
> Joint mortgages are the most appalling situations to be in. If one partner refuses to pay the mortgage but continues to occupy the house and refuses to sell it, the other partner is in an impossible position. They have no choice but to break the contract. They should of course try to negotiate a solution, but if one party simply won't even come to the table, they have no choice.
> 
> Joint mortgages throw up this impossible dilemma where an unscrupulous person can exploit a scrupulous person.
> 
> That is not the situation with the employment notice. She is not in an impossible or even a difficult position.
> 
> She should have told her new employer that she may be held to three months notice but that she would try to get out sooner.
> If her employer refused, then she must serve her three months notice.
> 
> It's very simple and I think that most people now agree with this. Some don't. They think that they should ask for the notice period to be reduced to one month and then walk if the employer does not agree.



I think you're rather missing my point, which as I said was "Different circumstances apply, and people can and do have different opinions on the extent they impact on a decision". I agree with you completely that the two situations are different, and (ironically) I'd reach the same conclusion as you about what to do in both cases.

 My main point was taking an absolutist stance on anything is rarely a good idea, or is castigating others (calling them "nasty" for example) who have a different opinion to yourself.


----------



## michaelm

Brendan Burgess said:


> She should have told her new employer that she may be held to three months notice but that she would try to get out sooner.


No one would disagree with that.





Brendan Burgess said:


> If her employer refused, then she must serve her three months notice.


Maybe she should or maybe she should do what is in her best interest.  For sure, if the employer decided she was surplus to requirements then she would be gone in a heartbeat.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> For sure, if the employer decided she was surplus to requirements then she would be gone in a heartbeat.



How do you know?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess said:


> It seems to me that your fiancé is being nasty and not the employer.





ang1170 said:


> My main point was taking an absolutist stance on anything is rarely a good idea, or is castigating others (calling them "nasty" for example) who have a different opinion to yourself.



Why do you have to personalise this?  Just look at the thousands of times  I have disagreed with people  on askaboutmoney and I stick to the arguments and rarely criticise the person. But I will criticise behaviour if I think it is wrong. 

The OP described his employer as "nasty" and provided no evidence for it.  I was simply using his word, which is a word, I would rarely if ever use.


----------



## Sunny

The problem Brendan is that you seem to be judging the situation from a moral point of view and deciding that a person who breaks their employment contract is always wrong and acting immorally.

You don't seem to have issues when the employer does the same because that's just the free market. Employers expect their employees to work outside their employment contracts every day and there is nothing wrong with that. I have been in jobs where my contract makes no mention of working outside business hours but where weekend and late night work was the norm. I have been in jobs that made no mention of travel for long periods but have spent two weeks away from my family on work. Do you realy think my employers were being immoral for breaking my contract? Of course they weren't. I fully accept the need to be flexible in the workplace. 

When the Governement decided to change the terms and conditions of public sector contracts when the crisis hit, they didn't negotiate an agreement. They passed emergency legislation making pay cuts across the board. Was that immoral?

Contracts are broken every day. If contractual terms are so absolute, there would be no need for us to have a commercial court. Advising someone that they should blindly adhere to a clause in their contract without even examining the enforacability of such a clause if they feel like they have to break it is ridiculous. That is not the same as saying that contracts shouldn't be respected and honoured as much as possible and it certainly doesn't mean that someone is acting immorally if they feel that they are no longer in a position to honour the contract. If that is the case they are free to try and negotiate a solution and failing that, they are perfectly free to decide to break the contract as long as they are aware of the legal and any other consequences.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> How do you know?


Generally I'd expect that when an employer wants rid of an employee they make it happen . . they might be on the hook for wages in lieu of notice, maybe redundancy, perhaps unfair dismissals . . I've seen purges by my last three employers.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Generally I'd expect that when an employer wants rid of an employee they make it happen . . they might be on the hook for wages in lieu of notice, maybe redundancy, perhaps unfair dismissals . . I've seen purges by my last three employers.



Not all employers break contracts, just as not all employees break them.
There's plenty of legislation there to protect employees. There's very little to protect employers.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> The problem Brendan is that you seem to be judging the situation from a moral point of view and deciding that a person who breaks their employment contract is always wrong and acting immorally.



Yes, a person who materially breaks a contract when they have a choice not to, is wrong. 




> You don't seem to have issues when the employer does the same because that's just the free market.



How on earth do you deduce that?  Of course it's completely wrong for an employer to break a contract unless they are forced to do so. 




> Employers expect their employees to work outside their employment contracts every day and there is nothing wrong with that. I have been in jobs where my contract makes no mention of working outside business hours but where weekend and late night work was the norm. I have been in jobs that made no mention of travel for long periods but have spent two weeks away from my family on work. Do you realy think my employers were being immoral for breaking my contract? Of course they weren't. I fully accept the need to be flexible in the workplace.



It's wrong for an employer to insist that a person works weekend and late night as the norm, if it's not in the contract.  That would be a breach of contract and assuming it's a material breach, you would have been quite within your rights to consider the contract broken, and move on.  


> When the Governement decided to change the terms and conditions of public sector contracts when the crisis hit, they didn't negotiate an agreement. They passed emergency legislation making pay cuts across the board. Was that immoral?



Of course it wasn't. There was no choice. The country was bankrupt.  Likewise they imposed cuts on pharmacies, consultants, and other service providers. 



> Contracts are broken every day. If contractual terms are so absolute, there would be no need for us to have a commercial court.



Why take a legalistic approach? It's wrong to break a contract , whether you are an employee or an employer, a lender or a borrower.  It is wrong to do so. 





> Advising someone that they should blindly adhere to a clause in their contract without even examining the enforacability of such a clause if they feel like they have to break it is ridiculous.



It the "feel like they have to break it" is the bit I strongly disagree with. There was no obligation in this case to break it. She just felt like it as it suited her. It does not suit me to pay a fixed rate of 5% of my mortgage, if that is what I agreed, but I do it.  If someone can't pay their mortgage, they are forced to break the contract.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

I am trying to think of a realistic and common scenario  where someone is forced to break an employment contract, where it would be justified. I am not saying that there is one, I just can't think of it. 



> If that is the case they are free to try and negotiate a solution and failing that, they are perfectly free to decide to break the contract as long as they are aware of the legal and any other consequences.



Legally. But they are morally wrong to do so.  Would you say that I am perfectly free to shoplift as long as I am aware of the legal consequences for doing so?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Purple said:


> Not all employers break contracts, just as not all employees break them.
> There's plenty of legislation there to protect employees. There's very little to protect employers.



Agree. It's rare and very foolish to fire someone without good reason and without going through the full fair procedures. 

Of course, some employers do it. It's wrong and they pay dearly for it.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> I am trying to think of a realistic and common scenario where someone is forced to break an employment contract, where it would be justified. I am not saying that there is one, I just can't think of it.



That's the whole point, though: it's a value judgement, based on the individual circumstances, of what is the "right" thing to do, and different people will come to a different conclusion in each case. The more examples with different courses of action you give, the more you emphasise this point.

It's only at the extremes (e.g. shooting someone in cold blood for no reason) you will get total agreement on what is the right or moral thing to do. The same extreme act (killing someone) can be justified in different circumstances. There are plenty of areas in between where there is no agreement.

For pretty much anything outside those extremes, claiming one opinion is somehow objectively the only "moral" course of action, and by implication anyone who would act differently is "immoral", comes across very badly.


----------



## Sunny

Brendan Burgess said:


> Yes, a person who materially breaks a contract when they have a choice not to, is wrong.


 
Wrong in what sense? Morally? By whose standards? I have worked on business transactions where people sign contracts for services to be provided and then change their minds. We either allow the customer off, we enforce the contract or we negotiate a settlement. Do we then then go for lunch giving out about the moral bankruptcy of the customer? Of course not. It's simply business.   [/QUOTE]



Brendan Burgess said:


> How on earth do you deduce that? Of course it's completely wrong for an employer to break a contract unless they are forced to do so.


 
What do you mean forced to do so? It is ok for employers to change contracts when it is financially necessary but it's not ok for an employee to do the same to try and move to a higher paid job when they might be struggling financially?  



Brendan Burgess said:


> It's wrong for an employer to insist that a person works weekend and late night as the norm, if it's not in the contract. That would be a breach of contract and assuming it's a material breach, you would have been quite within your rights to consider the contract broken, and move on.


 
In the real world Brendan, employers don't insist on anything but when they give you a blackberry and allow remote access into the office from home, do you really think they expect you finish at 5 every evening as per the contractual terms? And now suddenly you are introducing the concept of material breachs. So some breaches are more material than others? Where does that stand with your moral argument that people who break contracts are wrong or are we now saying that some breaches are more acceptable than others.



Brendan Burgess said:


> Of course it wasn't. There was no choice. The country was bankrupt. Likewise they imposed cuts on pharmacies, consultants, and other service providers.


 
So you wouldn't have had any issue with any public sector employee walking out and giving no notice to take a higher paid job to meet their mortgage payments because they have no choice?



Brendan Burgess said:


> Why take a legalistic approach? It's wrong to break a contract , whether you are an employee or an employer, a lender or a borrower. It is wrong to do so.


 
Why take a legalistic approach? Because a contract is just that. It's a legal agreement. Again you keep saying wrong but in what sense. You are basically saying that in every contract dispute before the courts, one party is immoral.



Brendan Burgess said:


> It the "feel like they have to break it" is the bit I strongly disagree with. There was no obligation in this case to break it. She just felt like it as it suited her. It does not suit me to pay a fixed rate of 5% of my mortgage, if that is what I agreed, but I do it. If someone can't pay their mortgage, they are forced to break the contract. There is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I am trying to think of a realistic and common scenario where someone is forced to break an employment contract, where it would be justified. I am not saying that there is one, I just can't think of it.


 
As I said before Brendan, people break their employment contracts every single day. Unless what you are suggesting is a complete work to rule for everyone? So then we are back to you deciding what clauses in a contract and in what context are ok to break without being morally offensive. 




Brendan Burgess said:


> Legally. But they are morally wrong to do so. Would you say that I am perfectly free to shoplift as long as I am aware of the legal consequences for doing so?


 
You have completely lost me here Brendan. What has committing a criminal act got to do with breaking a *possibly illegal* clause in a civil contract? Are you saying the OP is now the same morally as a common criminal?


----------



## ang1170

Sonny: well said! I don't get the argument that something is immoral unless one is forced to do it (when it suddenly becomes moral?) either. As you say, what is "forced"? Someone put a gun to the head of your first born? Or you had a bad day at the office, and you thought you were "forced" to act?

It's all shades of grey out there in the real world, I'm afraid......


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Let's reduce this to as simple an argument as possible. 

1) You are a cash buyer of an investment property
2) You see an apartment you like, and after negotiation, you agree to pay €200k for it subject to survey and contract. 
3) The surveyor says it's fine
4) The other side does everything promptly and sends the contracts to your solicitor
5) Your solicitor has the contracts and says title is fine, come on in and sign. 

Then an identical apartment goes for sale in the same block for €180k. 

The law is very clear here. You can walk away because you have not both signed the contract. 
There are no repercussions for you. They can't sue you. They can't give you a bad reference. 

Do you walk away? 
Do you honour your agreement to buy? 
Do you reopen negotiations for a lower price?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ang1170 said:


> Sonny: well said! I don't get the argument that something is immoral unless one is forced to do it (when it suddenly becomes moral?) either.



People were making comparisons with mortgage arrears. 

Strategic default is morally wrong. 

Breaking your mortgage contract because you lost your job is not morally wrong. It's not a choice you make.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> The law is very clear here. You can walk away because you have not both signed the contract.
> There are no repercussions for you. They can't sue you. They can't give you a bad reference.
> 
> Do you walk away?
> Do you honour your agreement to buy?
> Do you reopen negotiations for a lower price?


 
 As I said, the more examples you give, the more you prove the point: what is the "right" thing to do depends on the circumstances. People's views change, depending on what those circumstances are. Not everyone will have the same opinion as it is essentially a value judgement. Declaring one course of action as always immoral doesn't make sense to me, especially if the person doing it is making a lot of assumptions about what the individual circumstances are.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Ang

And what would you do in the circumstances outlined? 

I am trying to establish what the guidelines are. 

Brendan


----------



## Sunny

Brendan Burgess said:


> Let's reduce this to as simple an argument as possible.
> 
> 1) You are a cash buyer of an investment property
> 2) You see an apartment you like, and after negotiation, you agree to pay €200k for it subject to survey and contract.
> 3) The surveyor says it's fine
> 4) The other side does everything promptly and sends the contracts to your solicitor
> 5) Your solicitor has the contracts and says title is fine, come on in and sign.
> 
> Then an identical apartment goes for sale in the same block for €180k.
> 
> The law is very clear here. You can walk away because you have not both signed the contract.
> There are no repercussions for you. They can't sue you. They can't give you a bad reference.
> 
> Do you walk away?
> Do you honour your agreement to buy?
> Do you reopen negotiations for a lower price?


 
First off, what makes you think say that people can't sue. People are perfectly entitled to sue and let a Court decide. Just because there isn't a signed contract doesn't legally mean there wasn't a contract. That's why we need expensive solicitors and barristers to argue different view points.

Secondly, what would you tell someone that came on AAM and said that they had an offer on a house accepted but no contracts had been signed. It was really going to push them financially but they think they might just be able to be able to make it work. Then an identical house came on the market that cost €30k less and put less stress on their personal finances. Would you tell them that

a) Their word is their bond and they should suck it up
b) Renegotiate but realise you have no negotiating power
c) Get legal advice to see if there are any legal repercussions for walking away and do what is right for them.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> First off, what makes you think say that people can't sue. People are perfectly entitled to sue and let a Court decide. Just because there isn't a signed contract doesn't legally mean there wasn't a contract.



The conveyancing acts are clear, which is why I have used this example.  There is no contract until both sides have signed. 

What would you do Sunny? 

I have removed all the distractions and reduced to a simple question to establish what you think that the right thing to do in these circumstances would be. 

You can afford to buy it. 
It's exactly as you thought you were buying. 
The title is correct. 
There are no repercussions for you for changing your mind. 

Brendan


----------



## mandelbrot

Let me throw a scenario at you Brendan, and I'm sorry that it doesn't involve mortgages (seeing as you'd seem to prefer to discuss that!)...

Lets say the contract says 3 months notice, but no-one in the place is ever actually asked to work in the full notice period. So you've worked there a few years and seen other people in the same or similar roles come and go at 4 - 6 weeks' notice without difficulty... so you, for whatever reason, have an offer elsewhere and think it's safe to assume that 4 - 6 weeks notice shouldn't be a problem based on everything you've ever seen happening in reality in that workplace, and based on the fact that you know your job isn't one which would take more than a couple of weeks to fill.

But then, for purely personal reasons, the MD decides that they are going to make your life difficult and they throw in your face a contract that says you're legally obliged to give 3 months notice - you say ah hold on now, haven't I been a good employee and often worked above, beyond and outside of the terms of what you contracted me to do...?! (Sunny's posts refer) And they sneer and say, "I don't care, you signed the contract so we're holding you to it!".

In that circumstance, if it were you, can you honestly say that having exhausted the negotiation route, you'd sit there and serve out the notice period?! And bear in mind that having given the notice, you're going to be out of a job in 3 months, and if the other employer won't hold that position, you're completely goosed, unemployed and without entitlement to JSB for 9(?) weeks...

I have to say Brendan if your answer is yes, then you're a true martyr to contract law.

Although, at least on the good side, when you're unemployed and upsidedown on your mortgage, you can go to AAM to get good advice on going bankrupt in the UK...


----------



## Sunny

Brendan Burgess said:


> The conveyancing acts are clear, which is why I have used this example. There is no contract until both sides have signed.
> 
> What would you do Sunny?
> 
> I have removed all the distractions and reduced to a simple question to establish what you think that the right thing to do in these circumstances would be.
> 
> You can afford to buy it.
> It's exactly as you thought you were buying.
> The title is correct.
> There are no repercussions for you for changing your mind.
> 
> Brendan


 
There is nothing in the conveyancing laws to stop me from sueing a person who pulled out of a sale and left me with expenses. I mightn't be able to enforce the contract but I could recover costs. 

I would do what is right for me and my family and if that meant walking away, I would walk away. Would I feel bad? Yes. Would I understand if the seller took me to Court to recover costs? Yes. Would I feel guilty everytime I walked into my cheaper house, then no. 

Are you seriously suggesting that people should fulfil contracts that have no legal enforcability even if it leaves them tens of thousands worse off simply because they said they would do something?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> I would do what is right for me and my family and if that meant walking away, I would walk away.



Hi Sunny

I specified that it was an investment property so it's not your family home. 

Thanks for answering the question. 

I think it clarifies that there is a fairly large gap in what I consider the right thing to do is and what you think the right thing to do is. 

You have an agreement, but you will walk away from it if it's not right for you. 

There is no nasty employer to blame; there is  no greedy lender; there is no element of you having no alternative; There is no quibble about legalities of contracts. 

You entered an agreement.
You can fulfill that agreement. 
Yet you simply walk away from it if it no longer suits you.

I don't think think that is the right thing to do.  

Actually, I think it's a lousy thing to do to the seller, and possibly their family, and possibly others in a property chain. But hey, you will do what is right for you.


----------



## Sunny

This is ridiculous Brendan. Why are you differentiating between family home and investment property?

You can make whatever judgements you want about my moral character but if you are honestly telling me that you wouldn't advise a poster to examine all their options if they found themselves in a position where they might be paying tens of thousands more for a property simply because its the right thing to do by your moral compass then your advice needs to come with a serious health warning. 

I have no idea why you are talking about nasty employers or greedy lenders. Are you implying that I am some sort of anti capitalist crusade or something? 

Anyway, this has gone beyond ridiculous and I have to say I am actually amazed at how this thread has gone. I will leave others to judge my morals by reading my posts in full but I am bowing out. Mad stuff.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> I think it clarifies that there is a fairly large gap in what I consider the right thing to do is and what you think the right thing to do is.


 
 It must be a bit lonely for you up there on the high moral ground.....


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> Why are you differentiating between family home and investment property?



For the very simple reason, I wanted to reduce this question to the absolute basic issue - do you keep your word or not? 

I anticipated that someone would say that they would compromise their own principles for the benefit of their family.  So I made it a pure financial decision - an investment property bought with cash. 

It was a transaction with another individual - so no one can claim they were just screwing a bank or an employer, which some people might think is fair game. 

And it is quite clear from the responses of Sunny and ang, that you would do what suits you, irrespective of what you had agreed. 

I would be interested in knowing what others would do under the circumstances?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> Anyway, this has gone beyond ridiculous and I have to say I am actually amazed at how this thread has gone. I will leave others to judge my morals by reading my posts in full but I am bowing out. Mad stuff.


.

Agree fully. I respect your contributions on most topics, which surprises me that you would renege on an agreement because it suited you.


----------



## mandelbrot

Is there any chance you might address my post Brendan? This whole thread has gone completely off topic.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> And it is quite clear from the responses of Sunny and ang, that you would do what suits you, irrespective of what you had agreed.


 
 You continue to misrepresent others: I stated quite explicitly I would take the same course of action you suggested in the cases presented.

 My position is quite clear: you decide on the right course of action based on the particular circumstances presented.

 Your own position is actually identical, though you seem completely blind to it. The difference between "when it suits you" and "when forced" is just terminology and degree. As I said, I'd take the same decision as you in this case.

 Where we do differ, though, is that I won't sit in judgement of others who take a different view to me when I know for a fact I don't have all the information about those circumstances, nor would I use abusive or condescending language in engaging with them.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi ang

Sorry to misrepresent you.

I set out a simple scenario. Sunny said he would do what was right for him.
I criticised this 
You said "It must be a bit lonely for you up there on the high moral ground..... 		"

Now you say 



> My position is quite clear: you decide on the right course of action based on the particular circumstances presented.
> 
> Your own position is actually identical,



At least I have company on the high moral ground.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

mandelbrot said:


> Is there any chance you might address my post Brendan? This whole thread has gone completely off topic.



It's pointless answering it without establishing the first principles.

I set out a very simple scenario to establish a principle.  What is the right thing to do in a simple scenario. 

Sunny has replied. 
I thought Ang had replied, but he hasn't.

Feel free to respond to the simple scenario.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> At least I have company on the high moral ground.


 
 No actually: too lonely up there for me, I'm afraid. 

 What I said was "Where we do differ, though, is that I won't sit in judgement of others who take a different view to me when I know for a fact I don't have all the information about those circumstances, nor would I use abusive or condescending language in engaging with them. "


----------



## RainyDay

Brendan Burgess said:


> For the very simple reason, I wanted to reduce this question to the absolute basic issue - do you keep your word or not?


Is there a conflict with your tactical advice to this gent not to pay his mortgage? 

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=187634

I know that it has emerged that he's not actually paying it at the moment, but it seemed to me that your advice not to pay was as a negotiation tactic.


----------



## mandelbrot

Brendan Burgess said:


> It's pointless answering it without establishing the first principles.
> 
> I set out a very simple scenario to establish a principle.  What is the right thing to do in a simple scenario.
> 
> Sunny has replied.
> I thought Ang had replied, but he hasn't.
> 
> Feel free to respond to the simple scenario.



I will not respond to your simple scenario which has nothing to do with the topic - you're indulging yourself hugely in this thread. I don't even know what you mean by first principles.

I've set out an equally simple scenario based loosely around the actual subject matter of the thread. Until or unless you address it I'll assume you're avoiding doing so because you know you'd either have to lie or admit that morality in these matters isn't as black or white as you've been asserting. 

This will be my last post on this, or any other thread, until you have the courtesy to address my post. I don't give a damn about propert transactions. Unless I'm contractually obliged...


----------



## 110quests

Hi Brendan et al , This is a fascinating thread on 'the right thing to do'. In the scenario you gave the right thing, the decent thing to do would be to fulfill the contract. But human nature being fallible might enter the scene and the buyer would see a saving of money by withdrawing and buying the lower priced house.

That would pose the question : if I gain by breaking my word am I immoral ? I am not defrauding anyone  or guilty of I'll gotten gains, in which case I would probably be deemed immoral . 

If the seller were to get a higher offer than mine even though he had agreed a price with me that would pose the same dilemma of the moral argument . I think this has happened many times. Is it called gazumping . Nobody likes it, it happens, is it right ? No .Is it fair ? No . It's mean  It's disappointing. 

With regard to the 3 month notice : my job obliged me to give 3 months notice on my retirement which I did. Worked every day of it , as was expected, and left a clean desk behind. I later met persons in similar jobs who retired after ONE months notice and thought I was daft ! These were people of high morals genuinely, but saw no problem with doing this.  So I suppose it's difficult to be consistently moral ?


----------



## Sophrosyne

Brendan,

For all you know, the behaviour of a pressurized managing director and others (often an MD is surrounded by a coterie of zealots) may be spiteful, obstructive and obnoxious, rendering the 3-month notice period unendurable for the op’s fiancé.

We can advise that terms expressed in a contract of service are legally enforceable and perhaps any legal or work-related consequences that may or may not ensue if the terms are not honoured by either party. 

What a person chooses to do with that advice is up to him or her.

Moralizing about their decisions, particularly when they have disengaged from the thread, is disingenuous and could deter potential users of this website.

Besides, you have a “letting off steam” section for frequent posters who wish to engage in that sort of thing.


----------



## Leper

Right! This is the way I see it.  

1. Brendan Burgess is losing the rag.  I think he should ban himself from the Forum for three months as a cooling off measure.  

2. Let's make the notice to cease employment to remain at three months.  Let's consider the people who continue to observe the 'three months' as indispensible and have earned the coveted title of Sacred Cow.

Enjoy Friday the 13th Everybody

Lep


----------



## Bronte

Time said:


> Normally security escorts you off the premises once notice is given.


 
Indeed Time this is correct, it happens frequently in the company my husband worked for. If they want you gone, out the door you go. He has seen people given 30 minutes to leave. Naturally they receive pay in lieu of notice. This is an exceedingly large American multinational. They also make people sign 'papers' on leaving. When I say make you, of course you don't have to sign, but if you don't they can drag out the above statutory notice. They pay above staturory in Ireland and elsewhere. Exit packages. Where we are these exit documents are actually based on US law and probably illegal both and Ireland and where we are in Europe but you'll just sign them anyway to get your pay off. 

In general if you are the one to give notice then you'll have to leave immediately, particularly if you are management.

I noticed that a lot of the posters based in Ireland think 3 months is a long time, as the foreign based people pointed out, 3 months would be nothing in other countries. Where I am people in general servie out their notice, it can be exceedingly long if you are high up. It makes firing people very difficult, gives a lot of strength to employees, but means it's very unflexible. If you're hiring new people you can forget about someone being interviewed on Friday and starting on Monday.  Notice has to be given by a certain date and by registered post, same for cancelling car insuance or house insurance.


----------



## Bronte

TommyB said:


> Contact clauses like this are not legal as they infringe on a persons free movement of employment.


 
Nonsense.  The contract is legally binding.  The 3 months notice would equally protect the employee, long notice periods can be very beneficial to workers, it most certainly is where I am.


----------



## Bronte

ang1170 said:


> The contract may well have been signed at a time when the employee was vulnerable (e.g. unemployed and desperate for a job), and they may never have liked the particular contract term.
> 
> .


 
Actually this also happens in my husband's company.  He has at this stage signed so many contracts, I think we are at number 4 and they are getting worse.  You cannot walk away, the job is good and well paid.  You wouldn't want to walk away, and length of service means you have an incentive to stay.  Have to rely on the fact that labour laws are exceedingly strong.   

Basically what happens is you sign up initially and everything sounds hunky dory, but over time they squeeze the terms and conditions.  If they really want you at the beginning though you have more power of negotiation, once in you lose that power.


----------



## Bronte

Frank said:


> The biggest problem I have is the MD feeling he can talk down to and threaten whomever he feels like.


 
Whatever you do Frank don't make it personal.  What is the actual threat?  Are they a big company?  Sometimes it is better to bite one's tongue.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

RainyDay said:


> Is there a conflict with your tactical advice to this gent not to pay his mortgage?
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=187634
> 
> I know that it has emerged that he's not actually paying it at the moment, but it seemed to me that your advice not to pay was as a negotiation tactic.



Hi Rainyday

I raised this issue earlier in this very long thread.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1389372&postcount=147

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

mandelbrot said:


> I don't give a damn about property transactions. Unless I'm contractually obliged...



That's where we have to differ, I am afraid. 

This is the first principle which I am trying to establish. If I agree to something I will stick to that agreement, even if it does not suit me.


----------



## Bronte

elacsaplau said:


> My problem is that I started a new job 2 weeks ago. On paper, it all looked good. A six figure basic, bonus up to 40%, car, pension, shares, healthcare, etc.
> 
> On Tuesday afternoon of last week, my boss asked me to have a report ready for him for first thing on Wednesday morning. When I told him that I anticipated that this would take at least 6 hours, he gave me a "and your problem is" type look.
> 
> My contract is 9 to 5, Monday to Friday with a reference to exceptionally having to work outside these hours. When I consulted my new colleagues, I was advised to get used to it as that's just the way it is around here.
> 
> So what do I do? I have noticed that pretty much all of my colleagues work in excess of the contracted hours and I really feel very uncomfortable about the prospect of having to work in an environment in which I am expected to consistently act in breach of my contractual terms.


 
Must say I'm absolutely shocked at this post. People on packages like you are expected to work when necessary to get the job done. It is not at all the same as somebody in McDonalds or Tesco on the 9 to 5 shift.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I began contributing to this thread, on the false assumption, that most people would honour agreements which they entered into.  I have to admit to being very surprised that two posters whom I have huge respect for, have said the following 

Sunny: I would do what is right for me and my family and if that meant walking away, I would walk away.

Mandelbrot: Unless I'm contractually obliged...

which I take it to mean that he would also walk away, but I am not sure. If he chooses to, he can clarify. 

I think it's essential to set out the principles and then apply them to the various scenarios outlined.  Sometimes the scenarios causes one to reflect on the principles and adapt them. 

I will try to set out the principles I think should guide such agreements. 

1) If I enter freely into an agreement with someone, I will do my very best to stick to that agreement. (It doesn't have to be a legal contract, but obviously a legal contract clarifies the agreement and helps set out the consequences for not adhering to it)
2) If the contract no longer suits me, I will approach the other party and see can we vary the agreement, by agreement.  It may well suit them to vary the agreement. 
3) If they refuse to vary the agreement, then I stick to my side of the agreement. 
4) I will not renege on the agreement, just because there are no negative consequences for me e.g. the other side is unlikely to take me to court
5) If I am unable  fulfill my side of the agreement, then I will notify the other person and see can we come to some arrangement. 

*Basic scenario - freely agree to buy a house for €200k but the market moves before I sign the contract 
*1) I stick to the agreement and hope that if the house price moved in the other direction, I am not dealing with Sunny on the other side.
2) It's unlikely that the other side would agree to change the price, so I stick to it. If on the other hand, we had agreed a closing date of the end of August, and it suited me to defer it two months, I would ask the other side to agree. 

*Variations of the basic scenario 
*Say I was buying it with a mortgage and not for cash. The bank withdraws their mortgage approval. I would apologise to the other side, but I simply can't fulfill my side of the agreement. 

Say I had signed the contract to purchase and paid a 5% deposit. I wouldn't walk away knowing that the solicitor on the other side would probably advise the seller not to bother suing me. 

*The case which started this thread 
*She entered freely into an agreement to give 3 months' notice. 
She should give 3 months' notice. 
She should ask if it was ok to go early, but if the employer refused, she should work her notice.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Mandelbrot's variation
 of the original scenario *



mandelbrot said:


> Lets say the contract says 3 months notice, but no-one in the place is ever actually asked to work in the full notice period. So you've worked there a few years and seen other people in the same or similar roles come and go at 4 - 6 weeks' notice without difficulty... so you, for whatever reason, have an offer elsewhere and think it's safe to assume that 4 - 6 weeks notice shouldn't be a problem based on everything you've ever seen happening in reality in that workplace, and based on the fact that you know your job isn't one which would take more than a couple of weeks to fill.
> 
> But then, for purely personal reasons, the MD decides that they are going to make your life difficult and they throw in your face a contract that says you're legally obliged to give 3 months notice - you say ah hold on now, haven't I been a good employee and often worked above, beyond and outside of the terms of what you contracted me to do...?! (Sunny's posts refer) And they sneer and say, "I don't care, you signed the contract so we're holding you to it!".
> 
> In that circumstance, if it were you, can you honestly say that having exhausted the negotiation route, you'd sit there and serve out the notice period?! And bear in mind that having given the notice, you're going to be out of a job in 3 months, and if the other employer won't hold that position, you're completely goosed, unemployed and without entitlement to JSB for 9(?) weeks...



I say to my  new employer - "My contract says I must give 3 months notice, but custom  and practice, people are allowed leave after  4 weeks, so I expect to  be able to start with you in 4 weeks. It might be 3 months though" 

Applying the principles. 
1)  I have to make a choice on whether to stick to the agreement or not.   My guiding principle is that I will stick to the agreement. 
2) I  will ask the employer to vary it. I would be very disappointed if he  didn't. 
3) I would have to think whether "custom and practice" was established well enough to constitute a variation of the agreement 


I definitely would not tell my new employer "I can start with you in one month's time" 

So I would not get into the scenario you outline.  Let's say someone asked me for my advice on the issue. They have accepted the new job and told them that they could start in 4 weeks. The employer wants them to serve out the terms of their contract, purely to spite them and not because it will be difficult to find and train a replacement.  I would tell them that they should go to the new employer and tell them that they would have to wait for 13 weeks.  If the new employer says that they would not keep the job open, then I would advise them to break their contract with their current employer. This is based on the very extraordinary situation of an employer simply spiting an employee.  In most cases, it takes time to recruit and train a new employee, so I advise sticking to the contract. 



> haven't I been a good employee and often worked above, beyond and  outside of the terms of what you contracted me to do...?! (Sunny's posts  refer)


This is not as relevant as people seem to be suggesting.  You enter into an employment contract. The employer asks you to work beyond the contracting hours. By working beyond those hours, you are agreeing to a variation of the contract.   If you are told at interview that the culture is to finish at 6 every evening and you find that you have to work late every night and at weekends, this is a clear variation of the contract. You can accept it. Or you can say "Sorry, I don't accept this. This is not the contract I signed, and I quit".  In that situation, the employer has broken the contract and the employee does not have to adhere to any notice period.


----------



## Bronte

mandelbrot said:


> In other words I'd be guided by my own common sense and ethics; rather than blindly following a document I signed in good faith in the expectation of both myself and the other party being capable of exercising our own respective common sense and some level of mutual respect.


 
I find this post from you very odd Mandelbrot.  You're such a stickler for the law on revenue rules and procedures.  Yet when it comes to employment contracts you are exactly the opposite?


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> That's where we have to differ, I am afraid.
> 
> This is the first principle which I am trying to establish. If I agree to something I will stick to that agreement, even if it does not suit me.



 Except of course when you are "forced" to do otherwise. That's where we differ.

 We agree (I think) that:

 1. People should stick to their agreements.
 2. There are some circumstances where people may break those agreements.

 Where we differ:

 I think that there are few hard and fast rules that can applied in an absolute sense. People's decisions on what is the right thing to do will depend on their own particular circumstances, the consequences of the alternatives presented, laws of the land, cultural norms of the society, upbringing, personal and religious beliefs: the whole nine yards. I am extremely reluctant to stand in judgement of someone, especially if I know I don't have all the facts. Most trials, where people are asked to sit in judgment, take hours, weeks or even months to hear the facts: a few lines in a post to a forum like this are unlikely to capture all the nuances of the situation in hand.

 On the other hand, you've declared the point at which it's OK to break an agreement as the point where you are "forced" to do so. That's all very well, but what does "forced" mean? Someone's literally holding a gun to your head? It's a grey scale. What one person may consider being forced, another may consider as just something to have to put up with, and that life is unfair. I've argued that this is fundamentally the same position as mine: there are different circumstances where it is OK to break agreements, the only difference is you've put a label "forced" as the tipping point. Trying to find a set of circumstances where we come to a different decision is pointless: all it proves is that people have different tipping points, which we already know.

 Where we really differ though is the choice you've made to call those on one side of your own point are correct and moral, with the implication that those on the other are somehow objectively incorrect and immoral.

 Or do you see things differently? Maybe I've misrepresented what you are saying?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The gun to the head analogy is not appropriate. Maybe "forced" is the wrong word. If I agree to buy a house but the lender withdraws  the mortgage approval, I can't go ahead with it. I am "forced" to break the contract. 

In the situation outlined in the original post, the person had full free will to adhere to her contract or not.  There was no element of "force". 





> Where we really differ though is the choice you've made to call those  on one side of your own point are correct and moral, with the  implication that those on the other are somehow objectively incorrect  and immoral.


What words would you use for someone who freely welches on an agreement where you think that they should uphold their side of the agreement?  How would you describe what Sunny does when he says he would do what was in his own interest? Do you not agree that it is the wrong thing to do?  I have to say that I think it's wrong.  And in this situation it's not even legally wrong. It does not make Sunny an immoral person.  This act would be an immoral act.  And, as I have said, it's out of character with the impression I have of him from his posts on askaboutmoney.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Brendan Burgess said:


> If I agree to something I will stick to that agreement, even if it does not suit me.



Even if it does not suit you, ok.



Brendan Burgess said:


> Let's say someone asked me for my advice on the issue. They have accepted the new job and told them that they could start in 4 weeks. The employer wants them to serve out the terms of their contract, purely to spite them and not because it will be difficult to find and train a replacement.  I would tell them that they should go to the new employer and tell them that they would have to wait for 13 weeks.  If the new employer says that they would not keep the job open, then I would advise them to break their contract with their current employer. This is based on the very extraordinary situation of an employer simply spiting an employee.



Hang on now Brendan - you have just broken your own principle there and actually stated in the second post the very viewpoint that most people on this thread have advocated to the OP!!
So just to confirm, even though it doesn't suit you, in this circumstance you would break the agreement because you are justifying it on the basis that the current employer is simply spiting the employee! Isn't that immoral Brendan?


----------



## Sunny

Ok ok, my last contribution on this particular discussion.

Brendan, I know it doesn't seem like it but we are actually not as far apart as you think. As far as I can see, everyone agrees that contracts should be honoured and I should point out that I have bought and sold property, had numerous jobs and signed numerous personal contracts and have never broken any of them.

The only time I have been involved in breaking contracts both breaking them and having contracts broken on us has been in business where commercial interests and legal advice have always dictated the correct course of action. I have been involved in financial transactions that required weeks of huge levels of man power and due dilligence only for a client decide not to execute at the last minute because of a change in market conditions. Were we all seriously annoyed? Yes. We then proceeded to do business with the same client the following week. 

Going back to your scenario with the property, why is it my fault that the seller of the house didn't try and protect himself contractually by asking for a non-refundable deposit to be placed in escrow once the transaction had gone to a certain point? Are you honestly telling me that a business would complete a purchase to purchase raw materials that they hadn't signed a contract for if they found cheaper goods elsewhere. You are an accountant. When does reveune get recognised on the P&L. Is it when say I verbally say over lunch that I will buy your product or when I actually buy your product. Until the contract is signed, the transaction isn't done. 

Another example is Emirates airlines recently pulled out a multi billion euro contract with Airbus. Now I would imagine that Airbus had planned entire production schedules around this order and there is probably a threat to jobs now. Should Emirates have completed the contract even though they say their commercial circumstances have changed? What about Emirates shareholders? Are Emirates not responsible for doing the right thing for them?

The point I am trying to make is that employment contracts, property transactions etc are just business transactions. They are nothing more. Of course people should behave ethically but at the end of the day, people and companies have responsiblilities to themselves and their families or shareholders. 

The only contract I can never see myself breaking is my marriage because that to me is the only moral contract I have entered. The rest is just business. If people want to sue, bad mouth me, curse me, blacklist me etc etc, then they are free to do so. I know there are consequences to breaking a contract and it is up to me to decide if I can accept them.

Now I am off to watch a few hours of Judge Judy where people with my morals hang out!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Ceist 

I have just checked back the OP and he does not say that previous employees only had to give 4 to 6 weeks' notice despite the contract saying 3 months.  

The fiancé knew that she had to give 3 months' notice. Unfortunately, it's not clear what they told their new employer. 

Let's imagine a situation where 
1) They knew that they had to give 3 months' notice 
2) They knew it was customary for employees to serve their 3 months' notice 
3) They told the new employer that they would be free to start in 4 weeks i.e. they lied 
4) In their opinion, there is no need to serve 3 months' notice as the employer is overstaffed 
5) The employer insists on the 3 months' notice just to spite her 

I think she would be very wrong to lie to her future employer.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> Brendan, I know it doesn't seem like it but we are actually not as far apart as you think.



Sunny we are far apart on the first principle. 

If I enter into an agreement to sell my house to you for €200,000, I will honour it.

You won't if it does not suit you. 

That is poles apart on this issue.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Ceist
> 
> I have just checked back the OP and he does not say that previous employees only had to give 4 to 6 weeks' notice despite the contract saying 3 months.



Brendan that's not what I asked. We appear to have stopped talking about the OP a number of pages back on this thread and are now discussing your view on what is moral and immoral as far as I can see! Again to ask my question on your post above.



Ceist Beag said:


> So just to confirm, even though it doesn't suit you, in this circumstance you would break the agreement because you are justifying it on the basis that the current employer is simply spiting the employee! Isn't that immoral Brendan?


----------



## Sunny

Brendan Burgess said:


> Sunny we are far apart on the first principle.
> 
> If I enter into an agreement to sell my house to you for €200,000, I will honour it.
> 
> You won't if it does not suit you.
> 
> That is poles apart on this issue.


 
What's the first principle? Is that like the Prime Directive in Star Trek?!

Actually Brendan, I would probably honour it too. I said I mightn't buy a property if I could find one cheaper elsewhere. I know this won't make sense to you but I never said things were black and white. 

No different to me thinking that a shop changing it's prices on it's goods when the customer gets to the cash register because someone else standing there wants it is wrong while a shopper deciding not to buy a product because the sales person at the register won't give them a discount to match the shop next door is perfectly entitled to walk out. Annoying for the shop but morally wrong???


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Ceist Beag said:


> Brendan that's not what I asked. We appear to have stopped talking about the OP a number of pages back on this thread and are now discussing your view on what is moral and immoral as far as I can see! Again to ask my question on your post above.



No, you specifically referred to the OP in your post!


> Originally Posted by *Brendan Burgess* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1389562#post1389562
> _Let's say someone asked me for my  advice on the issue. They have accepted the new job and told them that  they could start in 4 weeks. The employer wants them to serve out the  terms of their contract, purely to spite them and not because it will be  difficult to find and train a replacement.  I would tell them that they  should go to the new employer and tell them that they would have to  wait for 13 weeks.  If the new employer says that they would not keep  the job open, then I would advise them to break their contract with  their current employer. This is based on the very extraordinary  situation of an employer simply spiting an employee.
> 
> _
> Hang on now Brendan - you have just broken your own principle  there and actually stated in the second post the very viewpoint that  most people on this thread have advocated to the OP!!
> 
> So just to confirm, even though it doesn't suit you, in this  circumstance you would break the agreement because you are justifying it  on the basis that the current employer is simply spiting the employee!  Isn't that immoral Brendan?



Let's be clear. I try to operate in a professional and honest manner. If I am offered a job, I would tell them that the notice period is 3 months, so I would not personally get into the hypothetical situation I have outlined.

But sometimes I am asked my opinion on an absolute mess. The employee has told the new employer that it is 4 weeks and now there is a serious mess arising from this.  Combine this with the exceptional situation where the employer is purely spiting the employee.  In other words, by breaking their contract, there is no loss to the employer.  In these exceptional circumstances, which I have not encountered in real life, I would advocate breaking the contract as there is no cost to the other side. 

If, on the other hand, leaving in 4 weeks would be disruptive to the employer, my advice would be to serve the contract.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> What's the first principle? Is that like the Prime Directive in Star Trek?!



We are making progress, so stick to the issue. 

My guiding principle is that I honour my agreements. I think that most people actually would agree with this.   It's a principle, which allows decisions to be made in the light of particular circumstances. 



> Actually Brendan, I would probably honour it too. I said I mightn't buy a property if I could find one cheaper elsewhere. I know this won't make sense to you but I never said things were black and white.



OK, I am glad that you would honour it too.  



> No different to me thinking that a shop changing it's prices on it's goods when the customer gets to the cash register because someone else standing there wants it is wrong while a shopper deciding not to buy a product because the sales person at the register won't give them a discount to match the shop next door is perfectly entitled to walk out. Annoying for the shop but morally wrong???



I have not come across a shop changing its price because there is only one left and two of us go for it at the same time.    

I allow for typos and misprints, and I assume that the law does as well.. If something should be €1,000 and it's priced at €1 by mistake, I don't try to hold the retailer to it.  Just as when a shop assistant gives me too much change, I point it out and fix it.


----------



## Ceist Beag

I think we're in agreement Brendan, however I think any point you made about morality is out the window based on this (you are clearly stating there are exceptions to the rule of never break an agreement where you have a choice).


----------



## mandelbrot

Brendan Burgess said:


> No, you specifically referred to the OP in your post!
> 
> 
> Let's be clear. I try to operate in a professional and honest manner. If I am offered a job, I would tell them that the notice period is 3 months, so I would not personally get into the hypothetical situation I have outlined.
> 
> But sometimes I am asked my opinion on an absolute mess. The employee has told the new employer that it is 4 weeks and now there is a serious mess arising from this.  Combine this with the exceptional situation where the employer is purely spiting the employee.  In other words, by breaking their contract, there is no loss to the employer.  In these exceptional circumstances, which I have not encountered in real life, I would advocate breaking the contract as there is no cost to the other side.
> 
> If, on the other hand, leaving in 4 weeks would be disruptive to the employer, my advice would be to serve the contract.



So your position is the same as mine would be, in those circumstances.


----------



## mandelbrot

Bronte said:


> I find this post from you very odd Mandelbrot.  You're such a stickler for the law on revenue rules and procedures.  Yet when it comes to employment contracts you are exactly the opposite?



But I'm contractually obliged Bronte!!


----------



## Bronte

Sunny said:


> Employment contracts are broken every day. My employer broke mine last night by ringing me at 8pm. Maybe I should have pointed out the legal situation and told him that he was acting immorally but oddly enough I don't think he would appreciate that. Is that fair? No. Is that the real world? Yes. Unless you think everyone should work to rule?
> 
> .


 
How is he ringing you at 8pm immoral.  Is it not part of your working conditions that because of your level of job, your renumeration, the requirements of the work that on occasions it will be necessary for your employer to ring you outside of the usual working hours?


----------



## mandelbrot

Bronte said:


> How is he ringing you at 8pm immoral.  Is it not part of your working conditions that because of your level of job, your renumeration, the requirements of the work that on occasions it will be necessary for your employer to ring you outside of the usual working hours?



Sunny didnt say it's immoral, you've just argued her point for her. (I reckon Sunny is female, I just can't agree with Brendan on anything here!)


----------



## Bronte

ang1170 said:


> As an aside, I think unless and until the CEO of B&L is willing to accept a 20% pay reduction it is immoral to ask staff to do the same, but we'll see the pigs flying over Waterford before we see that happening.


 
In my experience of the corporate world, the CEO of B&L will be in line for a large bonus and pay rise if he pulls off the cost cutting.  Bottom line is all that matters.


----------



## Bronte

mandelbrot said:


> Sunny didnt say it's immoral, you've just argued her point for her. (I reckon Sunny is female, I just can't agree with Brendan on anything here!)


 
Did I misunderstand Sunny - if I did perhaps she can clarify.  Does she consider her boss ringing her at 8 pm immoral.

(In any case I'm still only at page 7 so will try and get on this when I see what happens next in the debate)


----------



## Sunny

mandelbrot said:


> So your position is the same as mine would be, in those circumstances.


 
Same as everyone's I think. I don't remember one person saying that the contract should be unilaterally broken if it was a legitimate clause inserted for good reason. I simpy pointed out that employee is perfectly entitled to let a court decide the rights and wrongs of the case if compromise can't be reached. Doesn't make the employee immoral and I stand over that.


----------



## Sunny

mandelbrot said:


> Sunny didnt say it's immoral, you've just argued her point for her. (I reckon Sunny is female, I just can't agree with Brendan on anything here!)


 
That's just my sensitive side shining through. All man!


----------



## Sunny

Bronte said:


> Did I misunderstand Sunny - if I did perhaps she can clarify. Does she consider her boss ringing her at 8 pm immoral.
> 
> (In any case I'm still only at page 7 so will try and get on this when I see what happens next in the debate)


 
No I don't consider it immoral. That's the point.


----------



## Bronte

Sunny said:


> First off, what makes you think say that people can't sue. People are perfectly entitled to sue and let a Court decide. Just because there isn't a signed contract doesn't legally mean there wasn't a contract. That's why we need expensive solicitors and barristers to argue different view points.
> 
> Secondly, what would you tell someone that came on AAM and said that they had an offer on a house accepted but no contracts had been signed. It was really going to push them financially but they think they might just be able to be able to make it work. Then an identical house came on the market that cost €30k less and put less stress on their personal finances. Would you tell them that
> 
> a) Their word is their bond and they should suck it up
> b) Renegotiate but realise you have no negotiating power
> c) Get legal advice to see if there are any legal repercussions for walking away and do what is right for them.


 
Not sure what you mean about suing, you cannot sue or imply a contract in relation to property where it is not a signed contract. The law is very clear on this. You are correct that a contract does not have to be in writing to be a contract, but for property it has to be signed. That is why nobody has ever been able to enforce a sale where there is no paperwork.  (I await the legal eagles to prove me wrong) Conversly, particularly due to the bust, plenty of people who had signed contracts had them enforced on them. There are cases every so often of this kind in the newspapers. 

In relation to your scenario, which we have had on AAM before. I consider the in the real world, where there is a price fall, people can and do negotiate down. For clarity c) does not apply, some people consider their word is their bond and would go with a), but most people will go for b) renegotiate, the seller would have to take the hit.


----------



## Bronte

mandelbrot said:


> Lets say the contract says 3 months notice, but no-one in the place is ever actually asked to work in the full notice period.
> 
> so you, for whatever reason, have an offer elsewhere and think it's safe to assume that 4 - 6 weeks notice shouldn't be a problem
> 
> But then, for purely personal reasons, the MD decides that they are going to make your life difficult


 
It is not relevant to the discussion what happened in the case of other employees normally not having to serve full notice.  And it's a very foolish person who would assume this.  And worse is the person who accepts a new job offer without telling the new boss that there is a contractual requirement of 3 months notice.  

It is highly unlikely in a scenario where the boss normally lets people go early that a boss would for a personal reason treat you differently unless there was some problems between you.


----------



## Bronte

Sunny said:


> There is nothing in the conveyancing laws to stop me from sueing a person who pulled out of a sale and left me with expenses. I mightn't be able to enforce the contract but I could recover costs.


 
How would that work?  Has there ever been such a case.  People have expenses all the time in relation to property, broker fee, solicitor fee for looking up title, engineer's fee.  You don't sue the seller if it all falls through - before a contract is signed.  Even if a contract is signed, and you have all those costs, if the sale falls through, for example there is an issue with planning that means your solicitor won't sign the title, you don't sue the seller because of it?


----------



## Sunny

Bronte said:


> Not sure what you mean about suing, you cannot sue or imply a contract in relation to property where it is not a signed contract. The law is very clear on this. You are correct that a contract does not have to be in writing to be a contract, but for property it has to be signed. That is why nobody has ever been able to enforce a sale where there is no paperwork. (I await the legal eagles to prove me wrong) Conversly, particularly due to the bust, plenty of people who had signed contracts had them enforced on them. There are cases every so often of this kind in the newspapers.
> 
> In relation to your scenario, which we have had on AAM before. I consider the in the real world, where there is a price fall, people can and do negotiate down. For clarity c) does not apply, some people consider their word is their bond and would go with a), but most people will go for b) renegotiate, the seller would have to take the hit.


 
Sorry Bronte but you making me go over old ground! Just because you can't sue to enforce the contract doesn't mean you can't sue to recover costs you have incurred in the process up to then. Whether you want to and whether you would win is up to you and a court. Brendan seemed to consider it immoral because the seller would have incurred costs. I am simply pointing out that there are remidies for that.


----------



## Bronte

Sunny said:


> Now I am off to watch a few hours of Judge Judy where people with my morals hang out!


 
That was an excellent post on the real world Sunny.  

You will obviously be well aware of the ramifications of car purchase on loan or engagement rings and contractual obligations with morals thrown in for good measure.


----------



## Bronte

Sunny said:


> Just because you can't sue to enforce the contract doesn't mean you can't sue to recover costs you have incurred in the process up to then. .


 
Ok, you and I will have to disagree on this being possible in relation to house purchase in Ireland.


----------



## RainyDay

Let me step back a bit from the blow-by-blow discussion.

I'm not sure that when the average Joe/Jane signs an employment contract with an unusual condition, it is always a fair agreement. Joe or Jane may have a very particular or specific need to get a job, or get a better job. This need may be similar enough to the needs stated elsewhere in relation to those facing mortgage difficulties. Joe/Jane probably won't get legal advice, or may not be able to afford legal advice before signing. 

Where a condition like three months notice is way out of whack with industry norms, there is a good case for avoiding or evading it. 

I'm not sure that 3 months notice does a whole lot of good for most employers anyway. For any kind of senior position, you are unlikely to get a replacement in 3 months anyway, between time for advertising, interviews, contracts and notice periods. Does an employer really want a very disgruntled employee hanging around for the further two months?

We've seen cases where people entered into mortgage contracts with unfair terms, perhaps with some of the lenders of last resort, or even worse, Irish Nationwide. Is it reasonable for borrowers to stick to every single term of these contracts in those circumstances?


----------



## Time

> Does an employer really want a very disgruntled employee hanging around for the further two months?


Hence why most low level minion position holders are escorted form the premises and paid their notice. It would only be senior management that would really work such a long notice period. Keeping on a low level employee for 3 months where he/she can do mischief is just silly and does not happen in the real world.


----------



## Bronte

Time said:


> Hence why most low level minion position holders are escorted form the premises and paid their notice. It would only be senior management that would really work such a long notice period. Keeping on a low level employee for 3 months where he/she can do mischief is just silly and does not happen in the real world.


 
I disagree with you Time, in my experience it was the high level workers who were escorted out, they have the knowledge and experience to do real damage, so the company wants them out before they get up to anything.  Where I am the notice period would be exceedingly well paid and long.


----------



## Dan Murray

“Seanabhean is ea mise anois go bhfuil cos léi insan uaigh is an chos eile ar a bruach"

Those of you of a certain vintage will recall these opening words from Peig Sayers' autobiography. Fado, fado, I used to find her musings tedious but now that I am retired and am of advanced years, I actually find much of what she wrote to be remarkably perceptive.

I write this because over time our views are influenced by the prism with which we see life. Not everything is black in white as many of the posters have correctly opined. I now have the luxury of time to reflect on things but because of my age and health I also see time as such an incredibly precious commodity. I am possibly straying off topic but sometimes we learn that it is by indirections that we find directions out. I smile as I write “it is” – I used to have the same problem as Sunny but now I’ve learned the correct usage of “its” and “it’s”. I ramble. I think there is another thread for this stuff.

Many of the aspects in this thread make me smile. I am reminded of that classic poem about those Blind Men of Indostan. What I’m most reminded about though is the genius that is Robert Frost. Once when he was asked whether he considered ever going into business. "Nope" he said "I value my time too much. I like to listen to my hair grow. I like too much spending time in nature and with my wife and with my children and with my friends. Business, it seems to me, is about working faithfully for eight hours a day to become the boss where you get to work 12 hours a day."

I was that slave and like some of my pals now wonder whether we spent our time well. Naturally, there were good times and we do miss certain aspects about the working life but we really don't, as the saying goes, wish we had spent more time at the office and mostly we regret the extent of our commitment and some of our actions – ref. B&L. With time we realise that if you spend excessive amount of time on one aspect of your life, there is a good chance the insufficient time is being spent on another. For me, the biggest casualties were the health of my body and of my marriage. The car and the status are insufficient, in ways false, compensation. 

All this is by way of introduction that I have much more sympathy for the viewpoint expressed by elacsaplau than most of the posters on this site. It was Bronte's comments this morning that prompted me to write. I generally really like her posts very much. They are usually so well balanced. But her shock, shocked me. (I apologise I don’t know how to work the quotation function). What was interesting was that a few minutes earlier, she had written about the way large corporations suck you in. It seems that all elacsaplau is trying to do is avoid such sucking in. I thought it best to finish the last sentence with a preposition.

Perhaps time for me to wrap up. I’m not the most adept at the keyboard – one good thing about the old days was the dictaphone. I’d really appreciate Brendan’s confirmation on one specific point – am I correct in my understanding that Brendan agrees with elacsaplau’s right to assert the contractual hours' terms of his contract? (let’s take it that he is not agreeing that the extra hours should be the norm – i.e. additional hours should genuinely be the exception and he does not want to quit. Let’s take it also that he simply wants adherence the terms of the contract as drafted and agreed by the employer in question.)

My request has no attaching ultimata. Keep up the excellent work that this site does – whilst I don’t contribute that much, I find the site very entertaining and informative. It has even saved me quite a few bob down the years. It’s great to live in a country of free speech – we shall often disagree with others but isn’t it great to be able to interchange views – when Peig was a lass and even when I was a boy, there was so much censure in our little land.

Slan agus buiochas mor.


----------



## ang1170

Bronte said:


> In my experience of the corporate world, the CEO of B&L will be in line for a large bonus and pay rise if he pulls off the cost cutting. Bottom line is all that matters.


 
 I'd agree, thus proving my point that business, law and morality are often strange bedfellows.

 That's not to condemn all business, by the way: there are plenty of examples especially in recent years of owner/managers paying themselves literally nothing in preference to imposing cuts or redundancies on their staff. 

 I guess it comes down to what you can live with, and that's probably related to the size of the business. Very easy to take a decision at corporate HQ about a site you may never even have seen, a bit different if the decision impacts directly on people you know and see every day.

 Similarly, very easy to perch yourself on the high moral ground on the basis of a hypothetical or a few lines of a post, not so easy to assume that position if you're in the middle of it yourself. To be completely honest, for most of these hypotheticals I'd like to think I'd do the right thing, but in a real situation I'm not so sure what I'd do.


----------



## mf1

ang1170 said:


> I'd agree, thus proving my point that business, law and morality are often strange bedfellows.
> 
> That's not to condemn all business, by the way: there are plenty of examples especially in recent years of owner/managers paying themselves literally nothing in preference to imposing cuts or redundancies on their staff.
> 
> I guess it comes down to what you can live with, and that's probably related to the size of the business. Very easy to take a decision at corporate HQ about a site you may never even have seen, a bit different if the decision impacts directly on people you know and see every day.
> 
> Similarly, very easy to perch yourself on the high moral ground on the basis of a hypothetical or a few lines of a post, not so easy to assume that position if you're in the middle of it yourself. To be completely honest, for most of these hypotheticals I'd like to think I'd do the right thing, but in a real situation I'm not so sure what I'd do.



Would this be a nice note to end all of this? There has been, on occasion, a little too much over zealous/robust commentation! Let's play nice, folks. 

Everyone is entitled to a point of view but everyone won't be able to change (influence perhaps) the OP's fiance's approach.  

Ultimately, people make their own mind's up - and often time, what they do, is done without thought or deliberation.

mf


----------



## Sunny

mf1 said:


> Would this be a nice note to end all of this? There has been, on occasion, a little too much over zealous/robust commentation! Let's play nice, folks.
> 
> Everyone is entitled to a point of view but everyone won't be able to change (influence perhaps) the OP's fiance's approach.
> 
> Ultimately, people make their own mind's up - and often time, what they do, is done without thought or deliberation.
> 
> mf



Don't be crazy. We now have a Peig Sayers and Robert Frost twist. Who knows where it will end up!!!!


----------



## mf1

It will end in tears! 

mf


----------



## Time

With only the lawyers winning.


----------



## Ceist Beag

The question is, what would Peig have done in this situation.


----------



## ang1170

Time said:


> With only the lawyers winning.


 
 You mention lawyers in the same context as morality. 

 But more seriously, I'm with mf1: I for one have had more than enough of this. I find myself repeating the same points over and over, so shall cease...


----------



## Time

In the words of Gavin Duffy on Dragons' Den "Tá mé amach!"


----------



## Sue Ellen

mf1 said:


> Would this be a nice note to end all of this?
> 
> mf





ang1170 said:


> But more seriously, I'm with mf1: I for one have had more than enough of this. I find myself repeating the same points over and over, so shall cease...



and on these notes time to call it a day lads and lasses, thread closed.


----------

