Notice handed in getting nasty

Status
Not open for further replies.

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...
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Time said:
Normally security escorts you off the premises once notice is given.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TommyB said:
Contact clauses like this are not legal as they infringe on a persons free movement of employment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Frank said:
The biggest problem I have is the MD feeling he can talk down to and threaten whomever he feels like.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mandelbrot said:
I don't give a damn about property transactions. Unless I'm contractually obliged...
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
Mandelbrot's variation
of the original scenario


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)
Click to expand...
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.
 

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
If I agree to something I will stick to that agreement, even if it does not suit me.
Click to expand...

Even if it does not suit you, ok.


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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
Sunny said:
Brendan, I know it doesn't seem like it but we are actually not as far apart as you think.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register