Notice handed in getting nasty

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.
 
Sunny said:
I don't get your point.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 

What's the remarkable difference?
 
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.
 

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.
 
................................
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?
 

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
 

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
 
.............................

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.
 
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....
 

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.
 
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:


 

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.
 
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.
 
RainyDay said:
WHat kind of research did you do on the employer and the job before you made the decision to join this firm?
Click to expand...

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