Notice handed in getting nasty

[RainyDay]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

How they ever became entwined in this discussion escapes me.

Rainyday introduced it here

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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)

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.

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]

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]

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.