You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Email from a director this morning asking if I would change from a 1 month to 3 month notice period as I'm dead brill and important and that, go me. Or maybe because it's a stressful job that is going to get more so in the next few years and they can't find any other mug to do it.
I'm changing job role (well, already doing it) and my manager has put it forward to directors with an application for a decent pay rise so I replied to say yes in principle but does it work both ways (i.e. I get 3 months redundancy notice) and I expect it is tied into the new job role and salary increase. Just had a reply to say yes it works both ways but not tied into the new job role and more loot as this part isn't guaranteed, am I still ok with it?
What says the collective? To me it seems to benefit the company much more than me and they want to have their cake and eat it.
Is 3 months fairly industry standard for the position you are in? Or would any potential alternative jobs be put off by a 3 months notice period?
I’d prob take it tbh
It depends if you plan to leave and if you do, would you want to go quickly? Also depends on your industry - in our industry 3 months is fairly standard (some senior roles are 6 months) so most employers wouldn't be surprised if they had to wait 3 months.
It benefits you in as much as you get 3 months more notice or redundancy if they get rid of you.
If you are not that fussed about getting 3 months notice for them getting rid of you and it looks like they are keen to keep you then I would keep 1 month (could give you more leverage in any term and conditions negotiations).
Depends on how much you value the additional security vs a reduction in being able to move jobs easily when you want?
Though depending on what you do, it might be reasonably normal for people to have a 3 month notice period and for new employers to have to wait so that might be a non issue.
I'm surprised they haven't linked it to your new role and salary bump, that would seem to be a nice sweetener. Perhaps you could ask for them to be linked?
edit: wot they all said faster than me
I have had this before. A pay rise linked to a three month notice period. I declined because I was looking to move but then ended u[ with a 3 month notice on my last job. It makes it harder to get a job offer when moving again as companies don't want to wait three months. I was lucky that my current employer did want me but I nearly lost the job offer.
Usual caveats re advice from randos on the interwebs, etc etc.
I think you handled it perfectly. The notice period should be mutual (in writing), and my own view on notice periods as an employee is the longer the better. If you wish to leave earlier that can often be negotiated at the time, otherwise you're getting more protection from redundancies/etc.
Usually longer (3-6 month) notice periods are associated with more senior roles, but there's usually little downside to a longer notice period. The key concern you'd need to consider is if you had a better offer elsewhere then would this 3 month notice period, if your current employer required you to complete it, be a hindrance to the new employers offering the job. This is general industry/seniority specific, and you'd need to make your own call on that.
Doesn't definitely apply both ways, make sure that is clear in any contract. TBH any company will struggle to really hold you to a 3mth notice if you really want to go, and if want to go but the force the issue, they can expect pretty poor outcomes in the enforced notice so most will just agree to let you go early.
In practice all they can do if you just leave early is take legal action against you for breach of contract and to try to recover damages, they are very unlikely to do so, unless you happen to be crucial to a new ££££ contract that falls though for example.
Also most companies wont bat an eyelid at having to wait 2 extra months to get the right candidate
So, you really would get the better end of the deal assuming its clear its both ways.
Maybe see if you can agree reluctancy but ask them to sweeten the deal? small bump in pay or holiday?
Without the pay rise being guaranteed I would not be taking the 3 month notice period and I would be highly suspicious of why they want the 3 month notice period
i dont understand why a company want to hold onto someone who didnt want to be there for 3 months?
i guess its great for the employee if they are pushed, but not if they want to jump. surely all work ethic disappears the moment you know you're leaving?
i have only ever been on contract roles with 1 week notice, but i have never had to work even that - they always say finish on friday and pay up for the following week.
surely all work ethic disappears the moment you know you’re leaving?
Depends on how professional you are I suppose...
At my last job, when I went into a managerial role, my notice increased from one to three months - when I left to go to a non-managerial role, my new company were quite happy to wait the full three months for me to join.
If they're offering to pay you for the privilege, why not?
Ideally I'd want a new contract of employment for the new role including the salary, that guaranteed 3 months notice period on top of any redundancy proceedings/settlement and the same for any non-gross misconduct dismissal, not that I can remember the last time someone I know got sacked for not being good enough as their job, seems a very hard thing to do these days.
In short, do the lot in one go, Job, Salary, Terms.
I always regarded a 3 month notice period as a benefit
In my line of work 3 months is usually a standard so new companies are usually more than willing to wait (although they'll put a bit of pressure on to get you ASAP) and your old company will (in my experience) try and keep you for the full 3 months to get as much work out of you as possible at the same time as recruiting for a replacement and any KT etc thats needed.
The question I'd be asking of myself is, it appropriate for the role?
If it will take three months to replace you then fair enough, if they're just using it to make it difficult for you to leave then not so much.
If the money isn't there yet then I'd want them to commit to a timescale as to when it was going to be, maybe make that as a proviso of the notice change? But then if you're already doing the job anyway then you're not in the strongest bargaining position.
Oh, and, if it's really not commensurate with the role, unfair employment terms aren't enforceable anyway (otherwise they could set your notice period as ten years).
Its difficult. You are staying in same company, so yes it benefits them, but they pay your wages so it benefits you too, if they weren't there you wouldn't have a job after all. As you are staying with the company you don't want to annoy the them and need to keep things civil, no point getting a black mark against your name for being a trouble maker.
It happened to me back when I worked in NHS. I was changing departments and my manager wasn't happy I was moving on (he said it was staffing issues but it still took over 9 months to replace me after I left), so he applied to director to keep me in role for longer than notice period, and director agreed, so they paid me at the higher rate of new job for 2 months. I wasn't happy, as I really disliked my job and was desperate to leave. But i just had to get on with it. Worked out well for me as I needed an operation so spent a month of it on the sick at the higher rate of pay, which annoyed my manager even more 🙂
i guess its great for the employee if they are pushed, but not if they want to jump. surely all work ethic disappears the moment you know you’re leaving?
Depends how much you're prepared to burn your bridges with colleagues/company/managers. I've just gone back to my old job having left on good terms (I actually bust a gut on my last day getting something finished).
You might not need the reference (and most people don't give anything subjective, just objective things like dates, sick days etc now), but a reputation for sitting on your hands for 3 months won't do your career any favours will it?
You could take it as a complement?
Would have been a bit worrying if they were asking to reduce the mutual notice period to 1 week 🙂
As mentioned above, would be very hard to enforce, and if you were being let go by a company they would normally want you out the door immediately (they'd pay your notice period or put you on "garden leave").
18 month asked for in my company. 3 months is hardly a burden, and they can't hold you to any notice period anyway. If you really want to go, you simply go.
Not sure why 3 months is an issue.
tjagain
Without the pay rise being guaranteed, I would not be taking the 3 month notice period and I would be highly suspicious of why they want the 3 month notice period
On the one hand, I'd agree with TJ - they are about to offer you a new post, with different salary that is the time to negotiate T&Cs, and I'd be concerned they are about to renege on that and have you tied in so it's harder to **** off somewhere else...
On the other hand, TJ lives in a relatively secure NHS/Public Sector bubble where redundancies are not a frequent occurrence, unions make for protracted consultation periods and pay off packages are often more generous than the statutory minimum. If I was somewhere that seemed like it might not be so secure and stat min would be the norm, 3 months notice might have value to me.
@tpbikers
Fuel reactors.
They ask for it and give extra holidays as pre retirement leave in return.
They need to recruit and train so ask for 18 months. Should have added that's for retirees. Very few people ever leave that job normally.
But as has been said, any company can ask for whatever they like, they can't hold you to any timeframe regardless.
and if you were being let go by a company they would normally want you out the door immediately (they’d pay your notice period or put you on “garden leave”).
Years ago at Nortel a colleagure resigned to join O2 and they made him work his three months notice. Totally counter productive as he just hung around chatting to people distracting them for three months. Absolutely no idea why they did it, seemed like out of spite.
If they want me to give 3 months notice, I’d expect them to give me 6 months to sweeten the deal. That’s how it worked last time I was in that position.
Interesting reading, as the new HMRC terms and conditions are looking at extending notice periods.....
Fuel reactors.
They ask for it and give extra holidays as pre retirement leave in return.
They need to recruit and train so ask for 18 months. Should have added that’s for retirees. Very few people ever leave that job normally.
@brads lmao, most of HNB has taken to throwing the minimum 4 weeks as standard. Nobody ever gets trained up before someone leaves anyway so people just dictate their own time rather than being bound by the 18 month deal. That's before a loss of goodwill thanks to the pension carry on.
HMRC linky please?
Hmmm, so as it stands it's statutory for employers to give one weeks notice for every year up to a maximum of 12. Guess how long I've worked there? Why, just over 12 years!
We had this in work a few years ago, went from 1 month to 3 months, both ways, so 3 months notice and 3 redundancy.
I saw am employment lawyer at the time and was told, as above, pretty standard and the 3 month redundancy increase should have been seen as a much more positive benefit than I was considering it.
3 months notice in my company. The idea being that it gives us time to recruit/train a replacement but it never happens as we seem to be happy to let headcount drift downwards despite business doing very well.
I cant remember the last time anyone actually served their 3 months (other than when it suited the individual), most did 6 or 8 weeks.
There nothing public I can find on the HMRC terms, currently with the union members for a ballot on the package.
Thing is though that having been there for 12 years I'm entitled to 12 weeks notice by law so by agreeing it only works in their favour as I only have to give them one month currently. Following advice above that's its not really enforceable I'm not that bothered but as the potential promotion and salary review is in progress it just makes my spider senses tingle, don't see why it wouldn't wait two months to tie it all together with a new contract
I would want to know why they want to make this change - they should be managing things so you do not want to leave. this suggests to me that they are expecting conditions to arise where you do want to leave
Overly cynical?
As long as it cuts both ways take it as a benefit. If it's 3 months for you, 1 month for them, no deal.
As said above its almost impossible to enforce notice, all they can do is sue you for losses incurred which would normally be a lot less than the legal fees involved.
Think of it another way, If you don’t get the pay rise and job change are you going to leave? If so will one months notice be a benefit to you?
It does sound like a test of your commitment to the company to me (and linked to you getting the new role)
davosaurusrex
Full MemberHmmm, so as it stands it’s statutory for employers to give one weeks notice for every year up to a maximum of 12. Guess how long I’ve worked there? Why, just over 12 years!
I think you’re getting confused with redundancy notice there...
I think you’re getting confused with redundancy notice there…
I don't think he is.
I'm very grateful of my 3 month notice period.
I have just been made redundant and being paid 3 months Pay In Lieu Of Notice.
This gives me plenty of breathing space to find my next role.
Any role which has a 3 month notice period will have it at all companies so where ever you choose to move to in the future will be anticipating that.
Nothing to worry about imo.
@sqirrelking
Yup, I can see it going that way here as well. They have been employing and training well in advance but how that will play out in the next couple of years is anyones guess.
We have had a big uptake of the 18 month notice period though.
The new pension might work well for me. I transferred out a while back so having access to an L&G pension at that rate might be handy lol.
I don’t think you have anything to worry about so long as it goes both ways, and in the current environment you should welcome the extra security of another 2 months notice. If you still think your employer is trying to screw you maybe you have the wrong employer though..
+1 I'd take it, and did when I was offered it in a previous job. Bit more security and money should a redundancy opportunity arise.
If a potential employer wants you they will most likely wait (I would) - and the value of you to your current employer reflects well on you with any potential employer.
Eventually when I did resign we negotiated it down a bit too.
Been on 3 month notice period for about the last 10 years.
I guess it depends on the industry but it seems to be pretty standard in pharma one you reach a certain level
A number of years ago my employer wanted me to move from 3 (I've been used to 3 for a long time), to 6, I refused, 18 months later (if I'd stayed) I would have been redundant and that PILON (as I have found it's called this week), would have been ace.
I am currently being made redundant and I am getting 3 months PILON, which is taxable, because there shouldn't even be any pleasure if getting made redundant FFS!
I'd be looking for some additional consideration to increase a notice period.
At my old place my notice was tied to service. It started at 1 month rising to 6 when I'd been there 10years. It was mutual. It worked, some people did very well out of it with redundancy.
I left last year and shortened my notice period back to 3 months. My new employer wanted an earlier start but we're prepared to wait if needed. After all the negotiation on both sides, covid hit and I went back and un negotiated to 6 months!
I'm now on 1 month again. But this is short for the industry. 3 months is more normal.
It might vary in company size. As a large multinational my last place wasn't going to collapse when I left. The negotiation included what was to be handed over and how.
In a smaller company one significant person leaving has a much larger impact.