Work asking to increase notice period from 1 month to 3

LegacyUser

Hi All,

A couple of the guys in my company have been approached by the company and asked to change their contract so they must give three months notice instead of one month.
This is to accommodate a client who has requested it.

Is this usual in the marketplace?
Any tips/suggestions?
Thanks.

Eoin

I had a 3 month notice period before and that was not a senior role by any stretch. It was also a pain to negotiate when I left (I did not do the whole 3 months, but there was an element of uncertainty when talking to potential new employers and agencies).

3 months may apply to very senior people, and even then not all the time.

It is untrue that it is not legally binding, but it is rarely cost-effective for an employer to enforce. The client (if that's actually true) should know this.

bonyn

I had a 2 mth notice period and agencies did not want to know me..
I don't see the benefit to you in agreeing to it to be honest.

nhunter100

anon20160719 wrote:

A couple of the guys in my company have been approached by the company and asked to change their contract so they must give three months notice instead of one month. This is to accommodate a client who has requested it.

They can always refuse.

Irish_Elect_Eng

This is not that unusual. The client is asking for certainty in the team assigned to support them. I have insisted on similar commitments from some service providers that we use (In India & the USA)where I was concerned that the high turnover of staff at the companies would impact the companies ability to execute on an ongoing project. On the positive side, this is an indication that the client wants a stable relationship for the duration of the contract.

Worst case, if the client does not receive the assurance that they need they may decide to spend their money with a company that can provide them with what they needs. He who pays the piper....

If they have a marketable skill, those that are agreeing to the extended notice period should of course get something in return for agreeing to a more restrictive contract. But if they have no leverage or are easily replaced, then it may be a case of agree to the conditions or be let go, depending on their current contract, tenure etc.

Eoin

If they are easily replaced, then the need for a longer notice period seems a bit irrelevant.

Personally there's no way I'd let another company dictate my contract of employment, especially if it impinged upon my future employment opportunities.

Mrs OBumble

Eoin wrote: »

Personally there's no way I'd let another company dictate my contract of employment, especially if it impinged upon my future employment opportunities.

I would - but I would have to think quite hard about the salary premium that it would take to get me to agree. It would be double-digit.

seamus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I would - but I would have to think quite hard about the salary premium that it would take to get me to agree. It would be double-digit.

This. You can be pretty sure the company have put a large premium on the client's contract for this guarantee of team integrity, so the team should demand a slice of that pie.

It heavily affects your ability to change job, so I'd be asking for 20% minimum, plus twice-yearly performance bonusses and guaranteed yearly salary reviews.

daheff

NO NO NO NO NO

not a chance.

1 month is standard for jobs. Some companies are trying to bring in 3 month notice to give them time to replace somebody who has resigned. (IE you tell them you are gone in 3 months, they have time to leisurely recruit a replacement -you might even train them in before you go).

All sounds good for your employer right? No. As this catches on and other employers now have to wait 3 months for a new hire..they start adding 3 month notice periods to their contract. Before long 3 months becomes standard and we're all back to square one.


It also makes it more difficult for you leaving the job to get a new one. A lot of employers would be turned off having to wait 3 months for you to start (unless you have a difficult to find skillset /are senior manager).

I would suggest saying no to this. But if they insist -then you insist on a 2 month salary payment to allow them 'buy' this change to your contract (or whatever else you want). I'll bet they change their tune then.

witchgirl26

I don't know if 1 month is the standard any more. I recently changed jobs & a lot of places were surprised that I only had to give 1 months notice. Even the recruiter I was dealing with was surprised and even said that it could work to my advantage as a lot were 3 months. My current contract is 3 months notice and I don't have an issue with it. Actually the advice that I got in relation to it is that if you are sure you are leaving rather than just testing the waters, just give your notice at the start of your search period.

I do think it's a bit odd to amend it but if it's to provide continuity for a client who has maybe been burned in the past, I can understand it. If they really don't want to have it formally changed, maybe they could talk to management and ask that it remains 1 month notice but that they'll give as much notice as possible to their leaving informally if they decide to go. Bit of a compromise.

TheDoc

Eoin wrote: »

If they are easily replaced, then the need for a longer notice period seems a bit irrelevant.

Personally there's no way I'd let another company dictate my contract of employment, especially if it impinged upon my future employment opportunities.

Catch22 here is that for the employees working for companies where revenue streams are client services, there is little to no choice.

A 3 monnth notice period wouldn't be unusual if the people involved are subject matter experts. Three months would be apt to knowledge transfer and bring replacements up to speed. Somewhat depends on the sector as well.

I'd have seen it during big system implementations or project work, along with the eventual post project phase.

jimmycrackcorm

I would absolutely refuse to increase my notice from 1 month to 3. It's a complete disadvantage if you want to change jobs compared to other available candidates plus you'd find that were your employer looking to get rid of you, you'd be "managed" out.