Not working notice period

Esse85

C3PO wrote: »

That’s not what he said - he said that 3 months notice is common in Pharma!
I have never seen a contract where the notice terms are not the same on both sides! I’m not saying that they don’t exist but they are not usual!

I've come across it regularly in sales. Maybe it's a sales thing so but it happens.

I’ve a 3 month myself but I pay no heed to it as I’ll be working 1 when the time comes. Don’t give companies any respect OP, you’ll never get it in return.

Shelflife

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I’ve a 3 month myself but I pay no heed to it as I’ll be working 1 when the time comes. Don’t give companies any respect OP, you’ll never get it in return.

Reg if the company decided to let you go, would you be happy if they paid no heed to the contract and only paid you a months notice ?

Shelflife

Shelflife wrote: »

Reg if the company decided to let you go, would you be happy if they paid no heed to the contract and only paid you a months notice ?

I fully expect them to give no more than a week so I won’t feel anything except indifference.

1hnr79jr65

I was working in pharma with 3 months notice, however i decided to leave and came to mutual agreement of 3 weeks on discussion.

Everything is not set in stone if you can give a reasonable rationale for earlier mutual separation, as long as you not going to an immediate competitor or are knowledgeable of patented trade secrets.

Sour Lemonz

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

I was working in pharma with 3 months notice, however i decided to leave and came to mutual agreement of 3 weeks on discussion.

Everything is not set in stone if you can give a reasonable rationale for earlier mutual separation.

The pharma industry is just constant recycle of staff and musical chairs at the moment though. Anyone can be replaced within a few days.

py2006

When you say badly treated, how badly are we talking?

If its unbearable, leave now or at most a weeks notice.


EDIT: Its not like you have been there 10 years, its only 10 months. If you are still in probation and they didn't like you, they can drop you in a flash.

Strumms

Three months notice is incredibly excessive. The most I’ve ever needed to give was one month. I’d like to see the law, turn on the employees side whereby the max notice a company can require and write into a contract is 4 weeks, 6-7 if it’s a very specialist job/position... such as a pilot in a small airline or some such...

Imagine I’m interviewing today for a job, I saw the add online. Better pay, better conditions, an office closer to my home... etc.... they call me with the good news, offer me the job, confirm salary and I accept.. they ask me when I can start, I tell them October 22nd... if you are the hiring manager you are going to be “errrrrr, sorry but we sought to hire you and offered you the position with the position needing to be filled while not immediately but certainly in the short term... waiting a quarter of a year between us offering you the job and you showing up to start work and receive your training isn’t satisfactory, the offer is withdrawn.”

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

Three months notice is incredibly excessive. The most I’ve ever needed to give was one month. I’d like to see the law, turn on the employees side whereby the max notice a company can require and write into a contract is 4 weeks, 6-7 if it’s a very specialist job/position... such as a pilot in a small airline or some such...

Imagine I’m interviewing today for a job, I saw the add online. Better pay, better conditions, an office closer to my home... etc.... they call me with the good news, offer me the job, confirm salary and I accept.. they ask me when I can start, I tell them October 22nd... if you are the hiring manager you are going to be “errrrrr, sorry but we sought to hire you and offered you the position with the position needing to be filled while not immediately but certainly in the short term... waiting a quarter of a year between us offering you the job and you showing up to start work and receive your training isn’t satisfactory, the offer is withdrawn.”

Surely you would understand that when reading and signing your contract of employment?

What happens when there’s 3 months in the contract and you’ve a company car?

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

Surely you would understand that when reading and signing your contract of employment?

You would but that doesn’t make it a fair or realistic expectation for an employee to be put under.

Employers need to be fair and realistic. Employees move on. That part of life. Four to six weeks should be the longest notice period.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

You would but that doesn’t make it a fair or realistic expectation for an employee to be put under.

Employers need to be fair and realistic. Employees move on. That part of life. Four to six weeks should be the longest notice period.

If you think it’s unfair, don’t agree to the contract. The Government shouldn’t have to legislate to protect an employee from making a poor decision on agreeing a term when accepting a job. You should be capable of deciding that for yourself.

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

If you think it’s unfair, don’t agree to the contract. The Government shouldn’t have to legislate to protect an employee from making a poor decision on agreeing a term when accepting a job. You should be capable of deciding that for yourself.

The government should be willing to write, legislate and regulate the employment laws so that employees don’t have to be screening potential employers on the basis of them having the legal wiggle room to include such ridiculous, unfair and careless notice clauses.

bucketybuck

The government should write laws so that employees don't have to read their own contracts?

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

The government should be willing to write, legislate and regulate the employment laws so that employees don’t have to be screening potential employers on the basis of them having the legal wiggle room to include such ridiculous, unfair and careless notice clauses.

A notice period is a very simple term and condition in an employment contract, the Government has legislated to provide statutory minimum periods the same way they have for minimum rates of pay. It is up to the applicant to accept or reject periods in excess of the minimum, they do so freely. Employees of course should be screening employers based on the terms and conditions of employment.

Strumms

bucketybuck wrote: »

The government should write laws so that employees don't have to read their own contracts?

No, the government should prevent companies from trying to contract employees to things like notice periods of three months.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

No, the government should prevent companies from trying to contract employees to things like notice periods of three months.

But the employee is free to reject the contract.

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

But the employee is free to reject the contract.

Truth, but then why have a minimum wage ? By your argument, well if the job wants to offer you 5.70 an hour, just reject the contract.

There simply needs to be a minimum wage but also minimum standards of behavior for employers.

Trying to encourage employees to sign up to restrictive and unfair arrangements as has been mentioned here is unsatisfactory.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

Truth, but then why have a minimum wage ? By your argument, well if the job wants to offer you 5.70 an hour, just reject the contract.

There simply needs to be a minimum wage but also minimum standards of behavior for employers.

Trying to encourage employees to sign up to restrictive and unfair arrangements as has been mentioned here is unsatisfactory.

The employer is meeting the statutory minimum standards of pay and behaviour in relation to remuneration and notice period, anything exceeding that is discretionary. If you don’t like the pay and notice period, reject the job.

As another poster said, you don’t need the Government to legislate to make you decide on what terms and conditions are acceptable to you. That is a choice you make freely.

bucketybuck

What exactly is unfair about an explicitly stated need for a longer notice period?

I know people like financial controllers who have had extended notice periods, people in core positions that cannot be left unfilled, what exactly is unfair about a company being clear about that and then a grown man or woman making their own decision about whether to accept it or not?

Are there any other contract clauses you think are unfair or is it just notice periods that you would prefer to ignore when it suits you?

Phantasos

Can I jump in and ask a question here? I don't want to clutter the forum with another post.

I've been in a job just over 5 years. I started as a summer job and stayed on... there may have been a summer contract, but the extension of the job into a full-time role was never listed in writing on any sort of contract.

Am I right to say that, without an actual contract of employment, the minimum notice I legally need to provide is only one week?

I've read about needing to give 4 weeks notice if you've been working 5+ years in a place, but from what I gather that's an employer's obligation to me if they want to dismiss me, not the other way around.

Strumms

bucketybuck wrote: »

What exactly is unfair about an explicitly stated need for a longer notice period?

I know people like financial controllers who have had extended notice periods, people in core positions that cannot be left unfilled, what exactly is unfair about a company being clear about that and then a grown man or woman making their own decision about whether to accept it or not?

Are there any other contract clauses you think are unfair or is it just notice periods that you would prefer to ignore when it suits you?

Because people’s circumstances in life change, should if a family member become seriously ill and I wanted to care for them, be victim to a three month notice period ? If I’m in a situation where a new boss comes in, I know from word go that we won’t get along, work is already a ball ache, do I need to wait three months, mental health suffering before I can get out of dodge ?

Nope , it shouldn’t be permitted. Certain industries where suitable candidates are hard to come by could perhaps get waivers say to insist on 8 weeks if it’s a documentable necessity...

Dav010

Phantasos wrote: »

Can I jump in and ask a question here? I don't want to clutter the forum with another post.

I've been in a job just over 5 years. I started as a summer job and stayed on... there may have been a summer contract, but the extension of the job into a full-time role was never listed in writing on any sort of contract.

Am I right to say that, without an actual contract of employment, the minimum notice I legally need to provide is only one week?

I've read about needing to give 4 weeks notice if you've been working 5+ years in a place, but from what I gather that's an employer's obligation to me if they want to dismiss me, not the other way around.

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/what_you_should_know/ending%20the%20employment%20relationship/minimum%20notice/

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

Because people’s circumstances in life change, should if a family member become seriously ill and I wanted to care for them, be victim to a three month notice period ? If I’m in a situation where a new boss comes in, I know from word go that we won’t get along, work is already a ball ache, do I need to wait three months, mental health suffering before I can get out of dodge ?

Nope , it shouldn’t be permitted. Certain industries where suitable candidates are hard to come by could perhaps get waivers say to insist on 8 weeks if it’s a documentable necessity...

You can make up scenarios and apply them to notice periods in all types of contracts, but it won’t change the fact that you agreed of your own volition to the notice period when entering the contract.

bucketybuck

Strumms wrote: »

Because people’s circumstances in life change, should if a family member become seriously ill and I wanted to care for them, be victim to a three month notice period ? If I’m in a situation where a new boss comes in, I know from word go that we won’t get along, work is already a ball ache, do I need to wait three months, mental health suffering before I can get out of dodge ?

Nope , it shouldn’t be permitted. Certain industries where suitable candidates are hard to come by could perhaps get waivers say to insist on 8 weeks if it’s a documentable necessity...

Yep, basically you want to ignore a contract clause when it suits you to. And you want government to intervene to make it easier to do so.

I think they have better to be at quite frankly, if you don't want longer notice period then don't take a job with the sort of responsibility that requires them. Plenty of alternatives out there.

Strumms

bucketybuck wrote: »

Yep, basically you want to ignore a contract clause when it suits you to. And you want government to intervene to make it easier to do so.

I think they have better to be at quite frankly, if you don't want longer notice period then don't take a job with the sort of responsibility that requires them. Plenty of alternatives out there.

No I don’t want to ignore a contract clause. I’d like employment law to cover employees so that they cannot be put in situations where employers are of the ability to write these types of contracts, full stop.

Waivers could be granted for certain types of job if there is a physical, true and just requirement such as perhaps a pilot where much training etc, familiarization must be completed before the new hire can begin his or her actual work.

If there is no proper justification beyond an employer just not too bothered about being in a rush to get off their fücking hole and employ and train then no, sorry, unsat.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

No I don’t want to ignore a contract clause. I’d like employment law to cover employees so that they cannot be put in situations where employers are of the ability to write these types of contracts, full stop.

Waivers could be granted for certain types of job if there is a physical, true and just requirement such as perhaps a pilot where much training etc, familiarization must be completed before the new hire can begin his or her actual work.

If there is no proper justification beyond an employer just not too bothered about being in a rush to get off their fücking hole and employ and train then no, sorry, unsat.

But there is no law that says an employee has to accept the offer which includes these terms. You are not forced to accept them. I think you are doing a disservice to the capability of applicants to understand what is a fairly simple part of a contract.

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

But there is no law that says an employee has to accept the offer which includes these terms. You are not forced to accept them. I think you are doing a disservice to the capability of applicants to understand what is a fairly simple part of a contract.

Simple, law should ensure that employers cannot offer conditions which are unjust and unfair. It’s not about contract comprehension it’s about fair contracts. If a contract prohibits an employee from traveling to work on public transportation it shouldn’t be a case of saying... “well the employee isn’t forced to accept.”... needs to be a case where the employer is forced not to behave in this manner, the law backs fairness and the employee...

bucketybuck

"Fair".

Based on your own personal definition of fair, of course.

I’d like employment law to cover employees so that they cannot be put in situations where employers are of the ability to write these types of contracts

This is nonsensical.

"Cannot be put in situations where employers can write a contract". Situations like somebody applying for the job, and then accepting the job?

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

Simple, law should ensure that employers cannot offer conditions which are unjust and unfair. It’s not about contract comprehension it’s about fair contracts. If a contract prohibits an employee from traveling to work on public transportation it shouldn’t be a case of saying... “well the employee isn’t forced to accept.”... needs to be a case where the employer is forced not to behave in this manner, the law backs fairness and the employee...

I agree with you about the travel to work, as that is outside working hours, it should not be a consideration for the employer. But I have never heard of an employer putting a t&c in a contract relating to mode of transport to and from place of employment. (Maybe there has been a Covid related example) A notice period on the other hand is not only a consideration, it is a statutory requirement for both employer and employee.

Having a longer period is neither unjust nor unfair, if you consider it so, try and have it altered before you sign the contract or reject the job offer.

Contracts are there to protect both parties. If an employer decides that the notice period is too long and gives the employee two weeks notice instead of two months, the employee would be entitled to go to the WRC about this.