Changes to notice period...

[KarlMac]

So, straightforward, my employer wants to increase my notice period from 30 to 90 days, with no reason stated. I'm coming up to my 2nd anniversary appraisal. I work in purchasing so have a relatively short shelf life. Relationships are good and i'm not looking to move on.

However I am uncomfortable with extending my notice period, how is the best way to manage this? Just be upfront? Am I being a bit precious?

Thoughts welcome, especially from powerfully built directors in SMEs.

[edc]

Why don't you ask your employer? Will this be 90 days notice either way. If they wanted shot of you then they would not be doing this.

[SWAT78]

Not a good thing, in my experience. I had a 90 day notice period with a previous employer, which I naively thought was a reflection of my position when I joined. Turned out everyone had the same, and was because the company had serious "engagement" / Morale issues and consequently struggled to retain staff.

It was an issue for some prospective employers when I was looking to leave, although I managed to negotiate it down to 8 weeks when it came to the crunch.

As said above it can work in your favour if it applies both ways, but I'd be very reluctant to agree to it again. Although you know the company already so know it's more that they value you specifically, rather than just looking to prevent everyone leaving regardless of ability.

[KarlMac]

Thanks guys, although I have made no noises about moving, they are aware that buyers tend to start moving around after 3 years. I think this is positive as they are trying to discourage me from looking elsewhere, but I think their reasons are to avoid recruitment and training costs.

I'm not senior managemnt, but I do have 3 direct reports, who function for nearly a year without anyone in my position.

[muppets_mate]

Is the proposal for both you and the company to have to give 90 days notice?

What notice period do your colleagues have? Would this proposed change bring you in line with others or are you being treated differently?

[P-Jay]

I've often wondered about the legality of these mid-term changes.

Are you asked to sign a new contract of employment, and if you do, can you refuse?

Whilst at a former employer we were all asked to sign new contracts after another change of leader. They were quite indepth and I have to admit I signed mine as asked by my boss without reading much of it.
One of the older guys refused, he was knocking on and due to retire within a few months He didn't make a big fuss about it, but the bigwigs made quite a thing of it, going so far as to publically ridicule him in meetings for "taking so long, when everyone HAS to do it" etc. He politely said he didn't want to be tied to the new terms and was happy with his current agreement. This went on for a few weeks, until he had a long closed-door meeting with the boss, came out looking happy enough, but refused to speak about it, few months later he retired and walked out with a big grin on his face.

I don't know whether it was all agreed on, and he signed, or I think more likely he refused and was asked to keep quiet about it.

[KarlMac]

muppets_mate said:

Is the proposal for both you and the company to have to give 90 days notice?

What notice period do your colleagues have? Would this proposed change bring you in line with others or are you being treated differently?

Notice period would be for both me and my employer. It would be more than people at my level but in line with members of senior management.

I spoke to them today about it and they confirmed that it would be due to cost and complications of replacing me if I decided to leave. Its come to the fore because most people in Purchasing tend to acheive what they can in the first few years and i'm approaching my econd anniversary.

Whilst I have no plans to even look elsewhere, I am worried about it impacting my choices later down the line.

Just not sure to explain i'm not comfortable with it without upsetting the good relationship I have!

[Gargamel]

Three months notice is pretty standard for most management positions, or pretty much anything above 50k

Works both ways though, means if they want you gone, they have to give you three months money...

[randlemarcus]

Given that these things tend to be negotiations, and they are obviously happy with you, perhaps this can be put forward as a promotion case, leading to the 90 days coming in, rather than a set of obvious handcuffs with no reward?

[whoami]

swerni said:

Gargamel said:

Three months notice is pretty standard for most management positions, or pretty much anything above 50k

Works both ways though, means if they want you gone, they have to give you three months money...

Sounds like a winner to me

Agreed.

I've never really understood why folk are worried about this.

[Jonnas]

I wouldn't worry about it. In most cases it is pretty uninforcable anyway.

[barker22]

whoami said:

Agreed.

I've never really understood why folk are worried about this.

I think its maybe because new employers may not be so keen on waiting 3 months for a new starter.

[whoami]

barker22 said:

whoami said:

Agreed.

I've never really understood why folk are worried about this.

I think its maybe because new employers may not be so keen on waiting 3 months for a new starter.

Depends on the position.

Also, many employers will (sensibly) negotiate on the actual length of notice while still being liable for the full 3 months in the event of redundancy.

Very little downside for the employee.

[northandy]

Jonnas said:

I wouldn't worry about it. In most cases it is pretty uninforcable anyway.

This, i'd sign it, as at least if things turned ugly you would have three months pay coming.

Just be wary that there are no penalty clauses attached for not giving 3 months if you do leave. If there isnt its unenforceable anyway unless your at a very very senior level.