[HELP] Can my employer change notice period duration like this?

[Shubham1401]

If its a non-permanent time bound contractual job (like a 2 year job contract), neither employee nor employer can change any of the terms during the contract period.

Notice period for a full time job is typically treated as company policy and can get changed from time to time like all other company policies. However, the employer needs to inform it proactively to the employees that a policy change is coming into effect. They cannot change it silently and leave it to the employee to find out later. They have to announce it and in way that evidence of it will be available for them too. If you have objections to the policy, you can raise an objection immediately and resign from the company in which case the policy cannot be applied to you. Continuing your employment after the policy change comes into effect is implicit acceptance of the policy change.

Do note that bond for a full time job is a completely different obligation that has nothing to do with the notice period. So a 2 year bond is just a contract that says that if you decide to leave before 2 years, you have to pay certain amount to cover the costs incurred by the company on you. It does not enforce anything else on you or the employer unless explicitly stated. Such contracts also need to be reasonable. For instance, an employer cannot just make you sign a 10 Lac bond and ask you to pay it without actually having incurred such costs.

I am a permanent employee with the firm. The bond money is 1 lac though I believe I have repaid much more than that with the work I have done and projects that I have brought with the POCs for prospective clients.

Whatever enquiries you make - be discreet. No employer likes a member of the staff discussing merits/demerits of notice period with other staff members. It is bad for the general company atmosphere. And, yeah, no lawyers!

I will keep this in mind. So far it has been a secret with only one other person knowing about it.

1. Check your leave policy. Many companies pay money on accumulated leaves during final settlement. So if you have 10-15 days leaves unused, you can use them to haggle out 10-15 days early exit.
2. Negotiate with your future employer. Try and persuade them.
3. Negotiate with your manager, if he is someone you think is reasonable. I have seen asshole managers who make you complete NP even on bench and others who wont stop you as they are happy for your progess

I have started negotiations with the new company. They have offered to buy out my notice period but the problem is I am very important to my existing company. They already have money but they have a resource crunch (as no one stays in the company due to pathetic mindset of the employers). Though it seems like a great idea to bargain on notice period in lieu of available leaves(I have 11). Will surely try this.

AFAIK, bonded labour is illegal in india. Therefore in the case of an employee hired under a bond, that bond will never be valid in a court of law. Since it almost never comes to that stage in India, there are two ways an employer can practically maintain their 'hold' on an employee.

1. Take a 'bond' amount upfront. Again, this is illegal, but it's an easy way to get an employee who's desperate for a job.
2. Refuse to surrender the relieving/termination letters when the employee decides to quit.

In the first case, anyone getting into a job should follow the simple rule of never pay money TO an employer. In the second, if the employee absolutely has to leave the employer, then he has to either meet whatever demands and conditions they insist on, or forfeit their relieving documents.

Unfortunately, it is the 2nd case where they don't give relieving letter if someone tries to go without paying the bond money. People who have left before me have all paid the bond money for the letter.

@Shubham1401 Were you informed officially by HR ( Email/hard copy) of the 3 month notice period at appraisal time ?
If you were, you are bound by it. It doesnt matter if you didnt sign and accept. Since you working for them, you are bound by your company's changes of rules irrespective of what you have signed in the past. Your issue is not the bond ( illegal in India ) but the notice period.
You can talk to HR as most companies have the provision to settle this notice period whereby you can pay them your salary for the months you dont want to work for them.
Another possibility is how desperate the next company is to getting you. They can also completely or partially compensate you for the loss you will bear in doing what I stated above, I have seen it in higher management positions. But this depends if your present company wants to to settle with you.
Lastly, if you just decide to walk away from the situation, your company might or might not take legal action. They can also withhold your full and final settlement and not release you officially which will be an issue for next company.

Talk to HR and sort it out.

There was one line in the official appraisal letter that 'also see our updated employment policy for this year'. Apart from that they have never said it out loud even. I'm very sure than most of the people won't even be knowing about this.
Also, I will try to talk to the HR about it. There's very less chance of him being reasonable but lets see. The other company also offered to pay the notice period but my current company won't agree to it as they need employees more than money as they have a lots of project but very less experienced employees.

He can't walk away, they have 1 lakh of his. And yeah, he probably won't get his relieving letters (again illegal).

I haven't paid anything. The problem is that if I go without paying they won't give me the relieving letter.

You were aware of the 3 months notice period, and should have upfront told your prospective employer about this. They would/should have buffered this in their recruitment pipeline, and that is how it usually works. There are only two things you can do:

1. Inform the new company about the 3 months notice period and ask them to extend your joining date.
2. Try to negotiate with your companies line/HR managers and get a 2 month notice period. They can account for your pending leave quota and/or ask you for a 30 working day payout based on your basic salary.

This is what will happen:

(1) will occur if they are all right to wait and understand you were confused about 2 vs. 3 months of notice, and not take it as a dishonest approach.
(2) may occur provided your current company is ready to let you go.

(3) Else they may say, we will not regard leaves / pay out to waive off 30 days - and force you to complete 90 days. They may threaten to hold back your experience letter, or pen in absconding / bad behavior on the experience letter.

See what happens and decide. Do not resign till both parties have told you their final word, and there is synonymous match. You might end up with no job.

My new employer already knows that I have a 3 month notice period. They never conveyed that they need people on very urgent basis until my second round when I was in their office. I will account for my leave quota and will try to convince them that I was confused about 2 vs 3 months of notice period (which I actually was).


Lastly, I would really like to thank all of my TE mates from the bottom of my heart for providing such valuable advice to help me move in the right direction. I will keep you guys posted with the discussions with both the parties as they progress.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

In the first post he said bond with 1 lakh bond money. If he hasn't paid any money then he should just walk away if the new employer is fine without a relieving letter.

And walking away is a bad idea. For one, its not only the new employer but 3rd,4th and every employer after needs to be fine about it. Because they will ask for experience certificate, if there is none, they will discount the 2 years of service.

Not a good idea at all as stated by sharktale. Absconding from the company can have long term impact on one's career. You will not be able to show that experience without the experience letter and you will have to explain the gap in career to future employers if you chose not to show it. It will be a pretty messy situation.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

I am a permanent employee with the firm. The bond money is 1 lac though I believe I have repaid much more than that with the work I have done and projects that I have brought with the POCs for prospective clients.

It doesn't work that way. You are already compensated for your regular duties as per the terms you agreed to. (your compensation package). This bond is to cover any other costs that the company had to incur outside your compensation package.

There was one line in the official appraisal letter that 'also see our updated employment policy for this year'. Apart from that they have never said it out loud even. I'm very sure than most of the people won't even be knowing about this.

That is about enough to notify about change in policy.

At my company, the notice period is different based on role. This year, there was a policy change and notice period for all software architects was changed from 2 months to 3 months. 3 people who were hired for that role this year had the notice period mentioned as 3 months in their service agreement. For those whose role got changed from a different one, it was mentioned as part of the e-mail notifying the role change. For a few others like me who were already in that role, it was notified through an explicit e-mail. The e-mails required read receipts to be sent to acknowledge that it was read.

 

[NotMyRealName]

Not a good idea at all as stated by sharktale. Absconding from the company can have long term impact on one's career. You will not be able to show that experience without the experience letter and you will have to explain the gap in career to future employers if you chose not to show it. It will be a pretty messy situation.

I didn't say abscond. I said walk away. This means hand in your resignation, serve whatever notice period you want to. If it comes down to a court case, deal with it and accept the verdict. Alternative is stick with the current employers demand for 3 months notice. I mean, one month notice is more than sufficient realistically. If a company wants to terminate you, even for reasons other than illegal/unethical activity by the employee, they are not going to give YOU 3 months notice. No company should be allowed to hold employees hostage. I know this is not the reality in India.

And yeah, you will have to account for the lack of relieving letter. If the future employer can't accept the lack of documents to support your claim of working there for the period you did, then again, tough. Again, the realistic solution is you have to serve whatever notice period they demand.[DOUBLEPOST=1476735723][/DOUBLEPOST]This changing policy thing is BS. What if you, hypothetically, agreed to join only if it was a 2-months notice period? When they 'update' their policy what if you don't/can't accept 3 months? what choice do you have then? What if they make it a 6-month notice period? Same logic right? What is the point of having a legally binding signed contract by both parties if one party can just willy nilly change some aspects of that contract to suit their purposes and hinder the other party?

 

[asingh]

In the first post he said bond with 1 lakh bond money. If he hasn't paid any money then he should just walk away if the new employer is fine without a relieving letter.

What are you saying...? This is probably the worst piece of advise you could give here. Sorry to say. How will he show his experience in other companies (even if this company does not want to see a relieving letter, which is rare), down the line when he changes companies again. A relieving letter is the only documentation one has, to show proof of work experience. Salary slips hold value, only for the next company, but not when you are showing cumulative experience of 2-3 companies.

I am a permanent employee with the firm. The bond money is 1 lac though I believe I have repaid much more than that with the work I have done and projects that I have brought with the POCs for prospective clients.

Please do not think in this archaic fashion. You did get a salary right..?

I have started negotiations with the new company. They have offered to buy out my notice period but the problem is I am very important to my existing company. They already have money but they have a resource crunch (as no one stays in the company due to pathetic mindset of the employers). Though it seems like a great idea to bargain on notice period in lieu of available leaves(I have 11). Will surely try this.

Everyone is important to a company unless you commit graft or a compliance breach. I doubt they will subtract leaves. What is your line manager saying.?

My new employer already knows that I have a 3 month notice period. They never conveyed that they need people on very urgent basis until my second round when I was in their office. I will account for my leave quota and will try to convince them that I was confused about 2 vs 3 months of notice period (which I actually was).

Just be honest and upfront. The World does not turn over in 30 days. They will wait, believe me. Do not even mention that you are trying to come in 60 days. Give your vanilla notice, pay the blood bond money, and walk away amicably.

Second thought: If they were fine with 90 days, and knew this and after agreeing to hire are pushing you for 60 days (adamantly), do not join this company. They are unprofessional, at least the HR. They will give you a far worse time when you exit this one. These indicators show the true mettle and spine of companies. Observe.

 

[asingh]

I didn't say abscond. I said walk away. This means hand in your resignation, serve whatever notice period you want to. If it comes down to a court case, deal with it and accept the verdict. Alternative is stick with the current employers demand for 3 months notice. I mean, one month notice is more than sufficient realistically. If a company wants to terminate you, even for reasons other than illegal/unethical activity by the employee, they are not going to give YOU 3 months notice. No company should be allowed to hold employees hostage. I know this is not the reality in India.

It is pointless getting into a court case with a firm over a notice period. The company has nothing to loose, because their litigation department will take care of it, but the exited employee will suffer for eons. The reason why three months of notice was put in, primarily, was due to us employees itself: Back in the hay-days of the .COM bubble (maybe early 2000-2003), it had become a standard practice with IT professionals and in turn BPO/ITEs to exploit the 30 day window and job hop at their whim and fancy. The projects and customer interactions used to suffer, grossly due to this. Indians being, so highly unprofessional and always greedy for money, went rampant - leaving and joining companies at high frequency. During the 30 day period, employees would take leaves, not give proper hand overs, and basically create a nuisance. Just goof off for 30 days, and walk off, as you are mentioning. So 60 days were placed in. Even this did not tame down us Indians, so they jacked it up to 90. It is not being: held hostage, but insuring BCP/DRP are maintained at the high level business quantum. To add a cherry on the cake, bonds were chalked out, to the tune of lakhs. We ruined it ourselves for ourselves..!

And yeah, you will have to account for the lack of relieving letter.

Is their a substitute for this..? Please tell me. Reputed firms only want this, that too in original. Plus reference third parties (on behalf of the company) call up the prior company and inquire about the last code of conduct - of the employee concerned. If someone has walked off (with no relieving letter), a lien is placed in their file, and the informant will say "xxxx had bad conduct, he absconded, and we have noted him/her terminated in our records".

If the future employer can't accept the lack of documents to support your claim of working there for the period you did, then again, tough. Again, the realistic solution is you have to serve whatever notice period they demand.

What documents will you give..? Salary slips, PF slips. They hold no value. Tough again == NO job change.

This changing policy thing is BS. What if you, hypothetically, agreed to join only if it was a 2-months notice period? When they 'update' their policy what if you don't/can't accept 3 months? what choice do you have then? What if they make it a 6-month notice period? Same logic right? What is the point of having a legally binding signed contract by both parties if one party can just willy nilly change some aspects of that contract to suit their purposes and hinder the other party?

If you cannot accept 3 months, companies provision you to resign, and exit in 2 months. It is simple. No one puts a gun to someones head, to remain behind and keep working.

 

[Criminal]

has anyone on this thread ever faced issues in securing a job because of the lack of a relieving letter?

 

[asingh]

has anyone on this thread ever faced issues in securing a job because of the lack of a relieving letter?

I have not, because I always had the relieving letter(s). I know of people who did.

These were the options:

1. Remove the experience from their CV for which the relieving letter is missing. IE: The company lowers the CTC / JD / Operational Level.
2. Immediate cancellation of appointment.
3. Three month waiver to continue with job, but procure a valid relieving letter.

Basically there are some companies who do not care, but many do. One is never sure what their next company will be. It is securing your future. You cannot "go-back" and earn work experience, right..? It is not like college or school. Companies follow this ground rule: If you are not honest during the interview and verification process, will you be honest while working as an FTE..? This is the intrinsic discussion which happens, when hiring anomalies are discussed.

 

[Criminal]

1. Remove the experience from their CV for which the relieving letter is missing. IE: The company lowers the CTC / JD / Operational Level.

That's too harsh. Just a phone call can establish the fact that the person indeed worked there. Detailed checks can be conducted later on.

I have not, because I always had the relieving letter(s). I know of people who did.

I've come across many instances where people got rejected during and after the interview. People lie all the time - so don't know if they got rejected because they couldn't prove their work experience or the interviewers were genuinely interested in seeing the documents. That's why I was looking for someone's own experience.

Relieving letter is just a document... it can be forged. It's not an issue in software industry to conduct background checks. So, it doesn't matter whether you have some random paper in your possession or not, as they are anyway going to verify your claims.

There's nothing magical an employee would do during their notice period that they couldn't do during their employment. Companies should be able to change the notice period based on the pending work. Most of the people are idle during the notice period as they are not given new responsibilities.

Employers generally perceive the lack of relieving letter as a sign of dispute. But possessing this document doesn't prove that the employee isn't lying either. This necessitates the need for background checks... more so, for the high visibility roles. There have been many instances where top executives were caught with fudged credentials, far later in their lives!

Leaving your current employer amicably is more important than making sure you have a relieving letter. People leave for various reasons and serving entire notice period isn't always possible.

In the end, one can always say that "it depends on the company." But I really wanted to know if someone has suffered because of this. In theory, missing experience certificates should have more affect on people with non-IT background.

 

[asingh]

That's too harsh. Just a phone call can establish the fact that the person indeed worked there. Detailed checks can be conducted later on.

Did you not read what I wrote earlier. If the person left without his proper notice period, which the company was against, and in turn has no experience certificate. When the verification happens at the prior company, the person says "did not complete notice period, we have noted him/her as absconding ---> terminated". Now if you are willing to dispute this historical feedback with your new employer, be my guest...! You really think the company is going to fondly give a positive/normal feedback..? Many times they do, many times they do not. Why take this risk.

I've come across many instances where people got rejected during and after the interview. People lie all the time - so don't know if they got rejected because they couldn't prove their work experience or the interviewers were genuinely interested in seeing the documents. That's why I was looking for someone's own experience.

No one asks for these certificates during the line interviews. It is once people have joined. Then it is more risky. I told you what I have observed. You clear all rounds, your join, your verification starts. If there is catch found, you pay the penalty. Figuratively.

Relieving letter is just a document... it can be forged. It's not an issue in software industry to conduct background checks. So, it doesn't matter whether you have some random paper in your possession or not, as they are anyway going to verify your claims.

Well it is really not a random document. Of course anything can be forged, right..? That way. will you just walk off from any company you deem fit...? On the pretext, the phone call for verification will suffice, and not an experience certificate. That is part of work experience. Following a firms values and protocols, and not being a cowboy.

There's nothing magical an employee would do during their notice period that they couldn't do during their employment. Companies should be able to change the notice period based on the pending work. Most of the people are idle during the notice period as they are not given new responsibilities.

That sounds bad, to be honest. People work till the last day of their notice period, at many companies. It varies. So if someones notice period kicks in today, suddenly all work is diminished, and he has to not do knowledge transfer, continue with existent modules..?

Employers generally perceive the lack of relieving letter as a sign of dispute. But possessing this document doesn't prove that the employee isn't lying either. This necessitates the need for background checks... more so, for the high visibility roles. There have been many instances where top executives were caught with fudged credentials, far later in their lives!

Possessing it, add credibility. That counts. All roles demand the same type of governance and/or background checks for truth.

Leaving your current employer amicably is more important than making sure you have a relieving letter. People leave for various reasons and serving entire notice period isn't always possible.

You leave amicably you get a relieving letter. Simple. As advised here, to the OP, talk it out, work it out. Not just walk off. His experience "can" go down the drain, and lack thereon harm in the future..!

In the end, one can always say that "it depends on the company." But I really wanted to know if someone has suffered because of this. In theory, missing experience certificates should have more affect on people with non-IT background.

IT companies do not give relieving certificates, or is still the norm for IT professionals to walk off with a huff & puff..! LOL.

See no company is striving to spoil the careers of working professionals. They have certain regulations in place, which should be followed. Of course, there are ways to legally circumvent the same, via talking with the concerned people. Even if you get multiple examples here: "I had no relieving letter (any reason, nothing remotely connected to the OP), and the verification process went fine", will you with conviction say to the OP: Choose your notice period as you wish, and the rest will fall in place. Of course the new company will take him with arms open to join in 60 days. After that...? Next job..? Then..? Can you wager all this on his future and professional life. An experience letter is a foremost safety clutch in the "honesty" kitty for a working professional. It can be forged, yes, of course..!

 

[NotMyRealName]

What are you saying...? This is probably the worst piece of advise you could give here. Sorry to say. How will he show his experience in other companies (even if this company does not want to see a relieving letter, which is rare), down the line when he changes companies again. A relieving letter is the only documentation one has, to show proof of work experience. Salary slips hold value, only for the next company, but not when you are showing cumulative experience of 2-3 companies.

I thought a relieving letter is only required for the next company, not multiple employers down the line. And i personally know people who've been able to explain the lack of a relieving letter and the new place accepted it. It was their demand to join asap after all. And personally, in low profile jobs of course, i've worked in places where I said I would, but never actually got around to submitting my experience/relieving/salary slips. The HR kept asking for it, I kept procrastinating, and eventually never handed it in. They didn't really care because I was performing well. Of course bigger companies obviously have more stringent policies.

And, most of the stuff I mentioned before were theoretical possibilities, I did say this is probably not how it's gonna work out, and the OP will have to compromise somewhere, the company is not going to. If he talks to the new place, and they're fine without a reliving letter, then he can just serve his original 2 months notice and hand in his resignation. HR are usually a$$holes in my experience and will scream bloody murder anyway, if they're not happy for whatever reason. And they are also quick to 'adjust' all their hard and fast policies if they really want the employee. So I suggested OP speak to them and find out.

Completely agree with everything else you mentioned, except the justification for 2 and 3 month notice periods. Yes, this all stemmed from the BPO industry (more than basic IT), and there are multiple reasons to it. First is BPO techno-bureaucratic controls are way overkill for the jobs they actually are - something 10th standard kids could do. And the bottom line is if the employees are basically happy, there wouldn't be so much attrition would there? So in order to keep employees from leaving their crappy working conditions, the companies keep upping the notice periods and introduce bonds etc. Wonder how 2-weeks notice works in developed countries.

 

[Criminal]

@asingh: Sounds like you are too excited today I didn't mean that OP should wear his cowboy hat and ride away to glory!

I am all for "leaving on a positive note" than "securing relieving letter by all means." Good performers always face such hurdles... they are too good to let go. Even Indian govt is known for extending retirement age for distinguished people working on crucial projects.

If you say they'd blacken your past experience/conduct in their previous-employee-files, then you are talking about a very shady company. Companies performing background checks seek feedback from people at various positions, just to validate the text captured in exit notes. If you had been a good performer but not able to serve the notice period then you are suddenly not perceived as a cowboy but an inflexible person.

As all other contributors on this thread mentioned, I also have the same opinion that OP should talk to his superiors. People leave jobs suddenly for various reasons but as OP is running after more money, his case will be treated as least sympathetic. Fixed notice periods are meant to safeguard company's interests. It doesn't mean that a company will always have 30~60 days of work for each employee who is about to leave.

And who assigns new responsibilities (read projects) to people during their last 1~2 months? Finishing pending work and knowledge transfer are the main tasks. Process oriented companies don't have to worry much about these two tasks either. People oriented companies always suffer (hospitals, call-centers).

Call-center/tech-help people keep working till their last day as their pending work can easily be delegated to others. And as you have pointed out earlier, the need for serving notice period was probably originated from this sector. Notice periods are highly flexible for other kinds of jobs. It's just that people don't question its validity.

It's unfathomable that one cannot prove their past work experience if they are not in the possession of relieving letters.

 

[NotMyRealName]

It's unfathomable that one cannot prove their past work experience if they are not in the possession of relieving letters.

^ this

Us Indians need to man up and act like we're worth something. Stand up for your rights and what's right. If we just want to get moar money and kiss a$$ that's another matter...

 

[all4music]

for OP:
if anybody is serious about a career in the same field, always have your relieving letter from all your previous employers. nowadays companies take background verification very seriously. 3rd party verification is stringent and they are paid handsomely for this duty. also NASSCOM registration [NSR] has been made mandatory in many companies - which gives little chance for any misrepresentation of facts.

in general:
read your offer letter: if it mentions a notice period of 2 months and without any riders - HR should honor those timelines irrespective current policy [this was the rule in my previous company IIRC].

in most of the MNCs, it is your reporting manager who can indicate if a person can be relieved earlier [within the means] to HR.
of course the above is norm in MNCs/established [read bigger] companies with proper HR Policies.

 

[Crapmypants]

as far as i see it, the OP's main problem is that if he quits before 3 months notice will the 2 year penalty clause kick in.
it seems to be a case of the company being in a position to take advantage of either the penalty or the longer notice period while the OP is in a position where he will either lose a huge job opportunity or a huge sum of money.
@OP: do you know anyone in the HR industry outside of your job that you can speak to? perhaps even contacting your college placement cell for advice might help.
the 2 month notice period is what should apply but being prepared never hurt.
Maybe contact former employees via fbook/linkedin on their experience.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

I didn't say abscond. I said walk away. This means hand in your resignation, serve whatever notice period you want to. If it comes down to a court case, deal with it and accept the verdict.

When you decide to leave without completing the exit process in a clean manner after meeting the necessary stipulations, it is called absconding. You are also mistaken if you think every such situation turns into a court case. In many cases, the company wouldn't bother tracking down the employee and filing a case against them. It doesn't make sense for most companies whose primary reason for bonds or notice period is safe guarding their business interests rather than making money of employees.

For example, my present company doesn't have a bond system even for fresh campus hires. Employees can go when they please, but they just have to serve the notice period. If the employee is working on a critical project where immediate replacement cannot be put in place, he/she will have to serve the full/partial notice period as required. In other cases where the employee is non critical and can be let go, they can be allowed to go immediately upon resignation even if they are ready to serve the notice period.

Some years back, one guy recruited from an IIT left the company without notice. He apparently joined another company and he didn't want to serve the notice period and the company he joined was cool with taking him in without the exit documentation. At some point, he sent an informal mail to his manager stating that he is not coming back, but never completed the exit formalities even after being asked to.

With or without resignation letter, if you leave without completing the notice period and going through the exit process, the period is counted as absence without notification and after waiting for a sufficiently long period, the employee would be considered absconding. The company as per its due process waited for 6 months and marked him as absconding in its records. Nearly two years later, this guy was apparently trying to change jobs again and every time he was about to get an offer or got an offer, our company was contacted for background verification and the HR informed them about his status. I heard from some of his friends that he lost many offers because of this. Most good companies wouldn't like to hire people who have a track record of being irresponsible towards their commitments.

I mean, one month notice is more than sufficient realistically.

No, It is not sufficient. The idea of a notice period in the first place is that a business should not suffer because of an employee leaving. Notice period is usually proportional to the responsibilities held by an employee. In services sector where employees are treated as easily replaceable grunts, notice period may not matter that much, but at least in product companies, two months is most often the necessary period to transition knowledge and responsibilities to others. As I said before, at my company, the notice period for Architects was increased from 2 months to 3 months and it was well justified given that even after 18 months of doing interviews, we still could find replacements for two openings we had after two people left. This goes up as your responsibilities increase. In the managerial grades, there are people with notice periods of even 4~6 months. In olden days, may businesses had the system where employees with important responsibilities could not leave till they train and get a replacement ready. This is now used only for senior executive level positions these days. They have stipulations in their contracts where they cannot often leave without first having somebody else capable of taking over their responsibilities.

If a company wants to terminate you, even for reasons other than illegal/unethical activity by the employee, they are not going to give YOU 3 months notice. No company should be allowed to hold employees hostage. I know this is not the reality in India.

That has more to do with Indians having a track record of behaving unprofessionally more than anything else. My last company used to give notice period to employees when they fired employees for non-disciplinary reasons. By non-disciplinary, I mean poor performance or even redundancy. But employees often resorted to various means of getting back at the company like sabotaging or damaging the company assets. One person even tried to destroy the data on the CVS servers and apparently succeeded partially. The systems had to be restored from backups. After such incidents, the company stopped the practice and always compensated with money.

This changing policy thing is BS. What if you, hypothetically, agreed to join only if it was a 2-months notice period? When they 'update' their policy what if you don't/can't accept 3 months? what choice do you have then? What if they make it a 6-month notice period?

Who says you don't have choice? If you don't like a policy change, you always have the right to reject it and resign from the company and only the old policy can be applied to you. For example, if the company updates their policy from 2 month notice period to 3 month. Refuse to accept it you can leave the company after serving the last agreed notice period of 2 months from the date the policy change was announced. It is "at will" employment for a reason. Either side can break the relationship once the minimal commitments for the break up are met.

What is the point of having a legally binding signed contract by both parties if one party can just willy nilly change some aspects of that contract to suit their purposes and hinder the other party?

That very legally binding contract will have in clause in every clear language that company policies are subject to change from time to time. Next time, read it properly and chose not to sign it. Also, nobody is stopping you from making your own policy changes either. If the company doesn't agree with your policies, they will let you go with the same terms as the last mutually agreed contract.

To be honest, this whole argument of yours is rather absurd. The service agreement also mentions your salary and role. Would you also like your salary and role to remain the same for all eternity based on this legally binding contract? What if the company introduces a new bonus or share plan as part of its new policy. Since its not part of the legally binding contract with you, should the company not give it you ?

You are not looking for a fair system as you seem to think, what you want is a one sided system where all rights are held by employees and employers have no rights. You want to be able to leave whenever you want regardless of damage done to the business, but don't want the company to be able to let you go whenever they want.

As I said before, either side can break the relationship when you don't want to continue anymore (be it because of a policy change that you don't like or a higher paying job offer or whatever) and all you need to do is complete the obligations.

 

[NotMyRealName]

When you decide to leave without completing the exit process in a clean manner after meeting the necessary stipulations, it is called absconding. You are also mistaken if you think every such situation turns into a court case. In many cases, the company wouldn't bother tracking down the employee and filing a case against them. It doesn't make sense for most companies whose primary reason for bonds or notice period is safe guarding their business interests rather than making money of employees.

I said if it does come down to a court case, then deal with it. I also said somewhere that it rarely does. If he doesn't want to serve the entire 3 months, then he should be free not to, but whatever repercussions will have to be faced.

You are not looking for a fair system as you seem to think, what you want is a one sided system where all rights are held by employees and employers have no rights. You want to be able to leave whenever you want regardless of damage done to the business, but don't want the company to be able to let you go whenever they want.

No, what i'm looking for is a system of equality. And it may seem that way but almost all contracts are heavily biased in the employer's favour.

For example, the last place i worked had the usual one month's notice clause and said that it applied to either party. It also said that in case of misbehaviour etc. etc. the company can immediately terminate the employee. All good. Then there was a little para added after which in vague language said that the employer can also terminate the employee without giving notice. Just like that. Nothing to do with non compliance or misbehaviour. I caught this and asked the HRs about it. They had no idea something like this was even in the contract, or if they knew, they did a pretty good job pretending they didn't. I asked them if the will edit the contract to correct this and they looked at me like i asked them to quit their jobs. Needless to say nothing was done about it and I signed as is because i needed the job.

Anyway, the system is not going to change anytime soon. And it's pretty common knowledge how employee benefits are always second priority to the company's in India. Still probably better than China maybe...[DOUBLEPOST=1476815251][/DOUBLEPOST]p.s. you can assume that anything i haven't directly responded to, i'm in agreement with. You (and others) have spent a lot of time providing this insight and i'm sure someone will benefit from this. Hope OP is able to sort out his predicament and updates us on what actually went down. 2 or 3 months down the line ;-)

 

[Shubham1401]

Hi folks! I have an update on the situation.

I have been really transparent about my notice period with the new company from the start. Since I performed quite well in all the rounds so the project manager took another round of interview(telephonic) today based on core technical aspects and prior project experience. He wanted to see that even if I join late, do I have the ability to take on the project from wherever it is and how much time will it take to deploy me as a project ready resource.

I am awaiting the results of this round. If I clear this, then they will be willing to wait for 2.5 - 3 months.

So far, I have not said a word to my current employer. I will be doing this after the things are finalized with the new job.

@Crapmypants : I don't know any HR but I guess it won't come to it due to the recent change of events.

Based on all the suggestions, if it comes to this, I will be resigning and serving my notice period and pay the bond money so I can get all the letters. I am on good terms with my current employer and I hope to maintain that.

 

[asingh]

I thought a relieving letter is only required for the next company, not multiple employers down the line. And i personally know people who've been able to explain the lack of a relieving letter and the new place accepted it. It was their demand to join asap after all. And personally, in low profile jobs of course, i've worked in places where I said I would, but never actually got around to submitting my experience/relieving/salary slips. The HR kept asking for it, I kept procrastinating, and eventually never handed it in. They didn't really care because I was performing well. Of course bigger companies obviously have more stringent policies.

That is the nod-wink norm for industries that only the last RL is required. Companies have been known to ask for all. Suppose in your case (you do not have one), and now on your 4th company, how will you justify a lack of an RL ~8-9 ago..? And the HR is adamant to see it. Will you again squirm your way around. And the argument: desperation for a high performer, at times can go out the window. It is how clean you want to keep your records, it is ones personal wish. If you do not get an RL for some reason, the prior company does not care and will not chase you to receive it anyways. I have only changed two companies with a tenure of 7 in each. I made sure that I have my RLs. Else a bulk of my experience can be not accounted for. Also many times: if an employee leaves with 30 days, with a 60 day tenure. The old company, will show you on the payroll, for full 90 days (and then post you a relieving and FNF package). Now when you move to the 3rd company you will have dual employment for 60 days. How do you answer that..? Of course people will get out of these situations, it is really not civil war, but why not secure your future. See it this way: jobs are hard to get in India. Play safe.

Yes, this all stemmed from the BPO industry (more than basic IT), and there are multiple reasons to it. Wonder how 2-weeks notice works in developed countries.

IT workers were just as criminal. It was rampant. I started working in 2001, and saw it all..! It is easy abroad, because people are morally ethical and honest. And do not forge.

I am all for "leaving on a positive note" than "securing relieving letter by all means." Good performers always face such hurdles... they are too good to let go. Even Indian govt is known for extending retirement age for distinguished people working on crucial projects.

Nopes, no company is married to a good performer. They just want them to complete a protocol. Simple. Extension of projects is a different ball-game. One is within the system, and has not put in a desire to jump ship.

If you say they'd blacken your past experience/conduct in their previous-employee-files, then you are talking about a very shady company. Companies performing background checks seek feedback from people at various positions, just to validate the text captured in exit notes. If you had been a good performer but not able to serve the notice period then you are suddenly not perceived as a cowboy but an inflexible person.

Well, large companies have an Exit team. They open their files, see what is written and tell. If mentioned references are called up, they usually tell operational metrics of the individual rather than behavioral. I have been asked in such calls, "why the person left". I tell them bluntly, please call up business HR, I am in no position to say that. It eliminates a bias. What should a company pen down, if a person was supposed to stay 60 more days..? But left in 30. Plus the Exit notes you talked about, only select few people have access to that. You would know that..! And what is written will be spoken. Probably the person reading those notes, has not even seen the face he is talking about. It is purely mechanical at time.

As all other contributors on this thread mentioned, I also have the same opinion that OP should talk to his superiors. People leave jobs suddenly for various reasons but as OP is running after more money, his case will be treated as least sympathetic. Fixed notice periods are meant to safeguard company's interests. It doesn't mean that a company will always have 30~60 days of work for each employee who is about to leave.

Well, that is a weird way to put it. Work can really not run out, can it.

And who assigns new responsibilities (read projects) to people during their last 1~2 months? Finishing pending work and knowledge transfer are the main tasks. Process oriented companies don't have to worry much about these two tasks either. People oriented companies always suffer (hospitals, call-centers).

You know, just as sweet it is joining a new firm, it is directly as much painful leaving. More so for the employee. The gargantuan company soldiers on. If you are involved in the business side of aspects, and not just line coding, what you said holds true. Would a professional just want to remain at that level. Leaving a company is part of work experience, and helps in learning. Keeping in mind, ones future is wagered on it. The joining is the easy part.

Call-center/tech-help people keep working till their last day as their pending work can easily be delegated to others. And as you have pointed out earlier, the need for serving notice period was probably originated from this sector. Notice periods are highly flexible for other kinds of jobs. It's just that people don't question its validity.

I will not get into that war. All I can say: be honest about the notice period, and be totally honest to the new company, telling the maximum limit. Be safe.

It's unfathomable that one cannot prove their past work experience if they are not in the possession of relieving letters.

Let us see what life shows us all..!

Anyways, the OP has worked it out. These are my views and observations, and my operational mechanisms. An no, I never enforce 90 days, but I insure the exiting employee gets his RL and due FNF.[DOUBLEPOST=1476848109][/DOUBLEPOST]

^ this
Us Indians need to man up and act like we're worth something. Stand up for your rights and what's right. If we just want to get moar money and kiss a$$ that's another matter...

Why is it not being a man: agreeing to a rule which was set during joining and/or during the tenure. Being a revolutionary always does not mean, standing up for ones rights, and being Bob Marley..!

 

[Criminal]

^^ @asingh You've put your thoughts nicely this time around... I liked the explanation. That's how things are supposed to work. There's nothing better than having all the relevant documents in order. It's the safest option for a worker and I am not even contending this point.

So, far I haven't found a sound justification for exact 30/60/90 days notice periods. It's astonishing that regardless of the industry or application, we follow same guidelines across the board. How come every task magically be taken care of in exactly 30 days? How come people at higher positions be absolved of their responsibilities in exactly 60 days? Why can't it be 35 days, 66 days or 10 days?

I often get entangled in workplace/ethics discussions on TE but then I realize that I've worked in a different kind of environment, which may appear cowboyish to others. I've worked with highly process driven people/companies, where policies were revisited regularly and I found them to be better than the industry standards.

I've changed companies 5 times and I don't have relieving letters for 3 of them. That amounts to around 9 years of work experience.

None of them were obscure companies with weird policies. One of them is among the Top 5 Indian MNCs (revenue wise). Second one often appears in India's Top 10 Companies to Work for (read employee-friendly company). While I was there, I lost the count after it was voted among top 10, five years in a row. Third is one of the largest banks in US.

All of these companies didn't bother about my missing documents. Also, I just didn't walk away without serving the notice period. Actually I had put in a lot extra than required. During my tenure, I saw a number of employees getting fired because of forgery, unethical practices etc., but the work never suffered. We never felt any void because of their absence. And how would you conduct a 60 days knowledge transition if somebody dies without giving prior notice?

I am guessing companies suffer due to sudden employee exit because they don't have robust processes in place. They have no idea of risk identification/assessment or mitigation. They never make contingency plans. They never ensure that everyone checks-in their work everyday, including managers. They never document everything (not the code but day-to-day procedures, processes etc). This is true even for big MNCs. We had almost everything documented so that a fresh hire would start contributing in just 3 days - without any assistance from other employees (read wasting their time). Lot of companies assign a 'buddy' for spoon-feeding new hires.

Not only the code, but all kinds of documents were reviewed at various levels before they could be merged with the trunk. That means lot of people knew each other's work, which facilitated back-filling during contingencies. The comment about product based companies needing 2 months for proper transition, makes me wonder what would happen if such an employee gets abducted by aliens? How would you complete the transition and move forward? Isn't it outrageous that some employee is keeping 60 days worth of knowledge in his/her brain?

In one of my companies we used to spend too much time in daily meetings/checks with teams spread across the globe. Too much overhead but it helped in keeping projects on track. We would recover from unexpected downtimes (strikes etc) the same day. As per newspapers, tech companies lose too much during such untoward events. But hardly any impact to my company. No wonder we were among top companies to deliver projects right on time/budget. Harvard and Yale curriculum used to have case studies on our work culture. We had employee feedback captured at such frequent intervals that we would know beforehand when someone was planing to quit. We'd let go of the person if we couldn't fulfill their demands. Usual 30-day notice period would apply but almost everybody liked to avail their pending leaves. Pending work or knowledge transition were never an issue because we wouldn't let them store stuff in their brains for too long. I had more than 60 days of leaves pending at the time of my resignation. But due to a recent cap of 45 days (policy revision), I was supposed to work for only 15 days out of my 60-day notice period. It's another story that I quit after 1.5 years of filing resignation, without receiving a relieving letter.

Nopes, no company is married to a good performer. They just want them to complete a protocol. Simple.

Completing a protocol just for the heck of it doesn't make sense. If there's 60 days of more work, it's fine. Otherwise there's no point in harassing the employee and spending unnecessarily on his/her daily requirements.

Well, large companies have an Exit team. They open their files, see what is written and tell. If mentioned references are called up, they usually tell operational metrics of the individual rather than behavioral.I have been asked in such calls, "why the person left". I tell them bluntly, please call up business HR, I am in no position to say that. It eliminates a bias. What should a company pen down, if a person was supposed to stay 60 more days..? But left in 30. Plus the Exit notes you talked about, only select few people have access to that. You would know that..! And what is written will be spoken. Probably the person reading those notes, has not even seen the face he is talking about. It is purely mechanical at time.

That's why it becomes all the more important to capture 360 degree feedback. Fortunately, I haven't worked in such a company where my entire employment history is captured in just 2 sentences. A person might've shown a bad behavior during his/her last 60 days but were they really that bad throughout their tenure?

Well, that is a weird way to put it. Work can really not run out, can it.

Of course, it cannot run out but I am skeptical of how it needs exactly 30/60/90 days to complete, industry-wide

You know, just as sweet it is joining a new firm, it is directly as much painful leaving. More so for the employee. The gargantuan company soldiers on. If you are involved in the business side of aspects, and not just line coding, what you said holds true. Would a professional just want to remain at that level. Leaving a company is part of work experience, and helps in learning. Keeping in mind, ones future is wagered on it. The joining is the easy part.

Agree with leaving being a painful experience but didn't understand the rest of the text.

I will not get into that war. All I can say: be honest about the notice period, and be totally honest to the new company, telling the maximum limit. Be safe.

Indeed!

Let us see what life shows us all..!

After reading views on archaic policies and work culture, my future looks bleak. One day I might run into a company which expects all my documents to be in order. So far things have worked out in my favor as I have been an excellent employee. Been thru numerous background checks, even during project changes within the company. Missing relieving letters haven't cause any trouble. Even if they perceive me as a cowboy, it's fine... every team needs a mix of people. You need someone to ride the (work)horses

I am not encouraging anyone to forgo their relieving letters. My comments revolve around the practice of serving fixed notice periods, without giving much thought to its usefulness.

and being Bob Marley..!

Why Marley? He was an a$$hole!