Notice handed in getting nasty

[Joe_90]

How ironic!

There's an other post where the 3 months suits the employee!

 

[mandelbrot]

How can you sign a contract in good faith, if you only indent to carry it, if is suits you at the time???

Where did I say that Jim? It's not about solely what suits me - I specifically talked about a situation where the employer's business wouldn't be disrupted by the departure but they chose to enforce the notice period out of malice. In that circumstance then I'd have no ethical problem with breaking the term.

The legal consequences, if any, are what they are; they're not part of the ethical/moral decision.

 

[mandelbrot]

Of course, it makes it wrong and immoral.

The consequences for the employer are disruption. There are virtually no consequences for the employee.

I am fully open to consensual renegotiation of contracts. But what is being suggested here by some posters seems to be something different: "Please agree to reduce the notice to 4 weeks and if you don't I will break the contract anyway."

Are you honestly saying Brendan that you don't / won't distinguish between something being morally wrong and legally wrong. I'm not sure that many, if any, posters would argue that breaking the 3-month term isn't legally wrong.

But that is wholly separate from whether it is morally wrong. Whether its morally wrong is of course a matter of opinion, and to me the critical question is whether or not the breaking of the term actually causes a loss/disruption to the employer or whether they were just refusing to negotiate out of spite. If I knew I wasn't leaving them in the lurch and I'd done all I could to ensure this was the case, then I'd have no problem morally with breaking the term.

I've certainly signed at least one employment contract where I've been told in relation to some aspect or other "look, that's a standard term but we don't in reality ever enforce it". So as I said, good faith, common sense, mutual respect.

 

[Time]

Morals and the law are often strange bedfellows and often mutually exclusive.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Are you honestly saying Brendan that you don't / won't distinguish between something being morally wrong and legally wrong.

Hi mandelbrot

What I said and what you quoted is very clear.

Of course it makes it wrong and immoral.

I really don't think it can be any clearer.

I am primarily saying that someone should not break a contract because it's morally wrong. It's not morally wrong because it's some technical breach of a legally binding contract. It's morally wrong because if I enter into an agreement with you or anyone else, I would expect you and me to honour it without the need to go to court.

Some people have implied that it's ok to break this contract, because, in practice, the employer has no legal redress. That is not how I conduct my affairs. I don't litter because I can get away with it. I don't shoplift because I am unlikely to be caught. I don't drive drunkenly because I am unlikely to be stopped by the Gardai. I don't do these things, not because they are against the law, I don't do them because they are wrong.

Likewise someone should honour an employment contract because it is the right thing to do.

 

[Setanta12]

I see an immense overlap here between business and morality. If Brendan was so inclined (after note re being stopped by Gardai etc), he could read up on 'social contracts' by Rousseau - an interesting fellow.

In essence, what any contract is - the laying down of a law between two parties. Pactum serva, and countless other latin phrases creep in here. Breaking of laws can sometimes have consequences - normally set out in those contracts - and sometimes not.

Morality wouldn't be a good argument in front of a judge.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

And just to give you an example, here is a clear case where I recommend to someone to break their legally binding contract.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=187634

It would be much better in this case, if both borrowers and the bank could reach an agreement. But the only way of getting his ex to an agreement, is for him to stop paying his mortgage.

 

[ang1170]

And just to give you an example, here is a clear case where I recommend to someone to break their legally binding contract.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=187634

It would be much better in this case, if both borrowers and the bank could reach an agreement. But the only way of getting his ex to an agreement, is for him to stop paying his mortgage.

This just demonstrates your own lack of consistency! You are saying on the one hand people "should not break a contract because it's morally wrong", castigating anyone who suggests otherwise, and yet advising someone to do just that in a different circumstances.

Taking an absolutist stance on anything is rarely a good idea. Different circumstances apply, and people can and do have different opinions on the extent they impact on a decision.

Personally, in this case, I think the OP should do their level best to negotiate but if push comes to shove they should just live with the 3 month notice period. This decision would be influenced as much by concern over reputation than morality. But I can understand others who take a different view.

As an aside, I think unless and until the CEO of B&L is willing to accept a 20% pay reduction it is immoral to ask staff to do the same, but we'll see the pigs flying over Waterford before we see that happening.

I raise this last point as a demonstration of the general principle that morality, the law and business are often strange bedfellows.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

This just demonstrates your own lack of consistency! You are saying on the one hand people "should not break a contract because it's morally wrong", castigating anyone who suggests otherwise, and yet advising someone to do just that in a different circumstances.

Taking an absolutist stance on anything is rarely a good idea.

My position is very consistent. You simply misunderstand it, maybe because I have explained it improperly.

In the employment notice case, she should not break her contract, because it's morally wrong to do so. Not because it's a breach of the law. She has a full and free choice whether to honour her responsibilities and she should do so.

Joint mortgages are the most appalling situations to be in. If one partner refuses to pay the mortgage but continues to occupy the house and refuses to sell it, the other partner is in an impossible position. They have no choice but to break the contract. They should of course try to negotiate a solution, but if one party simply won't even come to the table, they have no choice.

Joint mortgages throw up this impossible dilemma where an unscrupulous person can exploit a scrupulous person.

That is not the situation with the employment notice. She is not in an impossible or even a difficult position.

She should have told her new employer that she may be held to three months notice but that she would try to get out sooner.
If her employer refused, then she must serve her three months notice.

It's very simple and I think that most people now agree with this. Some don't. They think that they should ask for the notice period to be reduced to one month and then walk if the employer does not agree.

 

[ang1170]

My position is very consistent. You simply misunderstand it, maybe because I have explained it improperly.

In the employment notice case, she should not break her contract, because it's morally wrong to do so. Not because it's a breach of the law. She has a full and free choice whether to honour her responsibilities and she should do so.

Joint mortgages are the most appalling situations to be in. If one partner refuses to pay the mortgage but continues to occupy the house and refuses to sell it, the other partner is in an impossible position. They have no choice but to break the contract. They should of course try to negotiate a solution, but if one party simply won't even come to the table, they have no choice.

Joint mortgages throw up this impossible dilemma where an unscrupulous person can exploit a scrupulous person.

That is not the situation with the employment notice. She is not in an impossible or even a difficult position.

She should have told her new employer that she may be held to three months notice but that she would try to get out sooner.
If her employer refused, then she must serve her three months notice.

It's very simple and I think that most people now agree with this. Some don't. They think that they should ask for the notice period to be reduced to one month and then walk if the employer does not agree.

I think you're rather missing my point, which as I said was "Different circumstances apply, and people can and do have different opinions on the extent they impact on a decision". I agree with you completely that the two situations are different, and (ironically) I'd reach the same conclusion as you about what to do in both cases.

My main point was taking an absolutist stance on anything is rarely a good idea, or is castigating others (calling them "nasty" for example) who have a different opinion to yourself.

 

[michaelm]

She should have told her new employer that she may be held to three months notice but that she would try to get out sooner.

No one would disagree with that.

If her employer refused, then she must serve her three months notice.

Maybe she should or maybe she should do what is in her best interest. For sure, if the employer decided she was surplus to requirements then she would be gone in a heartbeat.

 

[Purple]

For sure, if the employer decided she was surplus to requirements then she would be gone in a heartbeat.

How do you know?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It seems to me that your fiancé is being nasty and not the employer.

My main point was taking an absolutist stance on anything is rarely a good idea, or is castigating others (calling them "nasty" for example) who have a different opinion to yourself.

Why do you have to personalise this? Just look at the thousands of times I have disagreed with people on askaboutmoney and I stick to the arguments and rarely criticise the person. But I will criticise behaviour if I think it is wrong.

The OP described his employer as "nasty" and provided no evidence for it. I was simply using his word, which is a word, I would rarely if ever use.

 

[Sunny]

The problem Brendan is that you seem to be judging the situation from a moral point of view and deciding that a person who breaks their employment contract is always wrong and acting immorally.

You don't seem to have issues when the employer does the same because that's just the free market. Employers expect their employees to work outside their employment contracts every day and there is nothing wrong with that. I have been in jobs where my contract makes no mention of working outside business hours but where weekend and late night work was the norm. I have been in jobs that made no mention of travel for long periods but have spent two weeks away from my family on work. Do you realy think my employers were being immoral for breaking my contract? Of course they weren't. I fully accept the need to be flexible in the workplace.

When the Governement decided to change the terms and conditions of public sector contracts when the crisis hit, they didn't negotiate an agreement. They passed emergency legislation making pay cuts across the board. Was that immoral?

Contracts are broken every day. If contractual terms are so absolute, there would be no need for us to have a commercial court. Advising someone that they should blindly adhere to a clause in their contract without even examining the enforacability of such a clause if they feel like they have to break it is ridiculous. That is not the same as saying that contracts shouldn't be respected and honoured as much as possible and it certainly doesn't mean that someone is acting immorally if they feel that they are no longer in a position to honour the contract. If that is the case they are free to try and negotiate a solution and failing that, they are perfectly free to decide to break the contract as long as they are aware of the legal and any other consequences.

 

[michaelm]

How do you know?

Generally I'd expect that when an employer wants rid of an employee they make it happen . . they might be on the hook for wages in lieu of notice, maybe redundancy, perhaps unfair dismissals . . I've seen purges by my last three employers.

 

[Purple]

Generally I'd expect that when an employer wants rid of an employee they make it happen . . they might be on the hook for wages in lieu of notice, maybe redundancy, perhaps unfair dismissals . . I've seen purges by my last three employers.

Not all employers break contracts, just as not all employees break them.
There's plenty of legislation there to protect employees. There's very little to protect employers.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

The problem Brendan is that you seem to be judging the situation from a moral point of view and deciding that a person who breaks their employment contract is always wrong and acting immorally.

Yes, a person who materially breaks a contract when they have a choice not to, is wrong.

You don't seem to have issues when the employer does the same because that's just the free market.

How on earth do you deduce that? Of course it's completely wrong for an employer to break a contract unless they are forced to do so.

Employers expect their employees to work outside their employment contracts every day and there is nothing wrong with that. I have been in jobs where my contract makes no mention of working outside business hours but where weekend and late night work was the norm. I have been in jobs that made no mention of travel for long periods but have spent two weeks away from my family on work. Do you realy think my employers were being immoral for breaking my contract? Of course they weren't. I fully accept the need to be flexible in the workplace.

It's wrong for an employer to insist that a person works weekend and late night as the norm, if it's not in the contract. That would be a breach of contract and assuming it's a material breach, you would have been quite within your rights to consider the contract broken, and move on.

When the Governement decided to change the terms and conditions of public sector contracts when the crisis hit, they didn't negotiate an agreement. They passed emergency legislation making pay cuts across the board. Was that immoral?

Of course it wasn't. There was no choice. The country was bankrupt. Likewise they imposed cuts on pharmacies, consultants, and other service providers.

Contracts are broken every day. If contractual terms are so absolute, there would be no need for us to have a commercial court.

Why take a legalistic approach? It's wrong to break a contract , whether you are an employee or an employer, a lender or a borrower. It is wrong to do so.

Advising someone that they should blindly adhere to a clause in their contract without even examining the enforacability of such a clause if they feel like they have to break it is ridiculous.

It the "feel like they have to break it" is the bit I strongly disagree with. There was no obligation in this case to break it. She just felt like it as it suited her. It does not suit me to pay a fixed rate of 5% of my mortgage, if that is what I agreed, but I do it. If someone can't pay their mortgage, they are forced to break the contract. There is nothing wrong with that.

I am trying to think of a realistic and common scenario where someone is forced to break an employment contract, where it would be justified. I am not saying that there is one, I just can't think of it.

If that is the case they are free to try and negotiate a solution and failing that, they are perfectly free to decide to break the contract as long as they are aware of the legal and any other consequences.

Legally. But they are morally wrong to do so. Would you say that I am perfectly free to shoplift as long as I am aware of the legal consequences for doing so?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Not all employers break contracts, just as not all employees break them.
There's plenty of legislation there to protect employees. There's very little to protect employers.

Agree. It's rare and very foolish to fire someone without good reason and without going through the full fair procedures.

Of course, some employers do it. It's wrong and they pay dearly for it.

 

[ang1170]

I am trying to think of a realistic and common scenario where someone is forced to break an employment contract, where it would be justified. I am not saying that there is one, I just can't think of it.

That's the whole point, though: it's a value judgement, based on the individual circumstances, of what is the "right" thing to do, and different people will come to a different conclusion in each case. The more examples with different courses of action you give, the more you emphasise this point.

It's only at the extremes (e.g. shooting someone in cold blood for no reason) you will get total agreement on what is the right or moral thing to do. The same extreme act (killing someone) can be justified in different circumstances. There are plenty of areas in between where there is no agreement.

For pretty much anything outside those extremes, claiming one opinion is somehow objectively the only "moral" course of action, and by implication anyone who would act differently is "immoral", comes across very badly.

 

[Sunny]

Yes, a person who materially breaks a contract when they have a choice not to, is wrong.

Wrong in what sense? Morally? By whose standards? I have worked on business transactions where people sign contracts for services to be provided and then change their minds. We either allow the customer off, we enforce the contract or we negotiate a settlement. Do we then then go for lunch giving out about the moral bankruptcy of the customer? Of course not. It's simply business. [/QUOTE]

How on earth do you deduce that? Of course it's completely wrong for an employer to break a contract unless they are forced to do so.

What do you mean forced to do so? It is ok for employers to change contracts when it is financially necessary but it's not ok for an employee to do the same to try and move to a higher paid job when they might be struggling financially?

It's wrong for an employer to insist that a person works weekend and late night as the norm, if it's not in the contract. That would be a breach of contract and assuming it's a material breach, you would have been quite within your rights to consider the contract broken, and move on.

In the real world Brendan, employers don't insist on anything but when they give you a blackberry and allow remote access into the office from home, do you really think they expect you finish at 5 every evening as per the contractual terms? And now suddenly you are introducing the concept of material breachs. So some breaches are more material than others? Where does that stand with your moral argument that people who break contracts are wrong or are we now saying that some breaches are more acceptable than others.

Of course it wasn't. There was no choice. The country was bankrupt. Likewise they imposed cuts on pharmacies, consultants, and other service providers.

So you wouldn't have had any issue with any public sector employee walking out and giving no notice to take a higher paid job to meet their mortgage payments because they have no choice?

Why take a legalistic approach? It's wrong to break a contract , whether you are an employee or an employer, a lender or a borrower. It is wrong to do so.

Why take a legalistic approach? Because a contract is just that. It's a legal agreement. Again you keep saying wrong but in what sense. You are basically saying that in every contract dispute before the courts, one party is immoral.

It the "feel like they have to break it" is the bit I strongly disagree with. There was no obligation in this case to break it. She just felt like it as it suited her. It does not suit me to pay a fixed rate of 5% of my mortgage, if that is what I agreed, but I do it. If someone can't pay their mortgage, they are forced to break the contract. There is nothing wrong with that.

I am trying to think of a realistic and common scenario where someone is forced to break an employment contract, where it would be justified. I am not saying that there is one, I just can't think of it.

As I said before Brendan, people break their employment contracts every single day. Unless what you are suggesting is a complete work to rule for everyone? So then we are back to you deciding what clauses in a contract and in what context are ok to break without being morally offensive.

Legally. But they are morally wrong to do so. Would you say that I am perfectly free to shoplift as long as I am aware of the legal consequences for doing so?

You have completely lost me here Brendan. What has committing a criminal act got to do with breaking a possibly illegal clause in a civil contract? Are you saying the OP is now the same morally as a common criminal?