5 ms·

" But the downside is that it makes employers hesitant to hire someone in the first place if they know they will be stuck with them for three months." The 3 mo

by qw 13y ago

" But the downside is that it makes employers hesitant to hire someone in the first place if they know they will be stuck with them for three months." The 3 month notice period is actually not required by law, but is so widespread that most people assume it is the minimum. The minimum mandatory notice period depends on how long you have worked there. 0-5 years (1 month), 5-10 years (2 months), 10+ years (3 months). The notice period specified in the contract do not apply to new hires. When someone is hired they are often put on a "probation period" that can last up to 6 months. In that time you can leave or be fired with a minimum of 2 weeks notice without having to explain why. Usually the contract specifies the maximum probation period (6 months) and a longer notice (1 month). The probation period is completely optional, but most employers include it in the contract to avoid situations like the one you experienced.

jbuzbee 13y ago
That sounds like a pretty good compromise, but you can imagine that it will still cause permanent employment friction. For example, say you run a small contracting company with a few 3-month probationary employees on staff. You're waiting to hear about the next big job. When that 3-month period gets close and you still haven't got word on the new job, you might be tempted to let them go because if the job doesn't come in, you'll be paying their salaries without the equivalent revenue coming in. That could break your small company. If the job does come in, you'll need to scramble to replace them and push your permanent staff harder, but you'll still be in business. If you weren't bound by a three-month requirement, you might have keep the probationary employees on staff a bit longer waiting for the job to come in. The real-world isn't this cut-and-dried, but to a lesser extent, these are the tradeoffs that the employer has to make every day.
- qw 13y ago
  Most companies specify a 6 month probation period where the contract can be terminated with 1 month notice. That should be enough to plan ahead. The customary 3 month notice only applies to "permanent" employees, but the company is free to specify a 1 month notice for those employed for less than 5 years if they are not confident.

by qw 13y ago

jbuzbee 13y ago

That sounds like a pretty good compromise, but you can imagine that it will still cause permanent employment friction. For example, say you run a small contracting company with a few 3-month probationary employees on staff. You're waiting to hear about the next big job. When that 3-month period gets close and you still haven't got word on the new job, you might be tempted to let them go because if the job doesn't come in, you'll be paying their salaries without the equivalent revenue coming in. That could break your small company. If the job does come in, you'll need to scramble to replace them and push your permanent staff harder, but you'll still be in business. If you weren't bound by a three-month requirement, you might have keep the probationary employees on staff a bit longer waiting for the job to come in. The real-world isn't this cut-and-dried, but to a lesser extent, these are the tradeoffs that the employer has to make every day.

qw 13y ago
Most companies specify a 6 month probation period where the contract can be terminated with 1 month notice. That should be enough to plan ahead. The customary 3 month notice only applies to "permanent" employees, but the company is free to specify a 1 month notice for those employed for less than 5 years if they are not confident.