You can only make the fresh condition applicable to the recruitment made after the new conditions are announced for new employees only. To retain the old employees, introduce incentive schemes. Please refer to post #7. You have to comply with the law. Employees are not slaves or bonded laborers. Even bonded labor is unlawful.
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
56From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The 30-day notice period is not the problem, so increasing it is not the solution. Even worse, if applicants learn of the 60/90-day notice period, there will be fewer applicants to hire. Applicants will know that the employer is trying to make new hires pay for the employer's hiring and managing mistakes. Why should applicants risk getting stuck working for such an employer?
US employees generally give a two-week notice or longer, depending on the employer's policy of how much is paid when employees are laid off. Excessive employee turnover is a management problem that must be fixed by changing what the managers do, not by imposing new penalties on employees.
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
US employees generally give a two-week notice or longer, depending on the employer's policy of how much is paid when employees are laid off. Excessive employee turnover is a management problem that must be fixed by changing what the managers do, not by imposing new penalties on employees.
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Raj,
I have gone through the discussions. First of all, if you are covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, legally you cannot change a condition of service without complying with the provisions under Sec. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or if a dispute is pending before an authority under the Act ignoring the provisions under Sec. 33 which prohibits/regulates the change of conditions of service during the pendency of an industrial dispute.
It is advisable to get it included in a tripartite settlement or a bipartite agreement at the time of such settlement/agreement being signed.
One cannot be complacent calling it an internal management policy as it has serious legal consequences. Moreover, it is a double-edged weapon as you have to give notice or pay for a notice of an equal period when the necessity of termination arises. Resignation is only the counterpart of discharge sipleciter (innocuous termination).
In case you are in a hurry concerning attrition, you can do so following the provisions of the law.
In fine, advice without specific knowledge of the case tends to result in vagueness which may jeopardize one's interest.
Dr. Trinath Dash
From India, Sambalpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have gone through the discussions. First of all, if you are covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, legally you cannot change a condition of service without complying with the provisions under Sec. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or if a dispute is pending before an authority under the Act ignoring the provisions under Sec. 33 which prohibits/regulates the change of conditions of service during the pendency of an industrial dispute.
It is advisable to get it included in a tripartite settlement or a bipartite agreement at the time of such settlement/agreement being signed.
One cannot be complacent calling it an internal management policy as it has serious legal consequences. Moreover, it is a double-edged weapon as you have to give notice or pay for a notice of an equal period when the necessity of termination arises. Resignation is only the counterpart of discharge sipleciter (innocuous termination).
In case you are in a hurry concerning attrition, you can do so following the provisions of the law.
In fine, advice without specific knowledge of the case tends to result in vagueness which may jeopardize one's interest.
Dr. Trinath Dash
From India, Sambalpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi all, thanks a lot for sharing your views, especially Mr. Bhaskar and Mr. Bhanot. I would like to know if I change the notice period only for managers and above grade, do I have to follow the same procedure as labor law, or is it not required?
Raj
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Raj
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
The purpose of serving the notice period by the employee is to hand over the job to the newly recruited/assigned person. It is also the time for the employer/HR to find/replace the position with the right person to take over the job. An employee who resigns from the job is always disruptive to the existing systems; this disruption can spread to all employees. They may lose interest in working and start causing trouble for others. It is always best to have them exit within 30 days.
If the notice period is extended to 60 or 90 days, it becomes difficult for the employee to stay for a longer period as they may have to take up a new assignment. Consequently, the employee might choose the alternative option to exit by paying one/two months' basic amount through DD. This, in turn, would make it challenging for the HR personnel to find a replacement on such short notice.
Moreover, there are many challenges involved in changing this in the standing orders. It is advisable to seek input from your management/superiors before acting on it.
All the best! Cheers...!
Regards,
Jeyya Shanker
From India, Davangere
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The purpose of serving the notice period by the employee is to hand over the job to the newly recruited/assigned person. It is also the time for the employer/HR to find/replace the position with the right person to take over the job. An employee who resigns from the job is always disruptive to the existing systems; this disruption can spread to all employees. They may lose interest in working and start causing trouble for others. It is always best to have them exit within 30 days.
If the notice period is extended to 60 or 90 days, it becomes difficult for the employee to stay for a longer period as they may have to take up a new assignment. Consequently, the employee might choose the alternative option to exit by paying one/two months' basic amount through DD. This, in turn, would make it challenging for the HR personnel to find a replacement on such short notice.
Moreover, there are many challenges involved in changing this in the standing orders. It is advisable to seek input from your management/superiors before acting on it.
All the best! Cheers...!
Regards,
Jeyya Shanker
From India, Davangere
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Managers who are outside the scope of labor laws can be negotiated with to agree to new conditions. However, for existing Managers, you may need to offer an incentive package. It is unlikely that they will agree to such a drastic change.
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I totally agree with smbhappy and disagree with all other suggestions contrary to it. Regardless of the procedure, even a change to the Standing Order without appropriate consultation and agreement from employees is illegal.
It is a shame that all that us managers could think of is arm-twisting the employees to retain them. How many of us are willing to release an offer letter and allow them to join us after 3 months? Is that not a reasonable ask if we expect them to serve a 3-month notice? After all, the employee needs to get a job, then resign and serve his notice before taking up a job at another company.
As was rightly pointed out, there are plenty of ways to solve this attrition problem but coercion is NOT one of them.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is a shame that all that us managers could think of is arm-twisting the employees to retain them. How many of us are willing to release an offer letter and allow them to join us after 3 months? Is that not a reasonable ask if we expect them to serve a 3-month notice? After all, the employee needs to get a job, then resign and serve his notice before taking up a job at another company.
As was rightly pointed out, there are plenty of ways to solve this attrition problem but coercion is NOT one of them.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You can only make the fresh condition applicable to the recruitment made after the new conditions are announced for the new employees only. To retain the old employees, introduce incentive schemes.
Please refer to post #7. You have to go by law. Employees are not slaves or bonded laborers. Even bonded labor is unlawful.
Thanks and Regards,
Surendera M. Bhanot
See, when we talk about retention, how many of these employees serve even one month's notice even if incentive schemes are introduced? I know of a company where all new entrants (including existing employees) are required to enter into a service agreement committing to serve the company for 2/3 years for retention purposes. In case of breach, there is a provision to pay or realize Liquidity Damage to the company from the concerned employee. Even after serving the agreed period, the employee needs to give two months' notice. The company also provides six-monthly incentives based on performance in addition to other retention policies. However, the company faced a lot of attrition among individuals under such service agreements who left without serving a single day's notice once their salary was credited to their account. The company also formulated and announced its exit policy with penalties/legal consequences for breaches, yet those wanting to leave did so without considering these conditions, incentive schemes, retention policies, or exit policy. What I am trying to convey is that provisions for a 30-day notice period or extensions thereof for 60/90 days may only act as psychological pressure tactics for a few individuals, and one cannot hold back those belonging to the 'race horse' category, even under intensive incentive schemes.
Thanks,
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please refer to post #7. You have to go by law. Employees are not slaves or bonded laborers. Even bonded labor is unlawful.
Thanks and Regards,
Surendera M. Bhanot
See, when we talk about retention, how many of these employees serve even one month's notice even if incentive schemes are introduced? I know of a company where all new entrants (including existing employees) are required to enter into a service agreement committing to serve the company for 2/3 years for retention purposes. In case of breach, there is a provision to pay or realize Liquidity Damage to the company from the concerned employee. Even after serving the agreed period, the employee needs to give two months' notice. The company also provides six-monthly incentives based on performance in addition to other retention policies. However, the company faced a lot of attrition among individuals under such service agreements who left without serving a single day's notice once their salary was credited to their account. The company also formulated and announced its exit policy with penalties/legal consequences for breaches, yet those wanting to leave did so without considering these conditions, incentive schemes, retention policies, or exit policy. What I am trying to convey is that provisions for a 30-day notice period or extensions thereof for 60/90 days may only act as psychological pressure tactics for a few individuals, and one cannot hold back those belonging to the 'race horse' category, even under intensive incentive schemes.
Thanks,
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.