[Samurai]

Originally Posted by IndieGooner

they arbitrarily decided to triple my notice period without me having any stake in the decision.

That will not fly if you challenged it in court. The notice period applicable is the one that is mentioned in your appointment letter. They can apply the new notice period to new joinees, but it can't be retroactive.

[IndieGooner]

Originally Posted by Samurai

That will not fly if you challenged it in court. The notice period applicable is the one that is mentioned in your appointment letter. They can apply the new notice period to new joinees, but it can't be retroactive.

Exactly. However, they knew that they can pull it off without even a tiny whimper from an employee base of ~2.5 lakhs including myself. When I said that it can probably happen only in Indian IT, I meant that the companies know very well that their employees would take almost anything.

[m8002?]

How many more no-joiners should these companies face for them to understand that the 3-month notice only back fires when they need to get people.

One thing many companies here do is that they release offer letters for more people than the open headcount assuming 30-40% will not join. And even if all of them do, they have such high attrition new back fill positions would have opened by that time.

But this is a difficult thing to explain to the US/European bosses of small companies. They just dont understand how someone can accept the offer and not turn up. So we have to make the exact offers as open headcounts and wait till the confirms he will not join.

[kung_foo_fanta]

Originally Posted by rajeshks777

Now when we try to recruit or take people on deputation in other roles, we are not getting anyone.

So the whole point is, there are many opportunities in Government and Public Sector. They are not finding people to join them.

So, I am currently working in a Tech Arch role, based in Dubai... and indeed, the pandemic has brought about a realization of sorts, to say the least

Could I please DM you to understand the kind of roles that would be generally available in the Public Sector and how to go about applying for them?

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by Samurai

That will not fly if you challenged it in court. The notice period applicable is the one that is mentioned in your appointment letter. They can apply the new notice period to new joinees, but it can't be retroactive.

Not really true. When most companies give increments or bonuses, you have to accept the same - and also accept all revised terms. So unless you have been on a flat salary or never have had to click an “I accept” or have an incompetent HR / Legal function, you can’t successfully challenge these terms.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Not really true. When most companies give increments or bonuses, you have to accept the same - and also accept all revised terms. So unless you have been on a flat salary or never have had to click an “I accept” or have an incompetent HR / Legal function, you can’t successfully challenge these terms.

HR usually gets away with illegal rules because most employees never bother to take the legal route.

Employment contract can't be changed unilaterally. If the employer tells the existing employees to accept changes without giving a choice or under duress (click accept, or lose hike/promotion/job), it doesn't hold up in court.

The HR may pat themselves to be competent because they forced a rule that most employees won't bother to challenge. But court will think otherwise.

Case in point: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/18701530.cms

After paying $30 million, they said "TCS believes that it always acted appropriately notwithstanding the allegations in this case. It agreed to settle this matter to eliminate any on-going distraction to its associates and management".

I was one of the victims of this, and I too had signed over my tax returns under duress. It didn't help TCS to escape the law.

[dragonfire]

Originally Posted by Samurai

HR usually gets away with illegal rules because most employees never bother to take the legal route.

Employment contract can't be changed unilaterally. If the employer tells the existing employees to accept changes without giving a choice or under duress (click accept, or lose hike/promotion/job), it doesn't hold up in court.

The HR may pat themselves to be competent because they forced a rule that most employees won't bother to challenge. But court will think otherwise.

Case in point: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/18701530.cms

After paying $30 million, they said "TCS believes that it always acted appropriately notwithstanding the allegations in this case. It agreed to settle this matter to eliminate any on-going distraction to its associates and management".

I was one of the victims of this, and I too had signed over my tax returns under duress. It didn't help TCS to escape the law.

Class action suits work in the USA because there are lawyers willing to take these cases without a fee for a 30% cut IF the suit is won. And the probability of winning such suits is quite high because juries often take the sympathy route rather than interpret the letter of the law.

In India, anybody taking on big companies with inhouse law teams are handicapped by funds to pay the expensive lawyers. And on top of that the judges are easier for the companies to buy off. It is easier to pay off the judge here but impossible to pay off 12 jurors in the USA.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by dragonfire

In India, anybody taking on big companies with inhouse law teams are handicapped by funds to pay the expensive lawyers. And on top of that the judges are easier for the companies to buy off. It is easier to pay off the judge here but impossible to pay off 12 jurors in the USA.

You don't have to pay the judges. One can cause enough procedural delays to frustrate the plaintiff. Suing is hard, that is why most don't try it.

About 30 years ago, my father sued his employer (a nationalized bank) and won. He was trying to get his birthday fixed in the bank employment records so that he doesn't retire 17 months in advance. In the early days, giving an older birthday to school was common, and it had come to bite him during retirement time.

He was able to provide all the proof necessary. But the bank lawyers chose to request adjournment after adjournment to delay the case until he retires with the early date. They had almost succeeded in that strategy. But we had a relative who was pretty high in the state judiciary then. He told the judge not to let the bank lawyers use that loophole. So, every time bank lawyers asked for 2 month adjournment, the judge gave 1 week adjournment, nothing more. After a few such repetition, bank lawyers checked around and found out the reason. Once they realised their delay tactics won't work, they accepted the proof and changed the bank records, letting my dad prevail. That extra 17 months greatly helped our financial status. My brother and I managed to find jobs in that extra time.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by Samurai

HR usually gets away with illegal rules because most employees never bother to take the legal route.

Employment contract can't be changed unilaterally. If the employer tells the existing employees to accept changes without giving a choice or under duress (click accept, or lose hike/promotion/job), it doesn't hold up in court.

Here's a scenario - company A has two months notice period. A gets acquired by B and as part of the reorganisation, among many other things, the notice period gets changed to 3 months. No indication or details given if the B has 3 months notice period or there's any other reasons.

No options offered. No discussions done. Compensation, designations, benefits and most other things remain the same (except for the renaming and related).

How does one say no to this particular change? Raise a one-on-one conversation? What are the chances of getting anything out of it when 99% of employees just nonchalantly accept the new terms & conditions?

P.s. This happened a year ago so more of a theoretical Q.

[hothatchaway]

^^^Even without the takeover scenario a company can change the notice period for all or a particular cadre of employees by issuing a notification to that effect to the affected employees. If the employees don't like it they can talk to hr but at least in india it's unlikely to have any impact, especially for white collar non unionised employees.
Employment is a contract and it's mentioned in the contract that the company reserves the right to change thr condition contained in it

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

No options offered. No discussions done. Compensation, designations, benefits and most other things remain the same (except for the renaming and related).

That is what makes it problematic. If the employee wants to challenge it, the company has no legal leg to stand on. But most employees are scared to take on their company.

Originally Posted by hothatchaway

Employment is a contract and it's mentioned in the contract that the company reserves the right to change thr condition contained in it

And you too have the right to agree or disagree at that point, without being under duress.

[Gansan]

Originally Posted by Samurai

HR usually gets away with illegal rules because most employees never bother to take the legal route.

Employment contract can't be changed unilaterally. If the employer tells the existing employees to accept changes without giving a choice or under duress (click accept, or lose hike/promotion/job), it doesn't hold up in court.

The clauses of any contract, leave alone employment contract, can never be changed unilaterally by one party, that too retrospectively. The employees lack the wherewithal to fight. So companies get away with it - mostly.

I remember a case from 90's when I was working in the shipping division of our company. It was common practice to take a bond from the cadets we recruit, train and then employ as mariners once they pass out, towards their training cost. It was usually for a sum of five lakhs, which the officer had to pay to the company if he left employment within a specified period (usually four years), as per the employment order. It was a huge sum those days. There will also be a clause in the same order the company can relieve them from service with a month's notice if they were not up to mark.

We came to know a bunch of cadets had sued a very big shipping company (SCI if I remember right) about this clause and won the case. The court ruled the contract says what the employee should do if he left, but not what the company will do if it kicks him out, except a month's pay. They said there was no natural justice in the contract and ruled in favour of the cadets. Most companies quietly dropped the clause after that.

Originally Posted by dragonfire

It is easier to pay off the judge here but impossible to pay off 12 jurors in the USA.

I have seen a few of them regularly accept hospitality from the company I worked for. At one point when conditions got very bad and our jobs hung by a thread, I had even collected evidence and kept it aside. I was ready to throw the s**t on the fan if push came to shove. But ultimately everything settled down and there was no need for it.

[dragonfire]

Originally Posted by Gansan

The clauses of any contract, leave alone employment contract, can never be changed unilaterally by one party, that too retrospectively. The employees lack the wherewithal to fight. So companies get away with it - mostly.

My employer watered down the gratuity clause one fine day and sent out a PDF to everybody to accept and return. Many such benefits promised in my offer letter were discontinued during the 2008 recession. Don't think anybody complained as most of us were happy to keep our jobs.

I have seen them regularly accept hospitality from the company I worked for. At one point when conditions got very bad and our jobs hung by a thread, I had even collected evidence and kept it aside. I was ready to throw the s**t on the fan if push came to shove. But ultimately everything settled down and there was no need for it.

We are allowed to criticize our politicians and bureaucrats as much as we want, but the judiciary is considered sacred for no good reason.

[Gansan]

Also many companies, especially software and BPOs operate out of IT parks and SEZs where the normal labour laws don't apply. That is also one handicap. Even if not so, often the designation and pay scale of such employees take them out of the workman category.

I remember one pharma unit closure in TN some 20 years ago which happened quite fast. The company had cleverly "promoted" all the employees as this manager, that executive etc a year earlier, even though they did the same job. The compensation offered for closure was peanuts. Employees started a stay in strike with their entire families, it became a big issue on TV news channels and the collector as well as the labour department had to intervene for damage control. The government official called all the employees one by one and asked them two questions in the presence of the HR bigwigs. Did the "executive" have authority to sanction leave? Did he have authority to sanction overtime? The answer should be a simple yes or no, which the HR man had to confirm. All those who answered "no" were deemed as workmen, and received a compensation of 15 lacs on average. Tough luck to those who answered yes.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

P.s. This happened a year ago so more of a theoretical Q.

Originally Posted by Samurai

That is what makes it problematic. If the employee wants to challenge it, the company has no legal leg to stand on. But most employees are scared to take on their company.

In our case, we were given relieving letter from the old company (after taking a sign on the resignation form) and an offer letter from the new company. So technically, the old contract was not changed and we were free to accept or decline the new offer. This was done on the day the acquisition was announced and the employees had no time to even properly understand the new terms.

Wonder what would happen if someone decides to challenge it? Maybe the company would have to pay the two months salary as per the old contract. Anything else?