[sunilch]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Mine is the complex solution? What you have proposed is an impossible solution.

My solution can be implemented by any company, without having to co-ordinate with anyone else. They just place two options in front of the candidate, and the candidate will pick one and sign it. It is done and dusted in 5 minutes. We don't need to wait for IT giants to implement it and pave the way. Heck, I can do it for my very next hire.

Your solution involves forcing/convincing every or most companies in the industry to go back to a much shorter notice period. How long that is going to take? It may never happen.

Your solution (Point 2) is difficult to enforce and follow-up with. It requires legal involvement, if it comes to it and we know it will be a mess for both - candidates and employers to deal with anything legal simply to hire a candidate.

Point 1 of your solution is already in place and that is how it works. Employers try to choose the best available candidate anyways and stop looking if they get one only because the hiring team has business to run and the hired candidate was found to be 'good enough' for the job at hand.

However, we have seen offers getting rescinded, joining dates getting moved in future and/or your allocated project getting changed due to various reasons including the candidate not being needed for the said role anymore

So it is only the market dynamics today that are no in favor of the employers and hence they are showing crocodile tears at present.

There is no need to mandate a notice period by the government. Longer notice period is only meant to make it hard to switch for candidates who are making money for the company.

People who are not making enough money or in roles that are quick to replace are relieved early anyways.

Shorter notice period should be adopted by the employers themselves and adhered to. Exceptional cases can be managed on good faith basis.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by sunilch

Your solution (Point 2) is difficult to enforce and follow-up with. It requires legal involvement, if it comes to it and we know it will be a mess for both - candidates and employers to deal with anything legal simply to hire a candidate.

Really? As an employer, I don't see it. The lawyer fee will be lot less than the damage caused by candidates bailing out at the last moment. Companies usually have a law firm they engage for many routine matters. Not really a stretch for a company. They also have the option of not enforcing if they don't want the hassle.

And for the candidate, she/he gets the choice to keeping looking or stick to an offer, without any guilt.

Originally Posted by sunilch

Point 1 of your solution is already in place and that is how it works.

No, it is not. Now both side expects the other side to stick to the promise, while exercising their own right to back out. Have you met anyone who was cool if the candidate didn't join, or if the employer withdrew the offer? How is this same as my first solution?

For those who didn't understand my first solution... Candidate accepts that the job may not be waiting at the end of the notice period, and the employer accepts that the candidate may not join at the end of the notice period. No one can assign guilt to either side. Both side is free to back out without restriction, without guilt.

[V.Narayan]

Challenge in India's software coding industry is that the employee on the ground is the unit of production, the unit of billing and the unit of cost. To add to this contracts are finite in terms of time & $ and change with volatility. And supply of both jobs and labour, at least at the lower level, is ample. So both employer and employee treat each other as a transaction rather than a relationship. And both sides violate the letter and spirit of the contract or offer. I can well imagine the stress and disappointment of a young fresher getting his/her first job offer and then being strung along and dumped. In manufacturing the machine-hours more than an employee is the unit of production and hence unless there is a big downturn you tend not to cut your workforce.

In my brick & mortar world 3 months notice is par for the course. If you sack an employee you pay him 3 months salary so he has some working capital till he funds another job. And if he quits it gives the employer breathing space to hire a replacement. As an employer 2 weeks notice is impractical. Why would I ever employ a person who wants to quit with 2 weeks notice. Better to hire him as a job worker paid by the hour. Why bother with PF, ESIC, Medical insurance etc and the record keeping for a person with no commitment to the company.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Why bother with PF, ESIC, Medical insurance etc and the record keeping for a person with no commitment to the company.

I can understand how a 2-week notice period might be impractical for an employer. But not sure how a 3-month notice period implies more of a commitment to the company rather than a shorter one?

Especially since every IT company while hiring always attempts to get the candidate to cut short their existing notice period with their current company!

[hdus001]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Candidate accepts that the job may not be waiting at the end of the notice period, and the employer accepts that the candidate may not join at the end of the notice period. No one can assign guilt to either side. Both side is free to back out without restriction, without guilt.

I wonder how practical this is in the long run.

From an employee POV, even though I have an offer and have tendered my resignation, I HAVE TO continue the job hunt as the offer can be rescinded anytime. Even after getting subsequent offers I still can't stop looking as those offers too can be revoked. If it were me I'd find this situation very stressful, dealing with the hassles of multiple rounds of interviews/take-home exercises etc and dealing with career uncertainties for months at a time.

Similarly, from an employer's POV, I offer someone a job, but I still have to continue the hiring process and all that implies including lining up interviewers, their time (and opportunity costs), agent costs, dealing with uncertainties on whether or not projects can be staffed and deadlines met, making/negotiating multiple offers, for possibly months on end. And perhaps dealing with multiple legal cases enforcing the contract.

Interesting idea though, maybe this is a good way to go, ie make things so intimidating for both sides that employees think many times before leaving jobs or companies before they think of expanding/taking on more work. But then this could be seen as a lose-lose too.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by am1m

I can understand how a 2-week notice period might be impractical for an employer. But not sure how a 3-month notice period implies more of a commitment to the company rather than a shorter one?

Especially since every IT company while hiring always attempts to get the candidate to cut short their existing notice period with their current company!

In The Indian IT industry both the employer and employee view each other with a transactional lens with limited commitment by both. Hence all these selfish practices. For example in my business in Covid19 phase 1 and 2 we cut back salaries of most employees by 10%, 25%, 33% and 50% to tide over the disaster covid19 was to the aviation industry and we got by without sacking a single one of our 1000 odd employees. But a willingness to do that arises only when you know them as people and they are willing to go the extra mile for you. It works both ways. In this thread while I don't condone the unfair practices of the WITCH companies I also can't help observe the I, me & myself attitude of the employees. Just the observations of a retired old man who might be past his sell by date.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Just the observations of a retired old man who might be past his sell by date.

Absolutely not sir. Thank you for your views from a business/employer point of view. Most of us, including me, lack that view and your posts are useful.

The point I was trying to make was a lot of the practices in the IT industry that deviate from the other industries, and can be considered less-than-ideal (especially around hiring and departing, voluntary or otherwise) came about because the nature of work in this industry is different anyway, but also because the HR/Recruiting departments of almost all (not just the big ones) IT companies themselves introduced/pursued those policies.

That doesn't mean of course that at an individual level, after years with a company, good relationships don't get established and as you so correctly put it:

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

But a willingness to do that arises only when you know them as people and they are willing to go the extra mile for you.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by am1m

Absolutely not sir. Thank you for your views from a business/employer point of view. Most of us, including me, lack that view and your posts are useful.

The point I was trying to make was a lot of the practices in the IT industry that deviate from the other industries, and can be considered less-than-ideal (especially around hiring and departing, voluntary or otherwise) came about because the nature of work in this industry is different anyway, but also because the HR/Recruiting departments of almost all (not just the big ones) IT companies themselves introduced/pursued those policies.

That doesn't mean of course that at an individual level, after years with a company, good relationships don't get established and as you so correctly put it:

In the early to mid-1990s the Govt of India was encouraged to understand by the WITCH companies {C wasn't in as yet} that IT was India's global opportunity not to be missed and that IT should be kept free from the shackles of the inspector raj and the more stifling parts of labour laws and politicians should not bring unions into the industry. PVNR & MMS, the fathers of liberalization understood this and that gave birth to the IT boom that many on this forum have benefitted from.

The HR departments of the WITCH companies are Sourcing & Procurement departments. The H sadly is missing for the most part. That is an objective assessment even though as an old world person this whining and bitching I don't fathom.

Thanks to technology and increased standards of living and the change in attitudes it brings we are witnessing - the gig economy, young people desiring flexibility, young being willing to take bigger risks because economic opportunities are of a different league now compared to a mere 25 years ago, young having a monopoly on tech understanding, the very nature of the internet has made us a global village - all these are factors which IT companies, especially the large and medium sized ones are struggling to come to terms with. Some of the young employees want security of income of a traditional job married with the flexibility of being self employed. Gradually over a decade changes will settle in driven by the smaller nimbler companies. Who knows by then we'll have a fresh set of youngsters, the post-internet generation, with their own set of demands!

It is a shift of power away from the employer to the worker without the existence of a union all thanks to technology! All of this will seep from the IT industry to other service industries eventually. The employer and employee are facing a generation gap.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I think companies should adopt the following strategy in future, after any candidate accepts an offer and expects the new employer to wait 60-90 notice days.

The candidate should accept one of the options:

• The candidate reserves the right not to join after notice period. In that case Employer also reserves the right to withdraw the offer if they find another suitable candidate in that time.
• The candidate commits to join at the end of notice period, failing which he/she will pay a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the employer. The employer also commits to hire the employee on the promised day, failing which the employer pays a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the candidate.

Basically you want everyone to follow in the footsteps of Salman Khan, eh

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ai5Kz-Sr3QM

Disclaimer: OT post

[akshaymahajan]

So I join to not pay the penalty and quit in a week and go to the next one? Or are we adding the unfair bond also?

Or we create an opposite of the "buying out notice period".

With the crazy salad ranges at this point, I dont have a real solution.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by akshaymahajan

So I join to not pay the penalty and quit in a week and go to the next one? Or are we adding the unfair bond also?

Oh, I hate one-sided or unfair bonds. That is why I suggested two-sided agreement that is fair to both sides, with the additional option of not signing one.

Regarding your first question, you have another option. Join all the jobs you were offered.

[Latheesh]

Worked in the tech education sector as faculty, broke the bond, and paid bond amount ~ 12x of my monthly take home salary. Notice period was 1 month.

Worked in manufacturing, notice period 1 month, and got relieved in 3 weeks. 1 week got adjusted from the leave balance.

Currently in IT, notice period 3 months (no job change except few internal transfers).

I believe 1 month notice period is more than enough for all Knowledge transfer. If something cannot be done in 1 month, it cannot be done in 3, 6, or 12.

[blue_pulsar]

Originally Posted by Samurai

The candidate should accept one of the options:

• The candidate reserves the right not to join after notice period. In that case Employer also reserves the right to withdraw the offer if they find another suitable candidate in that time.
• The candidate commits to join at the end of notice period, failing which he/she will pay a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the employer. The employer also commits to hire the employee on the promised day, failing which the employer pays a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the candidate. This is similar to the 3 month sale agreement in real estate transactions, where the buyer needs time to secure loan for the purchase. If either party backs out, they have to pay the penalty.

That's it. We don't have to talk about morals or ethics anymore. Just make it a mutually fair contract.

While this could be 'fair' to both parties, I don't think it's feasible. Imagine the number of interviews a company has to take to hire for one position. With your suggestions, I think there will be even more possibility that the candidate won't join. The level of uncertainty is even more. Shopping for offers will only increase. You have probably solved the issue from an employer's perspective to some extent.

I would agree that employers need to have a 2-week notice period. For that, companies need to have a proper succession plan. The 90-day notice period is a ridiculous idea created by our Indian HR companies. It promotes comfort zone and mediocrity, not to mention the offer letter shopping. Now the question - who would enforce it? Just one big company has to implement the idea. Others will follow. That's how industry standards evolve.

[UD17]

Originally Posted by sunilch

Do we see this problem so prevalent in non-IT industry? The answer is a clear No.

I can answer that, even in automobile (ancillary) this problem is very much prevalent. Manufacturing industries mostly follow 3 months notice period, its very difficult to transfer the knowledge in less than 3 months where diverse areas like manufacturing processes/ technology/ products/ vendors/ customers are involved.

This had happened with me for 5 candidates this year. 3 ditched after committing to join and regretted on last day of their notice period. Guess what the answers were very similar, we got better offer from other company.

2 candidates did join, but resigned within their probation period itself citing the reason that they are getting 20% further hike in some other company and if we match that they will stay. Not going to work this way in our firm where annual increments are much higher than the market.

Now we had put a hiring practice in place: Offer significantly better salary (40-50%) than the norm of the market but put a necessary service period (Bond) of 2 to 3 years based on the position. It is working nicely for us till now and we had a great stability. We don't need people leaving now and then, it creates a setback to efficient customer service.

[vj_torqueaddict]

I have changed several companies in my tenure. And let me add my experience.

I graduated just during the worst recession of 2008. I had a very lucrative offer from a startup IT at that time. And "ethically" they delayed the joining date by a year. Glad that they didn't revoke. I did some side gig to earn some money didnt have the luxury to stay at home. Had to earn. This also taught me that no work is small work. I still do whatever is thrown at me without whining or complaining. "Kayakave kailasa"

However, this experience left a bitter taste. This continued again after several years when I was switching jobs. Even after clearing all the rounds. Speaking to the director etc about when I can join etc, i heard nothing back from the HRs. Not even a courtesy call to say I didn't make it. Sometimes HRs said that I have cleared and they will release offer soon only to come back later and say there has been a rejig in org and I better look elsewhere. I am inclined to believe that the HRs found a better candidate. These are not small companies mind you. They are pretty big names. Aircraft manufacturer, Sports channel etc.

So this makes candidates like me not to trust the process and always have a backup offer. Never know when they might come back and say "look elsewhere".

Anyways there isn't a simple approach to solve this. Hiring in anticipation is the root cause of this. My current org doesn't do that thankfully.