Dear sir,
Now a days all the private engineering college managements are playing the wicked game with their employees.They are giving the offer letter,in which the entire benefit is for the management only.They are clearly stated in the offer letter that they can terminate the employee at an instant with out giving notice period also,but if an employee wants to resign the job he has to give three months prior notice or three months salary.I think this is a flaw in their side. here the terms are completely single sided.In some colleges they are harassing the faculty but they are not ready to accept their resignation.suppose if a person is not ready to work in the institution because of the dirty environment in that organisation,he was signed on the single sided agreement(completely favour to the management), on 100rs stamp paper,one day he joined in the another college with out intimation to the old college,and the management had sent a lawyer notice to him to pay the 3 months sal
From India, Tirupati
Now a days all the private engineering college managements are playing the wicked game with their employees.They are giving the offer letter,in which the entire benefit is for the management only.They are clearly stated in the offer letter that they can terminate the employee at an instant with out giving notice period also,but if an employee wants to resign the job he has to give three months prior notice or three months salary.I think this is a flaw in their side. here the terms are completely single sided.In some colleges they are harassing the faculty but they are not ready to accept their resignation.suppose if a person is not ready to work in the institution because of the dirty environment in that organisation,he was signed on the single sided agreement(completely favour to the management), on 100rs stamp paper,one day he joined in the another college with out intimation to the old college,and the management had sent a lawyer notice to him to pay the 3 months sal
From India, Tirupati
Dear msnaidu417,
Whilst what you write certainly appears to almost entirely favour college managements over their faculty, you seem to overlook one critical factor:
Each of those faculty had a CHOICE which they exercised at time of accepting employment - albeit under the provisions of an almost lop-sided contract. They had a CHOICE to accept that contract, negotiate better terms, or at worst - reject the contract entirely and work elsewhere.
I am not a lawyer. Thus, I am not sure whether there are statutory or regulatory requirements that protect a person's employment contract or notice period in private engineering colleges.
But, the truth is that we ALWAYS have a CHOICE! The options may not be terribly attractive. But they exist. And, each of us are FREE to EXERCISE those OPTIONS! Either we Agree or we Walk Away!
The situation you describe is very common to management consultants. Each client we take on is a contractually created and protected relationship. And, the severity or obligations of each contract vary. Some are fair, some inane, while some are obnoxiously client-centric with severe penalties, lunatic non-compete clauses, and terrible exclusionary provisions etc.
When I sign up a client, the onus is on me to read the contract thoroughly prior to accepting and signing it. It is not uncommon to find many management consultants walk away from lucrative assignments with marquee brands due to contractual disagreements. But, we do it PRIOR to signing the contract. Yet, there are many who will accept those assignments regardless of those same limitations. Each to their own!
What is not fair is to first sign the dotted line and then complain of its unfairness AFTER having accepted it. Unless of course - an individual was made to commit to that contract under duress, inducement, or threat of harm to self or others.
Also, lack of employment opportunities (at time of accepting an unfair contract) may be an exigent circumstance, but it isn't either duress or inducement.
A critical fact that over 99% of prospective employees fail to realise while accepting a job (probably due to their enthusiasm on getting a job in the first place) is that any contract will ALWAYS FAVOUR THE MAKER. This is a rule the world over for any type of contract - unless the construct, content, and provisions of that particular contract are regulated by legislation. That is why lawyers exist. How many times do prospective employees take a copy of the employment contract to THEIR LAWYER prior to signing it? Almost Never! Why? Because most never realise that what they are signing is a legally enforceable document that will live far longer than their initial exuberance at getting a job.
You will be surprised how many times I've suggested to well qualified senior professionals to get their employment contract vetted by an independent lawyer. I am yet to have any of them heed my suggestion. And, some have learnt the very hard way after paying a substantial financial and/or psychological price! But, such is life I suppose.
Please don't misunderstand me. I realise there are a number of unscrupulous operators who prey upon people's vulnerabilities. And, they can and do cause considerable psychological and/or financial damage to their employees.
But, until statutory or legislative provisions do not mandate and/or regulate employment contracts, it will always be a case of Caveat Emptor.
I wish your friend/s All the Very Best and I am sure better days are just round the corner for them!
Take Care ...
From India, Gurgaon
95Whilst what you write certainly appears to almost entirely favour college managements over their faculty, you seem to overlook one critical factor:
Each of those faculty had a CHOICE which they exercised at time of accepting employment - albeit under the provisions of an almost lop-sided contract. They had a CHOICE to accept that contract, negotiate better terms, or at worst - reject the contract entirely and work elsewhere.
I am not a lawyer. Thus, I am not sure whether there are statutory or regulatory requirements that protect a person's employment contract or notice period in private engineering colleges.
But, the truth is that we ALWAYS have a CHOICE! The options may not be terribly attractive. But they exist. And, each of us are FREE to EXERCISE those OPTIONS! Either we Agree or we Walk Away!
The situation you describe is very common to management consultants. Each client we take on is a contractually created and protected relationship. And, the severity or obligations of each contract vary. Some are fair, some inane, while some are obnoxiously client-centric with severe penalties, lunatic non-compete clauses, and terrible exclusionary provisions etc.
When I sign up a client, the onus is on me to read the contract thoroughly prior to accepting and signing it. It is not uncommon to find many management consultants walk away from lucrative assignments with marquee brands due to contractual disagreements. But, we do it PRIOR to signing the contract. Yet, there are many who will accept those assignments regardless of those same limitations. Each to their own!
What is not fair is to first sign the dotted line and then complain of its unfairness AFTER having accepted it. Unless of course - an individual was made to commit to that contract under duress, inducement, or threat of harm to self or others.
Also, lack of employment opportunities (at time of accepting an unfair contract) may be an exigent circumstance, but it isn't either duress or inducement.
A critical fact that over 99% of prospective employees fail to realise while accepting a job (probably due to their enthusiasm on getting a job in the first place) is that any contract will ALWAYS FAVOUR THE MAKER. This is a rule the world over for any type of contract - unless the construct, content, and provisions of that particular contract are regulated by legislation. That is why lawyers exist. How many times do prospective employees take a copy of the employment contract to THEIR LAWYER prior to signing it? Almost Never! Why? Because most never realise that what they are signing is a legally enforceable document that will live far longer than their initial exuberance at getting a job.
You will be surprised how many times I've suggested to well qualified senior professionals to get their employment contract vetted by an independent lawyer. I am yet to have any of them heed my suggestion. And, some have learnt the very hard way after paying a substantial financial and/or psychological price! But, such is life I suppose.
Please don't misunderstand me. I realise there are a number of unscrupulous operators who prey upon people's vulnerabilities. And, they can and do cause considerable psychological and/or financial damage to their employees.
But, until statutory or legislative provisions do not mandate and/or regulate employment contracts, it will always be a case of Caveat Emptor.
I wish your friend/s All the Very Best and I am sure better days are just round the corner for them!
Take Care ...
From India, Gurgaon
Excellent response Gaurav Sareen--can't get any better.
In a way, this also addresses many postings in CiteHR reg Employer sending legal notice for breaking Bond, etc
The whole irony is that many 'think after the act'--while it always has to be the other way-round.
Your remarks about "CHOICE' is, in general, applicable to almost all situations--not just the one under discussion. This, I think, is another facet of the 'hesitation to take the responsibility for one's action(s)' OR in another way--'I act, YOU face the consequences'--especially if they aren't to my liking.
Coming to the options open to msnaidu417/his friend, I think he needs to decide which of the THREE options are preferable for him.
1] Whether to ignore the lawyer notice--and be open to further mental/legal tension/situations [one of which COULD be uncomfortable situations in the new job]?
2] Pay-up the 3 months salary & be done with it [with everything in black & white]--AND learn the lesson of this experience.
3] Fight the issue legally.
Let there be no confusion that this is a 'right' or 'wrong' issue--IT'S NOT. It all depends on what priorities he sets for himself in the given set of circumstances.
For eg., if I had all time under the sun AND know some lawyer closely AND had lots of expendable money--then MY choice of the course-of-action would unhesitatingly be the THIRD option mentioned above.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
In a way, this also addresses many postings in CiteHR reg Employer sending legal notice for breaking Bond, etc
The whole irony is that many 'think after the act'--while it always has to be the other way-round.
Your remarks about "CHOICE' is, in general, applicable to almost all situations--not just the one under discussion. This, I think, is another facet of the 'hesitation to take the responsibility for one's action(s)' OR in another way--'I act, YOU face the consequences'--especially if they aren't to my liking.
Coming to the options open to msnaidu417/his friend, I think he needs to decide which of the THREE options are preferable for him.
1] Whether to ignore the lawyer notice--and be open to further mental/legal tension/situations [one of which COULD be uncomfortable situations in the new job]?
2] Pay-up the 3 months salary & be done with it [with everything in black & white]--AND learn the lesson of this experience.
3] Fight the issue legally.
Let there be no confusion that this is a 'right' or 'wrong' issue--IT'S NOT. It all depends on what priorities he sets for himself in the given set of circumstances.
For eg., if I had all time under the sun AND know some lawyer closely AND had lots of expendable money--then MY choice of the course-of-action would unhesitatingly be the THIRD option mentioned above.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Thank you TS - Much Appreciated!
I completely agree with your views re: 'Thinking after the Fact' and 'Hesitation to take Responsibility for one's Actions'.
And, increasingly I am seeing an attitude of 'Entitlement' emerging - both - on this forum as well as in the 'real bricks and mortar' world. And, to make it worse, its being compounded by a laissez-faire attitude towards one's actions and their possible consequences.
But, these I suppose are topics for another discussion.
Re: your 3 options to the post-initiator, I totally agree. Especially with your vivid rationale for choosing (or not choosing) option 3.
As a risk consultant, I would like to add to your suggestions for msnaidu417's benefit:
1. Write down total cost of option 2. This should be equal to 3 months' salary. The invaluable experience and learning for life (as you so accurately point out) is a FREE BONUS!
2. Write down estimated financial cost of option 3. Always multiply any number provided by a lawyer by at least a multiple of 3.
3. Write down estimate time cost of option 3. Again, multiple any duration estimate given by a lawyer by at least a multiple of 3.
4. Convert the time estimate of option 3 to a numerical value: (EST. NO. of DAYS x CURRENT SALARY PER DAY)
5. Add the Financial Estimate + Cost of Estimate Time. This is the Estimated Total Cost of Option 3
6. Compare Total Cost of Option 2 with Estimated Total Cost of Option 3.
7. Answer as to which option is a better bet will be self-evident.
I am sure msnaidu417 has got a number of thoughts to take to his/her friend for their consideration and making a suitable decision for themselves.
Kind regards,
From India, Gurgaon
I completely agree with your views re: 'Thinking after the Fact' and 'Hesitation to take Responsibility for one's Actions'.
And, increasingly I am seeing an attitude of 'Entitlement' emerging - both - on this forum as well as in the 'real bricks and mortar' world. And, to make it worse, its being compounded by a laissez-faire attitude towards one's actions and their possible consequences.
But, these I suppose are topics for another discussion.
Re: your 3 options to the post-initiator, I totally agree. Especially with your vivid rationale for choosing (or not choosing) option 3.
As a risk consultant, I would like to add to your suggestions for msnaidu417's benefit:
1. Write down total cost of option 2. This should be equal to 3 months' salary. The invaluable experience and learning for life (as you so accurately point out) is a FREE BONUS!
2. Write down estimated financial cost of option 3. Always multiply any number provided by a lawyer by at least a multiple of 3.
3. Write down estimate time cost of option 3. Again, multiple any duration estimate given by a lawyer by at least a multiple of 3.
4. Convert the time estimate of option 3 to a numerical value: (EST. NO. of DAYS x CURRENT SALARY PER DAY)
5. Add the Financial Estimate + Cost of Estimate Time. This is the Estimated Total Cost of Option 3
6. Compare Total Cost of Option 2 with Estimated Total Cost of Option 3.
7. Answer as to which option is a better bet will be self-evident.
I am sure msnaidu417 has got a number of thoughts to take to his/her friend for their consideration and making a suitable decision for themselves.
Kind regards,
From India, Gurgaon
See the latest discussion regarding Service bond
https://www.citehr.com/423676-legali...#ixzz24kAuWayb
From India, Kochi
https://www.citehr.com/423676-legali...#ixzz24kAuWayb
From India, Kochi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
