Leaving a job is a breach of a "permanent" contract...
Legacy_user
Posts: 0 Newbie
Hi everyone
I feel the expectation of an employer to honour a permanent contract eternally but not the employee is wrong in law. If you were to leave a phone contract prematurely you'd have to buy it out, why do we not have the same with employment too? The employer should be able to sue the employee the value of the work they're nolonger providing, for as long as the contract would otherwise apply (I.e. in perpetuity).
This would increase the supply of labour which would help keep wages and conditions under control, which would ultimately help everybody's investments. With this change employers wouldn't be forced to increase wages unless it was stipulated in contract
I feel the expectation of an employer to honour a permanent contract eternally but not the employee is wrong in law. If you were to leave a phone contract prematurely you'd have to buy it out, why do we not have the same with employment too? The employer should be able to sue the employee the value of the work they're nolonger providing, for as long as the contract would otherwise apply (I.e. in perpetuity).
This would increase the supply of labour which would help keep wages and conditions under control, which would ultimately help everybody's investments. With this change employers wouldn't be forced to increase wages unless it was stipulated in contract
0
Comments
-
Since there is no such thing as a permanent contract, this is a fallacious and spurious proposition. In other words, it's completely ridiculous.0
-
Indeed, infact why pay them at all, just bring back slavery....
Ofcourse the opposite could happen and everyone refuses to work and businesses therefore collapse.
However just fyi, employment contracts aren't permanent0 -
MatthewAinsworth wrote: »Hi everyone
I feel the expectation of an employer to honour a permanent contract eternally but not the employee is wrong in law. If you were to leave a phone contract prematurely you'd have to buy it out, why do we not have the same with employment too? The employer should be able to sue the employee the value of the work they're nolonger providing, for as long as the contract would otherwise apply (I.e. in perpetuity).
There is a contract between the employer and the employee, and there is also a break clause i.e. notice period which applied both ways. If a 'permanent' contract was precisely that it would amount to slavery or servitude as the employee would have no freedom. It would be just as bad for the employer because they would be unable to get rid of an employee for any reason either.0 -
Is it only the break clauses that make it non permanent? If so the employer generally has to find fault or prove they don't need the employee, whereas the employee needs to prove nothing, this seems like a mismatch - the employee could fire the company if the company flouts rules or if the employee found the company "redundant" I.e the employee could show that they had an alternative offer if income / pension
If we made "permanent" contracts a pain in the butt, we'd see a shift more towards fixed term and zero hours, this may be good for business itself, since "permanent" contracts don't give the employer much real security compared to what they give the employee, so they're not mutual0 -
MatthewAinsworth wrote: »Is it only the break clauses that make it non permanent? If so the employer generally has to find fault or prove they don't need the employee, whereas the employee needs to prove nothing, this seems like a mismatch - the employee could fire the company if the company flouts rules or if the employee found the company "redundant" I.e the employee could show that they had an alternative offer if income / pension
If we made "permanent" contracts a pain in the butt, we'd see a shift more towards fixed term and zero hours, this may be good for business itself, since "permanent" contracts don't give the employer much real security compared to what they give the employee, so they're not mutual
You're advocating zero hours contracts on a board for employee rights.
This has to be a wind up!0 -
MatthewAinsworth wrote: »Is it only the break clauses that make it non permanent? If so the employer generally has to find fault or prove they don't need the employee, whereas the employee needs to prove nothing, this seems like a mismatch - the employee could fire the company if the company flouts rules or if the employee found the company "redundant" I.e the employee could show that they had an alternative offer if income / pension
If we made "permanent" contracts a pain in the butt, we'd see a shift more towards fixed term and zero hours, this may be good for business itself, since "permanent" contracts don't give the employer much real security compared to what they give the employee, so they're not mutual
By "good for business" you mean the employer has less obligations towards the employees? I.e. good for profit.
Profit is not necessarily good for business. In my sector there are many fixed contracts and also zero-hours contracts. However, we try to move employees onto "permanent" contracts as as they have shown their value to the company (in terms of commitment, skills, etc). This costs us a lot more, of course, but the employees feel more secure, feel wanted/valued. This makes them identify with the company rather than feel like outsiders, which in turn = better output. Given that we're a customer facing company, the happier and more efficient the employees, the better our reputation and the more pleasant and harmonious the work environment. Yes, sometimes employees get a better or different offer elsewhere and they leave and then we have top train someone new. Because they are generally happy here, however, they also sometimes come back a few years later.0 -
So an employer can behave as appallingly as they like, but the employee can't leave because that would be a breach of contract?
And those are terms you would be happy to work under?All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.0 -
MatthewAinsworth wrote: »Is it only the break clauses that make it non permanent? If so the employer generally has to find fault or prove they don't need the employee, whereas the employee needs to prove nothing, this seems like a mismatch - the employee could fire the company if the company flouts rules or if the employee found the company "redundant" I.e the employee could show that they had an alternative offer if income / pension
If we made "permanent" contracts a pain in the butt, we'd see a shift more towards fixed term and zero hours, this may be good for business itself, since "permanent" contracts don't give the employer much real security compared to what they give the employee, so they're not mutual
You know what gives employers security? - treating staff well.
Then again you were looking to get finance for a 13 year old car, so I suspect something is not quite clicking up stairs.
Incase anyone is interested: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/search.php?searchid=175299844 - 229 threads started, some great ones there0 -
Sorry, what's your point here? Just wanted to share your bizarre opinion or is there more to this?0
-
Perhaps the OP's account has been hacked? (by a very weird hacker...)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards