Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MatthewAinsworth
    • By MatthewAinsworth 5th Jan 18, 1:24 PM
    • 3,011Posts
    • 1,193Thanks
    MatthewAinsworth
    Leaving a job is a breach of a "permanent" contract...
    • #1
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:24 PM
    Leaving a job is a breach of a "permanent" contract... 5th Jan 18 at 1:24 PM
    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
Page 1
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 5th Jan 18, 1:31 PM
    • 4,396 Posts
    • 7,331 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:31 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:31 PM
    Since there is no such thing as a permanent contract, this is a fallacious and spurious proposition. In other words, it's completely ridiculous.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Jan 18, 1:31 PM
    • 1,797 Posts
    • 1,632 Thanks
    Comms69
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:31 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:31 PM
    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 permanent
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 5th Jan 18, 1:32 PM
    • 4,415 Posts
    • 4,638 Thanks
    TELLIT01
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:32 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:32 PM
    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).
    Originally posted by MatthewAinsworth
    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.
    • MatthewAinsworth
    • By MatthewAinsworth 5th Jan 18, 2:03 PM
    • 3,011 Posts
    • 1,193 Thanks
    MatthewAinsworth
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:03 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:03 PM
    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
    • BorisThomson
    • By BorisThomson 5th Jan 18, 2:09 PM
    • 782 Posts
    • 1,392 Thanks
    BorisThomson
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:09 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:09 PM
    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
    Originally posted by MatthewAinsworth
    You're advocating zero hours contracts on a board for employee rights.

    This has to be a wind up!
    • Soot2006
    • By Soot2006 5th Jan 18, 2:22 PM
    • 1,222 Posts
    • 1,226 Thanks
    Soot2006
    • #7
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:22 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:22 PM
    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
    Originally posted by MatthewAinsworth
    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.
    • elsien
    • By elsien 5th Jan 18, 2:27 PM
    • 15,658 Posts
    • 39,478 Thanks
    elsien
    • #8
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:27 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:27 PM
    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.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Jan 18, 2:28 PM
    • 1,797 Posts
    • 1,632 Thanks
    Comms69
    • #9
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:28 PM
    • #9
    • 5th Jan 18, 2:28 PM
    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
    Originally posted by MatthewAinsworth


    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 there
    Last edited by Comms69; 05-01-2018 at 2:30 PM.
    • Diamandis
    • By Diamandis 5th Jan 18, 2:38 PM
    • 140 Posts
    • 236 Thanks
    Diamandis
    Sorry, what's your point here? Just wanted to share your bizarre opinion or is there more to this?
    • shortcrust
    • By shortcrust 5th Jan 18, 2:46 PM
    • 1,509 Posts
    • 1,974 Thanks
    shortcrust
    Perhaps the OP's account has been hacked? (by a very weird hacker...)
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Jan 18, 2:46 PM
    • 1,797 Posts
    • 1,632 Thanks
    Comms69
    Perhaps the OP's account has been hacked?
    Originally posted by shortcrust
    If you check the posting history you wouldn't think so
    • shortcrust
    • By shortcrust 5th Jan 18, 2:49 PM
    • 1,509 Posts
    • 1,974 Thanks
    shortcrust
    If you check the posting history you wouldn't think so
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Oh, yeah.
    • MatthewAinsworth
    • By MatthewAinsworth 5th Jan 18, 2:54 PM
    • 3,011 Posts
    • 1,193 Thanks
    MatthewAinsworth
    Boris - I didn't know where else to put it, but limiting rights and wages helps create more jobs, which in turn would naturally increase wages, also it means cheaper products and services for the end customer - not everyone is a worker but everybody is a customer (ie pensioners, etc)

    Scot - you do describe one method of motivation, although not the only one, as one example fear works well too - in America a lot of workers don't even take their annual leave, also after a long time at a company an employee might both take it for granted and be taken for granted, I have to consciously think back to previous jobs to remind myself, other people I've worked with havent had a worse experience and seem more miserable because they don't know they've got it good

    Elsien - if employer and employee had equal rights, the employee could fire the employer for breach of contract/misconduct and could make them redundant if they could prove they had an alternative income or didn't need the money. It's just making it equal for both sides

    Comms - I intend to drive the same car and live in the same house even when I'm a millionaire I can't stand inefficiency or waste, and I'm used to living a miserly life
    • MatthewAinsworth
    • By MatthewAinsworth 5th Jan 18, 2:55 PM
    • 3,011 Posts
    • 1,193 Thanks
    MatthewAinsworth
    Diamondis - your first assumption is the correct explanation, I enjoy philosophical debate
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Jan 18, 3:07 PM
    • 1,797 Posts
    • 1,632 Thanks
    Comms69
    Boris - I didn't know where else to put it, but limiting rights and wages helps create more jobs, which in turn would naturally increase wages, also it means cheaper products and services for the end customer - not everyone is a worker but everybody is a customer (ie pensioners, etc)

    Scot - you do describe one method of motivation, although not the only one, as one example fear works well too - in America a lot of workers don't even take their annual leave, also after a long time at a company an employee might both take it for granted and be taken for granted, I have to consciously think back to previous jobs to remind myself, other people I've worked with havent had a worse experience and seem more miserable because they don't know they've got it good

    Elsien - if employer and employee had equal rights, the employee could fire the employer for breach of contract/misconduct and could make them redundant if they could prove they had an alternative income or didn't need the money. It's just making it equal for both sides

    Comms - I intend to drive the same car and live in the same house even when I'm a millionaire I can't stand inefficiency or waste, and I'm used to living a miserly life
    Originally posted by MatthewAinsworth
    any eta on that?
    • MatthewAinsworth
    • By MatthewAinsworth 5th Jan 18, 3:15 PM
    • 3,011 Posts
    • 1,193 Thanks
    MatthewAinsworth
    Comms - working backwards, if my fund keeps doubling every 5 years...

    5 years before 1m I need 500k
    10 years before I need 250k
    15 years before need 125k
    20 years before I need 62.5k
    25 years before I need 31.25k
    30 years before I need just less than 16k
    35 years before I need 8k - that's where I'm at

    That's if I make no extra contributions (although I will) - behold the power of compounding
    And I'm young enough

    Google Vanguard global small cap...
    • badmemory
    • By badmemory 5th Jan 18, 3:16 PM
    • 1,223 Posts
    • 1,336 Thanks
    badmemory

    in America a lot of workers don't even take their annual leave
    Originally posted by MatthewAinsworth
    This isn't because they love their job or their employer but because they are afraid they will get sacked for taking that leave.
    • greenbee
    • By greenbee 5th Jan 18, 3:16 PM
    • 12,340 Posts
    • 217,092 Thanks
    greenbee
    Elsien - if employer and employee had equal rights, the employee could fire the employer for breach of contract/misconduct and could make them redundant if they could prove they had an alternative income or didn't need the money. It's just making it equal for both sides
    Originally posted by MatthewAinsworth
    You can 'fire' your employer whenever you like. You just hand in your notice. You don't have to prove anything. You just have to honour your notice period (as do they) although they may offer to waive this. So I'm not quite sure what you're saying that's any different to what already happens.

    Employees in the US don't fail to take their Paid Time Off (it's not holiday... it can be used for sick leave or holiday) quite as much as UK urban myth suggests. For a start, they may need to reserve some in case of sickness/caring responsibilities etc. as they only get a single allocation to cover the lot. And they do take holiday, but it's not the norm to take 2 consecutive weeks as it is in Europe. Many US employees are on contract at will (can be dismissed with no notice) or on two weeks' notice - these apply on both sides and create a culture of uncertainty. Notice periods are usually negotiable when employees resign, as if people are moving on they will often offer a handover period of a week or two, so the effective date of resignation is in the future even if there is no requirement for it to be.
    • MatthewAinsworth
    • By MatthewAinsworth 5th Jan 18, 3:20 PM
    • 3,011 Posts
    • 1,193 Thanks
    MatthewAinsworth
    Bad memory - that's what I'm trying to say, fear is a cheaper way to motivate people than paying them well

    Greenbee - I'm suggesting making it so that you can only fire the employer on the same terms they can fire you, making it harder to leave
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,479Posts Today

8,223Users online

Martin's Twitter