Employer wants to change my notice period to 3 months

Sandtree

Doshwaster said:

Very different to colleagues in the US where there is no legal period at all on either side and it is only polite to give your employer 2 weeks.

Normally the differences with US colleagues is vast, a tiny number of paid days off that have to cover both sick and holiday, little employee protection legislation, no statutory right to breaks, no statutory paid paternity/maternity leave etc.

There are lots of work culture differences too, despite only having an average of 10 paid days off a year the majority of the US dont use it all up each year, they typically work longer hours, and for those that are no longer at the coal face salaries tend to be much higher (and taxes lower).

Having worked for a multi-national company head officed in the US the best thing that could happen to you was becoming part of a US based team with a US based line manager... get a much bigger salary but retain the UK rights/protections/benefits etc

Doshwaster

Sandtree said:

Doshwaster said:

Very different to colleagues in the US where there is no legal period at all on either side and it is only polite to give your employer 2 weeks.

Normally the differences with US colleagues is vast, a tiny number of paid days off that have to cover both sick and holiday, little employee protection legislation, no statutory right to breaks, no statutory paid paternity/maternity leave etc.

I once had a colleague in the US who gave birth and was sending emails from her hospital bed a few hours later. ("P.S. it was a girl")

Corporate culture is brutal. You can have 20 years service and be told to leave with no notice or compensation. When were were acquired by a bigger company, about 30 people in the US were fired on the spot while in the UK we they had to go  through a statutory consultation exercise over redundancies and new contracts.

But as you said, pay is a lot higher, taxes generally lower and unless you live in a big city living costs lower too. On the downside are the costs of health insurance and the lack of job security. I had the chance to relocate to our US office once but declined the offer. Fun place to visit on expenses but not somewhere I'd want to move to permanently.

ReadingTim

It works both way, so if they want to get rid of you, they also need to give you three month's notice instead of one (or 3 times more payment in lieu of notice).  Could be handy if times are tough and they're thinking of getting rid of people.  

Also, if you're currently on 11 week's notice due to length of service, but they're only required to give you 4, then it's massively stacked in their favour already, so this evens it out, and an extra week on your side is really neither here nor there.  

Kicking up a fuss or trying to leverage a payrise off the back of this would probably mark you out as being a bit "awkward", so I'd let it slide - pick your battles, 'cos this one really ain't worth dying in a ditch over.  

General_Grant

ReadingTim said:

It works both way, so if they want to get rid of you, they also need to give you three month's notice instead of one (or 3 times more payment in lieu of notice).  Could be handy if times are tough and they're thinking of getting rid of people.  

Also, if you're currently on 11 week's notice due to length of service, but they're only required to give you 4, then it's massively stacked in their favour already, so this evens it out, and an extra week on your side is really neither here nor there.  

Kicking up a fuss or trying to leverage a payrise off the back of this would probably mark you out as being a bit "awkward", so I'd let it slide - pick your battles, 'cos this one really ain't worth dying in a ditch over.  

I'm afraid you don't understand the law on notice required to be given by an employer to an employee in the OP's situation regarding length of service.

The OP's situation is governed by contract in relation to the notice they have to give because it is more than required by statute.  However, with 11 completed years service the OP would, by law, be entitled to 11 weeks and this increases to 12 weeks once 12 years have been completed.  If there is no longer notice in the contract, it does not increase beyond 12 weeks.

nyermen

Suspect they're worried about poaching, particularly in the current climate.  Has there been any suggestion of some sort of cost of living increase?  Maybe an announcement that they can't afford them is due and they want to lock people into longer periods first?

(For note: My contract says the same as OP with length of service adjustment - 4 weeks notice from my side, and 12 from theirs)

Undervalued

ReadingTim said:

It works both way, so if they want to get rid of you, they also need to give you three month's notice instead of one (or 3 times more payment in lieu of notice).  Could be handy if times are tough and they're thinking of getting rid of people.  

Also, if you're currently on 11 week's notice due to length of service, but they're only required to give you 4, then it's massively stacked in their favour already, so this evens it out, and an extra week on your side is really neither here nor there.  

Kicking up a fuss or trying to leverage a payrise off the back of this would probably mark you out as being a bit "awkward", so I'd let it slide - pick your battles, 'cos this one really ain't worth dying in a ditch over.  

That wouldn't be lawful!

An employer is legally obliged to give at least one week's notice for each complete year of service (up to a maximum of 12). There can be a contractual agreement for more, in which case they must honour it, but a contract that specified less would not be enforceable.

An employee only ever has to give one week's notice, regardless of length of service, unless there is a contractual agreement for more.

There is no legal requirement for notice to be equal either way.