To work these notice periods are ridiculous?

[Duckingella]

Company DH works for has a new owner;new order has issued new contracts.

DH has read new contract after receiving it this morning and found that the new owner wants a notice period of 6 weeks for employees who have been there less than one month and 12 weeks for those there more than one month.

I personally feel a 12 week notice period basically make it impossible for anyone to get a new job as not many potential employers would be prepared to wait 3 months to fill a position once a job offer is made.

As above 6 weeks is still a long time to wait.

I think a more reasonable notice period should be 1 week for less than a months service and 4 weeks after that.

Depends on the sector, really.

3 months is perfectly standard in my area, 6 months for senior people (though that is often negotiated down)

You can look at the bright side, if they want to get rid of him they've gotta give 3 months that way as well

Is that across the board for all posts? 3 months is very normal for middle management up IME

DH's last job he was on 6 months. However, his employer knew that he was coming up to retirement.

Same as above, 3 months is standard in my industry (professional services) and I have been on 6 months notice as a senior person. As someone who has hired a good number of people you just factor it into your planning. I would always wait a few extra months for the better candidate and their notice period wouldn’t factor at all into my decision.

it might be different in other industries, though.

3 months is pretty standard for many companies for all but the most junior/transient roles. 6 weeks in first month is odd, as up to 6 months is usually a probation period and only very limited notice required on either side (often 1 week but in reality is often immediate if both parties agree it is not working out). After the 6 months probation is passed then yes 3 months is very normal and that's what we expect to wait when recruiting in.

Three months is very normal in more senior roles (basically any management) in my industry, and the recruiter would expect the new person to have that length of notice. They do sometimes get negotiated down, but that's a bonus rather than an expectation.

A month is normal for less senior roles, so six weeks is a bit more than that but not a big deal. I recruit regularly for lower level roles and a six week wait would be fine. We might favour someone who could start earlier if it was between two very good candidates, but generally we'd rather wait for someone good than get someone in quickly.

I'm in a senior role and on 3 months notice, employers know at those levels they are likely waiting 3 months for the right candidate.

Yes, the notice periods are normally the same either way. When DH's company closed their UK office they discovered that the staff were on a mix of 1/3/6 month notice periods, and they had to keep paying them.

You might want to read up on the TUPE regulations, which govern changes to contract when a company changes ownership. This is an interesting one though, as they can't force changes unless they are an improvement, and because notice periods are two way, it's not clear which way this one goes.

If there's any risk of restructuring under the new ownership, a longer notice period might be an advantage.

3 months notice is standard in my industry from the first line of management up.

I'm on 3 months, dp is on 6 months. Quite normal

He's in a pretty generic industry;you could say semi skilled as you need to do a training course and license to do it but in general when people need to fill roles in this industry they want to do so quickly.

The irony is that DH's new boss wouldn't want to wait that long to fill a role either.

That’s very standard isn’t it? I’ve had a 3 month notice period everywhere I’ve worked, and never had any issues with new employers waiting out the notice period.

3 months standard for management or skilled jobs. Impossible to get replacement staff and handover inside one month. New employer would be on same terms.

6 months is tricky, my dh has that and quit a job with no new role to go to and took a chance on finding something! He was out of work for only two months. It took several months to hire him due to slow process of interviews

3 months is standard in my industry. It gives time for hand over and recruitment to be well underway if not completed.

Notice periods generally Cavour the employee as they need to be given notice or paid for it but an employee can’t be forced to work notice. Three months is standard for most skilled roles.

It's utter shit though - I am on 3 months and have been the last few jobs EVERY time I get a new job, the new employer wants to put me on 3 months but also expects me to try and negotiate a quicker start

3 months is very, very common these days. I personally think it’s crap as by the time someone hands in their notice they’re so close to checking out, and 12 weeks is just such a long time (a quarter of the year!) but yes, standard especially in my industry. Many negotiate it down in my experience to ~6-8 weeks.

My notice period is 3 months.. normal in my industry in the UK

It’s standard in finance; it jumps to 6 months for more senior positions

Employers are perfectly fine to wait.

3 months notice has become much more common in any professional or skilled job.

He could look round for somewhere else to work, but he might find that the contract is the same.

Employers are perfectly fine to wait. Not in my experience - they want to try to get you in ASAP but still have you on 3 months when you join.