[V.Narayan]

Infosys, Mahindra Tech & WIPRO rescind offer letters already issued to fresh engineers on flimsy grounds

https://www.india.com/business/infos...voked-5666049/

Doesn't sound good!

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Doesn't sound good!

While it doesn't sound good, I am sure it is ethical. We know how much Wipro cares about ethical behavior.

That said, this is nothing new. I have seen this happen going back to 10-15 years. I used to get such candidates all the time, those who want to join a small company while awaiting the call from an IT giant which had given them campus placement. When the call finally comes, some would leave, some would stay. The real crazy part, some people wait for a year without taking up any other job. Then they show up for job interviews with one year of timepass on their resume.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Samurai

That said, this is nothing new. I have seen this happen going back to 10-15 years.

Yes, even before that this was a standard practice. 20 years ago, my batchmates who had offers from the big 3 back then through campus placements had to wait almost a year before joining. The companies kept postponing their joining date citing some reason or the other. (The actual reason was the dot-com bust of 2001.) Those of us who got jobs outside of campus placements with smaller companies were able to begin our careers and start making money (at least some! starting salaries were really bad back then) almost a year earlier than those guys who were ironically, academically the best students in the batch (a necessary prerequisite back then to being eligible to attend interviews with the bigger companies).

Originally Posted by Samurai

While it doesn't sound good, I am sure it is ethical.

absolutely, decades of consistently ethical behavior! Glad that employees have several other options these days and that the balance is shifting at least somewhat.

[Turbohead]

These days even head hunters are expecting 'ethical' candidates!

A head hunter connected with me the other day and asked me about my notice period. On hearing that it was 60 days, they said they'll only roll out the offer if we won't use it to gather other offers. I assured them that if they offer a good deal, I wouldn't have any meaningful reason to go hunt for more offers.

On further questioning my salary expectations, here's the reply I got- "100% hike? How can you prove that your worth 'so much'? (3 YOE in my first firm) Do you have any other offer letters to prove it?"

These people think that it isn't ethical for candidates to use their offer letters to gather counter offers from their competitors but find it extremely ethical to poach candidates with existing offers from the same competitors. Talk about having the cake and eating it too!

Corporate world is like white washed tombs- clean on the outside but disgusting on the inside. I've heard so much about it in my younger days but it still doesn't case to amaze me!

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

Corporate world is like white washed tombs- clean on the outside but disgusting on the inside. I've heard so much about it in my younger days but it still doesn't case to amaze me!

This is not a fair thing to say.

If I make an offer to hire someone for X amount, I expect a YES or a NO. I really don't want a may be. A may be is almost a NO, because I have to keep searching just in case the candidate doesn't join.

When a selected candidate says YES and keeps the option to say NO after 60-90 days, then it is a may be.

I think companies should adopt the following strategy in future, after any candidate accepts an offer and expects the new employer to wait 60-90 notice days.

The candidate should accept one of the options:

• The candidate reserves the right not to join after notice period. In that case Employer also reserves the right to withdraw the offer if they find another suitable candidate in that time.
• The candidate commits to join at the end of notice period, failing which he/she will pay a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the employer. The employer also commits to hire the employee on the promised day, failing which the employer pays a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the candidate. This is similar to the 3 month sale agreement in real estate transactions, where the buyer needs time to secure loan for the purchase. If either party backs out, they have to pay the penalty.

That's it. We don't have to talk about morals or ethics anymore. Just make it a mutually fair contract.

[Gansan]

Originally Posted by Samurai

While it doesn't sound good, I am sure it is ethical. We know how much Wipro cares about ethical behavior.

This will take a psychological toll on the youngsters. They would have proudly told their friends and relatives about their placement with a big company. Happened to a nephew of mine in 2016. He got campus placement from TCS but was not onboarded for eight months after graduation. He was constantly told to wait, whenever he contacted. Poor fellow was in a funk. Then he applied to another company and went for the interview. When questioned about the eight month gap he told about the situation. They asked him to show the offer letter and then selected him for the same package. TCS did call him for onboarding after another seven months but by that time a bond was in force with his employer, so he refused to join.

Five years down the line he has now quit that company and is now working for TCS in a higher position.

[sunilch]

Originally Posted by Samurai

This is not a fair thing to say.

.....

I think companies should adopt the following strategy in future, after any candidate accepts an offer and expects the new employer to wait 60-90 notice days.

The candidate should accept one of the options:

• The candidate reserves the right not to join after notice period. In that case Employer also reserves the right to withdraw the offer if they find another suitable candidate in that time.
• The candidate commits to join at the end of notice period, failing which he/she will pay a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the employer. The employer also commits to hire the employee on the promised day, failing which the employer pays a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the candidate. This is similar to the 3 month sale agreement in real estate transactions, where the buyer needs time to secure loan for the purchase. If either party backs out, they have to pay the penalty.

That's it. We don't have to talk about morals or ethics anymore. Just make it a mutually fair contract.

This is a Chicken and Egg situation currently prevalent due to large number of openings and unfair notice period (3 months) in IT industry.

Do we see this problem so prevalent in non-IT industry? The answer is a clear No.

Instead of the complex solution you have proposed, the easier and wiser approach will be to reduce the notice period to simply 1 month or lesser.

The candidate will have to join a company sooner than later and hence will have less time or opportunity to think/go about hopping.

Companies will come to know the final outcome faster.

Demand/Supply will stabilize over a period anyways and hence we will see these instances reducing in count eventually.

But, I guess its a wishful thinking that employers will be flexible (more so the larger service companies) on this front

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I think companies should adopt the following strategy in future, after any candidate accepts an offer and expects the new employer to wait 60-90 notice days.

Or perhaps standardize notice periods across the industry to be 2 weeks to 4 weeks (maximum and only for specialized, senior roles)?

Employers don't have to wait forever for candidates to come on board. Candidates don't have time and less incentive to shop around. Candidates don't lose job opportunities because of unreasonably long notice periods.

And frankly, how many IT jobs roles are there where a logical transfer of knowledge and job responsibilities can't happen in 2 weeks? Or put it this way, how effectively and usefully are long notice periods utilized anyway by either party?

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by sunilch

Instead of the complex solution you have proposed, the easier and wiser approach will be to reduce the notice period to simply 1 month or lesser.

Mine is the complex solution? What you have proposed is an impossible solution.

My solution can be implemented by any company, without having to co-ordinate with anyone else. They just place two options in front of the candidate, and the candidate will pick one and sign it. It is done and dusted in 5 minutes. We don't need to wait for IT giants to implement it and pave the way. Heck, I can do it for my very next hire.

Your solution involves forcing/convincing every or most companies in the industry to go back to a much shorter notice period. How long that is going to take? It may never happen.

Originally Posted by am1m

Or perhaps standardize notice periods across the industry to be 2 weeks to 4 weeks (maximum and only for specialized, senior roles)?

Ok, who is going to standardize? Every company can pick their poison here, no one can force everyone to do something unless it is the law.

Originally Posted by am1m

And frankly, how many IT jobs roles are there where a logical transfer of knowledge and job responsibilities can't happen in 2 weeks? Or put it this way, how effectively and usefully are long notice periods utilized anyway by either party?

The actual time required depends on the role. That is why you can't have someone outside the company dictate how much notice period a company needs for different roles.

Trying to change the notice period of all IT companies is not a practical solution. Please look beyond that one.

[padmrajravi]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Mine is the complex solution? What you have proposed is an impossible solution.

My solution can be implemented by any company, without having to co-ordinate with anyone else. They just place two options in front of the candidate, and the candidate will pick one and sign it. It is done and dusted in 5 minutes. We don't need to wait for IT giants to implement it and pave the way. Heck, I can do it for my very next hire.

I feel this is difficult to enforce. What if the candidate signs and still refuse to join? Are you planning to sue the candidate and get damages from him? I feel that will not be practical. It can only be enforced if all the companies are enforcing this together and there is a blacklisting mechanism in place. But that will never happen because most with investor money are in poaching mode and will still poach unethically.

The easier solution is for the government to enforce that none can enforce a notice period of more than a month. The labor laws in most countries mandate a 2-4 weeks notice period and companies can not enforce such a long notice period at will. My TCS notice period was 3 months, but since I was in another country at the time of resigning, they had to limit it to one month. No one should be able to hold an employee hostage for 3 months. There is nothing that can not be transitioned in one month. Even now the real transition happens only in the last two weeks.

[Turbohead]

Originally Posted by Samurai

This is not a fair thing to say.

The candidate should accept one of the options:

• The candidate reserves the right not to join after notice period. In that case Employer also reserves the right to withdraw the offer if they find another suitable candidate in that time.
• The candidate commits to join at the end of notice period, failing which he/she will pay a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the employer. The employer also commits to hire the employee on the promised day, failing which the employer pays a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the candidate. This is similar to the 3 month sale agreement in real estate transactions, where the buyer needs time to secure loan for the purchase. If either party backs out, they have to pay the penalty.

That's it. We don't have to talk about morals or ethics anymore. Just make it a mutually fair contract.

The fact is you may implement this in your company and I wouldn't doubt you. But most such agreements will be one sided- I'm pretty sure no big company will pay a penalty to a candidate after revoking an offer using some means or the other including incomprehensible clauses which only a lawyer can interpret that will be heavily one sided.

I don't expect people to keep any verbal promises. But in the corporate world, they don't even keep written agreements or promises and put down the candidates/ potential employers. And that's why I said it's disgusting.

TBH, it'll be in the best interest of big MNCs to lobby and reduce the notice period to 2 weeks by law. Funny how they don't consider this when one statement in the press by a celebrated founder of an IT company resulted in increased working hours.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by padmrajravi

I feel this is difficult to enforce. What if the candidate signs and still refuse to join? Are you planning to sue the candidate and get damages from him? I feel that will not be practical.

Why? Plenty of IT companies enforce their unfair bonds all the time. Why will they have difficulty enforcing a fair contract? Is there some labour law clause that will prevent company lawyers from enforcing it?

Can some BHPian lawyer elaborate on this?

Originally Posted by padmrajravi

The easier solution is for the government to enforce that none can enforce a notice period of more than a month.

Why will the government get into this, unless the industry lobbies for it? Most of the IT giants want to hold on to their 3 month notice periods, so the government will not oppose them.

[CCRider]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I think companies should adopt the following strategy in future, after any candidate accepts an offer and expects the new employer to wait 60-90 notice days.

The candidate should accept one of the options:

• The candidate reserves the right not to join after notice period. In that case Employer also reserves the right to withdraw the offer if they find another suitable candidate in that time.
• The candidate commits to join at the end of notice period, failing which he/she will pay a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the employer. The employer also commits to hire the employee on the promised day, failing which the employer pays a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the candidate. This is similar to the 3 month sale agreement in real estate transactions, where the buyer needs time to secure loan for the purchase. If either party backs out, they have to pay the penalty.

+1. Your options cover all theoretical scenarios.
I would think most IT candidates would probably choose option 1, as generally, if a candidate is good and has cleared all interviews, the company will accomodate him for one position or the other if he decides to join.

[Captain Slow]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Then they show up for job interviews with one year of timepass on their resume.

Oh yes, We see these very often! Yet these guys think they are as good if not better than their batch mates who have actual experience and expect 2x-3x of their batch mates' salary

[whitewing]

Originally Posted by Samurai

• The candidate commits to join at the end of notice period, failing which he/she will pay a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the employer. The employer also commits to hire the employee on the promised day, failing which the employer pays a penalty (promised salary for the duration) to the candidate. This is similar to the 3 month sale agreement in real estate transactions, where the buyer needs time to secure loan for the purchase. If either party backs out, they have to pay the penalty.

That's it. We don't have to talk about morals or ethics anymore. Just make it a mutually fair contract.

Agree with this.
It cuts both ways and hurts the industry in the long run.

One can understand a candidate looking around for better opportunities even if an offer is made, as long as they have not agreed to the offer.

In my recent experience, a few candidates, who had accepted the offer, back out in the last minute.
And I mean literally at the last minute - it is a no show on the day of joining! This, after keeping a communication channel open during their notice period.
And the consequence is lack of trust, so, HR pushes the same strategy as a airline overbooking - doles out more offers than open positions. In the unlikely event that every one accepts, then some offers would have to be rescinded. A ticking tie bomb, which will affect employees more than the employers.

Originally Posted by sunilch

..the easier and wiser approach will be to reduce the notice period to simply 1 month or lesser.

The candidate will have to join a company sooner than later and hence will have less time or opportunity to think/go about hopping.

I believe the motivation of the employer should be to keep the employee engaged rather than bringing in hurdles in making a hop.
Why prevent discovery of the true worth of a candidate?

Also, for firms into product development for mid to senior technical roles, 1 month notice would be too low - unless they have a large enough buffer with shadow roles.