[COUGAR]

Originally Posted by ntomer

That guy was going to US for higher studies and cared two hoots about what we wrote in the relieving letter and experience certificate.

he wasnt so bothered about the releiving letter etc and YET went to court?

Originally Posted by ntomer

And I don't see this as being unprofessional; he was only following what is written in his employment terms i.e. either the notice period or the notice money.

It IS being unprofessional. Because a project is sacrosanct and not just for the PM but for the entire team. It takes just one weak link to break the chain and send the project crashing.

Whether you are looking for a growth opening in another company or for further studies, you can chose to make a clean break by being thoroughly professional. Make it clear to your future employers on your situation with notice periods. Surely people know the status of the projects they are on and whether their PM can relieve them early? Is it that difficult to be honest about your commitments?

No PM wants to hold anyone back unnecessarily. Atleast I dont! All i ask for is that adequate time be given for identifying a replacement and for KT. Thats it! Its trickier for client facing resources like TL's but even then the thumb rule is that the project shouldnt suffer. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by ntomer

If a company can lay-off employees suddenly by paying them notice money; and can still be called professional. Why it can't be in the case of an employee.

The difference is that by paying him adequate compensation, the employee is suitably compensated for being relieved early. However when the reverse happens, the damages to the project (that affect the 2 dozen other people on the team) has to be taken into account. The employee is thinking about himself. The PM has to think of the entire team.

Originally Posted by ntomer

But if one decides to go this way, there is nothing a PM or a company can do.

My own experience is that 99% of the ship-jumping crowd fall in line when their chestnuts are held to the fire.

Originally Posted by ntomer

Buddy, you sure have some strong sentiments about it :-)

Being nice doesnt get the job done son!

[ikoneer]

Originally Posted by ntomer

What happened next took us by surprise. He filed a case against us in labor court. Our company's Sr. VP - HR had to attend that case, and within one hearing labor commissioner ruled that we can not hold back his relieving and experience certificate. And we had to give him that.

Its very surprising to hear that the company gave in to the employee. As said by Cougar, maybe your company did not want to fight it out and get this closed.

What' the comment of the labor court about the employee, since he wants an immediate exit and the status of duties and responsibilities currently held by the employee.

[ntomer]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

he wasnt so bothered about the releiving letter etc and YET went to court?

Getting a relieving letter was important for him. What was in it, wasn't.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

It IS being unprofessional. Because a project is sacrosanct and not just for the PM but for the entire team. It takes just one weak link to break the chain and send the project crashing.

Whether you are looking for a growth opening in another company or for further studies, you can chose to make a clean break by being thoroughly professional. Make it clear to your future employers on your situation with notice periods. Surely people know the status of the projects they are on and whether their PM can relieve them early? Is it that difficult to be honest about your commitments?

No PM wants to hold anyone back unnecessarily. Atleast I dont! All i ask for is that adequate time be given for identifying a replacement and for KT. Thats it! Its trickier for client facing resources like TL's but even then the thumb rule is that the project shouldnt suffer. PERIOD.

Says who? He did only what he had agreed upon. In the employment agreement, it is specifically written that it is either the notice period or money in lieu of that.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

The difference is that by paying him adequate compensation, the employee is suitably compensated for being relieved early. However when the reverse happens, the damages to the project (that affect the 2 dozen other people on the team) has to be taken into account. The employee is thinking about himself. The PM has to think of the entire team.

It is not a matter of adequate compensation; it is mutually agreed-upon compensation. And naturally an employee will think of himself, PM can go screw himself. Because a company doesn't think of employees when it arbitrarily ask them to leave immediately.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

My own experience is that 99% of the ship-jumping crowd fall in line when their chestnuts are held to the fire.

I also mentioned that nobody wants to burn bridges with their previous employer and usually leave on amicable terms. But if somebody wants to leave on the same day he has resigned, company/PM can do nothing.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Being nice doesnt get the job done son!

Thanks for the words of wisdom uncle. May I ask how old are you? I am 32, and WAS a project manager for 6 years.

Nitin

[Jaguar]

What others mentioned about reimbursing the buyout amount from the new company is true. Better have a chat with the HR contact of the new company.

I didn't have a smooth exit when I quit a leading Indian software services company. The notice period was 3 months and after countless negotiations with the PM and HR they agreed to relieve me after 1.5 months and I had to buyout the remaining 1.5 months. On the final day even at 4 P.M. when I was supposed to get the final finance clearance, no one was clear as to how much buy-out amount I need to pay. Finally I was told that I need to pay the amount in DD right-away in order to get my relieving letter the same day. Thankfully they have and ICICI bank inside the campus and I was able to get the DD in time and get the relieving letter.
I believe that this was very unprofessional way of handling exit(s) by this company. Considering that I had given 1.5 months notice, they should have given me at least a couple of days notice to pay the notice buyout amount.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

No PM wants to hold anyone back unnecessarily. Atleast I dont! All i ask for is that adequate time be given for identifying a replacement and for KT. Thats it! Its trickier for client facing resources like TL's but even then the thumb rule is that the project shouldnt suffer. PERIOD.

Can you define adequate time?
In my case, even after 1 month, neither was any replacement identified nor any KT started. The PM was just giving excuses that training for the new recruits have to be complete before he can get replacements and stuff, while it was a known fact that there were people sitting idle on bench. And everyday I would hear lectures from him on why I should not leave the company.

[neoonwheels]

I have learnt few things hard way in my 6 years professional life.

Your company really cares a damn when it comes to saving their own A**. In 2009, I had a very good appraisal (B+ grade, A is highest) and after a week, along with 15 other people I was invited in a 2 min call when I came to know we all are fired on that day. It was 16 of us from a staff of around 80. 2 months later another 70 were laid off. Company said according to the letter we are liable to pay 2 months salary, so come after a week and collect the cheque. So it is not at all unprofessional to follow what has been written in the appointment letter.

It may seem unprofessional because of the professional commitments but then even giving lay off without any prior notice or some time for the resource to quickly search for a new job is also unprofessional. But no company thinks twice. My company was ok to pay me 2 months salary but was not ok to give make an adjustment in relieving letter so as to avoid any break in career. I am here talking about a leader in NAS and SAS storage company in US with a business over 2 billion $.

[thedreamcatcher]

In this scenario, I dont see anything as being professional or un professional. Each gets what they deserve, be it the employer or employee

If a guy is getting exploited at a particular company and wants to call it quits, he has full right to do so. The management may try all sorts of tactics to keep him and the easiest they say is they wont give the relieving letter. So, an employee has full right to sue the employer.

And why should it affect his future, he stood his ground and took things the fair way and the company gets what it deserves. An employee cannot keep shut for everything and take what ever comes his way. He also needs to stand up. You think it was easy for the guy to go to court and file the case and the court is no fool in passing a judgement in favour of him. Obviously they would have done their own bit of studying as well

[COUGAR]

Originally Posted by neoonwheels

In 2009, I had a very good appraisal (B+ grade, A is highest) and after a week, along with 15 other people I was invited in a 2 min call when I came to know we all are fired on that day. It was 16 of us from a staff of around 80.

Sad to hear that. But that is the way the layoff's work! In my case, the HR told every PM to submit a list of 2 people from each team who could be let off. In my team, all of them had performed ok. But 2 of the lowest scorers based on KPI index still had to be put on the list. Two people from my team who had to be let off were actually better than some of their colleagues in other teams and their only misfortune was that they scored the lowest in their specific team. Sad but thats the way it is.

It was very clear what would happen if the layoffs were not done. Projected Cash flows for the next few months are known and if there is a shortfall, we are putting the entire company with 700 employees to stake. Instead, by letting off 30 or 40 people, we are keeping the company afloat for another 2 months till the cash flows are expected to stabilize in the black. See the larger picture.

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Can you define adequate time?
In my case, even after 1 month, neither was any replacement identified nor any KT started.

Notice time is Adequate time, MINIMUM and MAXIMUM time : this is what is written on your appointment letter. Not more, not less. When you sign up for a job, the minimum notice period is what has been agreed upon and you have to meet that. Whether the company accepts your buyout proposal is THEIR PREROGATIVE.

Having people on bench doesnt mean that you can be replaced. If my former company is to be taken as a benchmark, then the people who are on bench are perhaps there for a reason! Why should the PM take just any pappu from bench just because a member on his team wants to leave early? The replacement should be SUITABLE and COMPETENT for the role in question.

That being said, you cannot be expected to stay beyond the notice period stipulated on your appointment. If that says 2 months, then in 2 months of your resignation you HAVE to be relieved.

Originally Posted by ntomer

Getting a relieving letter was important for him. What was in it, wasn't.

WHAT?

Originally Posted by ntomer

It is not a matter of adequate compensation; it is mutually agreed-upon compensation. And naturally an employee will think of himself, PM can go screw himself. Because a company doesn't think of employees when it arbitrarily ask them to leave immediately.

Thats where we are going wrong. The mistake most people make is to treat the PM as an enemy rather than as someone who can help you. The PM is not being an a*** because he likes it: he is merely looking for the interests of his projects, because 30 other people are dependent on their success. If one person damages my project, then THIRTY people are at risk of loosing their jobs. And that is what the PM is seeking to avoid.

Originally Posted by ntomer

I also mentioned that nobody wants to burn bridges with their previous employer and usually leave on amicable terms. But if somebody wants to leave on the same day he has resigned, company/PM can do nothing.

Ofcourse there is a limit to what the PM/company can do and honestly nobody WANTS to be nasty. But dont make the mistake of underestimating the amount of damage that a vengeful PM/HR can do to someones career.

What people SHOULD be taking your PM into confidence first rather than last and explain the situation. With enough lead time, he will be more than glad to help you out.

[kpbhatt]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

What others mentioned about reimbursing the buyout amount from the new company is true. Better have a chat with the HR contact of the new company.

I didn't have a smooth exit when I quit a leading Indian software services company. The notice period was 3 months and after countless negotiations with the PM and HR they agreed to relieve me after 1.5 months and I had to buyout the remaining 1.5 months. On the final day even at 4 P.M. when I was supposed to get the final finance clearance, no one was clear as to how much buy-out amount I need to pay. Finally I was told that I need to pay the amount in DD right-away in order to get my relieving letter the same day. Thankfully they have and ICICI bank inside the campus and I was able to get the DD in time and get the relieving letter.
I believe that this was very unprofessional way of handling exit(s) by this company. Considering that I had given 1.5 months notice, they should have given me at least a couple of days notice to pay the notice buyout amount.



Can you define adequate time?
In my case, even after 1 month, neither was any replacement identified nor any KT started. The PM was just giving excuses that training for the new recruits have to be complete before he can get replacements and stuff, while it was a known fact that there were people sitting idle on bench. And everyday I would hear lectures from him on why I should not leave the company.

and this firm has the best made Lawns and a huge sprawling trademark campus at all its India locations --

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

But dont make the mistake of underestimating the amount of damage that a vengeful PM/HR can do to someones career.

You talked about being professional somewhere.

As a PM dont you plan for such situations? That you work in such a scenario that the whole project is dependent on 1 or 2 people?

Thats bad project management.

And how do these 1 or 2 people become insignificant when the company wants to layoff but are very important when the individual employee wants to leave.

Dont get me wrong but this type of planning is seen in the big Indian IT firms.

And getting back at employees for leaving the firm at their will is a cheap thing to do. I would pity such firms who put the might of their company against an employee who is looking for better prospects.

Have you worked in places where labour laws are much stronger and tried similiar things there while relieving a reportee?

Say that you are holding back his relieving letter giving the excuse that the project needs him. That issue will be your competency not his.

Why then is one a Project "MANAGER".

Though I agree the mutual agreed upon way is the best way out.

Oh and I am have enough experience to say the above.

[Rotorhead]

We are talking about two things here. One is relieving a candidate who is actively contributing to a project (the reason he still continues to be in the project) vs someone who is being laid off (which in most cases are people who are not contributing much to the project). As a project manager, one always assign tasks to the low performer in such a manner that these are not critical tasks and also ensure that there is always a secondary back up who can take over things from where he/she has left, since such a person is always a risk to the project. In such cases these candidates can relieved asap.

On the other hand we have a contributing member wanting to get relieved at a very short notice, then i assure no project manager can plan to such an extent that he can have a backup for each and every resource/task. Such things are possible if you have sufficient buffer resources who can overlap the activities, but the number of buffer (read non-billable) resources for both T&M or fixed bid projects will impact your project margins.

But yes if the project is dependent solely on select individuals then that is a bad case of project management and that is an entirely different issue in itself. As a whole the PM also has to work with certain constraints keeping in the bigger perspective of the project and the acount, and if the project requires a person to linger around a little longer because there is a dependency on him/her then thats how it is, but if the PM is retaining the person just for the heck of it, then its a wrong thing to do.

[Ford_madhan]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

You talked about being professional somewhere.

As a PM dont you plan for such situations? That you work in such a scenario that the whole project is dependent on 1 or 2 people?

Thats bad project management.

And how do these 1 or 2 people become insignificant when the company wants to layoff but are very important when the individual employee wants to leave.

Dont get me wrong but this type of planning is seen in the big Indian IT firms.

And getting back at employees for leaving the firm at their will is a cheap thing to do. I would pity such firms who put the might of their company against an employee who is looking for better prospects.

Have you worked in places where labour laws are much stronger and tried similiar things there while relieving a reportee?

Say that you are holding back his relieving letter giving the excuse that the project needs him. That issue will be your competency not his.

Why then is one a Project "MANAGER".

Though I agree the mutual agreed upon way is the best way out.

Oh and I am have enough experience to say the above.

Nicely said Spitfire. I was about to type the same. Forget about the immature developers, i have started seeing a lot of immature/unprofessional managers growing in the industry. The managers primary duty is to make the team understand the work ethics and how the corporate culture works and mainly to make the employee feel that they are important to the team. Most of them dont do that anymore.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by kpbhatt

and this firm has the best made Lawns and a huge sprawling trademark campus at all its India locations --

How do you know? Have experienced the same ? or was the 3 months notice period a give away?

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Having people on bench doesn't mean that you can be replaced. If my former company is to be taken as a benchmark, then the people who are on bench are perhaps there for a reason! Why should the PM take just any pappu from bench just because a member on his team wants to leave early? The replacement should be SUITABLE and COMPETENT for the role in question.
The mistake most people make is to treat the PM as an enemy rather than as someone who can help you. The PM is not being an a*** because he likes it: he is merely looking for the interests of his projects, because 30 other people are dependent on their success. If one person damages my project, then THIRTY people are at risk of loosing their jobs. And that is what the PM is seeking to avoid.

Why would a company keep (in your words) a pappu on bench? Wouldn't it be better to let him go? Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that a person on bench is anyway inferior to others. Its often the lack of projects or the stupid company rules that are the cause behind bench. In fact, the service companies strive to keep like 10% bench in order to bid for new projects.

People think of managers as enemies cause the truth is, there are some who act like one. The way a PM is looking at the interest of the project, don't forget that the candidate is also looking at the interest of his career and sometimes even his life. The problem happens when the managers are not ready for a compromise and put their feet down stating contract and other ....

If the loss of one person damages the project, then the project manager is not doing his job, period. What if a person has an accident or some personal emergency which keeps him away from work for a month or two? Would your project fail? If not, why do you create a fuss when the same person decides to leave due to some reason?

You spoke about layoffs, but do layoffs mean less work or a change in deadline? It doesn't right? The people who are left have an increased work load. And in most cases, since the people involved are not informed, there is no planned Knowledge Transfer. How does the project move forward?

Lastly, how does the system of Notice Period work in countries like US? AFAIK, there is no concept of notice period there. I personally have seen people walk out in a weeks time, sometimes even less. Even the Indian service companies don't have notice periods for employees working in the US. My on-site manager left and for a week we had no clue who his replacement was . Did the project fail? No. Was it difficult? A little bit.
When you can manage without a notice period in other countries, why not in India?

[gaddiwale]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Sad to hear that. But that is the way the layoff's work! In my case, the HR told every PM to submit a list of 2 people from each team who could be let off. In my team, all of them had performed ok. But 2 of the lowest scorers based on KPI index still had to be put on the list. Two people from my team who had to be let off were actually better than some of their colleagues in other teams and their only misfortune was that they scored the lowest in their specific team. Sad but thats the way it is.

It was very clear what would happen if the layoffs were not done. Projected Cash flows for the next few months are known and if there is a shortfall, we are putting the entire company with 700 employees to stake. Instead, by letting off 30 or 40 people, we are keeping the company afloat for another 2 months till the cash flows are expected to stabilize in the black. See the larger picture.



Notice time is Adequate time, MINIMUM and MAXIMUM time : this is what is written on your appointment letter. Not more, not less. When you sign up for a job, the minimum notice period is what has been agreed upon and you have to meet that. Whether the company accepts your buyout proposal is THEIR PREROGATIVE.

Having people on bench doesnt mean that you can be replaced. If my former company is to be taken as a benchmark, then the people who are on bench are perhaps there for a reason! Why should the PM take just any pappu from bench just because a member on his team wants to leave early? The replacement should be SUITABLE and COMPETENT for the role in question.

That being said, you cannot be expected to stay beyond the notice period stipulated on your appointment. If that says 2 months, then in 2 months of your resignation you HAVE to be relieved.


WHAT?


Thats where we are going wrong. The mistake most people make is to treat the PM as an enemy rather than as someone who can help you. The PM is not being an a*** because he likes it: he is merely looking for the interests of his projects, because 30 other people are dependent on their success. If one person damages my project, then THIRTY people are at risk of loosing their jobs. And that is what the PM is seeking to avoid.


Ofcourse there is a limit to what the PM/company can do and honestly nobody WANTS to be nasty. But dont make the mistake of underestimating the amount of damage that a vengeful PM/HR can do to someones career.

What people SHOULD be taking your PM into confidence first rather than last and explain the situation. With enough lead time, he will be more than glad to help you out.

Letting off 30-40 people to save 700 people is the only solution? Does the PMs ever think what happen to those 30-40 people who has no job but got a rosy releaving letter in their hand. Insted, why don't so called PM's and higher managements (taking fat salaries) voluntarily cut their salary 50% to save the whole 730-740 people.

An employee go off "unprofessionally" because another A****** PM is luring him/her to join his organization with some better offer. So who is the real enemy? Think about your staff not only about your project that will repay you in time.

[manolin]

hi rainmaker

are you not a recruiting agency for legal recruitment Rainmaker ?

If not, its a happy coincidence:-)

[COUGAR]

Originally Posted by gaddiwale

Letting off 30-40 people to save 700 people is the only solution? Does the PMs ever think what happen to those 30-40 people who has no job but got a rosy releaving letter in their hand. Insted, why don't so called PM's and higher managements (taking fat salaries) voluntarily cut their salary 50% to save the whole 730-740 people.

Letting of 30-40 people is not the first choice, more like the LAST. And again dont blame the PM! It is a management decision: and in some contexts I agree with those.

And PM's get laidoff too if their projects are in the pooper!

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Why would a company keep (in your words) a pappu on bench? Wouldn't it be better to let him go?

Lots of factors. There might some pappu's who might be pretty useless as far as competency goes, but they have some nice sounding technologies on their flowery resumes which seems to impress some of these HR types ensuring that these guys stay on payroll. And because no PM wants to take his cost, the said pappu goes on bench.

Originally Posted by Jaguar

People think of managers as enemies cause the truth is, there are some who act like one. The way a PM is looking at the interest of the project, don't forget that the candidate is also looking at the interest of his career and sometimes even his life. The problem happens when the managers are not ready for a compromise and put their feet down stating contract and other ....

Yes. But the candidate is looking out ONLY for his career and the PM is looking at the project in its entirety: that includes all 30 or so people. Understand the other party's thought process and maybe you will stop looking at the PM as an enemy.

Originally Posted by Spitfire

You talked about being professional somewhere.

As a PM dont you plan for such situations? That you work in such a scenario that the whole project is dependent on 1 or 2 people?

So the PM is supposed to be all professional and clean up the mess that some unprofessional fellow left behind? There are some staff who take their jobs entirely for granted: "working" purely from one appraisal to another. The kind who care two hoots about the project or the company that is putting grub on his table. The kind who will jump without a second thought because there are unscrupulous HR people who introduce concepts like "buying notices". These kind deserve little sympathy.

The whole concept of notice period was there to ensure stability and proper transition when employees shift jobs. Now unscruplous HR fellows with recruitment targets to fulfil just made our jobs tougher by introducing fundas like buying out notices etc.