I have recently joined in [Company A] as fresher(3 months back) and now I got offer in other company so I would like know to the consequences which I have to face after absconding them.. i.e. I dont want any relieve letter or other things and I am willing to pay the breaking money i.e. 1,00,000 .. But I am afraid of the legal consequences I have to face.
Please help me regarding this. Its very urgent for me.
If you are willing to pay the bond amount of 1,00,000, I don't see any reason why you should abscond and don't want relieving letter.. I cant comment about the legal consequences, without seeing the bond what you and your employer have signed, but i assume that the condition may be that, you will serve your employer for some minimum period, in case you fail to do so, you will have to pay a compensation of 1,00,000... In this case, you may not face any legal problems, if you pay them 1,00,000..
1. As rightly mentioned by Prasad, if you are willing to pay 100000/- then you are doing nothing illegal.
2. I personally know people who, as freshers, have broken bond, or rather just absconded and joined another company and nothing has happened to them. The HR's will call them a few times but that is it. No big MNC has the time & effort to persue freshers for an amount of 100000/- Not worth it. But since you are ready to pay, no issues of any problems what so ever.
3. I assume Alex Roe is not your real name, and it IS tricky to discuss breaking bonds etc with a company here *and* join with a real name. But we discourage this behavior in JavaRanch. Upto the moderators now.
The members of JR are not lawyers, so you should take our advice with a grain of salt. The person, who would be in the best position to advice you would be a lawyer.
Since you are willing to pay the amount due in your contract you should have no problem. Bonded labor does not hold water in India by the way I am not aware of what loop hole allows a corporation to sign you into bonded labor. But that discussion is off topic, I brought it to your attention to keep you informed.
Your name by the way only has to be a valid first and last name. It is indeed valid and I see no reason to challenge its authenticity.
Tnx a lot for the reply's. Actually I am worried about the notice period i.e., 1 month but I have only 1 week of time for joining in the new company. In our offer letter they have said that I have to inform 1 month before resigning. And in the present company I have applied as fresher. I am worried about the consequences. As I have registered for NSR (National Skills Registry) so the company can ask why I have breaked the rules of present company and all that.
Tnx for the help. I really need it as I dont want to take risk.
Notice Period is generally decided by the company, keeping in mind, the time required to replace you with another resource (you giving him/her KT and other works.. ). I assume that you are a fresher and is not a key resource in your current project. If that is the case, i am sure the company lets you go in a week.. Even if you are doing some important task, nonetheless, you could ask the employer to reduce the notice period, say 2 weeks.. In your new company, you can ask 1 more week to join, which i think, the new company should be OK with..
Joined: Jul 30, 2010
Prasad Krishnegowda wrote:If that is the case, i am sure the company lets you go in a week.. Even if you are doing some important task, nonetheless, you could ask the employer to reduce the notice period, say 2 weeks.. In your new company, you can ask 1 more week to join, which i think, the new company should be OK with..
I disagree. Notice period in big Indian MNC's is non-negotiable, on a general basis. They do not have the mindset of doing this as so many exchanges and attritions happen on a daily basis. Infact it may happen if he is a key resource but for a fresher they would not change the notice period. Yes, the notice period in the company he wants to join could be a little flexible and he could buy little more time there.
@Alex, read your contract carefully. There are chances you may find clause which says that the notice period could be bought out, which means that if you want to leave a little early, then you would have to pay a little extra. For e.g. in my company the notice period is 2 months but if I want to leave in a month, I would have to serve 1month notice PLUS one month salary to them for that.
Also in some cases, the company you want to join may offer to just buy out your whole notice period from your present company.
Side note: I never understood why companies require long notice periods for techies. This seems to be a new trend here in the states, and its just silly. (okay, a couple of cases don't make a trend, but its definitely something new I have seen).
For executives, I understand. They have tons of knowledge on the company, that could make or break the company, and the period is needed to transition that knowledge, projects, etc. And that transition can take a long time.
For techies, why would you want to pay someone who doesn't want to be there? They will just sit around waiting for the notice period to be over -- not really taking on any new projects, after they transition their current projects? Or not really working on their current projects, if it becomes apparent that there won't be a transition? After all, what are you going to do, to get them to work? Threaten to fire them?
In India at least, the idea is to retain the good person and make it difficult for them to switch.
One of the companies here used to have a notice period of 3 months. Yes 3 months !!! When your competitor has a notice period of 1 month and you make the period 3 months, how is a developer even expected to quit ? Oh wait.. that is the idea
It varies from country to country. In Germany 1 month notice is typical, but nothing shorter than that. For more senior positions 3 months is not unusual (it may be possible to negotiate that down, but that's not a given). And there will be negative repercussions if an employee just stops showing up, so that is not advisable. I'm always amazed to hear that there are places where that is common; it seems quite unprofessional to me.
Ulf Dittmer wrote:It varies from country to country. In Germany 1 month notice is typical, but nothing shorter than that. For more senior positions 3 months is not unusual (it may be possible to negotiate that down, but that's not a given). And there will be negative repercussions if an employee just stops showing up, so that is not advisable. I'm always amazed to hear that there are places where that is common; it seems quite unprofessional to me.
There are actually two different directions that I can take this. They are both interesting. So, I take both paths.
Path 1: There is a big difference between showing up physically, and showing up mentally. And for IT positions, you need both. A body showing up for 3 months and just doing busy work, is useless to the company. Furthermore, someone showing up and doing bad work can actually cause damage to the company. While I agree that it is unprofessional to just show up and not do any work -- you can't force someone to work, when they feel they are being mistreated.
And someone who is fresh out of school, with very little professional experience, who doesn't yet know what they want from a career, can very easily see themselves as being mistreated.
Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Henry Wong wrote:While I agree that it is unprofessional to just show up and not do any work -- you can't force someone to work, when they feel they are being mistreated.
That's true, but let me elaborate on what I meant by "negative repercussions" in my previous post. In this country, an employer must provide an employee with a "report card" (for lack of a better word) about the time of employment once that time ends. It covers what the employee did in the general and technical senses, as well as how he conducted himself during that time. A refusal to work while getting paid will surely find its way into that. Being mandatory, these testimonials will be expected to be part of future job applications; if the prospective employee doesn't provide them for all his previous jobs -like if there's less than positive stuff in it- you can expect that to raise eyebrows and serious questions from any prospective future employer. So this is not something to brush off lightly.
Path 2. New York, is actually one of the "right to work" states here in the US. And of course, the US is also one of the more litigious countries. So, you would think that its natural to have contracts which bind employers, many with strong restrictions on what they can do for the next job, and some with stiff penalties.
But in NY, CA, (and maybe some others), this is just not done. There are actually some interesting stories about how a company went after a former employee, with very detailed contracts, only to get the whole contract voided, because some part is interpreted as preventing a persons right to work.
I remember one of my former companies (actually based in CA, while I was in NY) tried to force a new contracts on all its in employees. It was actually very one sided. And I remember many just refusing to sign it -- and got long talks from HR. I felt the exercise as just a complete waste of time, just signed it, and told HR that the contract won't survive in a right to work state anyway. Three months later, I heard from a friend who worked in legal, that the company had stopped trying to get everyone to sign, and had voided all contracts from those who did sign.
Anyway, the point that I am trying to make... it is is not legal bonds that get good work. It is loyalty. And loyalty requires that someone feels safe, not being mistreated, or unfairly treated. And in IT, you need someone to do *good* work -- legal bonds can just get someone to work.
author & internet detective
I don't think that a month is bad if all companies have it. If you wanted to change jobs and told the prospective companies you could start in a month, they wouldn't be surprised. And would presumably be ok with it if they knew you were employed. The problem is when there is such variance. If you have to give a month's notice and want to work for a company that wants you to start in a week, you are stuck.
With 2 weeks notice, do you find people just goofing off towards the end? The people I've worked with have been very responsible in transitioning knowledge and completing things. One I even had to push not to start something on his last day so he wouldn't be in the middle of it at the end of the day. Granted these were responsible people. But still - if someone is responsible, that doesn't change. And if they've looked for the slightest opportunity to goof off all along, it gets magnified. Which of course is worse in the US where many employers will only validated "name, title and dates of employment" rather than how the person actually was.
Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:I don't think that a month is bad if all companies have it. ... If you have to give a month's notice and want to work for a company that wants you to start in a week, you are stuck.
I think a month is reasonable to finish current work and do an orderly knowledge transfer (actually, it may be less if you have vacation days left - that wouldn't be paid like in the US). And over here, no company expects you to be able to start next week because of the notice period.
you can do the following:
.do not wait for 1 months, you can tell your new company that you are still a fresher and were not working anywhere.
.you can still submit details in NSR with new name Alex A Roe, where A being your father's name, in this way you can defeat the very purpose of NSR
. i dont understand why your company wants to keep you for full 1 months given that you are just a fresher joined back 3 months back and assume you were on training for atleast 1 month, so with this 2 months of experience & for all practical purposes you are useless for them. why dont you speak to your HR. tell them that you are absolutely useless and can be removed in next 1 week.
. by the way no company buys notice period of freshers, so don't consider this option.