Employee's obligation after signing appointment letter

[13177]

I believe not many employers will file civil claims just for a small amount of money, if the person did not turn up for work or reject the job after signing the appointment letter. The current employment act is to protect employee more than employer. Unless the company themselves have a legal department with own lawyers, maybe they will pursue the case?!

[Jman888]

Bottom line: before doing anything like this: ask yourself how much your honour is worth. Can you really put a price on it? Not meaning to be melodramatic, but this is the way I feel.

 

 

 

20 years ago, if you ask anyone they would feel ashamed to go against their promise. 10 years ago, most executive level would also feel ashamed to do that.

 

Today to most of the younger generation, nobody feel anything even at managerial level. Loyalty or honor worth nothing.

[Sabian]

By no means am I a HR expert. But I would never advocate this. I'm not even looking at it from a legal standpoint - more of a "matter of honour" standpoint. You've already given your word (and bound it with your signature) to join this company. They've taken your word at good faith, and stopped looking for other candidates, probably already told the other applicants "position's filled, best of luck elsewhere". Now you play them out like this. Think about how it would feel if the company did the same to you. You've tendered notice to your old employer, or already quit outright, and the new company pulls out the safety net from under you. Wouldn't you be aggrieved?

 

I'm sure, if the situation was reversed, you would pursue a legal claim. Probably the company has a similar right (breach of contract), but whether they choose to do so or not depends on whether they have other ready applicants in the pipeline and how much trouble they want to go through over you. But even if it's legally not readily compensable, it doesn't make what you're doing morally or ethically right.

 

Bottom line: before doing anything like this: ask yourself how much your honour is worth. Can you really put a price on it? Not meaning to be melodramatic, but this is the way I feel.

 

BTW, when I use "you", I'm assuming you're speaking of yourself. If you're quoting a third party example, I withdraw the second person pronoun - but what I said applies to him/her, of course.

 

 

Sexier girl comes along after you hooked up with your current squeeze for a couple of weeks...quite a number will look for loopholes to wriggle free.

[macrotrust2]

In such situation, the candidate can just leave by informing the company- but of course the bridge is burn for future use.

 

No company will bother to pursue legal or anything as it is is just 'bad" luck to hire someone and it is a blessing for the manager as not to spend time and money to train him or her up and find out later he is going to resign,

 

I have staff who join for a few hours or days and decided to leave even though during probabation period is 2 weeks notice or salary in lieu. it is better to let go before they do further damage to the company. Usually such are mutually agreeable and not create bad animosity.

 

It is common for people to sign the employment letter and jump ship before entering the company for higher paid.

[1fast1]

This deserves praises -

 

Except that I think there's one thing I feel like you're not considering (or perhaps not giving enough weight to).

That's the power disparity between the employer and the employee. In most cases, an employee not turning up for work is not going to "sink" the employer - but the reverse does not hold true.

 

This doesn't excuse "honour" or anything else....it should just be considered

Thanks.

 

You're quite right about the power asymmetry in most cases. However, in high profile hirings, it can also work against the company. Case in point: Temasek Holdings and Chip Goodyear. This was a high profile appointment of an outsider to helm the SWF - it made the global business news. But the appointment fell through, largely because Goodyear refused to go further with it. From a WSJ quote, it seems that Goodyear's proposed initiatives were going to be met with a cold shoulder and lots of inertia. Disappointed by the bureaucracy, he quit before he even started. And even though our propaganda machine tried to spin it into a "mutual parting of the ways", all the incident did was heighten concerns about whether Temasek Holding was competently managed - and infinitely worse - whether it even wanted competent management outside the usual crony circle.

 

In this case, I'd say the company definitely suffered a (further) loss of face from an potential hire reneging on his earlier word. But this case is atypical because I am actually on Goodyear's side in this. When something smells rancid when you bring it up to your nose, you really don't want to risk putting it in your mouth, do you?

 

Read: http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/chip-goodyear-rejects-ceo-appointment-and-resigns-ho-ching-to-remain-head/

 

And this quote bears out the fallout for the company's reputation:

 

This is not good news for Temasek, said Carl Linaburg, co-founder of the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute in Roseville, Calif., which tracks data on the investment funds. Prior to Chips arrival, Ho Ching had been widely criticized for Temaseks major losses in financials. Chips departure makes people wonder why Temasek cant seem to make firm decisions with sound judgment, which is essential for managing the assets of a country.

[1fast1]

Sexier girl comes along after you hooked up with your current squeeze for a couple of weeks...quite a number will look for loopholes to wriggle free.

All's fair in love and war, but this case is worse than dumping a girlfriend. More like breaking off an engagement because someone else came along.

[Wyfitms]

Well, We are trained by gahmen to be selfish, so it's gahmen's fault we are like this

[1fast1]

Well, We are trained by gahmen to be selfish, so it's gahmen's fault we are like this

You've made @Tjkbeluga so happy. Edited April 21, 2014 by Turboflat4

[Knoobie]

 

 

20 years ago, if you ask anyone they would feel ashamed to go against their promise. 10 years ago, most executive level would also feel ashamed to do that.

 

Today to most of the younger generation, nobody feel anything even at managerial level. Loyalty or honor worth nothing.

some even can question you back how much is pride and honour worth...

[Porker]

 

 

Sexier girl comes along after you hooked up with your current squeeze for a couple of weeks...quite a number will look for loopholes to wriggle free.

 

Wriggle what free?

[Simonsoh]

turboflat, thanks for your inputs.

 

since you are so straightforward, i will be too, so that you get the whole pic.

 

firstly i agree that there is a question of integrity, but its something I am willing to compromise in this instance.

 

The offer came in on a Sat afternoon and there was only a small window to decide as coy wanted a confirmation by monday. The nature of the work and working hours caused a small childcare arrangement concern that I thought I could easily get around so I signed on mon.

 

The childcare arrangement adjustment was trickier than I thought and I finally decided that we, as a family, couldn't get around it without some possible compromise to the well-being of our child. So I forgo the bump in salary and brighter prospect and so the resignation letter was never submitted. So not a case of jumping ship. It's a case of not honouring the contract by staying put.

 

Was I silly to sign when I was not 100% sure I would get around the childcare problem? Yes.

Will I regret this in the future? maybe.

Am I willing to risk having this regret. Yes.

 

Anyway, I will be telling the truth to the coy and hope they understand. They should do whatever they deem fit. I just want to be prepared and have a sensing of the HR practice out there.

All's fair in love and war, but this case is worse than dumping a girlfriend. More like breaking off an engagement because someone else came along.

 

As explained, nobody else came along. What did I say to led you to this assumption? Its a case of impulsive commitment. But before engagement date, there was a compelling factor that was discovered that may cause potential problem.

[Sosaria]

...

 

The offer came in on a Sat afternoon and there was only a small window to decide as coy wanted a confirmation by monday. The nature of the work and working hours caused a small childcare arrangement concern that I thought I could easily get around so I signed on mon.

...

 

Wow, the time-frame given is very short. Saturday to Monday only. In this case, it's fair to request the company to give you at least a week to decide and make arrangements.

 

If they can't even wait for a week, then not a good sign, IMHO.

[Jman888]

 

Wow, the time-frame given is very short. Saturday to Monday only. In this case, it's fair to request the company to give you at least a week to decide and make arrangements.

 

If they can't even wait for a week, then not a good sign, IMHO.

 

 

buy thing also got 7 days cooling off period

[Darryn]

Wasn't there another similar case recently where an "outsider" quit a TLC because of beaucracy?

Was it Singtel or something???

Thanks.

You're quite right about the power asymmetry in most cases. However, in high profile hirings, it can also work against the company. Case in point: Temasek Holdings and Chip Goodyear. This was a high profile appointment of an outsider to helm the SWF - it made the global business news. But the appointment fell through, largely because Goodyear refused to go further with it. From a WSJ quote, it seems that Goodyear's proposed initiatives were going to be met with a cold shoulder and lots of inertia. Disappointed by the bureaucracy, he quit before he even started. And even though our propaganda machine tried to spin it into a "mutual parting of the ways", all the incident did was heighten concerns about whether Temasek Holding was competently managed - and infinitely worse - whether it even wanted competent management outside the usual crony circle.

In this case, I'd say the company definitely suffered a (further) loss of face from an potential hire reneging on his earlier word. But this case is atypical because I am actually on Goodyear's side in this. When something smells rancid when you bring it up to your nose, you really don't want to risk putting it in your mouth, do you?

Read: http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/chip-goodyear-rejects-ceo-appointment-and-resigns-ho-ching-to-remain-head/

And this quote bears out the fallout for the company's reputation:

 

[Tjkbeluga]

You've made @Tjkbeluga so happy.

 

Hahaha, see!

 

OK OK, I think he was just trying to poke fun on me....

Edited April 21, 2014 by Tjkbeluga

[Simonsoh]

 

Wow, the time-frame given is very short. Saturday to Monday only. In this case, it's fair to request the company to give you at least a week to decide and make arrangements.

 

If they can't even wait for a week, then not a good sign, IMHO.

 

ya loh... i say i need some time to consider. he say please take your time, please take the weekend to consider.

 

aiyo... wat thing no good sign huh?

[Benarsenal]

turboflat, thanks for your inputs.

 

since you are so straightforward, i will be too, so that you get the whole pic.

 

firstly i agree that there is a question of integrity, but its something I am willing to compromise in this instance.

 

The offer came in on a Sat afternoon and there was only a small window to decide as coy wanted a confirmation by monday. The nature of the work and working hours caused a small childcare arrangement concern that I thought I could easily get around so I signed on mon.

 

The childcare arrangement adjustment was trickier than I thought and I finally decided that we, as a family, couldn't get around it without some possible compromise to the well-being of our child. So I forgo the bump in salary and brighter prospect and so the resignation letter was never submitted. So not a case of jumping ship. It's a case of not honouring the contract by staying put.

 

Was I silly to sign when I was not 100% sure I would get around the childcare problem? Yes.

Will I regret this in the future? maybe.

Am I willing to risk having this regret. Yes.

 

Anyway, I will be telling the truth to the coy and hope they understand. They should do whatever they deem fit. I just want to be prepared and have a sensing of the HR practice out there.

 

As explained, nobody else came along. What did I say to led you to this assumption? Its a case of impulsive commitment. But before engagement date, there was a compelling factor that was discovered that may cause potential problem.

 

In your case then I think it's a reasonable decision. I mean, they expect you to confirm at such short notice yet you not really sure whether you can commit. So you do have a bit of a case.

 

Hopefully they will be understanding.

[Knoobie]

Hijack thread a bit ar...

 

I got a friend.. or rather ex-colleague.. in a shitty company..

 

although he got promoted few times, there is no work life balance and he has a kid now..

 

he has now hence climbed to AM position and the notice period is different from the initial contract he signed in the first place.

 

Question is..

 

1. Is AM Position still under MOM act?

2. Other than the first employment contract, he has not signed any prior contract or whatsoever with the company. Is he liable under new notice period?