Is 3 months notice common?

Associate
Joined
26 Aug 2018
Posts
899
Location
Manchester
Been offered a new role. More money then what I'm on now but still only mid 30k pay salary and I'm not managing anybody. Wouldn't particular say it was a high level role.

Received the contract in the post the other day and it says I have to give 3 months notice. I have only worked for companies with a 4 week period before. Its worrying me a little bit as seems excessive. Not something I could negotiate before I sign it as don't see how I could call the potential new employer and mention it without them wondering why I'm even thinking about the notice period.

Is it common now to have 3 months notice? Am I right to be put off?
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Posts
4,325
Location
North West
Fairly common as you get more senior with our without managerial responsibility. 3 months gives them enough time to find a replacement and to start a handover process if not complete one.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,305
3 months isn't uncommon.

Look at it this way, if your role is ever made redundant, then at least you get 3 months of PILON.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2010
Posts
5,230
I'd say a month is standard for less important roles where staff can be replaced easily, but more important roles will require greater periods of notice.

As you move up the food chain and have greater responsibilities, the more of an impact there will be should you leave and move on, especially when looking at managerial or supervisory roles. They probably want to make sure they've a period to hire and train someone up, while having you show them the ropes prior to leaving.
 
Permabanned
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Posts
12,236
Location
UK
We all have 3 months. Usually when people leave they ask to reduce it and the company agrees. As long as whatever handover is done there's no point forcing the person to sit around.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,706
Location
Hampshire
It's relatively common for management roles but perhaps not mid-£30k roles with no management unless it is a niche role that is either hard to source or has a lot of tacit knowledge (and hence handover required).

Worth noting that 3 months often isn't long enough to bring a replacement in by the time suitable candidates have been found, recruitment process completed and the new person has served their notice anyway. Kind of a self-fulfilling merry-go-round whereby it takes a long time to replace someone because it takes a long time to replace their replacement (although clearly you will often see people stepping up from a more junior role with perhaps a shorter notice period).
 
Associate
Joined
1 May 2012
Posts
359
Unless in a managerial role then 4 weeks is all you have to give regardless of contract. I have had it at two previous work places and only done 4 weeks.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Feb 2010
Posts
2,745
Location
England
Unless in a managerial role then 4 weeks is all you have to give regardless of contract. I have had it at two previous work places and only done 4 weeks.

Please don't make up things. If you sign a contract it's a legal document... if it states 3m months notice and you sign it that's what you need to give unless you want to find yourself in breach of contract.

Sure not many companies would go down that route but OP needs to know the risks. The OP is best negotiating if they're really worried but to be honest it's fairly standard and if I'm the employer it could be off putting as hardly shouts commitment
 
Permabanned
Joined
9 Aug 2008
Posts
35,707
Please don't make up things. If you sign a contract it's a legal document... if it states 3m months notice and you sign it that's what you need to give unless you want to find yourself in breach of contract.

They won't and can't do a thing about it. There isn't one company I know where they have tried to take the person to tribunal over leaving early. They just find someone to replace you quicker. :p
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Apr 2013
Posts
12,371
Location
La France
3 months is standard for telecoms. I worked mine when I left my last employer as I had a project to finish and I needed the money. If I’d been going to a competitor like my old boss did, I’d have been straight onto gardening leave.
 

Deleted member 66701

D

Deleted member 66701

I wouldn't worry about it - notice periods are all a bit of a nonsense. If you want to leave earlier, then leave - they can't force you to stay.

Theoretically they could sue you for breach of contract, but I'm not aware of a single incident of that happening. This is mainly because they'd have to demonstrate they suffered a significant material loss from you leaving early (beyond standard recruitment/hiring costs to replace you), and that's REALLY hard to do - no one is that important/irreplaceable ;)
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,300
Depends how much you care about the current job/employer. You could give a week and tell them to stuff it (I did once). There is nothing they can do about it, especially if you do it right after pay day then they can't withhold wages :p

Same with garden leave. You could just say no and go straight in to the new job. Once you are off their payroll the contract has ended.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
10 Oct 2005
Posts
8,706
Location
Nottingham
My previous IT job was 3 months after the first year as standard. But it was negotiable, I know one person who only did a week (didn't go down well with management or his colleagues) and most people did about a month unless they wanted to do more. Personally I did 5 weeks as agreed with my manager which fit in with when I wanted to leave.

My new job is only four weeks, even for surprisingly senior people.
 
Back
Top Bottom