Letter: When resignation merits compensation

Mr Keith McNeish
Sunday 28 August 1994 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: The call from Peter Needham in your management column ('Rolling stones gather moss', 24 August) for more long-term commitment from directors is laudable. However, his solution that fixed contracts should replace the rolling variety ignores the realities of the process which gives compensation for loss of office.

Genuine resignations do not produce a golden handshake from any of the rolling service contracts which I have seen. Most 'resignations' are, however, a case of jumping before being pushed; negotiations take place over the unexpired period of the contract and a settlement is agreed.

Although there is understandable pressure from several quarters for contracts to be reduced in length, the reason why many companies will continue to concede them to an individual whom they wish to poach is that the individuals argue hard for such protection because they would lose the security they enjoy in their current job.

The most hazardous period of any employment is the first two years. If an appointment turns out to be a failure, severance would result, but a fixed five-year contract is likely to produce just as large a compensation payment as a rolling agreement.

Nest-feathering and over-protection may need to be curtailed but it is more likely to be through more rigorous examination of contract terms than Mr Needham's solution.

Yours sincerely,

KEITH McNEISH

London, SE1

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in