Why on Earth does Europe have 3 month notice periods to switch jobs?

> by European employment 'contracts'

With great variations between member states. Germany has long notice periods, Greece has as short as 2 weeks notice.

> how this isn't indentured servitude

Labour law extends similar protections to employees. A long notice period simply levels the playing fields by returning some protection to employers. That's why in the EU there aren't mass layoffs like in the US right now, or riots, or mass shootings.

> (What happens if you ignore it?)

Maybe nothing, depends on how litigious the employer is. Usually a shorter notice period can be negotiated, eg. by agreeing to some un/pre-paid post-departure consulting for the previous employer.

> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter

It's about planning. I wouldn't want to work for an employer who is hiring in panic because they haven't foreseen labour needs. I'd be afraid that they'd let me go as easily as they have hired me.

> so this must greatly restrict labor mobility

Yes

> and hence wages

That is why you are trying to hire in Europe, aren't you?

> How is this legal, in the famously pro-labor EU?

Because it is literally the law.

Most people don't want to be labor mobile, they want to be labor secure.

Generally you can agree with your employer to waive the notice period. Often people will also take their accumulated vacation days at that time. Some collective labor agreements also specify that employees can take so many days off a month to look for a new job.

I believe you will need a lot of de-astonishing if you plan to manage your EU business unit.

Three months is not "EU", it is more likely a Law of a specific country in EU.

Typically (but again it may depend on country) you can of course leave, but without an agreement on the lack of advance notice the employer may keep the equivalent of your pay for the period.

What people don't seem to realize is that you absolutely CAN leave anytime that you want, without that notice period, if both you and your employeer agree on doing do. It is pro-employee policy, as it gives you time to peacefully search for other job and not be left without any wage to support yourself and your family. It also prevents employees from leaving without preparing next person that will take over their responsibilities, and gives time to the employeer to actually find your replacement if they need to.

It's not an anti-employeer, nor anti-employee policy, and it just goes to show how less of a friendly workplace USA market has.

Hey so fun fact: three month notice periods are standard in Germany because German companies like to have runway to offload and onboard employees.

Germany is famously pro-labor, so you actually have two notice periods: one for the employer (statutory) and one for employees (contract). The two are usually aligned, and only get out of sync when the employee has been working somewhere for a long time. Let's say you have a month-long notice period in your employee contract. You work at your job for 5 years. By that time, the statutory notice period has increased to two months: if your employer wants to fire you, they have to give you two months. On the other hand, if you're the one who wants to leave, you only need to give them one month, per your contract.

Pretty neat.

3 months is reserved for mid- senior roles, and 6 months isn’t uncommon for senior management/board level (often with enforced garden leave)

as a business owner, it protects me from key employees leaving me in the shit and gives me 3 months to replace them

as an employee, it gives them security that I won’t drop them in the shit and they will have 3 months to find a job or risk not being able to pay their bills

It doesn’t seem super complicated

> contract stating that you're not allowed to leave without 3 months of notice seems extraordinarily restrictive. (What happens if you ignore it?)

You may in theory get sued for the cost of covering for you, but in practice what happens is you lose any outstanding owed you by the employer (wages and payment for holiday not taken).

It's generally considered that this is an employee protection, because it works in the other direction as well. The employer has to give you 3 months notice to end the contract.

(it's not unheard of for people to get the "locked out of your account and building" at the point of resigning, then get paid for the 3 months. This is referred to as "gardening leave")

Yes, it’s very normal to have long notice periods. An employee absolutely can ignore their notice period if they want* but most respect them because they don’t want to burn bridges. Long notice periods are a companion to much greater worker rights, not in competition with.

Europe’s work culture is very different to America’s in that there’s mutual expectations around the commitment made by the employer and by the employee. All companies understand that to hire someone means to wait for their notice period to expire, so it’s not as if it prevents anyone from opportunities.

* in some places, an employer could pursue the ex-employee for contract violation if they didn’t respect their notice period, and the employee could incur the cost of replacing them in the short term… but it’s very rare and typically only important in the context of high-skill jobs. I’ve never seen it happen.

> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter to just hire someone

Well, when they also expect 12 weeks notice in their employee contracts, they can't exactly argue when you are held to the same standard in your current employment can they?

Are you saying that you can find, hire and onboard a new employee in less than 3 months? Seems unlikely, but if so, what's the problem? The employee quit, it's highly unlikely they want to stick around for another 3 months, so if you don't want them around for those 3 months it wouldn't be hard to come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

Both times I quit my job, my employer gave me a multi-month contract to finish my current work and/or to help onboard my replacement. They had to pay me a lot more than my employment rate to do so. They would have been thrilled to keep me for another 3 months without having to pay extra to do so.

In Germany, the default for an employee quiting a job is a four weeks notice to the middle or the end of the month. Only if the job is subject to a collective labour agreement, this period might be shorter. A collective labour agreement might extent it, as well as an individual working contract. In all these cases, the period for the employee must not be shorter than the period for the company. However, it is possible to grant the employee a longer period.[1]

The law does not state an upper limit for the period of notice. There had once been a court ruling in a specific case that a period of three years is too long, because it violates the principle of good faith ("Treu und Glauben").[2]

A contract may be terminated earlier by mutually agreement. An employee may also simply not show up for work, but is then liable for the resulting damage. The employer bears the burden of proof for the damage incurred. So in case you really want to hire someone immediately who is not released from his contract, you can offer to take over any claims for damages that might be made by his former employer.

[1] §622 BGB, see: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__622.html (in German)

[2] https://www.hensche.de/arbeitsrecht-urteile-bag-6-azr-158-16... (in German)

> How is this legal, in the famously pro-labor EU?

Because it's actually pro-labor.

I go into a job knowing an employer cannot simply fire me out of the blue. Meaning I have a little stability to be able to plan my life a few months in advance.

The fact that Europe has a strong labor laws, worker unions and such is the reason why I chose to migrate to Europe and disregarded the US as a destination. A decision I never came to regret, by the way.

Keep that awful "at will employment" to your side of the pond, thank you.

It is also worth keeping in mind that in a lot of cases these three months are greatly reduced when both the employee and the company come to an agreement. The reason is quite simple, the employee usually is eager to leave and the company does not want him to destroy the mood of his team by chatting during three month about the greener pasture he is going to.

I think it is result of labour protection law - just symmetrical. In Poland there is same notice period for employee and employer (up to 3 months).

In Poland it is popular - especially in IT - to sign B2B contract which do not have such restriction and you can agree on shorter or longer notice period to quit a job.

When it comes to developers people usually skip the notice period. Because employer doesn't want to have employee that doesn't care anymore. And employee just wants to leave. So it's not uncommon for the employer just paying for the notice period without employee doing any work or even comming into the office. Theoretically it's time to offload your workload to a different worker, but IT employers rarely appreciate benefit of controlled handover and know that wronged developer may screw them in various ways which malicious intent could be very hard to prove.

It works both ways usually. If you want to fire an employee you can not do it from one day to another without good reason.

There is also the possibility of an earlier contract end with the agreement of both parties.

What devs are you trying to hire?

I think that's only the law if you've been in a company for awhile in a few countries like Germany, Belgium, or Denmark. The idea is that it works both ways - you can't be given 2 weeks notice and kicked out like in US companies.

https://madison-bridge.com/notice-periods-in-europe-are-they...

Most other places are a month - if you are senior: a manager, vice president etc then some companies may write 3 months into your contract.

Equally weird is the U.S culture of escorting leavers immediately out of the building, as if they were minded to commit untold damage...

Also, many European countries have notices much shorter than 3 months.

> A contract stating that you're not allowed to leave without 3 months of notice seems extraordinarily restrictive. (What happens if you ignore it?)

You answered it by yourself, you just stop going to work, what are they gonna do, fire you? Worst case you will just lose some part of salary you already earned, but usually you can agree on some more reasonable notice period like one month to make both parties happy to handover the job, but of course there are employers who will tell you you don't really need to come to work during notice period to not cause more damage than good. Under absolutely extreme unrealistic circumstances employer can sue you for expenses you caused by not showing up for work during notice period, but honestly nobodyis enforcing this because it's PITA taking many years in courtrooms, so it's not worth.

This notice period by law is made mostly to protect the employees so they will have enough time to find replacement job and not end up without income within 2 weeks. Also while you are often paid by weeks in US, standard in US is to get only monthly payment. When people switch jobs the future employer is aware there might be notice period before you can join, so nobody realistic really expect you will join next day and they always ask when you can join.

Also if you have shitty employer who don't wanna deal with notice period they will give you fix term contract like for one year and then they will just decide not to extend it (you can do same) and there is no notice period at all. Of course some countries have laws against fixed term contracts, like you can have only 2-3 terms in row to avoid abusing this. Other solution is to use work agency to hire workers and not hire them directly, these are employed officially in agency, so you will just tell agency you don't want worker anymore and agency has to deal with his job assignment.

Gotta remember that just because you put something in a contract doesnt mean its legal. I could put that you must murder anyone i tell you, even if you sign that it doesnt make it legal. But thats criminal law.

I terms of the UK, realistically its still just a curtousy, but employers put it in because employees often thinnk that they have to adhere to it, they don't. If in the scenario the employee doesnt work the notice period and just immediately leaves, the employer technically could take them to civil court, make a case that they need them to finish their notice period, and the court could theoretically grant them that due to the employee's breach of contract. But i'd imagine thats almost never happened (just guessing), because that would take considerable time, effort and money to do that, and its less hassle just to let them go.

So yeah, its put in because employers can, and employees often incorrectly think they're beholden to it and comply anyway.

This is not just Europe. I've worked in both Hong Kong and Singapore, and in both cases I had a 3 month notice after the probation period. Mind you, in both case this is symetrical: the employer can get rid of me, provided they give me a 3 months notice, or pay for it (more likely), just like I can leave after a 3 months notice period or pay for it. However in most cases, when leaving, you can negotiate to leave early, because no company wants to retain and pay someone who doesn't care anymore: they'll just get you to do some handover and let you go.

On the other hand, I find the North-American way brutal: if my employer wants to get rid of me, I'm revenue-less in 2 weeks. That's not a lot of time for me to find a new job.

The long notice period, among other things attenuates hiring sprees like we have seen this summer and the firings that followed in the winter. It requires for the ceo and hiring managers to think a little longer term than this quarter.

> especially in a region known for its stronger labor protections than the US

If the employee wants to leave, they give x months of notice (unless the employer agrees to less). If the employer wants to fire the employee, they also need to give notice, and salary during this time (unless the employee is fired for cause).

This is a strong labor protection, since it is turning an asymmetrical power relationship into a more symmetrical one.

> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter to just hire someone

This is exactly what happens. I guess it makes employers more conservative on who they hire. It probably disincentivizes innovation and incentivizes social cohesion.

Pretty great tradeoff if you consider (in case of Poland) 26 vacation days, up to 180 days of sick leave with 80% of wage, 20 weeks of maternity leave, having the employer respect the same notice period.

Ignoring fact that you can't be "just" fired without any reason - it must be result of your performance, behavior, or position reduction. Employer who would fire anyone just because of a bad mood, then hire somebody else next day as a replacement, will simply loose in court.

And 3 months notice period is for employers with 3+ years in company, others have 2 weeks or 1 month.

The 3 month period is arguably pro-labor.

In the US, you can be fired and can similarly fire your employer at the drop of a hat.

French employees are protected from layoffs and employers are similarly protected from ghosting by problematic employees.

While the notice period is 3 months, employees and employers can often end the relationship in less time depending on the context. Essential employees usually don't get to leave early. There are a lot of caveats to this, so don't take it as a categorical truth.

In the UK tech industry it tends to be 1 month for rank and file employees and 3 months for seniors.

By the time you are senior enough to be at the 3 month level you will often be put on gardening leave anyway.

I'm surprised it's been flagged. It's an interesting topic so a civilized discussion wouldn't hurt, would it?

As an European all I can say it's a double-edged sword. When you are being laid off, you appreciate it doesn't happen in a Musquesque way and you have plenty of time to take care of your family and find an interesting job, not just anything. yes, not all companies are happy with it, but some will - and you can also start looking in the last moment if you feel adventurous enough.

Usually you can just get an agreement with the employer to leave sooner. Three months might be enough time to hire someone and have some limited handover, but better than no handover.

Never had longer notice period than 3 months, and I don't think people would agree to such thing. I've seen people being on notice for a year, but it was considered "garden leave". Company pays you not to take any job, so you basically forget what the product was and they move on with functionality. I once had 3 months notice period, when leaving I asked verbally if we can make it 4 weeks, they agreed and that's it.

As far as I know garden leave is a thing even in the US. A garden leave is in practice a long notice period were you do not have to show up for work. But here in Europe notice periods are usually symmetrical (i.e. you are entitled to it), while often garden leave is at the employer discretion.

Setting EU labor BS aside.

Don't hire as "permanent employees", hire them as contractors (and offer higher rate).

There are lots of people who are quite happy with this arrangement. People get more money, the cost is the same. Employer gets flexibility. Everybody is happy except the tax collector :).

Note that this also comes with very long, 3-6-9 months of probation periods in most EU countries - during which time both parties can terminate the contract instantly and without reason. After such time passes, everybody is interested in a predictable safe separation.

Think of it another way: you know that people won't up and leave (easily) leaving you only with a month (or less) to hire a replacement for their role. There will be time for the hiring process and for handover.

As an employer it has benefits as well as drawbacks.

> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter to just hire someone

I mean, if you extended your horizons a little beyond the next earnings report, you'd be surprised what you can plan.

Because it's a mutual beneficial agreement – employers cannot terminate employees without at least 3m compensation.

Also, this law is not optimized for industries (like tech) that have talent shortages.

In germany it's only 3 month if the employee has been in the company for 4 years. Until then it's only 1 month.

Edit: Both parties can of course negotiate a bigger time frame.

In NL it’s one month. But regardless of that, I prefer some notice period instead of being fired on the spot while I’m on sick leave (which is also illegal in Europe)

Europeans enjoy profound worker protections literally unimaginable in the US. Naturally along with that comes profound complication, rigidity, and bureaucratic mess.

If you can adequately install and train a replacement employee with two weeks or less notice, you probably don't need them in the first place.

In Estonia the norm (in fact the default in the law) is one month notice period. So it's definitely not everywhere in the EU.

Not true, I had to give 1 after 12 years of service in the same company.

most countries are probably 1 month only

3 month could be for senior-leadership and other high level positions

Typically one month in Ireland.

Atlas Shrugged really needed an editor. It's a long, yet overly pedantic novel with simplistic caricature for villains. It also manages to go head to head with Brave New World for predicting the nature of our decline. This is just one more moment where I must begrudgingly admit that Rand called this one.