 SlimRick World Chat Champion

Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Karma :  
|
|
 pa_broon74 World Chat Champion

Joined: 28 Mar 2006 Karma :     
|
 Posted: 17:11 - 26 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
It looks fairly standard.
But it would depend on what 'contractual benefits' there are to lose. Also on Point A, to lay you off from work without pay is a worry. So if they decide they don't need you, they can bilk you for salary owed? That seems unfair but is probably standard language.
To me it looks like a standard get out clause if things turn bad, you don't have much in the way of protection for the first 12 months of employment anyway, a company can basically get rid of you without any real problems.
 ____________________ Didn't catch anything. |
|
 Raffles World Chat Champion
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 Karma :   
|
|
 snomag Trackday Trickster

Joined: 12 Nov 2008 Karma :     
|
 Posted: 20:44 - 26 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm not an expert, but I remember at one of my previous companies, I had to accept such terms. Luckily it went quite the opposite way, as we ended up with way too much stuff to do . |
|