Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinh
Of course this won't satisfy the cynics, but if someone is cynical from the outset then maybe it's best not to employ them anyway  |
- aah, would that make you the 'uber-cynic', taking the cynical view of the cynics? (just kidding - I think actually agree with the sentitment, if the biggest questions an applicant has are basically "how much cash is in it for me to take this job" then you are talking to the wrong applicant!)
I also agree with the rest of KevinH's post - lawyers write watertight clauses, not always the most attractive clasues. Be clear with your Business what they want to acheive, then write the clause (or policy) that reflects that - generous, supportive and "attractive" redundancy provisions, or bare minima that you can, at your own discretion, exceed.
Short simple (and possibly generous) redundancy provisions can send the message that you don't expect to use them, and if you do the quality and commitment within your employment relationship will be more important than the technical terms. Detailed, lengthy and watertight clauses can send the image that you are well experienced in using these clauses and learnt from that experience what protections you as an employer need. It's a bit of a balancing act.
Cheers
Pete
