Slashdot Mirror
Dealing w/ Relocation Package Bait and Switch?
An anonymous reader asks: "I got a R&D job offer with a large company in Philadelphia area last week. It includes a relocation package that they told me was standard for my position. After I accepted the offer and made plans to terminate my current job, the recruiter handed me off to their relocation department, where I was told that my relocation package is significantly less than what I was promised. The relocation manager tells me that whenever there is conflict between their relocation policy and the offer, their internal relocation policy supersedes. Is this type of switch-and-bait common practice in corporate America? If you have gone through this nightmare before, any advice on how to respond to it?"
I think you're screwed.
http://packetnexus.com
First, you describe it as a 'nightmare'. Is this a deal-breaker, or not, for you?
If it's not, and you'd honestly take the job even without the better relocation package, then your goal is just to try to negotiate, right?
If it IS a DEFINITE deal-breaker, call them up and tell them that, bluntly but softly: "I'm sorry, but that's what I was promised. I don't want to cause any trouble, but for me right now this is definitely a deal-breaker. Please talk to whoever you need to talk to," get info on how long it will take them to make a decision and arrange to call back, and then call back.
If it's not a definite deal-breaker but you want to negotiate, the procedure is the same, but use softer wording.
"Bob, you told me that there was [blah] to help me get there and get going, and they're telling me [blahrg]. I'm just really concerned, and I wanted to let you know where I'm at with this. I'm really excited about coming on board with you guys, and I'm really looking forward to it, but my situation right now is that without an adequate relocation package like the one you described, it just might not make sense for either of us."
Also, mention to them that there are two ways that this is bad -- first, that the financial hit you'd take from the lower relocation package is enough to make taking the position a lot less attractive. But second, that taking that hit -- a substantial financial penalty -- is enough of a negative for you that it just might not make sense to start off what you *had* hoped would be a long and mutually rewarding career by being asked to take a big financial penalty.
You didn't quit your job yet, right? You haven't yet taken a dump on your supervisor's desk, right? So you can survive. If your prospective new bosses react to these kinds of reasonable concerns unreasonably, you're better off where you are, so expressing your concerns can only help you.
In Delaware at least, a verbal contract is binding. Legally, the company must honor it.
The problem is that you have to prove the contract was made, and without a written copy that can be difficult.
I heartily agree with this. I've never had a company back-off from a request to get everything in writing prior to acceptance.
The other thing I'd do is bring this up with the manager/director/whoever that hired you. As a manager, and I am one, I would not be amused with an internal bureaucrat who underminded a legitimate offer with the result of a new hire coming in the door angry. That's no way to start things off. Give this person a chance to address the issue.
Another point is that his/her reaction will likely give some idea as to what degree they will support thier team. It may be that he/she can't do anything, but give them the chance and make them aware
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
Actually, the general rule is that a contract does not have to be in writing to be valid and enforceable (there are, of course, some important exceptions). If they offered you a certain employment package and you accepted it, you formed a contract with them, regardless of what their "internal" policy is. Despite what another post below yours implied, this is a situation where a lawsuit would be very reasonable. It's the proper way to enforce the terms of a contract when the other party fails to perform. On the other hand, there is some risk in just quitting. In the best case scenario, you can get them to pay your lost salary until you can find a comparable job (and if your new job pays less, possibly even cover the difference). Worst case scenario is you could get nothing from them. That said, I wouldn't want to work for a company that started off the employment relationship by lying to me.
I am not a lawyer, and I am especially not your lawyer. If you feel sufficiently aggrieved to sue this company, contact a lawyer and get his or her opinion. The opinions expressed in this post do not constitute legal advice of any kind to anybody.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
It was an IT services company. Except I was already at the job site when they pulled their magic now you see it, now you don't act. But it was my mistake because they told me they would "help" with relocation. Turned out their definition of help and mine were quite different. That was the same job the customer described the "intent" of making the job permanent. In this case the road to a hellish job in a hell hole of a town was paved with helpful good intentions.
The others telling you this is a big, red flag are absolutely correct. If it starts out bad, there's nowhere to go but down, especially if this is a company renting you to another company. You will have endless niggling disagreements because they're squeezing you on one side and the customer on the other. The customer will always be expecting you to pay the tab, and in disagreements with your employer the policy will always be on their side. Besides, it's a cheap chisel and if you roll over on this they're going to keep chipping away at your hide.
Go back to your current employer, tell them you changed your mind and wanted to give them first chance before putting them through the expense of finding someone new and yourself through the expense of finding another job.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
When someone says "get your offer in writing," that doesn't mean an e-mail from Joe Department Manager saying, "Hey guy, it was great talking to ya, and guess what? We want to give you the job! Isn't that cool?"
... why start off a new job in an adversarial position? Even if you sue them for the compensation they didn't pay you, you'll be out of a job. But I agree with the GP: Get it in writing anyway.
... it is a formal proposal. It's not exactly a contract, but for all intents and purposes both parties should expect to treat it like that.
An employment offer in writing is written by the HR department, not the person you interviewed. It has a signature at the bottom. It will probably arrive at your home via FedEx or registered mail. The package might also include other materials, such as a brochure describing the company's benefits package. The letter itself might also have a space at the bottom where you put your own signature, and you will return that copy of the letter to the HR department when you accept your offer.
The other posters are right when they say that recourse for a hiring bait-and-switch is tricky
It's odd to me that anybody would have reached the point where they quit their previous job and were actually planning to move out of their home without getting the terms of the relocation deal in writing. If an offer letter showed up that didn't include those terms, I'd send it back and ask for them to be spelled out. No HR department should refuse that request. If they did, that would be a big, huge, three-alarm red flag to me that the company is not on the level.
The point is that a real offer letter is not an offer as in "hey how about this"
Look at it this way: In any kind of situation where you are considering taking a new job, don't think of yourself as a supplicant asking a company for work. Think of yourself as a supplier who has something to offer that company. What you're offering the company is your work.
Now, suppose you weren't just one person -- suppose you were a different kind of supplier, like a concrete company that owned some cement mixer trucks. If your local municipality offered you a job pouring concrete on a few work sites, wouldn't you want to get the terms of that offer in writing? Where and when are your guys supposed to show up, how long is the job expected to take, and what are they offering to pay you for that amount of work?
Taking any other kind of job, even if it's just a job in an office, is no different. If they don't want to spell out the terms of the deal for you, then you should view that deal exactly the same way you would if you were the boss of a cement company and the customer didn't seem to want to negotiate in good faith.
Breakfast served all day!
It won't work just doing that in the US either. There are IRS guidelines that stipulate if you are a contractor or employee read here .
The best way to avoid this, is to incorporate yourself, like with an "S" corp as I suggested in the GP. This way, you work for YOUR company, and the contractual agreement is between your corp and their corp (C2C). Actually since the old Microsoft fiasco, where a bunch of 1099 contractors came back and successfully sued MS for non-payment of employee benefits...most companies today are a little hesitant to hire you as a 1099 employee directly...the c2c relationship shields them from this and helps keep the IRS happy with your employment designation.
With the c2c relation ship...your corp invoices their company...and your corp pays you a 'reasonable salary' on which you pay SE taxes (FICA, Medicare, etc)...the rest of the money falls through to you without the employment taxation, only income taxes. This is how it works with and S corp...if you have an LLC...all income gets the employment taxes taken out of it...is a sweet deal.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Comment removed based on user account deletion
after getting sued for defamation".
It's only defamation if it's a lie. And the plaintiff has to prove the person is knowingly telling a lie, which isn't easy otherwise all those weekly rags that publish dirt on celebrities would be out of business.
FalconShould there be a Law?