Won't Get Fooled Again {a rant -- sorry, long :( }

[PeachyDoodle]

I am so mad right now I could spit fire, so this is partially a rant and partially a request for advice. Bear with me...

 

A few weeks ago, I was approached by a former employer, a church where I served as communications director for several years, until I left about two and a half years ago to stay home with the littles. I was and have remained good friends with my boss, the parish administrator. The rector and I, on the other hand, butted heads fairly often. He's a passive-aggressive, manipulative control freak who has something negative to say about everything (or, on the rare occasions he doesn't, swipes the idea and passes it off to the parish as his own). God only knows how he'd describe me, but the rest of the staff was always highly complimentary of my work.

 

The parish administrator told me they'd been having some trouble with the person who took my place as communications director. She wasn't qualified for the job when they hired her (ahem, church politics), and she'd since become very stressed and was not able to handle the responsibilities. She was unhappy in the position, and they were unhappy with her work, and she has given notice. The PA asked if I would be interested in resuming some of the job on a part-time basis from home.

 

We just began homeschooling in August, which she knows. I seriously struggled with this decision. We could definitely use the money, and I think it would be good to keep my skills fresh and something on my resume, just in case. But I doubted whether I had the mental energy to pile the creative work the job entails on top of my other duties as wife/mom/teacher. And I was concerned as to how well this would work with the control-freak rector. Formerly, it was the times when I worked from outside office (e.g., maternity leave) that he seemed to be at his worst. Having a thumb on his employees via their physical presence in the office seems to be of prime importance to him.

 

But, she convinced me to give it a 90-day trial, starting November 1 (i.e., this Friday). I have rearranged our daily schedule to make a couple of hours available for work, provided for baby-sitting/preschool pickup on the days I have to go to the office (45 minutes away) for meetings, etc., etc. I was nervous, but also excited that this was coming together. I had hope that after the issues of the past few years the rector would be more appreciative of my abilities and allow me to do my job in peace.

 

That is, until this morning.

 

That's when I got an email from another former colleague who works for a ministry affiliated with the church, asking about a freelance job (I have done freelance work for her for ages). As an aside, she also happened to say, "I hear you're going to be helping us out [at the church] while we look for a new communications person."

 

Oh. Huh. I thought I WAS the new communications person.

 

I texted dh to ask what he thought about this. Instead of responding to me, he took it upon himself to text the PA and ask her about it. (We three, along with the PA's dh, have been friends for a decade, so this is not as inappropriate as it sounds. However, I was angry at him for not talking to me first, and I let him know it.) I found her response troubling (okay, infuriating):

 

"The vestry exec committee made a decision to advertise the position. [Peachy] will be included. Sine we are doing this as a trial with the job divided we have to have a backup if it doesn't work.  [Peachy] and  I agreed we will try it.  I feel like it will work."

 

Am I completely out of line to feel insulted that they are going to advertise the job, while offering it to me, before we even begin our partnership, and without bothering to tell me? FWIW, this is not a huge church. They rarely advertise any job opening, as they prefer whenever possible to hire people they know or who have some relationship to the church. Regardless, why would the PA, who is supposedly my friend, not tell me what was going on?

 

It's completely possible that my former experience is tainting my judgment here, but I feel as though I'm being manipulated. The PA is denying it, but this looks to me as if the rector is already gearing up for this arrangement "not working out" and is using me to fill the gap while they look for somebody to replace the current communications director. It's not as if I would walk away at the end of 90 days, leaving them holding the bag. I didn't do that before (in fact, I gave a three-month notice and was told I was no longer needed a full month before my agreed-upon end date), and I wouldn't do it now. And it's not as if they aren't familiar with the quality of my work. So why would they feel the need to advertise now in case they *might* need somebody three months from now?

 

DH thinks I should work whatever time I can, do the bare minimum, and take the money and run. I am very disappointed because I wanted this to work out, and I tried to be over-the-top clear with them about my availability and expectations from the beginning, hoping to avoid some of the problems we had before. But now I am second-guessing even wanting to get involved with these people again. I don't want to go back only to end up being jerked around.

 

What would the hive do?

[Jean in Newcastle]

I would walk away now.  You weren't planning on having this job and your hands are full.  They can manage without you.  

[*Lulu*]

I would walk away now. You weren't planning on having this job and your hands are full. They can manage without you.

Having first hand experience with church politics, I would do just as Jean suggests.

[aggieamy]

Dear So and So,

 

After much thought, prayer, and discussion with my husband I have decided that I cannot accept this opportunity.  I'm very busy with family commitments at this time and unable to add anything addition.  Thank you for thinking of me.

 

Sincerely,

 

Peachy

[MomatHWTK]

If I were on a committee and told that we had a promising candidate but that person had reservations and had only agreed to a 90 day trial, I would assume that we needed to look for a candidate who was committed to the job.  You yourself aren't sure it will work out, so as a distanced third party (not your friend but the others who she works with) I would be looking to hedge my bets. 

[PeachyDoodle]

If I were on a committee and told that we had a promising candidate but that person had reservations and had only agreed to a 90 day trial, I would assume that we needed to look for a candidate who was committed to the job.  You yourself aren't sure it will work out, so as a distanced third party (not your friend but the others who she works with) I would be looking to hedge my bets. 

 

That's fair. I can appreciate that. But assuming that's the case (and realizing that I worked with and knew these same people for close to 8 years), wouldn't it also have been fair for them to say, "We feel that we need someone who can commit to the job long-term. We're going to go ahead and advertise the position. Would you be interested in filling in until we hire someone?"

 

The thing that bothers me most is, THEY approached ME. I wasn't looking for this and wouldn't have applied if I happened to hear about it. I guess I felt flattered that they came calling and now disappointed that it appears they were using me.

 

I also have more experience with church politics than I care to remember (and not just this one church). That's exactly what makes me think I need to move rapidly in the opposite direction.

[Aura]

I am so mad right now I could spit fire, so this is partially a rant and partially a request for advice. Bear with me...

 

A few weeks ago, I was approached by a former employer, a church where I served as communications director for several years, until I left about two and a half years ago to stay home with the littles. I was and have remained good friends with my boss, the parish administrator. The rector and I, on the other hand, butted heads fairly often. He's a passive-aggressive, manipulative control freak who has something negative to say about everything (or, on the rare occasions he doesn't, swipes the idea and passes it off to the parish as his own). God only knows how he'd describe me, but the rest of the staff was always highly complimentary of my work.

 

The parish administrator told me they'd been having some trouble with the person who took my place as communications director. She wasn't qualified for the job when they hired her (ahem, church politics), and she'd since become very stressed and was not able to handle the responsibilities. She was unhappy in the position, and they were unhappy with her work, and she has given notice. The PA asked if I would be interested in resuming some of the job on a part-time basis from home.

 

 

I'm confused. You are resuming SOME of the job, on a PART-TIME basis. If they're used to having someone full-time, and you're only going to be part-time, then why wouldn't you expect them to look for someone additional? If you're only doing part of the job, then who else is going to do the rest? Wouldn't they advertise for it?

 

As far as the "in case it doesn't work out," it seemed to me that it didn't work out before, so that in itself could be an indication that they're concerned about it not working out again. And then you said, "she convinced me," which indicates that you still have misgivings about this and the other side knows this, too.

 

So again, I'm confused at why you didn't expect them to be looking for additional help?

 

 

 

As far as your friend goes, it just sounds like like miscommunication and too many assumptions. I would talk to her directly to work things out between you.

 

 

*Edited: wasn't done and hit the submit button*

[PeachyDoodle]

I'm confused. You are resuming SOME of the job, on a PART-TIME basis. If they're used to having someone full-time, and you're only going to be part-time, then why wouldn't you expect them to look for someone additional? If you're only doing part of the job, then who else is going to do the rest? Wouldn't they advertise for it?

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. They already have a part-time person in the office who was looking for more hours. So the plan (theirs --  not mine) was to move this person into a support role for the communications position. I would not be resuming the full role that I had when I started there (although after a few years it became a part-time position for me). I would be handling the "skilled" work that requires specialized knowledge (web design, etc.). The support person would handle the less-skilled tasks.

 

But they would NOT be looking to hire anyone, because this person is already on staff. Between her and myself, that should cover all of the communications role. There is nothing to advertise for, unless they are already planning for this arragement not to work out.

 

[JustEm]

I don't think you should be offended at all. They came to you looking for you to fill a position they needed filled.  You couldn't commit to doing it full time or for the long term so they agreed to what you can do and on a trial basis.  They have to assume the worse case scenario and prepare for needing to replace you in 90 days.  If it works out good, if not then they won't have to start from scratch after the 90 days.

[JustEm]

Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. They already have a part-time person in the office who was looking for more hours. So the plan (theirs --  not mine) was to move this person into a support role for the communications position. I would not be resuming the full role that I had when I started there (although after a few years it became a part-time position for me). I would be handling the "skilled" work that requires specialized knowledge (web design, etc.). The support person would handle the less-skilled tasks.

 

But they would NOT be looking to hire anyone, because this person is already on staff. Between her and myself, that should cover all of the communications role. There is nothing to advertise for, unless they are already planning for this arragement not to work out.

 

 

I don't think they are planning for it not to work.  They are just being careful because you can't commit entirely right off the bat.  

 

However, I will say that if you can't get past the feeling that they really are just using you then you need to tell them you do not want the job before friday

[MomatHWTK]

Perhaps what your friend wants to happen and what the committee wants are different and you are stuck in the middle.  :-(  If you don't want to deal with drama- probably should walk away.  How good is the $?  ;)

[Incognito]

It sounds from the response that they are advertising the job, but not REALLY advertising it.  They want it to work out with you, but are hedging their bets.

 

I don't like it when people do things that way, but a lot of people do.

 

I think if you want this job, do it.  If you don't, then bow out.  If you want to try it, I don't think their behavior means they are planning to can you.  I think it means they want a back up plan. 

[PeachyDoodle]

Perhaps what your friend wants to happen and what the committee wants are different and you are stuck in the middle.  :-(  If you don't want to deal with drama- probably should walk away.  How good is the $?  ;)

 

Yeah, I'm afraid this is exactly it. I don't understand why she's not being honest with me, but I guess that's a different issue.

 

The money is pretty decent for the time commitment. We won't get rich off of it or anything, but it would go a long way toward finishing off our debt. :001_smile:

 

My mom and my sister both agree with dh: treat it like a temp job, get what I can out of it, and no hard feelings when it's over. And, as my sis says, on the off chance that both parties agree to re-up at the end of 90 days, it needs to be with the understanding that we're agreeing that the arrangement works as is, so no more of this funny business.

 

I'm really not so peeved that they decided to advertise, per se, but that they didn't tell me they were doing it. I understand that they may be anxious to cover their bases. But I feel like they would have blindsided me with the news that they had hired somebody else if I hadn't happened to have heard from this other person that they were looking.

 

[Tammi K]

To me it smacks of 'temporary' help instead of a 'trial' position. It sounds like they have a plan to hire someone and want to you, who has familiarity with the inner workings of the organization,  to help pave the way. It looks like you give them 3 months to get things up and running in the new order of things and in the meantime they find someone to step in after 3 months when you are told, "Thanks for your help. Bye."

 

But, I'm a cynic and a half-empty kind of girl so I always see the dark side of things. :glare:

[dirty ethel rackham]

I would walk, no, RUN away.  I probably would not have taken it knowing the toxic rector was still there.  Since they couldn't be honest with you from the start, it looks like you are being set up to fail.  If they had said "Hey, we are going to advertise this position, but could you take over for a short-term situation?' I might have said OK. 

[elfgivas]

tongue in cheek: given how they're doing with communicating with you, they need a communications person desperately ;)

 

churches are churches.  stuff happens.  suggestions get made, actions get taken, sometimes with, sometimes without committees/clergy/staff knowing.

you know all this.  it still doesn't feel good unless you can look at it and say "churches are like this".... because they are.

 

i would go into it stating, "i am really looking forward to this.  i was surprised when i heard you were adveritizing the position even though i'd agreed to do it.  can you talk me through your thinking on that one?"  and then listen, ask clarifying questions, and then repeat back what you think you are agreeing to. 

 

hth,

ann

[G5052]

I'd walk just given the issues you've had with who is in charge.  

 

I've always done contract work and homeschooled, and it is very stressful to do both well. When my work stress is on the high side, homeschooling is rocky too. Period. For the next few years, I'm focusing on two customers who are easy to work with and who pay on time. I just can't be taking on more than that without affecting my DC's education. When they start going to college, I may revisit that situation, but not now.

 

[StephanieZ]

I'd tell them that you thought that both sides were giving this a ninety day trial in good faith, with the understanding that you would continue if it was satisfactory to both sides.

 

Let them know that you are making significant investments in arranging your life to make this work, with the expectation that you are making these changes in your lifestyle and arrangements as an investment in a probable long term employment opportunity.

 

Then, I'd ask them if that is also still their understanding. If so, then that means they would cease their search efforts until they had the trial well underway or complete. Period.

 

If not, and if they would like you to do this on a relief/fill in basis as they explore all their options, then you would still be happy to help them, but it would be on a different basis. The basis being your hourly rate would be 50-100% higher than normal, and every single hour, including phone meetings, emails, etc. is billable. This is not unfair or taking advantage. In fact, that sort of surcharge is routine for temporary or fill in positions. We pay our 'relief' vet who covers vacations for dh about 75% more hourly than his regular part time associate. If you hire temporary help via an agency, the rates are comparably high.

 

That's my 2 cents, fwiw.

[PeachyDoodle]

I'd tell them that you thought that both sides were giving this a ninety day trial in good faith, with the understanding that you would continue if it was satisfactory to both sides.

 

Let them know that you are making significant investments in arranging your life to make this work, with the expectation that you are making these changes in your lifestyle and arrangements as an investment in a probable long term employment opportunity.

 

Then, I'd ask them if that is also still their understanding. If so, then that means they would cease their search efforts until they had the trial well underway or complete. Period.

 

If not, and if they would like you to do this on a relief/fill in basis as they explore all their options, then you would still be happy to help them, but it would be on a different basis. The basis being your hourly rate would be 50-100% higher than normal, and every single hour, including phone meetings, emails, etc. is billable. This is not unfair or taking advantage. In fact, that sort of surcharge is routine for temporary or fill in positions. We pay our 'relief' vet who covers vacations for dh about 75% more hourly than his regular part time associate. If you hire temporary help via an agency, the rates are comparably high.

 

That's my 2 cents, fwiw.

 

That's actually very helpful to know, thank you.

 

I did think both sides were giving this a ninety day trial in good faith. I knew that it would take that long to work out the kinks, given that this is a different arrangement than they (and I) have been used to. I need that time to make sure I can make things work for my family. They also need it to see if it will meet their needs.

 

I have told them repeatedly in this process that if they did not feel that what I am able to offer meets their needs, I would not be offended if they decided to look elsewhere. I have been very upfront about my availability, given my other responsibilities. If they didn't think it would work, they should not have offered me the job. If they do, great. If they're not sure but want to give it a chance... well, it seems to me that that's what the trial is for.

 

I LOVE your suggestion that, if they want the privilege of exploring all the options while keeping me on a leash, they will have to pay a premium. At the end of ninety days, if they are happy with the way things are working with me, we can discuss long-term options. If not, they are free to find someone else. I think that is fair to both parties.

 

[Starr]

Naaa, you will spend way too much time here with updates. :D While we're ready to listen why put yourself there. Let it go, let them hire the perfect person and wish them well.  :grouphug:

[Tsuga]

I love StephanieZ's suggestion, but more importantly, if at the end of 90 days you are not happy with it, be sure to tell them and just take the money.

 

If they agree to the 150% normal salary, don't feel obligated to stay. You've helped them out here, you earned that money.

 

I would notify them before the 90 days is up, a good four weeks notice if possible, if you do not intend to stay on. Let's say you've decided it's just not working out. Advance notice is the right thing to do. Even if they haven't afforded it to you, you should still do it. That way, if you do decide to take that consulting fee, you can do it guilt and drama free. Don't leave them hanging. (Not that you would.)

[shawthorne44]

I agree with your husband.  Plus, you don't need this job.  They know you don't need this job.  You can work and use the money to pay off the debt you mentioned.  If, once you are working, the Rector is making your blood boil, then say that you can only continue to work if your contact with the rector is limited to X. 

[Truscifi]

I agree with your husband.  Plus, you don't need this job.  They know you don't need this job.  You can work and use the money to pay off the debt you mentioned.  If, once you are working, the Rector is making your blood boil, then say that you can only continue to work if your contact with the rector is limited to X. 

 

:iagree:   This is exactly what I was going to say.

[AlmiraGulch]

You said it was a 90-day trial.  If you decide on the 90th day not to return on the 91st, they need to be prepared with candidates so that the role doesn't go unfilled.

 

As someone who has spent many years doing workforce planning and talent management, I'd say it's smart for them to advertise the position, and that it in no way reflects upon your ability to be successful in the role.  

[jelbe5]

I am wondering if, since the agreement was for a 90 day trial that the PA's "understanding" is that you would be evaluating whether or not you would stay and because of that they are within their right to interview and consider other candidates.

 

However, if this is the case, the lack of open communication on the part of the church is, to me, appalling.  I think this is an indication of what you will have to be dealing with as an employee and I, for one, would not be interested in adding that stress back into my life, even for money.  I agree with others . . . I would politely decline this position.

[PeachyDoodle]

Okay, I have emailed PA to see if I can get some clarification as to their intentions. I told her that their advertising the position and telling everybody that I'm filling in while they look for someone makes me think their real end game is to have me step in to buy them some time while they consider all their options. I said that I'm happy to do that but that it changes the parameters and I want to know going in what the real deal is.

 

I also told her it sounds like there is some disconnect between what she and I agreed to and what everybody else who's involved (the committee, the rector) understands. I said that I thought we were agreeing to a ninety-day trial in good faith, with the hope to continue after that if it was satisfactory to both parties. Ninety days should give sufficient time both to see how the arrangement works and to make alternative plans if necessary.

 

We will see what she has to say.

[mamajudy]

I think Stephanie's plan is a good one. Call me a cynic, but from what I have observed, churches make the worst employers. I grieves me to say it, but in employer/employee relationships, they certainly don't seem to "love one another." I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

[Little Nyssa]

I've been thinking about this thread and wondering what I think about it for a little while. I finally realized what was missing for me: any discussion of whether you feel a spiritual calling for this job. Do you feel called to do it? I mean, do you love this church and its mission, and do you feel that God is calling you into this niche? Do you want to help the church do what it's trying to do? Is there enough love between you and the church community that the aggravation could be a minor thing? Or not? If not, there's nothing wrong with that, you have plenty else on your plate right now, so just say no.

[hillfarm]

Seems like the problem is the difference between "part time" and "short term". The church officials may have misspoken when they offered you one when they meant the other or you might have accidentally interpreted one for the other.

 

If you want the money, even if it might be for a short term job, then I would go for it. However, I would also send a note/email to the person in charge, clarifying that you were a bit unclear about things and wanted to get everyone on the same page regarding the duration of the work that was being offered to you at this time. "In my understanding, I am being offered a short term position (duration of approximately 90 days), to be completed in X number of hours per week, while the church seeks someone to fill the position permanently. I am unclear on whether, by virtue of my employment in the position temporarily, I am also being considered as an applicant for the permanent position. I would appreciate clarification on this, so that I will know whether or not I should seek other work after the short term duration has passed."

 

If you do decide to take the position, then I would require a clear job description and identification of the chain of command before starting. And then I would make it my business to follow the letter of the law. If the rector is not your immediate boss, then I would suggest that he take up any complaints or suggestions with the appropriate person instead of discouraging you with them. If he got all stressed out about what you were doing as you worked from home, again, I would suggest he direct all inquiries to your supervisor. Don't play the game. Have some boilerplate language memorized and refuse to rise to his bait.

[Catwoman]

I would politely inform them that I would not be taking the job.

 

They're using you and not being open with you.

 

Why would you even consider taking the job under those circumstances? :confused:

[RanchGirl]

It does sound like they have not been open with you and are not doing the trial in good faith.  They don't need to pursue other candidates before your 90 day trial even begins for crying out loud!  If they want you to fill in while they search for other candidates, and you think you can trust them at this point, I would ask for a premium as others have suggested.  But personally, I would not want to work there given all that has already gone down, and I would seek a PT option elsewhere to pay down your debt or perhaps take on more free-lance jobs.

 

Also I would ask your husband not to interfere with your work.  Clearly he meant well by asking for clarification but it was very inappropriate and makes you look much less professional, which hurts your position in this already tenuous working relationship.

 

 

[PeachyDoodle]

Trust me, dh got an earful. :thumbup:

 

The explanation that I'm getting goes something like this: The communications committee (yes, ANOTHER committee is now involved), in an attempt to be helpful but without really knowing what was going on, got together and wrote a job description and voted to advertise the position. They don't have the authority to advertise it, but one of the members, who's also on the vestry exec committee, took their recommendation to vestry exec. Vestry exec approved the motion to advertise the job. PA is telling me that, since it's gone to vestry her hands are tied, but that the advertising is more or less a formality.

 

That's all well and good, but it still leaves me with questions:

 

1) why the rector (who sat through the vestry exec meeting as this vote was taken) did not bother to tell the vestry exec committee that the church had already entered into an agreement for a trial with me, or, alternatively,

 

2) if he didn't want to pick a fight with vestry exec (as PA claims, although I don't see why it would have been a fight necessarily) why he (or she) didn't let me know that the position was going to be advertised.

 

Even if the advertising/telling the parish that I'm "filling in" is all a ruse to appease the vestry and they intended all along to hire me permanently, I'm still not comfortable with it. And I don't think that's what it is. I don't know why I'm surprised by all this; this is a prime example of the rector's manipulative tactics, and it's nothing new to me. He uses information for control -- hence the reason he wouldn't tell me about the vestry or the vestry about me. He seems to think that giving full disclosure somehow diminishes his power. That is especially frustrating when your job is supposed to be COMMUNICATION.

 

As to why I want the job... I have no clue. No, I do not feel any special calling to it, although I'm not sure I subscribe to the theory that there is such a thing. There are few jobs I have come across that will allow me to work fully from home and completely on my own schedule, and the pay is definitely better than anything I could get part-time in retail, etc. I have had some freelance jobs in the past couple of years, but they are few and far between; IME, churches are either large enough to have a communications person on staff or small enough to expect everything for free. But at this point, it might be more about not letting him "win" than anything else.

 

I think my solution is to restructure the offer as a freelance job, with a contract, for a duration of three months at a premium rate (150%). After that, both parties can mutually agree to continue month to month at the regular rate. I should have insisted on a contract from the beginning; I let them drive the conversation, and that was a mistake. We've obviously got WAY too many people involved here; I need the responsibilities clearly laid out, because this kind of "communication issue" will happen again. And there's no sense in making it an employment situation when I will rarely be in the office. My sister (an attorney) is looking over my freelance contract now; I had to modify it since this is more complicated than the jobs I usually do.

 

They may or may not agree to this, but if I can't have some basic protections for myself, I think it's time to walk away.

 

 

[elfgivas]

its so sad when its the rector who is doing the manipulating..... it may be worth writing what you want yourself....

 

You are the communications director.  YOU could call a meeting with all of them and with a beautific smile on your face say how glad you are to be coming back, because they clearly really need you.  (nudge nudge wink wink). 

 

you could help them come to a decision about what the end goals are and how best to get there.  then they can re-vote on whatever they need to re-vote on.  at the end of two hours, you can have a job or not, but putting everyone in the same room is a good way to short-circuit the "he said, he didn't say" control stuff. 

 

hth,

ann

 

ps.  the other thing to do would be to sit down with the rector and his rep on your equivalent of ministry and personnel, and ask him directly what his goals are and whether he wants you in the position and why he didn't mention anything to vestry and how to keep this from happening again.  he will be ticked.  but shining the light of Christ into dark places is one way to define what it is we are trying to do.