Very upset over job situation

[Janeway]

When dh was interviewing, at the end, the recruiter (not HR, it was the recruiter) told my husband that it paid a specific amount and that health insurance was $90. And that they have all the usual benefits, health, vision, etc. However, when the offer came through, it ended up being 10K less per year. And the insurance was $70 per pay check per person. Vision and dental are on top of that. The original number they gave my husband for pay was already 20K less than what he used to earn. Now the new offer ended up being 30K less. And the insurance is ending up being $900 per month. Not on the end of that company, but the commute is also long, but not unreasonable, it could be worse. So basically now, he is getting 40K less a year than what he was getting previously. Also, they have no life insurance or long term or short term disability.

 

They are a small company and eager to get someone in right away. Husband got told that they cannot give him a higher amount of money because his boss is only making 10K more than what they just offered my husband. To top it off, husband had a few interviews recently, a few that want in person interviews next, one that would definitely pay more. The one that would pay more and likely have better benefits is Other company. But I also know, or have been told anyway, that other company only hires a small portion of the people who make it to the final interview. AND, husband just really needs a job now.

 

I suggested to my husband that he at least go to this final interview with other company even if he has to push his start date back a week with this smaller company, to see if they offer him a job, and if it is better. My husband says no, that would be cruel to do to the small company he already accepted the job with last night. I think if there is a chance at something that could support his family considering better, that it is cruel to the rest of us to just say no before even looking. And yesterday, he said he would give it a year with this company and then start looking for another job. And that he would be in a much better position at that point because he will be actually employed. Today, he says he will stick it out with this company for a few years and see how the raises and such go, and maybe things will get better. I know my husband is an introvert, but this is frustrating. I know he has hated the job search, but this lower pay does not seem sustainable for our family size.

 

Am I just completely off? Please give me advice. I am very worried Other company will call to set up the inperson interview today and husband will just say no, and in a few months from now, we are not able to afford food or heat. Forget things like Christmas. At least we know the karate and dance are not an issue, which are the only outside activities the older boys have. The younger children have nothing.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Janeway

[zoobie]

I have no idea but I would edit the company name out.

[TammyS]

I completely agree with you.  And I would strongly discourage him from taking the job he already said yes to, whether Sabre makes him an offer or not.  They have already been highly deceitful and that is when they were desperate to get someone in the position.  Like an abusive boyfriend, they aren't going to get better after the wedding. 

[scrapbookbuzz]

That's a tough one and I can tell how frustrating it is for you! I would gently remind your husband that with every job

there is usually a 90-Day probationary period - for the employee and the company. Since his yes to the current company is less than a day old,

he has every right to say, "Hey, I had a family issue come up and I did to take (this day/these days) off to attend to it." Then take that last interview, if

Sabre offers it, to give you all options. Perhaps write out on a sheet of paper the difference the income would make in your family life. Sometimes people

need a visual picture to really grasp a situation.

 

 

[hjffkj]

I completely agree with you. And I would strongly discourage him from taking the job he already said yes to, whether the company makes him an offer or not. They have already been highly deceitful and that is when they were desperate to get someone in the position. Like an abusive boyfriend, they aren't going to get better after the wedding.

This is my thought.

Edited May 31, 2017 by hjffkj

[Bluegoat]

I would consider letting the second company know he has an offer and ask if they could expidite.

 

But, given how long he has been out of work, I'd take the job on offer.  You may need to think about downsizing your basic expenses like housing.

[Guest]

Definitely get the company name out of your post!!

 

I agree with your husband. Working for a year and then continuing his search while already employed will make him look more valuable in the market.

 

I know that the dollar amount is shocking for you, but I would start looking at the glass being half full instead of half empty. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I would be frustrated, too.

 

When DH got laid off, he wouldn't apply for unemployment because he had heard that it was depressing.  I thought that was unbelievably selfish.  But we ended up OK.  

 

This is different, though.  This is the long run.  But, he does need a job.  

 

Was the recruiter who was untruthful an employee of the company?  I'm really curious as to whether he made a mistake or actually lied.  If he was a company employee, I'd be very leery of the company.  If not, I'd be ticked off but not necessarily blame the company.

 

Either way I'd take that second interview, agree with the suggestion to ask to expedite it.  

I would have no qualms at all about changing my mind about the first job.  I'd flat out tell them that financially it was not what I had been led to expect and that that was why the other one was more attractive.  But I wouldn't flat out turn it down this minute.  Any port in a storm.

[Janeway]

I would be frustrated, too.

 

When DH got laid off, he wouldn't apply for unemployment because he had heard that it was depressing. I thought that was unbelievably selfish. But we ended up OK.

 

This is different, though. This is the long run. But, he does need a job.

 

Was the recruiter who was untruthful an employee of the company? I'm really curious as to whether he made a mistake or actually lied. If he was a company employee, I'd be very leery of the company. If not, I'd be ticked off but not necessarily blame the company.

 

Either way I'd take that second interview, agree with the suggestion to ask to expedite it.

I would have no qualms at all about changing my mind about the first job. I'd flat out tell them that financially it was not what I had been led to expect and that that was why the other one was more attractive. But I wouldn't flat out turn it down this minute. Any port in a storm.

She wasn't a company employee, but we got the impression that the company told her this.

[Janeway]

If he interviews with other company and they don't give him an answer before the first day at small company, and he starts at small company then bigger company comes through after that, would it be rotten for him to quit only a week in?

[tammyw]

I think you have to do what's best for your family.

[bolt.]

I think that it is critical that you find a way to be more assertive with your husband:

 

You are not comfortable with this offer. You don't want him to take it -- unless there are no other options. There are other options within easy reach. You think he should reconsider. You don't think he has the right to ignore your opinion. This is a joint decision because you like a joint life. Spouses should not accept job offers without the other's co-consent except under extenuating circumstances.

 

If this life choice goes down in a unilateral way, you are very *very* likely to resent him more and more every month that you scrape by and remember 'the good offer' that he wouldn't follow up. By Christmas, having less money for presents might be the least of your marital worries.

[Carol in Cal.]

If he interviews with other company and they don't give him an answer before the first day at small company, and he starts at small company then bigger company comes through after that, would it be rotten for him to quit only a week in?

Yes it would, but given that they lured him in under false pretenses it's excusable.

[Bluegoat]

If he interviews with other company and they don't give him an answer before the first day at small company, and he starts at small company then bigger company comes through after that, would it be rotten for him to quit only a week in?

 

I'd say, kind of.  But, then, he might find the job a bad fit, too, and that would be different.

[TammyS]

If he interviews with other company and they don't give him an answer before the first day at small company, and he starts at small company then bigger company comes through after that, would it be rotten for him to quit only a week in?

 

No, especially not after the way they treated him to begin with.  He can just say, "I'm sorry to do this, but I got this offer, and it's so much greater than what you are giving it to me that I can't afford to turn it down."  He could try to negotiate with the small company to match or exceed the offer, but I would probably just beat a hasty path away from them, because they would already be tainted in my eyes. 

 

ETA: it's not rotten because it would be a big step up (in terms of pay, if nothing else).  It's not like he's making a lateral move to another company for essentially the same job situation.  That would make him flightly. But this isn't flighty, it's making a reasonable move up. It's not reasonable for any company to expect someone to stay when they are offered a large advancement.

Edited May 31, 2017 by TammyS

[Carol in Cal.]

She wasn't a company employee, but we got the impression that the company told her this.

Of course, but if she wasn't a company employee she could be the one who lied/misrepresented, and that doesn't necessarily reflect on the company.  Plus that would give you can easy 'out' with the place--'Unfortunately your contractor misrepresented your willingness to pay market rates for my services, and so I'm going to be accepting this other position in which the compensation is more commensurate with my abilities and experience.'

 

ETA:  To be clear, what I meant by 'of course' is of course she would give the impression that the company told her this.  And maybe they did but maybe they didn't.  Maybe she thought they did, but maybe she was lying.  In any case, it is nice because it gives your husband a way to not appear to be blaming the company for leaving, but rather for blaming the recruiter--it saves face for them.  And that is good.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[gardenmom5]

I would strongly urge him to do the interview with the 2nd company.

 

the first company also needs to know the recruiter they used *lied* to get him to take the job.   they should know not to use this person again.

 

eta:dsil got a MUCH better offer (and did interviews with a company to which he'd applied at the same time - but was very slow to get back to him) mere weeks after starting his last job. - he left for the better job.  it was doing exactly what he wanted, and the pay was much better.

Edited May 31, 2017 by gardenmom5

[TeenagerMom]

A job with benefits is better than no job at all, especially after a long unemployment period.  We have been through this 2x in the last ten years.  One bout with unemployment was 9 months and DH ended up taking a job literally making 1/4 of the salary he had previously made because flat out, we needed to needed to keep from losing our house and we needed to eat..  Facing reality, sometimes you have to make life changes and sacrifices. Cutting non-necessities from  your life is actually a lot easier than you think. It sucks to do it, but extracurriculars, cable, etc can all go and truly, the world will not end. Your husband also needs employment in a company he isn't going to hate working for and he may very well resent you in the long run if he feels forced into another position or gives up a guaranteed offer of employment for a potential offer that may not come.  If the other company ends up making an offer, then he could definitely leave the first offer of employment for the other company.  Either way, a person is far more likely to receive future job offers if they are currently employed.

Edited May 31, 2017 by TeenagerMom

[gardenmom5]

If he interviews with other company and they don't give him an answer before the first day at small company, and he starts at small company then bigger company comes through after that, would it be rotten for him to quit only a week in?

 

that's business.  they're already on notice their offer isn't adequate.   they're already on notice he accepted this offer under *FALSE PRETENSES*.

 

whomever misled- with this sort of deception at this point, I would NOT trust it to improve.  I would only believe the company blameless in this *DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE* if they proceeded to "fire" the recruiter and never use them again - which you can't know until down the road.

[gardenmom5]

I completely agree with you.  And I would strongly discourage him from taking the job he already said yes to, whether ##### makes him an offer or not.  

 

 

 ." Then take that last interview, if

##### offers it, to give you all options. Perhaps write out on a sheet of paper the difference the income would make in your family life. Sometimes people

need a visual picture to really grasp a situation.

 

 

 

 

It would be good if you can edit out the name of the company in your posts.  

 

I'll delete this when it's done.

Edited May 31, 2017 by gardenmom5

[gardenmom5]

and about the "boss" only making $10K more . . . how much does he get in stock options per year? or bonuses?

 

many many  have "low pay" - because they get paid off in bonuses.

 

 

[2_girls_mommy]

It took years for us to recover from unemployment and the recession. Dh had to take several low paying jobs with long commutes to support the family while continuing to look. Each was for companies we knew weren't great for various reasons and had no future for us, but we needed the income.  This was over the course of several years.  It is just the way life worked out for us. Eventually he got a job with a great company close to home through an acquaintance with a decent income and benefits.  He had been applying to companies forever, but finally found a position through someone he had worked with in the past thankfully. 

 

I would have him accept this job. But I would make sure he goes to the other interview for the better job too. You never know if it could work out or not.  We had almost every place that dh interviewed with come back with an offer less than what was mentioned in the interview process also. It is just the normal that we came to accept, though none as much as 10,000 lower thankfully.

[amy g.]

We have found that recruiters sometimes flat out lie to get a candidate to sign on so they can collect their money.

 

In your position, I'd want Dh to interview with the second company as well, but in your position, I would probably not be able to talk my Dh into doing it.

 

Once Dh got a call from someone wanting to hire him. It was with a major oil company. There were amazing benefits and a pension. The pay was $50,000 a year more than he was making. And he would be working for a friend.

 

He wouldn't even call them back to discuss it much less interview.

 

I was so frustrated with him. But a few months later, in 2008, the economy tanked and he asked me, "Now aren't you glad I'm not the last one hired at a new company?" And I was.

 

My point is that I have come to trust Dh's instincts about his own job.

 

I'm really sorry you are in such a tough spot. I wish he would interview with the other company, but in the end, I think he is probably right that a bird in hand is too good to let go of and in a few years he will be in a much stronger position to find something better.

 

Some jobs really are just stepping stones, but the employers understand that too.

[Garga]

A friend of mine was in this same sort of circumstance: a low job offer as a sure thing, a better offer was a maybe.

 

She talked it over with people. The women she talked with about it spoke of feeling bad at leaving the low job offer in the lurch. The men she spoke with said, "Take the low job offer, but if the better job offer comes through, quit at the low place and take the better. It's business. It's not personal."

 

I think your dh should take the low job offer, because at least it's something. But he should 100% go on the interview for the other job and if they offer him something better, he should take it.

 

And this goes double because of the duplicity the low job offer used to get him there.

[prairiewindmomma]

Has he accepted, or not?  If he hasn't, I would use a stalling technique where he asks to speak with his soon to be direct boss or something like that so that he can buy a few more days time to see if the other interview comes through. The, "thanks for the offer but I'm not sure yet" is a valid response--especially if you pair that with mentioning the discrepancy between the offers information.

 

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/how-to-stall-a-job-offer/

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-politely-postpone-accepting-a-job-offer-2015-6

 

 

 

[Lanny]

Any wiggle room your DH had with the company ended, last night, when he accepted their offer.   He is correct to believe that he will be much more marketable when he is employed. 

 

A good Manager would probably look at 8 or 10 people, when they have a position open.  If one gets hired, that leaves 7 or 9 who didn't get hired for that slot. that's normal. 

 

If your DH goes in, with bad feelings on either side, it will not work out well.   Chemistry is everything.  Deception from the beginning, intentional or otherwise, is not a good way to begin. 

 

I suspect the Recruiter told your DH what s/he had been told by the company.  Possibly it was something like "salary up to nK$"

 

 

[Annie G]

Being a small company, I'm not surprised that the pay and benefits aren't at the same level as the job he had before.  Even dh's long time job isn't providing the same level of benefits it did when he first hired in 2 decades ago.  But it is a job.   

It might not be as bad as you think- calculate his take home pay. Lower salary also means lower taxes so it might not be quite as bad as you think. Work your budget and see what you have to work with and whether you can live on the new pay. It might mean some real cuts, but it's a job and right now he probably needs a job to boost his self esteem. It's been a long dry spell. Maybe after he's been there a bit (less than a few years) he will seek a higher paying job. 

 

But not having to relocate is a plus!

[Lanny]

Has he accepted, or not?  If he hasn't, I would use a stalling technique where he asks to speak with his soon to be direct boss or something like that so that he can buy a few more days time to see if the other interview comes through. The, "thanks for the offer but I'm not sure yet" is a valid response--especially if you pair that with mentioning the discrepancy between the offers information.

 

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/how-to-stall-a-job-offer/

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-politely-postpone-accepting-a-job-offer-2015-6

 

He accepted the offer last night. He cannot negotiate anything with that company now.    I think the recruiter was given a number by the company and the number her DH was given was the number the company gave to the recruiter. Possibly, "up to...fill in the max. salary they would pay that person. IMO he should have taken his time to study their offer and suggested changes.  It is not necessarily a "take it or leave it" situation, although it might be that way when a contract comes in. One does not need to respond immediately, with a yes or with a no. There can be modifications to contracts. Obviously if one is unemployed there is more stress on the applicant and I understand where the DH of the OP is coming from. 

[Word Nerd]

Did he accept the offer without taking at least a couple of days to consider it?

[Lanny]

Did he accept the offer without taking at least a couple of days to consider it?

 

My belief is that the contract came in yesterday and that he accepted it last night.

[prairiewindmomma]

Yeah, if he has accepted, you work for a year at the job, and start your job search nine months in.  That gives you time to stretch it out as long as you need.

 

Honestly, in the IT world, most people are constantly on the prowl for a better offer because the market is so unstable. I'd suggest to dh that you're committed to making this work, but only for a year, so keep talking to recruiters "I just accepted an offer, so I feel committed to this position for a year, but please keep me in mind for future positions....", keep working your LinkedIn connections, and go to some of the meet-ups and other IT social events in your city.

 

I'd also sit dh down and make a budget with strict categories.  Learning to downsize your life is doable, but it takes conscious planning.  

[bettyandbob]

I think it's acceptable to take the offer and continue interviewing at other jobs. That's just how business works. 

 

 

eta: you've been 6+ months without income. You need an income and you need health insurance. Your dh probably feels a lot of pressure to provide. Allow him to take the job to relieve his own anxiety. Encourage him to finish the interviews he has set up. If nothing comes of those interviews, then he proceeds to fully invest in this job for a year. After that time, you can help him revamp his resume and do a more targeted job search. 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Diana P.

[Lanny]

OP please read this carefully and then please read *every* word of the contract your DH signed last night, very carefully. When you are rested. Not when you are tired.

 

RE: Fee to the Recruiter (Head Hunter)

 

I assume the hiring company will pay their fee, which is substantial.   What does the contract say about that fee, if your DH leaves the company, before a certain period of employment, for example, one year?   Will your DH then be responsible for reimbursing the company for the fee they paid to the Recruiter?

 

I would strongly suggest that you understand that correctly, before he accepts the position and then possibly one of the other offers comes in and he resigns from this company that he accepted the offer with last night.

 

If they can legally "claw back" that headhunter fee if he leaves them, you are in deep stuff.

 

 

 

[gardenmom5]

I think it's acceptable to take the offer and continue interviewing at other jobs. That's just how business works. 

 

 

eta: you've been 6+ months without income. You need an income and you need health insurance. Your dh probably feels a lot of pressure to provide. Allow him to take the job to relieve his own anxiety. Encourage him to finish the interviews he has set up. If nothing comes of those interviews, then he proceeds to fully invest in this job for a year. After that time, you can help him revamp his resume and do a more targeted job search. 

 

yeah. . . . businesses would do (and have) the same thing to a new hire without flinching.

 

and i agree - he needs to finish up the other interviews, and if a better offer comes in, not feel guilty about taking it.

[Tap]

As an employeer I would rather lose someone a week in.... than a year into employment.  Wasting the companies time and resourses on training with the intention of leaving in a year, isn't better than doing so 1 week in.

 

For future job prospects...How long was your dh with the previous jobs he has had.  Leaving after one year, can be ok if he has longer employment dates with other companies. Otherwise it becomes a Huge red flag, if he has turned over many similar jobs within the past 10 years or so.

 

As far as potentially taking a different job....At least right now at the company who hired him, they have already paid the recruiter and have a pool of applicants to potentially hire from.  I would be honest about the pay/benefits discrepancy being the reason, not the job itself.  If the company was dishonest about the pay/benefits with the recruiter, they can work that out.  If the recruiter was dishonest, then the company needs to deal with that in a legal way.

 

 

Had the company been honest about the pay/benefits before he interviewed, would he have applied in the first place?

 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Tap

[bettyandbob]

As an empoloyeer I would rather lose someone a week in.... than a year into employment.  Wasting the companies time and resourses on training with the intention of leaving in a year, isn't better than doing so 1 week in.

 

For future job prospects...How long was your dh with the previous jobs he has had.  Leaving after one year, can be ok if he has longer employment dates with other companies. Otherwise it becomes a Huge red flag, if he has turned over many similar jobs within the past 10 years or so.

 

 

 

I agree, but again that's business. The year time frame is meant to give the OP dh a break from the drain of having been laid off for 6 months, done the job search,  and revamped his training during that time. After a year OP and her dh can revisit where they are in their personal financial recovery from this jobless period and what her dh's professional goals are. He has previous periods of long term employment, so one short term employment listing is not going to mark him as a job hopper. 

 

You are definitely correct, it is easier to lose someone after one week. The employer at the losing end can pull up the final list of candidates again quickly and do another round of interviews and get back on track. They haven't invested in training. This can be a point the OP uses in her discussion with her dh when suggesting he keep his appointments with interviews he has already set up. 

[Word Nerd]

As an empoloyeer I would rather lose someone a week in.... than a year into employment.  Wasting the companies time and resourses on training with the intention of leaving in a year, isn't better than doing so 1 week in.

 

I agree. I think it's better to renege on a job offer acceptance before he starts the job than to leave a short time later. A new graduate who took a job in our department ended up bailing when she interviewed for and accepted a better offer only a few months later. If she had said no, even after initially accepting, our company wouldn't have had to start all over with the hiring process.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Word Nerd

[regentrude]

I think that it is critical that you find a way to be more assertive with your husband:

 

You are not comfortable with this offer. You don't want him to take it -- unless there are no other options. There are other options within easy reach. You think he should reconsider. You don't think he has the right to ignore your opinion. This is a joint decision because you like a joint life. Spouses should not accept job offers without the other's co-consent except under extenuating circumstances.

 

I am not sure I agree with this. The OP's husband has been out of work for 8 months. The OP has been "assertive" in the past and made her DH pass on an almost certain job offer because she did not like the location.

 

The person who has to actually work the job needs to make the decision about the job; with some input from the spouse, but the final decision rests with the person who has to go to work there every day.

I rather think the OP's DH might need to do his job search with less input from his wife and just.get.a.job. 

 

Anyway, he accepted the offer. That is a contract, isn't it?

 

OP: He should take the job so he has *A* job. And he can keep looking. 

Edited May 31, 2017 by regentrude

[umsami]

In spite of everything, I'd take the offer, but continue to look. Always easier to get a new job when you have a job.

 

Recruiters often lie, and if he's been out of work awhile, he needs to take what he can get, especially if it's in his field.

 

 

[Arcadia]

My cousins own family businesses in manufacturing. It is possible for the boss to have a lower pay than their employees at times.

 

Did your husband verbally agree to the offer or has he already signed a written contract and given it back to the company?

 

If he only verbally agreed, he can use the common excuse of discussing with his spouse to buy time. If he already signed, then go for all the other interviews because it is all about networking even if the probability of getting the job isn't high. My temp IT jobs offers gave me at least 24 hrs to accept the contract since the terms were simple. My husband and my perm job offers gave us at least 3 days to look over without us asking and asking for a week to consider wasn't off.

 

and about the "boss" only making $10K more . . . how much does he get in stock options per year? or bonuses?

 

many many have "low pay" - because they get paid off in bonuses.

This. My husband's basic pay is close to his reporting boss basic pay but his boss gets lots more bonus and stock options.

[Mergath]

Before I made any decisions, I would look at the contract (whether or not he's signed it yet) and make sure it doesn't have a non-compete clause. If it does, that's going to have a serious impact on any job-hunting he could do in a year. Or even his ability to consider another job now, if it kicks in immediately and he already signed. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all the details of how they work.

[winterbaby]

My point is that I have come to trust Dh's instincts about his own job.

 

This so much. And also what regentrude said. Also, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. In this economy, remaining employed in one's field is the bottom line. As he gets out past that six month mark he's only going to become less attractive to employers. The potential consequences of joining the ranks of the long-term unemployed, the ones who never get offers because employers look at them and think "there must be something wrong with them if noone else has hired them yet" - which we're told starts to happen right at the six month mark - are too dire.

[Janeway]

I am not sure I agree with this. The OP's husband has been out of work for 8 months. The OP has been "assertive" in the past and made her DH pass on an almost certain job offer because she did not like the location.

 

The person who has to actually work the job needs to make the decision about the job; with some input from the spouse, but the final decision rests with the person who has to go to work there every day.

I rather think the OP's DH might need to do his job search with less input from his wife and just.get.a.job. 

 

Anyway, he accepted the offer. That is a contract, isn't it?

 

OP: He should take the job so he has *A* job. And he can keep looking. 

I did not make my husband pass on an almost certain job offer because I did not like the location. That never happened. I posted questions about various areas and asked about specific concerns, but he never terminated any interviewing process and he saw everything to the end and has not turned down any jobs. AND, despite the HCOL, I was kind of looking forward to getting away from the heat in Texas.

[Janeway]

Before I made any decisions, I would look at the contract (whether or not he's signed it yet) and make sure it doesn't have a non-compete clause. If it does, that's going to have a serious impact on any job-hunting he could do in a year. Or even his ability to consider another job now, if it kicks in immediately and he already signed. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all the details of how they work.

No non-compete clause. He is going to go ahead with finishing the interview process with "other company" and if they actually make a job offer (I hear from online that they actually hire few that they interview) and it is considerably better than the small company, then he will turn down small company. But then that is it. He has agreed, that unless there is a great raise and/or bonuses, that next year at this time, he will start job hunting again.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Having been through extended job loss recently,

I would take the current offer and keep looking. If a better job comes along, take it. Your dh can try to negotiate a better deal with current company or just move on.

 

 

It is easier to find a better job if you are already employed.

Edited May 31, 2017 by PinkyandtheBrains.

[PeachyDoodle]

I think it would be an unwise move to turn down a sure thing on the hopes that something better might come along, especially after an extended unemployment.

 

I also think it would be unwise to turn down an even better sure thing, if it comes shortly after starting the job for which you already have an offer. It's business, and I think most companies would not be terribly surprised for this to happen. It's completely normal for job seekers to be involved in various stages of the hiring process at multiple places. And the smaller company has made it clear that they will be unable to match a larger offer.

 

I get that your dh wants to take a job and be done with it. If there were no other offers pending, I'd encourage you just to accept the lower income and start looking for ways to make it work. But $40,000 is not an insignificant amount of money, and frankly, it would be crazy to turn it down over some concern about being fair or nice. The other company will survive, I promise.

 

It's one thing to accept a job and keep looking for another one. It's another to essentially have two offers coming in at the same time and choose one over the other. Even if you initially said yes to the first one.

 

All that said, do be sure that whatever contract your dh signed does not indicate that he would incur some kind of penalty for leaving the job shortly after beginning it.

 

As to the recruiter, you can inform HR of the discrepancies between the initial information and the final offer, but really, chalk that up to being part of the game. Everything is negotiable, and the final offer is all that counts. We've been through this a number of times, and it's not at all unusual for the "potential" numbers to look better than what comes out in the end.

[Liz CA]

I think that it is critical that you find a way to be more assertive with your husband:

 

You are not comfortable with this offer. You don't want him to take it -- unless there are no other options. There are other options within easy reach. You think he should reconsider. You don't think he has the right to ignore your opinion. This is a joint decision because you like a joint life. Spouses should not accept job offers without the other's co-consent except under extenuating circumstances.

 

If this life choice goes down in a unilateral way, you are very *very* likely to resent him more and more every month that you scrape by and remember 'the good offer' that he wouldn't follow up. By Christmas, having less money for presents might be the least of your marital worries.

 

However, it is the spouse who has to work there. DH does not decide which job I choose because I am the one working there and vice versa. When I discuss things with him, he usually recommends to leave all options open until I am sure where I want to be.

We don't have background info such as if OP's dh feels the smaller company will be a nicer, less stressful work environment and he'd prefer that and is willing to take less pay. Or the work itself may be more interesting / advancing his career in a different way than what he expects to be doing at the other company.

 

Since he has been out of work for some time now if I remember correctly, I can understand his attitude that a job offer is better than a maybe but I would also encourage him to interview at least. If/When an offer comes through, things can be discussed as in: "I received a job offer from a company I interviewed during my my job search and the offer is substantially better. I do like working here, however, can we discuss any additional benefits, faster raise schedule, etc."

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Liz CA

[regentrude]

I did not make my husband pass on an almost certain job offer because I did not like the location. That never happened. I posted questions about various areas and asked about specific concerns, but he never terminated any interviewing process and he saw everything to the end and has not turned down any jobs. 

 

Now I am confused.

In your post from last December, http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/631650-need-advice-asap-job-interview-relocation-fast/

you stated that you did not want that particular part of the country, and that you felt your DH should not go through the on site interview process because the travel agent had made a mistake with the travel dates.

 

You wrote in post #15:

 

He emailed them and turned down the job. They then emailed him and asked him to please come out anyway. He didn't answer yet and the hiring manager called him to discuss it with him. They offered to pay for the additional costs after all. He said no, thank you.

Edited May 31, 2017 by regentrude

[bettyandbob]

I would remember $40k less than last year is still more than he makes now. I'm going to guess that the dh was making more than $100k before, but now has been offered less than that, but still an amount within the range of his field.

 

There are no quick fixes or recovery to long unemployment. Even if the dh goes through with other interviews and gets an offer close to his old salary, the family is likely going to need to continue on a tightened budget after 8 months with no income. One thing I learned when I wasn't working is that family finances couldn't be too dependent on dh making a certain salary. We had to.live on less than his salary to plan for "c--- happening."

[ktgrok]

No, especially not after the way they treated him to begin with.  He can just say, "I'm sorry to do this, but I got this offer, and it's so much greater than what you are giving it to me that I can't afford to turn it down."  He could try to negotiate with the small company to match or exceed the offer, but I would probably just beat a hasty path away from them, because they would already be tainted in my eyes. 

 

ETA: it's not rotten because it would be a big step up (in terms of pay, if nothing else).  It's not like he's making a lateral move to another company for essentially the same job situation.  That would make him flightly. But this isn't flighty, it's making a reasonable move up. It's not reasonable for any company to expect someone to stay when they are offered a large advancement.

 

This.