Have you already negotiated and this is the result? If not, then do NOT accept this without asking for more PTO. The flexible schedule will make up for some of it, but not enough. Jenni's "the only thing holding me back is the low PTO time" is a good way to phrase it; then they can either make another offer or ask you what you have in mind. If they won't budge, I still say take the job, because it sounds like you really need to, but keep looking for something better.
I'd take it. Sure there are the red flags but I value a friend's opinion and if they think it's a great place to work then maybe it's better in reality than on paper. For example, DH only has a limited amount of PTO but he works from home so a lot of times as long as he gets stuff done he's able to take off without issue. Maybe there's no one there punching cards if they claim to be so flexible. Anyway take it just for the security for now.
Standard fed holidays are 10 days per year. You're only getting 1 day above that for ALL of your leave. So you're taking an even bigger paycut than just the salary b/c any additional time you take will be unpaid.
I guess I will be the dissenter. I think this job offer sucks. The salary they are offering is SHOCKINGLY low for high tech marketing. And no retirement and virtually no time off? No no no no no.
FWIW, there is one job I'm going to apply for still. Just in case. It's what I want to do long term, which is a hybrid marketing and communications role. Should I mention to you that it's at a catholic high school? lol
I agree w/ Jenny that it isn't a great offer, but if your current job may only last for 3 months, I may take it to have something. However, if they aren't able to increase your vacation now, I would get it in writing that they are allowing xx days unpaid. H's employer also says that they can take unpaid days, but in practice, it is frowned upon and only 1 or 2 days are actually approved.
I agree w/ Jenny that it isn't a great offer, but if your current job may only last for 3 months, I may take it to have something.
Yeah, I don't think anyone here thinks this is a great offer, or even a good one. And a lot of us said to take it and keep looking. But it's a good alternative to not having a job at all in three months, and it should end up being around the same income. I wouldn't expect to remain at this company for a long time, especially with no retirement. But for now, it's not the worst.
Ok, so I asked about the vacation, if there was a limit on unpaid leave as in "if I get the flu, I want to make sure I can still take a vacation." I got this in response:
"Unpaid time off limits that are governed by the Family Leave Act would be separate from our standard policy regarding absences. That policy is that any absence not approved could be cause for termination. We haven’t had to enforce this, but it is our policy.
I realize that you’re probably leaving another position that may offer a different PTO schedule, but this is the best that I can offer you right now because it’s the PTO schedule that every new hire is given."
And then this, a couple hours later (in response to, if you have vacations planned, just let us know) " In regards to your vacation time in Oct and next year (sorry, missed that sentence), you would have some PTO accrued by Oct (2 days or so), the rest could be taken as unpaid time off. Next year you should have the same, and it’s fine if you need to take unpaid time off for that vacation. We just don’t want a scenario where you decide to take a 3-4 week leave, unpaid, although we did have a developer do that and so it’s possible that we would approve that as well, with the proper notice.
Hopefully that provides more clarity?"
I'm thinking there's just too many red flags and muddled answers.
I vote take it and keep looking at the same time. Once you're in the new job you'll find out quickly if it sucks - but you already know that your current job sucks and your current job is a sinking ship. If new job sucks then you hunt harder for new job 2.0. If you get offered new job 2.0 you could also use that as leverage to get new job 1.0 to increase your benefits.
The benefits package sucks, there's no two ways about that. But you're jumping from a sinking ship, and you're looking to gain experience to shift the area of your field you're in.
That response is awful. This company sounds like it's a mess internally, and I don't believe for a second that they treat people well. They sound like they don't trust their employees and that they nickel and dime them to death. So that sucks, and now I guess the decision to make is would you rather take this job, or risk being unemployed? You may have mentioned this at some point and I missed it, but can you afford to live on unemployment in place of your salary? If not, then I would still say take this job but treat it as a temp job only meant to tide you over until you can find something better. Some people might say that's crappy, but this sounds like a crappy company, and with their policies, I bet they're used to high turnover. So do what's best for you, and not this potential company your current one.
If I were unemployed, we'd have to cut our IRA contributions but could otherwise afford our current lifestyle.
I will say I'm leaning towards not taking it at this point. I'm not unemployed yet, and I'm so tired of working in disfunction that I'm really nervous about the idea of jumping ship to another dysfunctional company. Especially if I don't even get time off while I'm there. I realize no matter where I end up it could be bad, but I just feel like the writing is on the wall. Sure, flex hours are great. But that's about all it has going for it right now. I'll have extremely flexible hours if I'm unemployed :-)
Post by LoveTrains on Jan 23, 2013 19:57:36 GMT -5
It is mind boggling to me that jobs that require that kind of experience pay that shittily. I mean, I know its out there, but I am sorry hamster. I made over $30K as an admin assistant at a university 10 years ago for my first job out of college. It is such a harsh reality out there these days.
Good luck with whatever you decide. It sounds like if you get the flu you would take unpaid leave (FMLA time), but keep in mind you have to work there for a year to be covered by FMLA.
If I were unemployed, we'd have to cut our IRA contributions but could otherwise afford our current lifestyle.
I will say I'm leaning towards not taking it at this point. I'm not unemployed yet, and I'm so tired of working in disfunction that I'm really nervous about the idea of jumping ship to another dysfunctional company. Especially if I don't even get time off while I'm there. I realize no matter where I end up it could be bad, but I just feel like the writing is on the wall. Sure, flex hours are great. But that's about all it has going for it right now. I'll have extremely flexible hours if I'm unemployed :-)
Well, the only reason to take this offer would be if you absolutely had to, and it doesn't sound like you do. Hopefully one of the other opportunities will pan out, and the good news is it's highly unlikely to be worse than this place. lol. Good luck!
I think their PTO policy is a cover for how low their salaries really are. 5 days - it's not impossible to use all that just on sick leave in a year. There's no reason they can't offer more leave other than they are cheap. I wouldn't take it.
god this kind of thing pisses me off. People get sick or they have weddings or funerals to travel to and employees need vacations and mental health days to remain good, productive employees.
if you won't be hurting too bad financially if you end up on unemployment then I say wait for something else