Interesting employment situation
Discussion
Now to be clear - I am an employment lawyer and I am pretty sure I have the legal position licked here (unless someone with more experience suggests otherwise) , but what I'm looking now for is a commercial view on the situation, which is something I don't have as much experience of (this isn't really my bag).
So my friend (and I really 100 pc do honestly mean this concerns my friend and not me) recently applied for and was offered a professional role.
He applied directly to the organisation, went through the recruitment process , was suited to the role, and was offered the job. He then dealt directly with who would become his new boss, in terms of negotiating his salary and package. He was previously on about 60k. He informed his new employer that for the move to be of interest to him, he would seek a salary in the region of 85k. He did not at any point tell his new employer what his extant salary was. He just said, to make the move of interest to me, I seek a salary in the region of 85k.
In the event a salary was agreed in the amount of 88k. He commenced work and everyone was happy.
He duly gave his p45 to his new employer. He was a number of weeks later, asked into a meeting with hr. They said that they had now noted his previous salary.
He essentially said, so what. I hadn't told you what I was on before, just what I wanted to move to work for you. They disagree, and assert that he misled them over his previous salary. They say that they are pleased with him but are considering terminating his employment, unless he agrees to reduce his salary.
Now under normal circumstances my advice to him would be to tell them to get stuffed, if he was 100pc sure he didn't misrepresent the position, and he was past probation.
However his probation doesn't finish for another 3 weeks. It could presumably be extended. They are entitled to give him next to no notice at the moment and terminate his employment. Even if he can string it out , say he is seeking advice, and be negotiating this issue post his probation period, he would only be entitled to an enhanced notice period if they decided to dismiss him,in addition to possibly having the benefit of the employer having to follow protocol and launch a proper investigation into his conduct, which I presume they wouldn't do in the next 2 weeks given they can dismiss without reason if they wish. As he has less than 2 years service, he has no statutory protection from unfair dismissal etc anyway.
So I think that's the legal position - I.e at the moment he is negotiating with a pretty empty hand at present. I guess he could ask for all minutes and documents pertaining to the hiring process and see what they reveal, but he is pretty sure he hasn't misled them and they are now pissed off they have struck a bad bargain.
i presume if they were going to dismiss him for dishonesty they would have done so by now, so there is a deal to be done here, but I have to say I have never heard of a situation like this.
What is everyone's take on it?
So my friend (and I really 100 pc do honestly mean this concerns my friend and not me) recently applied for and was offered a professional role.
He applied directly to the organisation, went through the recruitment process , was suited to the role, and was offered the job. He then dealt directly with who would become his new boss, in terms of negotiating his salary and package. He was previously on about 60k. He informed his new employer that for the move to be of interest to him, he would seek a salary in the region of 85k. He did not at any point tell his new employer what his extant salary was. He just said, to make the move of interest to me, I seek a salary in the region of 85k.
In the event a salary was agreed in the amount of 88k. He commenced work and everyone was happy.
He duly gave his p45 to his new employer. He was a number of weeks later, asked into a meeting with hr. They said that they had now noted his previous salary.
He essentially said, so what. I hadn't told you what I was on before, just what I wanted to move to work for you. They disagree, and assert that he misled them over his previous salary. They say that they are pleased with him but are considering terminating his employment, unless he agrees to reduce his salary.
Now under normal circumstances my advice to him would be to tell them to get stuffed, if he was 100pc sure he didn't misrepresent the position, and he was past probation.
However his probation doesn't finish for another 3 weeks. It could presumably be extended. They are entitled to give him next to no notice at the moment and terminate his employment. Even if he can string it out , say he is seeking advice, and be negotiating this issue post his probation period, he would only be entitled to an enhanced notice period if they decided to dismiss him,in addition to possibly having the benefit of the employer having to follow protocol and launch a proper investigation into his conduct, which I presume they wouldn't do in the next 2 weeks given they can dismiss without reason if they wish. As he has less than 2 years service, he has no statutory protection from unfair dismissal etc anyway.
So I think that's the legal position - I.e at the moment he is negotiating with a pretty empty hand at present. I guess he could ask for all minutes and documents pertaining to the hiring process and see what they reveal, but he is pretty sure he hasn't misled them and they are now pissed off they have struck a bad bargain.
i presume if they were going to dismiss him for dishonesty they would have done so by now, so there is a deal to be done here, but I have to say I have never heard of a situation like this.
What is everyone's take on it?
He can be terminated under 2 years without any protection I assume? So he's in a vulnerable position.
As to the commercial aspect - it's really weird. They wanted him and made an offer which he accepted - it's a bit immaterial what the previous salary was.
What was the job originally advertised at? What are they proposing to cut him to? How many employees in his company?
It almost sounds like they've gone off him and want rid of him.
As to the commercial aspect - it's really weird. They wanted him and made an offer which he accepted - it's a bit immaterial what the previous salary was.
What was the job originally advertised at? What are they proposing to cut him to? How many employees in his company?
It almost sounds like they've gone off him and want rid of him.
No real advice, but it does seem the new employer is of the opinion that the employee is deserving of less of a salary because his previous job's salary was lower.
Like "I can get away paying them less because they earned less previously".
Personally, I don't see how relevant a previous salary is to getting a new job. It's obvious that many people who seek new employment do so to progress themselves and their career, which often comes with a higher salary.
Like "I can get away paying them less because they earned less previously".
Personally, I don't see how relevant a previous salary is to getting a new job. It's obvious that many people who seek new employment do so to progress themselves and their career, which often comes with a higher salary.
First thing to understand; his boss is a completely useless t
t. If his boss was not a completely useless tt, HR would never have been able to summon your friend to such a meeting. All half decent leaders can overrule HR every day and will never let the tail wag the dog.
Given that, your friend should aim to take his bosses job asap. To do that he needs to stay, whatever that takes and however much snot he has to swallow. A small pay cut is a minor obstacle, for now, in the context of his total career / salary trajectory.
It sounds like the company he is now working for is chock full of morons. Even with one eye it won't be hard to become king in that particular valley and ultimately stab his boss in the back (metaphorically). Don't get mad, get even.
Bottom line, he should stay with a cheery smile (for now). Working for cretins can be extremely rewarding.
t. If his boss was not a completely useless tt, HR would never have been able to summon your friend to such a meeting. All half decent leaders can overrule HR every day and will never let the tail wag the dog.Given that, your friend should aim to take his bosses job asap. To do that he needs to stay, whatever that takes and however much snot he has to swallow. A small pay cut is a minor obstacle, for now, in the context of his total career / salary trajectory.
It sounds like the company he is now working for is chock full of morons. Even with one eye it won't be hard to become king in that particular valley and ultimately stab his boss in the back (metaphorically). Don't get mad, get even.
Bottom line, he should stay with a cheery smile (for now). Working for cretins can be extremely rewarding.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 7th November 21:50
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 7th November 21:51
It's a large multinational company and they have plenty of money .
The role isn't actually all that senior and he has minimal managerial responsibilities. In the fact the job is pretty much what he was doing before, just with a bit more travel.
My inclination is that he should string it out as long as possible and see if they show their hand first. He probably could get another job without too much issue and I would also advise him to consider if it's the sort of place he wants to stay working if this is how they treat people.
I have never come across a situation like this before I have to say.but what I do know is if they had anything on him to prove dishonesty he would be on the train home now with a cardboard box, which makes this strong arm approach all the more weird.
The role isn't actually all that senior and he has minimal managerial responsibilities. In the fact the job is pretty much what he was doing before, just with a bit more travel.
My inclination is that he should string it out as long as possible and see if they show their hand first. He probably could get another job without too much issue and I would also advise him to consider if it's the sort of place he wants to stay working if this is how they treat people.
I have never come across a situation like this before I have to say.but what I do know is if they had anything on him to prove dishonesty he would be on the train home now with a cardboard box, which makes this strong arm approach all the more weird.
princeperch said:
He probably could get another job without too much issue and I would also advise him to consider if it's the sort of place he wants to stay working if this is how they treat people.
With the greatest respect, I couldn't disagree more.A large multinational with decent cash flow and an idiot manager is the dream ticket for anyone who is willing to play it.
Friend says it wasn't discussed at any point.
Hr mentioned today that they only wanted to pay 70-75k for his role and they had to get discretionary permission to pay the extra. So at a guess, I would think they would want to align his salary to at or around that figure.
If it were me I'd be apoplectic . He seems quite relaxed about it funnily enough. And I trust what he's saying in terms of not misleading them.
Hr mentioned today that they only wanted to pay 70-75k for his role and they had to get discretionary permission to pay the extra. So at a guess, I would think they would want to align his salary to at or around that figure.
If it were me I'd be apoplectic . He seems quite relaxed about it funnily enough. And I trust what he's saying in terms of not misleading them.
Hang On said:
With the greatest respect, I couldn't disagree more.
A large multinational with decent cash flow and an idiot manager is the dream ticket for anyone who is willing to play it.
Enlightened and forward thinking. A large multinational with decent cash flow and an idiot manager is the dream ticket for anyone who is willing to play it.
There’s clearly no (real) legal angle to this situation. So milk it or move on.
FWIW said:
Hang On said:
With the greatest respect, I couldn't disagree more.
A large multinational with decent cash flow and an idiot manager is the dream ticket for anyone who is willing to play it.
Enlightened and forward thinking. A large multinational with decent cash flow and an idiot manager is the dream ticket for anyone who is willing to play it.
There’s clearly no (real) legal angle to this situation. So milk it or move on.
boxst said:
I wonder if the manager has said that he was on x salary when HR questioned how much he wanted to pay him. I've had those discussions and made it clear from the outset it was my choice rather than any percentage lift in previous salary.
Similar here - could there have been an agency involved? ... I've been offered a job and asked how much I wanted, only for the agent to suggest that they would only stretch to, say... Current x 1.3 procedurally, so he'd inflate my current by a several ££k to meet my 'target' remuneration... I pointed out they'd notice on my P45, only for him to come back saying he'd already concocted some nonsense about me being due a massive rise in my current place in January.
Seeing as he'd effectively jeopardised my reputation (particularly as I already knew a lot of people in the new company from previous work and they'd know full well that January rises weren't a 'thing' where I was) I felt I had no choice but it come clean to them about the dodgy dealing when they next spoke directly to me!
Edited by Ultuous on Tuesday 7th November 22:27
Dreadful situation, and very unprofessional of the company. They should never have made the error of not checking if it is that important to them, and the decent thing to do on discovering it would be to approach the new employee with an abject apology and a generous solution IMHO.
Legally it seems cut and dried: if they want rid of him, they can do it. However, they haven’t, so they probably don’t. So he could just call their bluff and see whether they’ll take any action if he digs his heels in. However, I’m not convinced this is a good stance if what he wants is a long term future with the company. It just means at every pay review he’ll be passed over, and ultimately will be first in the firing line if redundancies are ever needed.
Equally it doesn’t sound right to just walk away, tempting though this may be when treated like this. At this pay grade I can imagine it could take a couple of months to get a new job, which would then cost more (this year) than taking a modest cut. Sure it’s disappointing, but it has happened, and he should challenge himself to accept the same salary he would have accepted if the larger sum had never been on the table in the first place.
So if it were me, I’d enter a negotiation and attempt to reach a figure which leaves HR with some face-saving, and me still with a job and decent salary. He should obviously plan a walk away figure in mind at which he would dig in his heels. Finally, I think it would be reasonable as part of the negotiation to suggest a one-off ‘transition’ payment, which would solve for their need to get him on a lower ongoing salary now, but cover at least some of his expectation of a certain income when he joined the firm.
Good luck to him, love to hear how it works out.
Legally it seems cut and dried: if they want rid of him, they can do it. However, they haven’t, so they probably don’t. So he could just call their bluff and see whether they’ll take any action if he digs his heels in. However, I’m not convinced this is a good stance if what he wants is a long term future with the company. It just means at every pay review he’ll be passed over, and ultimately will be first in the firing line if redundancies are ever needed.
Equally it doesn’t sound right to just walk away, tempting though this may be when treated like this. At this pay grade I can imagine it could take a couple of months to get a new job, which would then cost more (this year) than taking a modest cut. Sure it’s disappointing, but it has happened, and he should challenge himself to accept the same salary he would have accepted if the larger sum had never been on the table in the first place.
So if it were me, I’d enter a negotiation and attempt to reach a figure which leaves HR with some face-saving, and me still with a job and decent salary. He should obviously plan a walk away figure in mind at which he would dig in his heels. Finally, I think it would be reasonable as part of the negotiation to suggest a one-off ‘transition’ payment, which would solve for their need to get him on a lower ongoing salary now, but cover at least some of his expectation of a certain income when he joined the firm.
Good luck to him, love to hear how it works out.
The average job-switcher gets a 10-20% payrise... They've given him a 40-50% payrise... For a mid-level role... Somebody in HR or management is feeling like a mug and wants revenge...
Classic big-company politics, where someone won't hesitate to f*ck someone over if it saves their own bacon...
Assuming everything said is 100% true, then the employee needs to accept the pay cut into the 70s, and then immediately start looking for a job elsewhere that will take him back into the 80s or 90s...
If he plays the big man and stands firm, someone somewhere will weed him out, curtail his career or promotion, or minimise future payrises...
Classic big-company politics, where someone won't hesitate to f*ck someone over if it saves their own bacon...
Assuming everything said is 100% true, then the employee needs to accept the pay cut into the 70s, and then immediately start looking for a job elsewhere that will take him back into the 80s or 90s...
If he plays the big man and stands firm, someone somewhere will weed him out, curtail his career or promotion, or minimise future payrises...
note to self... don't give new employer my old p45.
can sort that stuff out with hmrc later
anyway... £88k p/a.. wow that's more per year than my entire mortgage day1.
its literally the ability to buy a new dacia sandaro every month! insane!
£60k p/a would have it paid off in little over a year.
a different world of crazy rich people!
can sort that stuff out with hmrc later
anyway... £88k p/a.. wow that's more per year than my entire mortgage day1.
its literally the ability to buy a new dacia sandaro every month! insane!
£60k p/a would have it paid off in little over a year.
a different world of crazy rich people!
Edited by SystemParanoia on Tuesday 7th November 22:46
Poor form from new outfit IMO. Previous employer are not going to confirm anything other than salary and that he worked there from 2008 to 2017 or whatever (especially if he has good relationship with them). So...
"Yeah I was on 60k, but I worked a 30 hour week, happy to keep to old terms +10% salary if you want, but I'd rather work your 40 hours, which is why I took the role with you"
"Yeah I was on 60k, but I worked a 30 hour week, happy to keep to old terms +10% salary if you want, but I'd rather work your 40 hours, which is why I took the role with you"
I'd hazard a guess that the hiring manager is weak or is managed by a bully and has got a bking for offering "too much". They're probably trying to cover their arse by blaming your mate for what they have been told was a mistake. That's a pretty desperate position for them to be in. My gambit would be to make this attempt to shift blame seem more risky to their internal reputation than defending the original offer. Sell it as a choice between looking like The Man or looking like a spineless, powerless weasel. I'd be telling the hiring manager that I was pretty appalled that anyone was questioning my integrity and assumed that that was a cock up in their HR dept which could be easily rectified with no hard feelings, but if it wasn't retracted and the agreement honoured, I'd be pushing HR hard to justify the slur (i.e. I'd be threatening to escalate it up the management chain which would have the effect of publicising the incompetence that has already been displayed). So that's the threat side. On the +ve side I'd be blowing smoke up the hiring manager's arse about hiring an excellent, motivated candidate who'd be on his side and how he'd obviously made a significant decision to make a strong offer ... i.e. he's a strong guy and people respect decision-makers who stand by their judgment calls. It's feeding him ideas he can use to defend his original decision. And if none of that works, and it probably wouldn't, I'd invite them to go fk themselves because life is too short for this kind of nonsense.
king for offering "too much". They're probably trying to cover their arse by blaming your mate for what they have been told was a mistake. That's a pretty desperate position for them to be in. My gambit would be to make this attempt to shift blame seem more risky to their internal reputation than defending the original offer. Sell it as a choice between looking like The Man or looking like a spineless, powerless weasel. I'd be telling the hiring manager that I was pretty appalled that anyone was questioning my integrity and assumed that that was a cock up in their HR dept which could be easily rectified with no hard feelings, but if it wasn't retracted and the agreement honoured, I'd be pushing HR hard to justify the slur (i.e. I'd be threatening to escalate it up the management chain which would have the effect of publicising the incompetence that has already been displayed). So that's the threat side. On the +ve side I'd be blowing smoke up the hiring manager's arse about hiring an excellent, motivated candidate who'd be on his side and how he'd obviously made a significant decision to make a strong offer ... i.e. he's a strong guy and people respect decision-makers who stand by their judgment calls. It's feeding him ideas he can use to defend his original decision. And if none of that works, and it probably wouldn't, I'd invite them to go fk themselves because life is too short for this kind of nonsense.Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff