Resigned from old job but new one isn't quite what I tought we'd agreed

[Holepunch]

School finance job. Advertised full-time, 52 weeks per year (which means 46.5 working weeks) I'd like to work max 41 weeks. I had a brief discussion with the head when he offered me the job when he said we'd be able to sort something out but didn't agree anything.

Then last WEDNESDAY I had a long discussion with the HR Manager who said 40 weeks would be too short but she was sure 41 would be fine. I needed to resign on Friday to give sufficient notice for the start date they want - she knew this.

Today they've told me they want minimum 43 weeks and the head is saying things like "this is souring our relationship before we start" and if he's going to talk like that he's right!

So, I could do the extra hours, if I wanted to, but the main appeal of the job was the possibility of term time working. If I wanted to work full-time, I could go back to my old industry and earn double!

Is it worth continuing the negotiation or would you cut your losses and see if I can withdraw my resignation? Nothing wrong with my current job, but this was more hours, a promotion and significantly more money.

[wobblebobblehat]

Never ever hand your notice in unless you have a contract in writing you are happy with. I've been caught out in a similar way a couple of times.

Have a feeling that 43 weeks is going to be their bottom line so not sure I would thrash it out personally especially after the Head's comment! It depends on how you feel really. If you can suck it up and get on with it - great! If it's going to be a bone of contention then I would stay where I am.

What's your gut feeling?

[atticusclaw]

Do those extra two weeks really make that much difference?

[AlternativeTentacles]

Only you know really.

Either the extra money is worth it or it isn't.

Weight it up, and if you don't want it then why are you on here, call your old boss and ask!

[InfinitySeven]

Well, you can now safely say that 43 weeks is their absolute minimum, and from the Head's comment, they won't be thrilled about you working that. They seem to feel that this is a massive compromise.

How firm were you in the interview? Is it possible that the Head thought you were after a much smaller reduction than you actually are, or that he thought you were discussing the possibility of reducing to term-time-only at some point in the future?

For the new job, I think you'll have to find a very fair compromise - you may get them to agree 43 weeks but it'll cause a lot of bad blood before you've even started. I think you'd need to take the new job on the basis that you'll probably work 44/45 weeks for a while.

You could enquire with your old job about whether they will allow you to rescind your resignation. I don't believe that they are under any obligation to do so, but they may well, as it saves them hiring costs. You have told them that you are looking to leave, though, so your working relationships there may have soured, too.

[OddFodd]

But it's not full time - it's 2 weeks more than term time only although appreciate they do seem to be moving the goalposts.

Have you spoken to HR again?

It would be the emotional blackmail stuff that would put me off to be honest, rather than anything else.

[Bakeoffcake]

Why did you apply for a job which clearly states 52 weeks, when you don't want to work that?

It will piss everyone off as they clearly need someone full time.

[atticusclaw]

The problem is that its you moving the goalposts. You've applied for a FT role. Advertised clearly as 52 weeks a year. They've had the time and expense of an interview process and only once you've been offered the role have you said you want term time only. Its simply not a term time only post, they need someone full time. They can hardly get a job sharer in just to cover the school holidays.

IMO you're taking the mickey. They compromised and offered 43 weeks which is only two weeks more than you wanted. If I was the employer I'd be very much less than impressed (I'm an employment lawyer BTW and so am well aware of HR best practice etc).

[Gobbolinothewitchscat]

So you could earn double in your old industry but you turn say that this job:

was more hours, a promotion and significantly more money.? I'm confused

Howrver, another employment lawyer here (on mat leave) and I have to say I agree with atticus.

Did you say at the interview that you absolutely would only work term-time? How was it discussed?

The advert was clear and I think that the school was compromising enormously with what they offered you and you have made a terrible first impression. Sorry, but I do. Be aware that you are on the head's radar now. So, if you accept the job, you would need to do your best to try and repair the relationship and do an excellent job. I've seen instances like this where an employee has been "difficult" (as the employer sees it) at the start of the relationship. They then have continued to demand further flexibility whilst offering nothing in return and have only been fair to mediocre at their job. The employer then came to us to get advice about how to get rid as they were more trouble than they were worth. Unfortunately for the employer, it's pretty easy to dismiss under these circumstances

If you do take up their offer, I would make it clear that you are grateful for their flexibility and try and clear the air with the head

[Gobbolinothewitchscat]

"Unfortunately, for the employee"

[wobblebobblehat]

Very good advice from the legal beagles...

If you accept, I would make it clear that you are very grateful for the 43 weeks then work your socks off to make a good impression. it's not the greatest of starts.

[Holepunch]

I thought it was fairly standard practise to negotiate terms after you'd been offered the job - that's what I was advised here anyway! I did ask before I applied if term time working might be possible and they said it would, for the right candidate.

To answer some questions, 43 weeks is term-time plus 5 weeks, the 41 was more than I really wanted, so yes, the extra 2 weeks do make a difference. 43 weeks is only 3 weeks more holiday than ft

I left my old industry a while ago, it wouldn't be hard to go back, but it's not family friendly. I'm currently working in another school, that's why this one would have been a pay-rise.

The HR manager very much gave the impression that she knew/had discussed what the HT wanted and that 41 weeks would be OK. She had a week to come back to me, but didn't. Lesson learned.

I think those who have said this will taint things going forward are right, so I've withdrawn on the basis that it needs to be right for everyone and this is right for no-one.

My current boss is delighted

[worridmum]

there is negotiation (which is fine for pay and maybe slightly different hours etc) and then there is completely taking the piss which changing a full time postion into term time one is and i can see why the Head was pissed off tbh

that sort of thing wastes everyones time as I have had a run of this while recruiting in my last job where we would advistise for full time hours eg 9-5 or 8-5 5 days a week etc and then offer the job only for use to be asked to change the hours or only work 3 or 4 days instead and so we have wasted alot of time and money on the propective employee as its very difficult to retract a job offer once given (even if the prospective employee demands a completely different job that was on offer)

[MrsMargoLeadbetter]

In the OP defence there are lots of threads MN esp on. Going Back To Work which suggest that it is fine to apply and negoticiate pt once offered.

And she did ask beforehand....

[Holepunch]

Thanks MrsM. Actually, I think I handled it OK (obv better if I hadn't resigned!) and the head behaved quite petulantly at the first sign that that things weren't going his way. There were a couple of other things that I don't think he was quite straight about at iv and I don't need to work with someone who sulks, so I'm happy I've made the right decision.

This was a leadership (non-teaching)job in a secondary where they were asking for a degree, management experience, intricate accounting knowledge in a large organisation.... It is a BIG job. I have all that experience from a previous life, but doing that full-time I earned double the salary they're offering. Schools jobs pay very badly but the trade off is usually nice hours. There were four candidates at the assessment day and IMO any of them would have been fine. However, they were all mothers of children younger than mine. I would bet my house they were all hoping to negotiate PT and interestingly, the job has now been re-advertised, rather than going to the 2nd placed candidate.

I really don't think they're going to get the person they want, for the money they're offering full-time.

[wobblebobblehat]

You often find that things don't work out for a reason. You would soon forget the extra money if you had a horrid relationship with the Headteacher.