wwyd - job offer changed since advert(13 Posts)
Help, DH is away overseas for a fortnight and I don't know what to do. I need to make a decision soon.
I am currently SAHM, looking to return to work. Previously worked 22.5 hours a week in a job I could walk to. Now have 2 dc and have been off work since ds was born 18 months ago. DD due to start school in September.
I have recently applied for a maternity cover job and been offered an interview. The top salary band was just below my old salary and the hours were the same. The job is a 45 minute commute away, plus drop off at childminder.
The interview letter states that the job will be on the minumum salary band and hours increased to 30. I have done the calcs and working 4 days on the lower band would give me a take home of £2k for the whole year after childcare. Half of what I would get if I did 3 days on the top band due to extra childcare fees and fuel.
Should I decline the interview, or attend the interview and try and negotiate back down to the original hours and top salary band. I don't want to work 30 hours a week as I know that realistically that will creep up to nearer full time. I don't want to waste their time if they aren't in a position to negotiate.
If it wasn't a 12 month position I would be more inclined to go for it as I would eventually get funded childcare.
If anyone is still reading can you give me your thoughts please?
Ooooh, it's a tricky one.
I've come across this "only hiring at the grade floor" before and it does my head it.
Don't pretend you are offering salaries within a range if you won't consider negotiating.
I think, given you've been out of the workplace, that the interview is probably worth your time. It's good experience and the preparation won't waste your time.
Then if they offer, you can see if they are open to negotiation and if they aren't, you can turn down the job at that point.
Thanks for your thoughts, it's exactly what i wojkd advise to someone else but I am emotional at the thought of leaving ds and that's alluding my thought proces.
Plus I don't want to seem like a timewaster if i turn them down for something that was clearly stated in the letter.
When you say you are emotional about leaving him, do you mean that you'd prefer to wait a while longer and this news of the job being unsuitable comes as kind of a relief?
Because if so, then maybe just leave it. There's no point in doing all the work you will need to do to prepare if you aren't in the frame of mind to make them want you so much they will be prepared to negotiate.
Then again, I know how you can have a split sense of what you want on these things, so maybe if you decide to just go for it you'll get into the right frame of mind.
As for being a thought of as a timewaster... yeah, I can see that. But they've been massive wasters of your time by being less than upfront about the salary and conditions. So I wouldn't be too concerned about that.
I think it's the jump in hours that's bothering me. Dd was at nursery from 13 months and I worked 3 days. I can cope with that as i have done it before. But 4 days seems like a big jump in terms of leaving him.
I am really conflicted.
Is there a possibility that the interview letter has the incorrect details of hours and salary? Someone using a template and didnt change it?
I'd phone them up to clarify which terms are correct, the advert or the letter, and make your decision based on that.
The interview would be good experience in any case.
If you go ahead, you do it on the basis that you intend to negotiate on hours and salary should you get offered the job.
Would you feel comfortable approaching them beforehand and telling them that you are not keen on the new hours/low pay but will still consider continuing with your application if they will negotiate on the hours?
Our organisation do this - they'd only consider appointing someone above the bottom salary point if you were an internal candidate, so you were already part way up the scale, or if you already worked in a comparable organisation e.g. another hospital / university etc and they would honour your existing salary.
If you're not currently working, you will not be offered anything above the bottom salary point - bluntly, it's a way of them saving money when they recruit staff as they get rid / send on maternity leave higher up the grade and recruit again at the bottom.
Hm. Thanks for the opinions, I think I might phone them tomorrow and see what they say. The main reason I went for it was the hours.
Technically i have only been unemployed for 6 months as I was on mat leave before. I was hoping to get the higher end of the salary bracket. Why put a band if you don't intend to offer that salary?
Is this by chance a public sector role? I work for a LA and they have previous for advertising the wrong details for jobs! Yes it is worth contacting HR and explaining that the details on the paperwork don't match the ad. Even if you go for the interview you will need clarification on what hours and pay is available! Also ask HR whether the hours are negotiable.
I'd also ring HR and query it. And I'd go to the interview (consider it as good practice whatever happens).
I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you've been out of the workforce for 18 months, it's unrealistic to expect to go back in at close the salary you left. I was made redundant last year and have had to take a job at a lower level and lower salary than the one I left (and that's with no break of employment or experience). That's been the experience of various friends as well - it's an employers market out there.
It is public sector and I have been in the private sector for 10 years. I have accepted the interview and will go for the practice.
Join the discussion
Please login first.