to think this job offer is sexist bullshit?

[GermanHouseCat]

I have a post in Overseas as this started out as a few specific questions about moving to Taiwan for DH's job. It has now become a bit of a circus and I'm looking for some views.

DH was approached about a senior job in an international company in Taiwan - it would be a big promotion for him (different company) and is a slight known quantity as he kind of knows the big boss already. It's a decent expat package with housing, flights home, schooling for any future DC etc.

He has now been formally offered the role, but the offer is on a tiered system based entirely around whether or not I move to Taiwan with DH. We had initially been planning for me to stay in the UK for a while, then get a job in my industry in Hong Kong and then finally end up in Taiwan in a few years full time when we're ready to have DC. We are confident based on our current and previous arrangements that this can work.

The hiring manager (himself an expat) isn't happy with this and wants me living there full time from the start. He seems to have a warped idea that women should be with their husbands and that anything else couldn't possibly work. As such, he has made DH an offer based on me moving. If I don't move, the offer reduces by about 25% and is no longer that great. The 25% certainly doesn't represent my current salary.

AIBU to think that a) a company would never demand that a husband give up his own successful career to support his wife, and b) that it is no bloody business of theirs anyway as long as DH is there and the job gets done??

Really upset for DH if this falls through as it is a fantastic career opportunity for him which he has been after for quite a while.

Surely it is because your DH is being offered either a 'family' relocation package or 'single'? Completely standard AFAIK.

I think people imagine Taiwan as a sort of grey, industrial wilderness and that just isn't what it's like at all. It's lush and green and beautiful. Taroko Gorge is easily the most beautiful place I've ever seen in my life and Taipei was clean, modern and full of culture (the museums are fab!) with little pockets of traditional neighbourhoods and temples that you can just stumble across.

I don't understand what is sexist.
Would the same offer not be made if OP was a man?
It sounds like it's just to do with likelihood of people settling in well. Not a male-female difference.

Yes I agree that it is a higher cost and sacrifice to move a family hence the bigger package. If you're not going they are offering a single package for him.

Tbh as an employer I can see the sense. My dh works with someone who was paid to relocate here (lots of money and perks, family of four) and the wife kept her job "back home" so he is now often taking time off work to look after the kids while she is away working. I don't think that's fair at all based on what they were given to move. Ie they were compensated to move their family and manage the difficulties associated with it, including loss of her job.

Don't see why it's sexist , it would apply either way man or woman surely.

My DH and I relocated to Australia a few years ago. He flew over for the interview on his own but the employees were v disappointed I didn't come along too (I'm a teacher and interview was in term time) as they also wanted to meet me. They offered to fly me out at their expense too which I thought this was a bit bizarre at the time but having now done the move, and knowing lots of expats, I understand how important the happiness of the whole family is in whether a person will stay. it's a big move and I agree with pp that they may just want to know that the whole family is invested because so many expats find it hard and go home.

sorry employers were disappointed. Autocorrect!

As others have said it's completely normal in expat packages to have different allowances depending on whether your on single or family status. No so normal for the base salary to change though. I completely see the recruitment manager's point though and I'm not clear it's sexist - unless he's only saying it to the men.

I am an expat living apart from DH for most of the year. Sounds like a completely standard expat package - reduced relocation package if only 1 person goes instead of two. Not sexist at all. Unless I am missing something?
FWIW my own relocation package would have doubled if I had kids - flights, accommodation and schooling x number of kids soon adds up. If your DH goes alone he just needs to remind them how cheap he is in comparison when pay rise time comes around - worked for me!

My best friend moved aboard for work and was told exactly the same. He is a gay man, so not sure its sexist.

You get paid more based on the amount of people to support and because you are more likely to stay.

It's sounds like you DH for offered the larger amount as his boss assumed you were coming, which is wrong on his part, then the offer had to be reduced.

Not sexist its fairly standard.

Another one saying fairly standard for expat.
I do, however think it is very clumsily worded.
The offers I've seen are X salary, but then various levels of top us, depending on numbers of accompanying family members. Eg wife only, same housing allowance. One child, enhanced housing to 2 bed. 2 or 3 kids, 3 bedrooms. It mak s a big difference, but is fair to everyone, and would be offered if you were employed as a male or female.

Totally standard. different contracts. In some countries you can't transfer a single status residents permit to family. As for asking how they would know? I really don't want to sound mean but if you think this contract is sex I at and think residency of an Asian country means you are free to do what you like without anyone knowing, you really must not go. You will absolutely hate it. If your husband is the sponsor you will be considered a housewife on paper and whilst expat women generally don't care, the right on ones fuck off home after 3 months at enormous cost to the employer. That's why you shouldn't go. I can pretty much promise you will not find it an easy transition and will end up falling out with the people and the place.

I think you need to do a bit more homework before running around crying sexism. It shows more commitment as you are married and seems fairly standard. I know my own expat experience a long time ago was similar to this.

DH and I have lived abroad quite a few times before - on my packages or his. I know it's standard to offer tiered benefits for family, but this is a salary reduction (not benefit) and the clear intention is to deter DH from taking it and entering into an arrangement that we are comfortable would work for us. I have never once been questioned about my DH, and this offer is not company standard - it is driven solely by one hiring manager who thinks I should be at his side as a benefit to the company. It absolutely reeks of sexism, the suggestion thatI am a selfish career woman who won't beep up my end of the bargain.

There is your answer. You are not going to change national law so I really would steer clear. We can't go to China because I hate their culture and laws for the same reasons. I feel that maybe you just wanted people to be outraged with you but it isn't that shock g to most expats.
I'm sorry you have been upset by it though.

It's not sexist. It has nothing to do with you being a woman, it's about what others have said, and they want you relocated as a couple. Unless you can 100% say the same conditions don't apply to females offered the job.

But DO NOT lie as some are suggesting. They could and most probably would recoup that money, not to mention a possible firing!

I used to work for a big company who paid more for families to move- because there are more costs involved. And if the whole family move, the employee is more likely to stay rather than go home because his family are too settled.

the term is grass widow/widower roles.

be careful, peeps. The reduced money if you don't go is presumably the loss of the allowances he would receive for you, housing etc. I have an expat job and have to make an annual declaration that my spouse is (a) here and (b) continues to be financially dependent on me. This is legally binding.

It is only sexist if they wouldn't do the same for a female employee with a spouse. I suspect they would offer the same package in those circumstances because they want to ensure the employee is most likely to stay.

If you are staying in UK and then planning a move to Hong Kong, I can see why the employer would be concerned that they would invest in your dh as an employee and then after a few months he would decide to go back to UK or join you in Hong Kong instead.

I agree with others that you should really think about this move very carefully and think about what an expat lifestyle would mean for both of you - especially you as the spouse who isn't being offered the job/career advancement.

I don't buy that this is about getting his commitment - surely if that was the case, they would ONLY offer the job if you came with him?

Reducing the money surely only makes him MORE likely to jack it in as he would have less to lose?

Weird...

i think this probably has more to do with the benefits such as housing costs and school fees. If I lived in the UK, my husband wouldn't require as much housing allowance and certainly wouldn't get school fees paid either, which would reduce our income by around 25% also

I agree with most other posters - this isn't sexist, but it to do with being the difference between relocating a family, and a single person. It's also to do with their experience that the employee is much more likely to stay long term and be committed to the company, if he or she makes a new life for themselves in the country they will be working in. Clearly MUCH less likely to be a long term commitment if the employees spouse is living / working elsewhere.

Would only become sexist if that were only offered to one sex or the other, which you don't seem to have evidence (or even rumour) of.

From what the OP is saying it is not a reduction in benefits though. They are not suggesting that the housing benefit be cut by 25% because they are housing a single man not a couple. They are suggesting that his monthly salary be cut by 25% if she does not accompany him to Taiwan.

If your DH is certain that he will not take the job on that basis and you are certain that you do not wish to put your career on hold then I'd call the hiring manager up on it. You have nothing to lose? Has your DH explained your plans to him? The gradual move to HK. The manager may be more flexible if he understands the plan.

Are they a small company or a multinational? Most multinational will surely have corporate practices that they have to adhere to, one would hope that one of those policies would be around paying people what they are worth based on their business skills, not on whether they have partner at home ironing their pants for them.

I find it hard to believe that any employer has the right to interfere with employees personal arrangements on this scale, if it were in the UK you'd be looking at discrimination based on marital status (an unmarried man would not face the same dilemma). I like the end of probation idea though. That seems very fair

The fact that it is a salary reduction is not really decisive either way though. In my early expat days, I was paid salary and expenses separately - the latter was broken down into minutiae presumably for tax reasons so each pay slip would show flight and furniture allowances (yes, really ) Now they just lump them all together as "salary" and if the OP's DH organization is the same, it would've impossible to distinguish between them and find out whether the reduction was really just an avoided relocation cost.

And even if they are genuinely being sexist I am pretty sure the above is how they will spin it if you point it out!

I find it hard to believe employers...

Any expat will tell you this is fairly normal. And most ex0ats don't want to live in the UK so don't expect the rest of the world to comply with their very unusual rules. And the ones who bleat "in the UK" every 5 minutes don't last long.
It's a tougher world and people with delicate sensibilities are not going to cope.