Company did a bait and switch at offer stage

[Soootired23]

I've been interviewing for a company for the past 3 weeks. I really like their product and have drunk the look aid about who they are etc...

I did see that the American counterpart of the role I've been interviewing for was hybrid, but they never published the British version of it and during the interview process a) my location was never mentioned as an issue and b) HR person even said they were fully remote in the UK. Even their website says they're remote in general (but again this role in the US says it's hybrid).

I'm basically at offer stage, and then the HM asks if I've ever considered moving more "centrally" which I replied that yes I will. (And it's 100% true) but not imminently.

Then they came back with a standard, "we're trying to build teams around our offices"...

My hunch is that they'll either make it a condition (with a deadline) or they won't but it will regularly come up.

So AIBU to be disheartened about this? I really thought this would put and end to my unemployment.

Yes, if is that important to you, you should have clarified earlier in the process. Never assume anything.

I did not assume though. They clearly said it was remote (HR) . And I even mentioned to the hiring manager I could go to office A semi regularly, the other one was not even mentioned as it's 6 hours away! She only asked if I was happy to travel and I said yes, because I do, in fact I really like it.

In that case, carry on with what you've been told and make sure your contract reflects it if you get an offer.

I reckon the contract will either say it's hybrid (and then it's a verbal agreement that it won't until I relocate) or they'll put it as a condition. Obviously it's all speculation, but I'm really shocked they decided to bring it up at the very end of the journey.
If the pay wa higher, (or they paid my expenses) I'd be happy to be there at least twice a month.

You just need to make sure that whatever you want is in the contract. If they won’t do this then don’t take the job. Annoying that they’ve potentially moved the goalposts this late in proceedings, but and not very professional if they have, but you don’t really know yet from what you’ve said so you just need to nail them down on it either way. If they won’t commit I would bail.

Yes, who knows what the contract/offer will say BUT I'm sure it will be a sticking point regardless (even if further down the line).

And I didn't lie, I would and WILL move just not yet, but my plan is SO long term that in real terms I might as well have said "not for now".

I’m sorry @Soootired23 but I think you may be equally at fault here so to speak.

”the HM asks if I've ever considered moving more "centrally" which I replied that yes I will” (And it's 100% true) but not imminently”

did you clarify for them what not imminently means, and that you would need the role to be fully remote for a year or two etc?

The reason why I’m saying this is that they’ve clearly shown their cards - this role will be hybrid.

Whatever you may think you saw in the job advert, you want to try and hold them to a fully remote standard because it suits you, now, in your life.

That’s absolutely fine, but I think they need to be clear that you’re not moving in the next six months etc.

In the days before “remote work is a human right” nonsense, many of us packed up and moved to a big city because the alternative was that the job would go to .. someone else who was willing to pack up and go to the big city.

I think they’ve been clear enough - they’ve shown their cards - the question is, will you also, and risk losing the job?

I actually don’t think you will lose the job and perhaps you can negotiate a year remote, but I do still think you have to be explicit at this stage that you won’t move and that you need remote for a significant period. I may be flamed for this but that’s my view

I was only asked this at basically offer stage. Which I agree, was vague (on purpose).and I agree with you they're showing their cards.

But had the HM/HR person told me it was definitely hybrid then it would have been up to me to stay in the process (and then jump through the necessary hoops). However I was told throughout the process it was remote.

And yes, I would move sooner, but not for that salary (because it's a massive upheaval that would include losing regular access to my DD).

My hunch is that they'll either make it a condition (with a deadline) or they won't but it will regularly come up.

They may or may not make it a condition

The bigger question is whether you are comfortable with the ambiguity if they don’t mention it, and then later ask you to regularly come in for team days.

are you happy with that situation if it comes up?

Also, I saw you wrote

If the pay wa higher, (or they paid my expenses) I'd be happy to be there at least twice a month.

That sounds like you live in an area where it is physically possible to get in at least twice a month.

Could you offer and state that this is your intent?

Also you say “if they pay was higher”… but isn’t what they’re offering, 100% more pay than you’re getting right now? How much do you need this job?

And yes, I would move sooner, but not for that salary (because it's a massive upheaval that would include losing regular access to my DD)

What? How old is your DD?

Well anything is physically possible isn't it? But the reality is that in order to do it properly I'd have to either take the night train OR leave the day before and stay in a hotel. At the very least we're looking at £300 per office visit.

My willingness to travel back and forth is actually not the issue is the cost of it.

To me it's very clear. With the lower end of the salary range, I'm happy to commute but they take the hit.

They increase it by at least £10k (and I take the hit).

If they 100% want me to be London based I'd need at least £30k on top.

I'm actually not opposed to travel, it's the financial feasibility.

My role got made redundant 3 weeks ago, so yes I DO need a job, but we're not in a financial situation to just take any job, it has to make sense too from a few different POVs.

But your daughter? You'd give up access if the offer was high enough?

She's 15 so obviously not ideal. And the salary I'm talking about is £140-160k (which is more than double) and no I'm not day dreaming, as I'm currently interviewing for that type of role which ironically is fully remote.

Then fingers crossed for the fully remote job you're interviewing for. If you don't need a job and this one comes with many sacrifices and inconveniences then it's time for a) negotiation with the company or b) moving on and looking for sth else.
With the salary range you mention you must know from a business side how things work regarding recruitment and new hires.

Yes, I'll have to negotiate and assess if I'm willing to take the risk.

My DH says that they might just be thinking ahead and they're even thinking of offering me a more senior role.

That could be the case, as they've asked me twice about my people management experience even though it's not what the job description says.

They're going through a phase of hyper growth but I also know what happens.

1. I was at a very big well-known company and their hyper growth was sustainable for many years, then it crunched, to then grow again (the one and only big wave of redundancies happened during COVID).

2. they had a period of hyper growth and then it stalled. But they never over hired.

3. They were planning to grow and never happened (role made redundant within 5 months)

4. I got hired and for a time there were new starters every week, then a few months later there were a few waves of redundancies

5. Same as above

6. same as 3

So in my experience the majority of companies miscalculate growth.

Sounds like a lot to weigh up. If you've negotiated your salary the personally i would wait and see what's in the contract.
Just curious as to what industry is fully remote for that salary range. In my industry all roles in that bracket would be hybrid c. 2 days pw in the office. Especially as they'd have line/team management responsibilities.

It could be £300k, I still wouldn't give up regular access to my child.

Can't you take a lesser job and try again in three years time. The exam years are really important for a child.

The timing of this discussion is about right I'd say - money is always one of the last things you talk about - be cool, be clear what you need at offer stage - if it's more money to compensate for expenses to cover office visits this doesn't seem like a deal breaker, it's a pretty normal thing to ask for at the salary you are negotiating, they either want you at that level or they don't - if you've impressed them and they have the budget, they'll do it - I know several people with this kind of compensation.

I work in tech. Where at least 20% of roles are still fully remote. I've worked remotely for the past 14 years too, so it's not a COVID related trend.

and I wouldn't either. The high salary role opportunity presented itself, I didn't actually look for it.

I haven't even been applying for hybrid roles, all have been fully remote, so the"leaving my DD" is more of a speculative exercise.

Yes, in that sense it's the right timing. And again I'm not opposed to travelling back and forth, it's more of a compensation question, and if they're ok with the travel (as some companies have told me that I either relocate or nothing).

We offered a package to a team member that removed the cost element of coming into London once a week. From our perspective, we wanted him to come into the office (we feel an office presence is vital) and we didn't want cost to be an obstacle for him.The last thing we'd want is to employ someone who agreed to come into the office and then made up a million excuses as to why they couldn't - and we are seeing that increasingly, and it's very frustrating.

I wouldn’t even consider a job that meant I’d lose “regular access” to my child. Under any circumstances. She’ll be off in a few years but wouldn’t consider it until at least then.

Why can’t people read? The OP isn’t considering losing access to the dd. The money to cover regular office visits is not money to relocate

its annoying when they do this. Be really careful because they could continue this lack of clarity into the future. It’s likely / possible they could contractually agree to very occasional office presence and a salary youre happy with as covering that. Then someone higher up grumbles and makes it an issue; future recruits aren’t offered the same terms; your travel money is eroded by inflation and being there all or most of the time becomes a general expectation with no sense that they should pay for it. Being contractually covered won’t help you if the general perception is that not being there is underperforming. Push them on this