It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. We have to live within 100 miles of our director
I work for a small nonprofit that went remote for a trial period last year. This year the board approved a permanent move to remote work, with the restriction that we all live and work within a 100-mile radius of the executive director’s home. The exact wording was, “All workers must be located within 100 miles of X city proper (using my address as the start-point location).”
I understand this is legal, but I’m wondering is how common this type of restriction is. We are based in an expensive metro area, and I was hoping to benefit from remote work by moving somewhere more affordable. As the sole earner for my family (and a renter) while other staff are dual-income homeowners, I feel a little slighted by the restriction.
It’s weird that they’re using the executive director’s home address as the starting point, but maybe they figured they needed one and there were no other obvious candidates. (It’s still weird though, since the ED’s home is not the organization’s headquarters.)
But this kind of “must live in local area” restriction isn’t uncommon. Often it’s because they want to know you’ll have the ability to meet in-person if it’s needed. Sometimes it’s because they want to ensure that if they need to revoke the remote arrangements in the future, their workforce won’t have scattered all over the country. It can also be because there are costs and legal ramifications to having workers in other states (see #2 here — although if that were their concern, they probably would have just limited you to the state).
There’s no reason you can’t push a little on the policy and see if there’s some hidden flexibility. Explain you were hoping to move to X because it’s lower cost and ask if they’d be open to it. Even if they say no, though, there can still be significant cost savings to being able to work from home full-time (you save on commute, business clothes, pricier lunches, etc.).
2. Company told me paying more would be “unfair” to other employees
Just had what felt like an odd conversation with an HR rep liaising on my offer, hoping to get your take. Keep in mind I’m new to the type of role, a little new to the industry, but have mid- to near-senior professional experience and many directly transferable skills.
In the verbal offer, they dropped the listed job ad salary (full-time equivalent for a contract gig) due to my lack of direct experience. I asked if they had flexibility to a salary about halfway between the two numbers, conceding lack of experience but with the (at first unspoken) rationale that I’ve been working for nearly 10 years. The HR person said that salary would be “unfair” to other employees with the same job role currently working at the company, because they don’t make that much.
This seemed like a bizarre rationale to me, or at least to share with a potential new employee. I sort of appreciate the transparency but seems an odd rationale given that different candidates always have different backgrounds and contexts — thus a salary band. What do you think? Odd? Not odd?
It’s hard to say for sure without knowing more about your background and the needs of the job, but in general, there’s a movement toward being more deliberate about pay equity and ensuring employers can justify differences in salaries based on actual qualifications — and that’s a good thing. By “unfair,” at a minimum I’d assume they meant “we can’t justify this salary compared to what we’re paying other people doing similar work” — and they might also mean it would cause inequities in their salary structure along race or gender lines, which is illegal and something employers are increasingly working to avoid.
3. Old job is still contacting me with questions eight months after I left
Last summer, I was laid off from a job I’d held for several years. It was a highly toxic environment which negatively impacted my mental and physical health, and it was honestly a huge relief. I was given an okay severance package, and part of that agreement was to be available for two weeks following my last day to answer any questions remaining staff might have. I answered a couple of questions outside that time frame, but not by much, say a month after my last day. I was still unemployed, so it wasn’t a big issue, and I still needed references for any future jobs.
Things quieted down for awhile, then another question popped up about four months following, which I answered with a simple, “I’m not sure.” Since then, I’ve gotten a few questions, mostly about where files were stored. It seems to be cyclical, in that certain materials are only relevant during a certain time period (i.e., tax season). Based on my knowledge about my former coworkers, I’m assuming that they are texting me as a first step, rather than as a last resort.
It’s now been about eight months since I left, and I’ve had a new job for about five of those months. Am I still obligated to respond to these questions? As I said, it was a highly toxic place that I was in for years, and I’m still working to undo the damage. I’m in a much healthier environment, with a much better job, and I don’t particularly want to continue relationships there.
It’s been eight months; it’s ridiculous that they’re still contacting you. Feel free to stop responding entirely or to only respond with “sorry, can’t recall because it’s been so long!” (and perhaps wait a few days before sending that so they learn you’re not at their beck and call).
They asked you for two weeks of availability for questions. You gave them that. Out of good will and/or desire to preserve the reference, you continued to respond after that. But at this point, eight months later, your obligation is zero and they’re abusing your good will. You can cut them off.
4. Survivor’s guilt after furloughs
Back in April, a few of my colleagues with the same position as me were furloughed, leaving only two of us left. My coworker and I are extremely relieved that we weren’t furloughed but are feeling what we believe to be “survivor’s guilt.” Every day I think about my coworkers and how it must feel to be furloughed, knowing that other people with the exact same job as them haven’t been. I feel for them, and I know my boss didn’t do this because she wanted to (she audibly teared up on a call in April announcing the furloughs, but gained control within moments). I have now been told that the furloughs will be extended, thus making this feeling even worse. I guess my question is, is there a way to cope with this? In a perfect world my coworkers would come back ASAP, but COVID seems to have other plans.
Survivor’s guilt is a real thing with layoffs and furloughs! It’s normal; you’re a compassionate person with empathy for your colleagues who might be struggling. I don’t think there’s one way to deal with it that works for everyone, but something that can help is to contact your furloughed coworkers to see if you can do anything to help — job leads, moral support, virtual coffee, or whatever it might be. (That said, some people prefer not to get that kind of support from colleagues and that’s okay too; just be alert to their cues when you talk to them.) And if you find that it’s really challenging your ability to cope, a few sessions with a therapist might be helpful — not because there’s something wrong with your reaction, but if it’s been upsetting you daily since April, a therapist could help you figure out strategies to more easily move forward.
What advice do others have?
5. Should I change my resume and cover letter when reapplying to an internship?
There’s an internship I’m applying to right now that happens twice a year, once during the summer and once during the fall. This past March, I applied for the summer internship. I was really proud of my cover letter and my resume, but unfortunately— because of Covid-19 — the summer internship was cancelled.
Now, the organization is having the fall internship (it will be done remotely), and I’m applying to it. How much, if at all, do I need to redo my cover letter and resume?
As I said before, I was really happy with both documents. I had them reviewed by a career advisor from my university’s campus about a week ago, and she said that both were very good, but never addressed my question about if I need to make any changes because I’m reapplying.
I don’t know how far into the applications process the organization got for the cancelled summer internship, so I don’t know if they even saw my application documents before the internship was cancelled, though they very well may have. The position that I’m applying for now is exactly the same as the one I applied for in March, except for the change to working remotely.
You don’t need to change your resume at all, unless you have more recent experience you need to add to it.
And this is a rare case where you don’t need to change the cover letter much. Normally if you’re reapplying for a job, I’d say that you shouldn’t use the same letter, because (a) it’ll look too perfunctory and (b) it didn’t get you an interview last time so you should change it up. But in this case the position was cancelled — you weren’t rejected — so it should be fine to use the same letter. That said, I’d update it a little to note that you applied for the summer spot before it was canceled so they know you have an ongoing interest in working with them.
we have to live within 100 miles of our director, company said paying me more would be “unfair,” and more was originally published by Alison Green on Ask a Manager.
from Ask a Manager https://ift.tt/3dUFHxS
0 Comments