Jump to content

They can't be serious?!


Recommended Posts

So far my job search has been very interesting with a Master's degree under my belt. I find in interviews I'm not asked as many stupid or common sense questions, but the focus is more on how I will apply the skills I've learned in various situations or can I think outside the box.

 

At this level I expected employers to be reasonable in terms of salary and benefits, but apparently not. Today I went on a 2nd interview and it was going quite well. They'd told me of the salary in the 1st interview and it fits what I'm seeking which was part of the reason I agreed to continue the interview process. Well today they tell me there are no benefits even though the law now requires that everyone have health care. They told me they'll consider offering *something* maybe sometime next year.

 

Then they went on to tell me that there's no vacation time, no sick leave, and no paid holidays. You're allowed to take time off for vacation, be out sick, or not come in on holidays with supervisor approval but it would be unpaid. For a full time job requiring experience and a graduate degree?! How nice that I could stay home sick unpaid and not have health coverage to go see a doctor or get a prescription.... gee thanks lol. *smh*

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an interview like the one you are describing with a rather well-known non-profit.

 

I *briefly* considered it because I would have been covered for healthcare with my new husband's insurance, but also no vacation, etc.

 

I politely declined.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

they never brought up during the pre-interview discussion about benefits?

 

I have health insurance at my company, so I don't know much about what is required by law, so I don't know if a company is required to provide it as isn't that what the Affordable Healthcare act is all about...getting insurance but not through a company?

 

As you are seeing, degrees don't always work in your favor. There was an interesting article I glanced at a few days ago was about how hard of a time college graduates are having trying to find employment.

 

Is there no vacation accrual? I know many places don't allow 'time off' until after 90 days.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author

I wouldn't go so far as to say my degree isn't working in my favor because every other interview I've gone on has offered an appropriate salary and a generous benefits package. I just found it outrageous that this company would require so much education and experience and offer so little in return. They are literally offering no vacation time/accrual ever. No sick leave ever. No paid holidays ever. No medical unless they're legally forced to. They also stress the importance of having someone stay long term. Well good luck with that lol.

 

I saw this all the time in my prior field where jobs required much less in the way of education and experience, but employers offered little incentive to gain employee loyalty. That was one of the reasons prompting me to transition. With the new healthcare laws I'm not sure many will be able to get away with it. My understanding is that companies with 50+ employees will be required to offer medical or pay the employees a stipend to offset the cost of getting it on their own. Dental and vision will still be optional coverages. The company I interviewed with today definitely has 50+ employees and its clear their plan is to wait until they're absolutely forced to which may actually be next year depending on how the law was written.

 

It might be different if I was young enough to be covered by my parents or had a spouse who could cover me. However it is me, myself, and I and I'm just too old to keep going without some kind of coverage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Move over here, we have the NHS and 20 days paid holiday by law.

 

Man, that sounds like hard labour. Why would you expect your employees to function like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way to look at this job is that it might be an opportunity to get some experience and move on to somewhere else. They're going to use you, so use them back. And when you've demonstrated your value and give them a two-weeks notice for a job that offers much more after only six months on the job, they'll have only themselves to blame. Sounds like the place is a start-up, which would explain why they don't have benefits. I'd really wonder about a company that's been in business for a long time and doesn't offer benefits - that would be a red flag.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
The way to look at this job is that it might be an opportunity to get some experience and move on to somewhere else. They're going to use you, so use them back. And when you've demonstrated your value and give them a two-weeks notice for a job that offers much more after only six months on the job, they'll have only themselves to blame. Sounds like the place is a start-up, which would explain why they don't have benefits. I'd really wonder about a company that's been in business for a long time and doesn't offer benefits - that would be a red flag.

 

That's just it, they aren't a start up. They've been around since 1985! I'm right there with you..... huge red flag! There are a number of people that have been working there close to 10 years or longer with no benefits the whole time. Many of them are younger and have kids so I'm not sure why they've stayed. Regardless its not the right company for me and I'm glad I'm not desperate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't go so far as to say my degree isn't working in my favor because every other interview I've gone on has offered an appropriate salary and a generous benefits package. I just found it outrageous that this company would require so much education and experience and offer so little in return. They are literally offering no vacation time/accrual ever. No sick leave ever. No paid holidays ever. No medical unless they're legally forced to. They also stress the importance of having someone stay long term. Well good luck with that lol.

 

I saw this all the time in my prior field where jobs required much less in the way of education and experience, but employers offered little incentive to gain employee loyalty. That was one of the reasons prompting me to transition. With the new healthcare laws I'm not sure many will be able to get away with it. My understanding is that companies with 50+ employees will be required to offer medical or pay the employees a stipend to offset the cost of getting it on their own. Dental and vision will still be optional coverages. The company I interviewed with today definitely has 50+ employees and its clear their plan is to wait until they're absolutely forced to which may actually be next year depending on how the law was written.

 

It might be different if I was young enough to be covered by my parents or had a spouse who could cover me. However it is me, myself, and I and I'm just too old to keep going without some kind of coverage.

 

 

Higher degrees are just no guarantee of job security and good benefits, anymore. And that's a lot of time and money to waste to wind up on the disposable pile. These qualifications are required - without the good payoffs they used to produce. When the working lives of well-educated people start to resemble those of high school dropouts.....something's up.

 

When I was 16.....I had a job for 10 months (before I returned to school) that offered me all of the above and more....with nothing more than a grade 10 education. That was still back in the "foot in the door, start at the bottom and work up" days. We tossed these aside like disposable diapers - until we found what we were looking for. Back when credentials and qualifications were highly valued.

 

These kinds of offers now are not designed to retain employees. They're designed to use them up and spit them out and replace them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Higher degrees are just no guarantee of job security and good benefits, anymore. And that's a lot of time and money to waste to wind up on the disposable pile. These qualifications are required - without the good payoffs they used to produce. When the working lives of well-educated people start to resemble those of high school dropouts.....something's up.

 

When I was 16.....I had a job for 10 months (before I returned to school) that offered me all of the above and more....with nothing more than a grade 10 education. That was still back in the "foot in the door, start at the bottom and work up" days. We tossed these aside like disposable diapers - until we found what we were looking for. Back when credentials and qualifications were highly valued.

 

These kinds of offers now are not designed to retain employees. They're designed to use them up and spit them out and replace them.

 

And that's exactly why I will be declining should they offer me the position. There are much better opportunities out there, in fact I've interviewed for a number of them. Even the current position I'm in is better than that offer lol. It may be low paying with terrible management, but at least they pay 100% of medical, offer paid vacation/sick/holidays, and I can choose my own schedule. There is no reason to take a worse offer and I'm thankful I can make that choice because a few years ago I may not have been able to.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's just it, they aren't a start up. They've been around since 1985! I'm right there with you..... huge red flag! There are a number of people that have been working there close to 10 years or longer with no benefits the whole time. Many of them are younger and have kids so I'm not sure why they've stayed. Regardless its not the right company for me and I'm glad I'm not desperate.

 

I once worked a job about a year ago that's been in business since like 1997...no benefits, no holiday pay, no vacation...which is why I had to move on after a few years after I got my degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't go so far as to say my degree isn't working in my favor because every other interview I've gone on has offered an appropriate salary and a generous benefits package. I just found it outrageous that this company would require so much education and experience and offer so little in return. They are literally offering no vacation time/accrual ever. No sick leave ever. No paid holidays ever. No medical unless they're legally forced to. They also stress the importance of having someone stay long term. Well good luck with that lol.

 

I saw this all the time in my prior field where jobs required much less in the way of education and experience, but employers offered little incentive to gain employee loyalty. That was one of the reasons prompting me to transition. With the new healthcare laws I'm not sure many will be able to get away with it. My understanding is that companies with 50+ employees will be required to offer medical or pay the employees a stipend to offset the cost of getting it on their own. Dental and vision will still be optional coverages. The company I interviewed with today definitely has 50+ employees and its clear their plan is to wait until they're absolutely forced to which may actually be next year depending on how the law was written.

 

It might be different if I was young enough to be covered by my parents or had a spouse who could cover me. However it is me, myself, and I and I'm just too old to keep going without some kind of coverage.

 

Actually there are some other caveats to the ACA that wouldn't play this out as you are thinking. First off, it must be 50 or more full time equivalent employees. Then there is a look back period. A company can decide on their look back period be it a month, three months, six months or 12 months. So if a company has a lot of turn over (which based on this not employee friendly company is set up would seem to) they may not have a large number of employees that end up qualifying.

 

A company can also decide that, crunching the numbers, that it is cheaper for them to not offer healthcare and pay the penalties than the cost of healthcare. The thing is, if the company offered you healthcare, meeting the requirements necessary it would exempt you from any reductions on the the Exchanges. If the company doesn't off you insurance then you are able to go to the Exchanges and may get a reduction in premiums based on salary, etc.

 

Or they have their head in the sand about the ACA and are believing Fox News that it won't happen and they will get an 11th hour save. :laugh:

 

Either way not a company I would want to be with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Actually there are some other caveats to the ACA that wouldn't play this out as you are thinking. First off, it must be 50 or more full time equivalent employees. Then there is a look back period. A company can decide on their look back period be it a month, three months, six months or 12 months. So if a company has a lot of turn over (which based on this not employee friendly company is set up would seem to) they may not have a large number of employees that end up qualifying.

 

A company can also decide that, crunching the numbers, that it is cheaper for them to not offer healthcare and pay the penalties than the cost of healthcare. The thing is, if the company offered you healthcare, meeting the requirements necessary it would exempt you from any reductions on the the Exchanges. If the company doesn't off you insurance then you are able to go to the Exchanges and may get a reduction in premiums based on salary, etc.

 

Or they have their head in the sand about the ACA and are believing Fox News that it won't happen and they will get an 11th hour save. :laugh:

 

Either way not a company I would want to be with.

 

Thanks for this info. I'll admit I'm still trying to make sense of all the health care changes and often it gives me a headache lol. I did do a bit of reading about buying coverage via the exchanges and the discount based on my income, but sadly going that route would still stretch my budget too far. I guess I could just skip coverage and take the tax penalty, but I'd rather not because anything could happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
UpwardForward

I think another out for companies w 50+ employees, is if employees are part time or full time. Would your position be full time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for this info. I'll admit I'm still trying to make sense of all the health care changes and often it gives me a headache lol. I did do a bit of reading about buying coverage via the exchanges and the discount based on my income, but sadly going that route would still stretch my budget too far. I guess I could just skip coverage and take the tax penalty, but I'd rather not because anything could happen.

 

That is true and right now the penalty is low but it will go up over the following years and I believe year three will be over a 1,000.00. So right now there are many actively or by default taking the penalty since but that will not remain a viable option after a few years.

 

In all honesty everyone is still trying to figure the ACA out including many/most large employers! I am actually on a panel at a conference next week discussing how my company is approaching the ACA. There are many pieces that still haven't been hammered out so I think everyone is muddling through it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
I think another out for companies w 50+ employees, is if employees are part time or full time. Would your position be full time?

 

Yes this position that I interviewed for is full time, 40hrs per week. I do think you're right that part time employees still do not have to be offered benefits. If this were a part time job I was using to supplement then I would be evaluating it differently. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if this company did that in the future, hired 2 part timers to cover the load and avoid having to offer benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes this position that I interviewed for is full time, 40hrs per week. I do think you're right that part time employees still do not have to be offered benefits. If this were a part time job I was using to supplement then I would be evaluating it differently. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if this company did that in the future, hired 2 part timers to cover the load and avoid having to offer benefits.

 

You getting full time hours but part time pay? did they say anything like "permanent part time?" If so, then you should be allowed to have vacation (not as much as a full timer) and partial benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
You getting full time hours but part time pay? did they say anything like "permanent part time?" If so, then you should be allowed to have vacation (not as much as a full timer) and partial benefits.

 

No part time pay was not what was offered. Every hour worked would be paid for at the same wage. The position is classified as full time, not permanent part time which would be a completely different thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Negative Nancy
Thats why Australia is great. 4 weeks annual and 12 days sick leave. All paid :)

 

Beat 6 weeks paid vacation and 6 weeks paid sick leave. :p

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Beat 6 weeks paid vacation and 6 weeks paid sick leave. :p

 

One year of paid sick leave :cool: can't beat the annual leave, though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...