Apparently, I work part-time.

[elbows]

1. Continue to pursue another job, you'd be a fool to do otherwise. (250miles is not the end of the world, you need to get over that. Your roommate is not 'getting screwed', by your leaving early. It happens all the time with roommates. Give them as much notice, in writing, as you can and stop feeling freaking guilty about it.)

2. Consult an Attorney. Request he send them a letter saying, you've retained counsel, counsel feels there's a strong case, client wants to give employer an opportunity to make things right before proceeding to court, against the lawyers advice. Any retaliation on the client will result in more law suits, you have one week to make things right for client, if they'd rather not, you'll see them in court.

Then, I'd wait and see what shakes out. If this is their practice, well, they deserve this to be pursued.

You got tricked, you got screwed. The question is: What are you going to do about it?

(I'm betting lie down and keep taking it. If you start letting yourself get taken in, at this stage of your work career, over something as important as your wages, your future looks mighty dim to me.

Having to shift jobs again, the annoyance of moving, the leaving of a roommate, a further distance to travel, all seem like excuses/justifications for avoiding doing the 'right' thing-stand up for yourself.

I say, they knew exactly what they were doing, when they hired you, correctly assessing that you would complain but, in the end, just suck it up. I think they're right.)

[Mama Zappa]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

,,,,but you can only be exempt if you're in a supervisory role more than half of your work hours. I thought that last bit was federal law...

Not at all. I'm not in a supervisory role and I've always been "exempt".

I don't know what the legal requirements are for determining exempt vs. nonexempt, but supervision is not one of them.

[Wheelz]

Originally Posted by incidental

And this really is a small field - I could probably weasel my way out of this position gracefully, but there's a risk that I could get a bad reputation early in my career.

Originally Posted by incidental

I really should be used to being screwed by my work by now. It appears to be a recurring theme.

Hmmm, it sounds as if you already have a reputation, and it's one you should strive to change ASAP. Don't continue to be a doormat.

I won't tell you not to seek legal counsel, but I imagine the company could easily make your life a living hell if you win a lawsuit and they are legally forced to pay you more than they want to. You may or may not wish to put yourself in such an environment. Suing for back pay once you're gone from there might be a good option, though.

My advice is to pursue the other job. If you get an offer, take it -- even if it's less than you currently make -- as long as they are honest about the pay. Then, when you quit your current job, tell them exactly why you are doing so, in writing, copied to multiple executives. I would avoid using words such as "tricked" or "scam." Be very professional but also very clear that their actions were unacceptable. Get a reputation as someone who doesn't take shit lying down. (And as one who does excellent work, of course!)

[Mama Zappa]

Originally Posted by Mama Zappa

Not at all. I'm not in a supervisory role and I've always been "exempt".

I don't know what the legal requirements are for determining exempt vs. nonexempt, but supervision is not one of them.

Aha - cite!
I think my own job would fall under the heading of "exempt professional" or "exempt administrative". And of course I collect the same salary even if I work fewer hours (though some may be charged to leave).

[SmellMyWort]

Was there a position announcement or anything you might still have a copy of? Maybe it states that it was supposed to be a full time position in it.

[Yarster]

I'm sorry, but I cannot endorse the 'find an attorney' strategy. I have no doubt that if this company/university screwed over the OP, that they have their legal bases covered by the fact that the OP herself agreed to the position under the sketchy terms of the offer, which were vague to begin with and could obviously be interpreted multiple ways. I'm guessing the stance of the company/university is that she is free to quit if she doesn't like it and it's probably an at-will state. If it really is as small a field as the OP says it is, one certainly does not want the reputation of being someone who sues their employer, even if the employer is in the wrong, and given that money is the issue here, I'm sure most lawyers will want money up front that the OP doesn't have. I'd pursue the other job as quietly as possible.

I've experienced similar screw jobs myself in two different jobs. When I was getting my MBA, a company told me they were offering me a job at a specific salary at graduation, which caused me to stop interviewing, then never sent the paperwork and changed their mind. At another job, I left a company for a $20,000 raise at a new one. A year after that, despite having a very successful year, the CEO decided that the economy was tanking so he could get someone to do my job for less money, and he gave me a $30,000 pay cut with 'bonuses' that would allow me to get back to my old salary $5,000 at a time. Yeah, except he would determine what qualified for the 'bonuses' and because they would be 'bonuses', they would be taxed at a much higher rate. No thanks. I got out of there as fast as I could. My policy is get everything clearly stated in writing so there is no question about it. I don't worry about pissing off HR people with my "dumb" questions when something is vague in a job offer, and if they press me about it, I would simply explain that I didn't want any misunderstanding since I have to move, etc.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Yarster

I'm sorry, but I cannot endorse the 'find an attorney' strategy. I have no doubt that if this company/university screwed over the OP, that they have their legal bases covered by the fact that the OP herself agreed to the position under the sketchy terms of the offer, which were vague to begin with and could obviously be interpreted multiple ways.

What is "sketchy" about a written offer for a specific salary?

I'm guessing the stance of the company/university is that she is free to quit if she doesn't like it and it's probably an at-will state.

An at will position can be terminated at any time, for any reason. But they still have to pay for the time already worked, at the salary they offered when the employee was hired. "At will" really doesn't have anything to do with the dispute the OP is having about salary.

I've experienced similar screw jobs myself in two different jobs. When I was getting my MBA, a company told me they were offering me a job at a specific salary at graduation, which caused me to stop interviewing, then never sent the paperwork and changed their mind.

A verbal offer isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Not the same as the OP at all, who had a written offer at a specific salary.

[Quercus]

I also say 'wait on bringing in the lawyer'. Not because I think you have no chance, but because it would screw up your relationship with your employer. Until you know that relationship is toast, don't let them know you're working with a lawyer. And even then, you'd need to decide what a lawyer would get you -- at best a few weeks of back pay, because if a lawyer gets involved, you're not keeping that job long term, right?

Which isn't to say you shouldn't be prepared if things end up going that way: document everything (save e-mails, especially save copies of any relevant e-mails on your work account to your own computer), write down exactly who said what in important conversations, and so forth.

But before you start talking legal issues, always try and resolve things informally. Who knows, maybe there was a screw-up on their end somewhere that they're willing to make right.

So first of all, tell your boss that you're surprised. Don't be angry, but let them know that this was a big surprise to you. Point out that you've been working full-time in expectation of a full-time salary (show the e-mail with the full-time salary offer). Make it clear that you really can't work full-time for a part-time salary. Ask your boss how this is going to be resolved (are you going to get a real salary, or are you going to start working part-time?). Depending on your relationship with your boss, and how much you think they really want you, as opposed to any other replacable warm body, you might want to hint that your long-term goal is full-time employment (so if they choose to go with your part-time, they should expect you to leave at some point fairly soon).
And of course, if they tell you 'no more money, sorry', you have to tell your boss "OK, then no more hours than 30 (or whatever forty hours is prorated according to what you're being paid), sorry', and stick to it ("Sorry project X wasn't done, but my time's up. See you next week, boss"). Of course, write down everything, and if things are resolved to you being part time, write down the details and e-mail it to your boss to make sure both of you agree.

You're not going to get a bad reputation for calmly standing up for yourself as far as being clear whether you're in a full-time or part-time situation.

[Taomist]

What Quercus said. Just walk in and act VERY surprised that your paycheck is what it is. Tell them there's been a mistake and you really need it corrected ASAP. It might have been an unfortunate error.

You shouldn't really have to ACT surprised or shocked, because you are/were, and had very different expectations, for very good reasons. So, yeah. Burden's on them, not you. Keep reminding yourself of that.

[Mama Zappa]

Originally Posted by Yarster

... and because they would be 'bonuses', they would be taxed at a much higher rate.....

Whoops - that's completely wrong, or at least misleading.

Bonuses are taxed just like regular income. On April 15th, your 1040 has no place to record bonuses vs. salaries, and the tax tables don't count them any differently.

Withholding, on the other hand: yeah, typically a bonus is subject to a flat-rate withholding, vs. being calculated as if it were just another paycheck. 25% seems to be typical (and it's often higher than what you'd have withheld from a regular paycheck of the same amount, because it doesn't account for withholding allowances etc.).

But it all nets out in the end. Say your monthly pay is 4,000 and they withhold 600 dollars from that. One month you get a 4,000 bonus, so they start out at 4+4 = 8,000, subtract out the 600 for the regular income, and 1,000 for the bonus (let's ignore state, social security etc. for now).

If your annual income winds up netting out to, say, a 15% tax rate, you have a bit of a refund coming. You've paid 8200 dollars (600/month plus the 1,000). Your income is 52000 (4000 a month plus 4,000 bonus). 5200 + 2600 is 7800. So you're due a refund of 400 dollars.

Cite 1
Cite 2

/hijack

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by incidental

Well, it feels like they lied to me - but honestly, I don't think I have a contract. I kind of just showed up, signed up for health insurance, and started working. Looking through the papers I have, the only scrap of documentation I have is my "hiring letter," which doesn't look like a contract to me, unless contracts regularly have HTML links in them to health insurance forms.

Anything can be a contract, so long as it evidences the intent of the parties. People have an idea that law is magical, that you have to have a certain kind of scroll or parchment with magic words written in a certain way in order for a legally enforceable contract to exist. But the law isn't Hogwarts. You can also have in many cases an enforceable contract in which some or all of the terms were never written down. A contract is a contract. See an employment lawyer.

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Mama Zappa

Not at all. I'm not in a supervisory role and I've always been "exempt".

I don't know what the legal requirements are for determining exempt vs. nonexempt, but supervision is not one of them.

You already provided a cite, but to expand for those who didn't look at it, supervision of other employees *is* one of the factors that determines exempt vs. non-exempt status. Not the only one, though. You can be exempt and not supervise people (for example, most professionals). But regardless of your position, if supervising two or more employees and making hiring/firing decisions is a regular part of your job you probably meet the exemption requirements.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by incidental

"We are pleased to confirm your employment with <work> as a <job> with a salary of X per annum."

That looks pretty concrete to me. Is your's a common name? Perhaps they've hired someone of the same - or similar - name on a part-time basis and got the two of you mixed up?

[MrDurden]

These people are walking all over you. Stop being beta.

[Yarster]

Fear Itself - the 'sketchy' part of the offer was the vague terms and unusually long hiring cycle. I have no doubt there was a stated salary, but what we don't know is if there were qualifying terms that said you can make "up to" $X, the same way they sucker people into Amway or any MLM/home based business, by telling you the story of a housewife who is now a multimillionaire because she got in early at ScamCo. Indeed, it stated that the salary was for a "full time" individual, and the whole thread is about how the OP is classified as "part time" which is used to explain why she is getting screwed on salary. It reminds me of my own experience at the employer that screwed me I mentioned. At the time I applied for a job, I had a Top Secret clearance. I specifically asked "Does your company have a Top Secret contract that can continue to support my clearance?" He said "Yes", and indeed he did. But when I got there, he said "I never said I would use you on that contract", which lowered my clearance back to Secret, and ultimately affected my ability to command a higher salary at my next employer.

Mama Zappa - yes, it is an exaggeration to make a point. Do I get the money back at tax time? Of course I do, but I don't like making interest free loans to the Government just because I make more money on a random paycheck due to the bonuses, which adjusts the deductions. Besides, I never would have gotten the bonuses anyway, because my douchebag boss would have inevitably told me how each new piece of work I won him didn't qualify for his 'bonus' program because of whatever fill-in-the-blank reason he created. I couldn't argue the clearance issue when I got there, because technically parking my clearance on a contract where I wasn't working isn't what you're supposed to do ethically, though it is done quite often in the DoD world. Meanwhile, my boss "Mr. ethics" was more than happy to screw me in plenty of other unethical ways. The taxes never factored in because I was out of there before I won that jerk a single dollar more of work. Meanwhile, my replacement (who he did hire for the new lower salary) just lost him his main contract that made up 50% of his business to his biggest competitor and I can't tell you how 'heartbroken' I was to hear that .

[Lasciel]

I would also like to point out something that some posters seem to have missed:

Seeing a contract or employment lawyer does not automatically equate to "sue the bastards now!"

It can just be a source of information for the OP to make their decision easier/more logical.

[incidental]

Update:

Sorry for the long departure. My grandmother had a stroke and life became chaotic for a while. Things are settling down though.

Basically, I've decided to keep my mouth shut and just do my job. However, in what I consider a minor miracle, a position opened in the major city closest to my parents. I'm actively pursuing it, and given the small nature of my field and the dismal number of people who went into it last year (less than half of the spots in the country were filled), I'm thinking I probably have a very good shot (if not a slam dunk). I had good enough qualifications to have interviewed there in the past, but wasn't selected for the position at that time.

I figure it's just a sign. I wasn't going to go through the hassle of moving/switching jobs for anything less than a perfect situation, especially since my grandmother will be moving in with my parents and I'll be providing respite relief from time to time. But, this is basically the perfect situation. I have no idea what the salary will be, but the city is cheaper to live in and I know the area well enough to find a place in a safe suburb and commute in.

So, that's where I am. Job is acting like nothing ever happened and pretty much leaving me alone. Once I've got everything set up with the new job, I'll give then 6 mo notice and get the hell out. Good luck finding a replacement with so few people entering the field. Heh. I'm nervous about telling my roommate and few people I do like there, but the general consensus of friends and family is that I'd be a fool not to pursue this, and I agree.

Of course, the hell of it is that I'm going to have to move again. Damn it, I *hate* moving.

[Mama Zappa]

Originally Posted by incidental

....Once I've got everything set up with the new job, I'll give then 6 mo notice and get the hell out. Good luck finding a replacement with so few people entering the field. ...

***SIX MONTHS***??????
Um, why? You owe these scammers *nothing*. Why would you wait any longer than the usual 2 weeks or a month???

Oh - and good luck on the new job!!

[Boyo Jim]

You don't owe anyone on Earth 6 months notice for leaving a job. For all you know, they could use that time to fuck up your rep at the new place you're going to. Give them two weeks notice, like anywhere else. And don't say anything at all to them until you get a written offer from the new place.

And, make sure you both agree that the new gig is a 100% appointment.

[ZenBeam]

Yeah, WTF? Two weeks.

Even if you had a clause about six months notice, remember you also had a salary agreement that they aren't living up to.

[incidental]

I actually thought 6mo was a little short given the difficulties they are going to have filling this position. There were actually supposed to be three of us this year, but they only got me. I'm screwing them over six ways to Sunday by leaving - they need a minimum of four people to keep the operation running and with my departure, they'll only have three. If they can't find someone else, a major reorganization will be needed. My departure may make it difficult for them to get funding for the position in the future actually. I guess I could cut it down to three months, but I think that's when they'll start planning the schedule for the upcoming year. 2-4 weeks is absolutely out of the question.

Sigh. Once the dust settles, if people are still interested, I can explain what I actually do and some more of the details. This is a very atypical job for a number of reasons. It would probably make a good "Ask the <profession>" thread.

I suppose they could try to bad mouth me to the other job, but I don't think it's out of the question that the new job will call them for a reference, either officially or unofficially. My primary concern when I went to apply for the new job was actually the inter-organizational politics between the two jobs- I thought there was a distinct chance that the new job wouldn't consider me to avoid interfering with my current job. When I resign, my general plan is never to reference the salary issues, just let them know that I'm unhappy with the job and want to be closer to home (which is the truth). I'd prefer not to burn bridges if I can - I'm not a huge fan of conflict under any circumstances, really. I'm sure everyone is surprised...(dryly).

[Boyo Jim]

I am unable, in this forum, to explain my opinion of your concern for your current employers. All I can say is -- you have absolutely no obligation to give them more than 2 weeks notice.

I will add one other thing, which may or may not be helpful in the shorter term, as they were trying to get 3 of you, but only got 1. That means they have a budget to pay you at 100% if they want to. Explain how you are burdened doing the work of 3, and that if they don't pay you 100%, you will start looking for another job. No need to mention that your search has already started.

[carnut]

I'm with Boyo Jim on this one. You do not owe them six months even if there is a clause. Basically, they screwed themselves by treating you like cr*p.

I understand that, in a small field, word could get around about you're leaving early. Word could also get around about how they treat their employees too.

Best of luck on getting the position close to home.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I actually thought 6mo was a little short given the difficulties they are going to have filling this position. There were actually supposed to be three of us this year, but they only got me. I'm screwing them over six ways to Sunday by leaving - they need a minimum of four people to keep the operation running and with my departure, they'll only have three. If they can't find someone else, a major reorganization will be needed. My departure may make it difficult for them to get funding for the position in the future actually. I guess I could cut it down to three months, but I think that's when they'll start planning the schedule for the upcoming year. 2-4 weeks is absolutely out of the question.

If you are so essential to this job, then they should have been paying you what you're worth. Obviously, they thought that you have little value. If they had been paying you fairly, you wouldn't have been looking for a job, right? They have effectively FORCED you out of this job. Don't feel guilty about giving them only two weeks' notice. That's probably about 13.66 days' more notice than they'd give you if they took it into their heads to fire you.

[Acsenray]

You're letting them make a monkey of you. If you give them six months' notice, I fully expect that you will find yourself jobless in far less time than that, and also find that your new job offer has been screwed up.

[Folacin]

Originally Posted by incidental

I actually thought 6mo was a little short given the difficulties they are going to have filling this position. There were actually supposed to be three of us this year, but they only got me. I'm screwing them over six ways to Sunday by leaving - they need a minimum of four people to keep the operation running and with my departure, they'll only have three.

Dude, their short-handed and paying you a part-time salary? I hope that you are at least limiting yourself to 40 hours a week, since they aren't even paying you for that.

It's nice of you to give them long notice, but it sounds like they're reaping what they sowed - I'm guessing you aren't the only to discover they lie, which affects their ability to fill positions.

[Dag Otto]

Originally Posted by incidental

Once I've got everything set up with the new job, I'll give then 6 mo notice and get the hell out.

The minute you get the opportunity to go to work for more money/better conditions you go.

Look at this from your new employer's point of view - they want to hire you now. If you make them wait 6 months, they will find someone else who can start ASAP if possible.

[SCAdian]

Originally Posted by incidental

I actually thought 6mo was a little short given the difficulties they are going to have filling this position. There were actually supposed to be three of us this year, but they only got me. I'm screwing them over six ways to Sunday by leaving - they need a minimum of four people to keep the operation running and with my departure, they'll only have three. If they can't find someone else, a major reorganization will be needed. My departure may make it difficult for them to get funding for the position in the future actually.

Their problem, not yours.

[An Arky]

Not only that, that should be a major bargaining chip. "I'm all you've got, and without me you're utterly screwed. Now what's all this about me only being part time? Why don't you take a day or two to figure out whether you want me full time or if you want to be utterly screwed, and then we can finalize the details."

[carnut]

Stand up for yourself and get out from under your current employer.

You get the government you ask for and right now, you are still willing to be abused. So they will continue to abuse you.

[Zsofia]

Well, my employee handbook states that professional staff have to give 4 weeks notice. So it's not unprecedented. But six MONTHS? You can grow a baby to the point where it can live on its own in six months!

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Zsofia

Well, my employee handbook states that professional staff have to give 4 weeks notice.

Do they return that courtesy when they discharge one of the professional staff?

[kayaker]

OP:Wanna come work for me? Western Pennsylvania. Specifics can be discussed once you get here.

[misling]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zsofia View Post
Well, my employee handbook states that professional staff have to give 4 weeks notice.
Originally Posted by Fear Itself
Do they return that courtesy when they discharge one of the professional staff?

Here, they walk you out of the building, and then pay you for the 4 weeks. Whether you quit or they riff you.

[Alice The Goon]

Six months notice, and you think the new company will feel too sorry for the old one to even hire you away? Am I missing something, because that just sounds... odd. But I do think you should get together with the Doper who informed his wife that he will be leaving her... in a year.

[Boyo Jim]

I have to say, OP, you remind me of the guy Dick Cheney shot in the face, who ended up apologizing to the Dick for stepping into his line of fire.

[Zsofia]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Do they return that courtesy when they discharge one of the professional staff?

Of course not!

Of course, it's pretty damned hard to get fired here, but I've seen it happen to two people (not regular floor-type librarians) who did get the Security march. I didn't even know we did that until I heard about it from somebody taking a smoke break at the time.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by kayaker

OP:Wanna come work for me? Western Pennsylvania. Specifics can be discussed once you get here.

As you have not declined my offer, I will assume acceptance.

[Enigma42]

Originally Posted by incidental

I actually thought 6mo was a little short given the difficulties they are going to have filling this position. There were actually supposed to be three of us this year, but they only got me. I'm screwing them over six ways to Sunday by leaving - they need a minimum of four people to keep the operation running and with my departure, they'll only have three. If they can't find someone else, a major reorganization will be needed. My departure may make it difficult for them to get funding for the position in the future actually. I guess I could cut it down to three months, but I think that's when they'll start planning the schedule for the upcoming year. 2-4 weeks is absolutely out of the question.

Seriously, I almost can’t believe what I’m reading here! Dude, I’m not trying to pick on you or insult you when you’re down, believe me. But you have got to start standing up for yourself.

You’ve been very cagey as to your profession, so there’re a lot of unknowns here that we are all working around in the discussion. . . But this is a professional field, right? You don’t work for the mafia or in some kind of strange under-the-table quasi-legal job (right?). There should be a certain level of professional respect and ethics on both sides of the employment coin. These people are treating you terribly and you should recognize that. If what they did with regards to your salary isn’t illegal, it damn well ought to be. And you know, deep-down, that it is absolutely unethical for them to treat you that way. This company is not just walking all over you, they are curb-stomping you and laughing behind your back about it.

Now, whether you want to sue or not is a personal choice. It may be unworth your time and expense to actually sue, depending on the amounts involved. However, I think you ought to consult a lawyer just to get a truer sense of just how outrageous their conduct has been. Maybe that will get you out of the habit of defending these crooks.

And with this latest update, it’s even worse! Seriously, think about what you’ve just told us: They aren’t paying you even a full-time salary and at the same time, they have less staff than they were hoping to hire. If they were planning for 3 employees and only hired you, they can afford to pay you properly. Even if they were planning to rip-off all 3 hires equally, the fact that they didn’t actually hire 3 people should mean they have both a surplus of allocated funds and a higher expectation of your productivity. In many industries, that would put you in a golden position to reap benefits rather than getting screwed over. They should be paying you bonuses to keep you happy. Perhaps if they dealt ethically with employees, they would have had more success in hiring?

You do not owe them 6 months of notice. Repeat that to yourself over and over until you get it. You do not owe them 6 months of notice. There are myriad ways that this whole deal can go wrong in 6 months and end up with you out the door and no new job. The people have already proved that they are unethical, so you cannot depend on them not trashing your reputation with the new employer. Even two weeks is enough time for them to do terrible damage to you, but to allow them 6 months is insane.

Your concern about leaving them in a bad situation would be admirable if they were an upright company that had dealt with you honestly and were just going through a bad stretch. In this situation, it makes you looks like a doormat to me (and obviously to many others here on the SD). What you need to realize is that if everyone in your field thinks you are a doormat, they will treat you like one. People don’t respect doormats, they step on them, they grind dirt into them. In any profession I’ve been involved with or even observed, people who are respected tend to have certain qualities: high levels of ability and competence; high ethical standards; initiative; and the willingness to stand up for what’s obviously right, on their own behalf or for others. The way you talk about your current employer goes way past being deferential into outright submissive and that is doing you a dis-service now and will likely continue to harm your career in the future.

Ask your new potential employer for an official offer (in writing!). It should spell out your salary and benefits and a start date. Make sure to ask them when the job opens up. If it is farther than two weeks from now, accept the job and then wait until 2 weeks before the start and give your official notice at the current job. If the new job opens up sooner than two weeks, tell them you would like to give your current employer proper notice and ask to make you start date two weeks from acceptance. This is pretty standard stuff in most industries or professional fields. You’ve talked a lot about how your field is different and unusual. . . Maybe so, but to some extent, that can only be driven by what people will put up with. Stop putting up with it.

Sorry for the novel-length post everyone. . .

[Boyo Jim]

OP, are you paying even the slightest attention to what everyone here is telling you? You are being screwed, and you know it and they certainly know it, and you don't owe them 6 months or even 6 weeks notice before leaving.

You also know they have the money to pay you full-time, because they couldn't get the two other hires they wanted to make.

You are also making a lot of assumptions that you should not be making, even aside from the 6 month notice thing. You say the these other palaces (both the ones nearer to and farther from home) will not hire you immediately -- that becuase of academic calendars it would be at least 6 months or a year. That is a ridiculous assumption. They hire when they need to hire, and if they have trouble finding qualified people, they hire when a qualified person comes available.

These are all academic positions open right now at UW Madison. They are hiring well into the school year, which has already started. And in another month or so there will be a bunch more postings with later start dates. And you see some start dates have already passed -- because they haven't found the person they want, but I guarantee you, if they find that person they will not ask him or her to wait another ten months for the start of the next school year.

[TruCelt]

OK, having worked in a similar sector, I'd just like to say that the OP's concerns are not out of order. The work she's doing may require a security clearance. That means that everyone you have ever worked for/with is open game to be interviewed at any time before during or at outbrief from every position you will ever want, get or leave in the future. One simply can not operate in this zone without maintaining happy folks at every level in every job. It's impossible, of course, which is why I don't do it anymore. I swore I woud never open myself up to that level of scrutiny, dysfunction and dependence again. But dang I miss the extra $20-25K that comes with it.

Add to that academia, which is a notoriously gossipy and personality-driven job market. It's also notoriously shrinking. And underfunded. Not to mention that if the new job is in the same State, then the two schoold are probably part of the same University system.

All that said, you do need to stand up for yourself. If they budgeted for three people they can afford to pay you full time; and if they changed the budget after they sent your letter, they were under obligation to inform you of that before you moved out there. Try to get a copy of the Grant under which you are working. That should spell out exactly what is available, and give you some insight as to how they are profiting from this move. Most likely the Prof leading the project has taken either too many hours, or too high a rate for him/herself. And mot llikely that's who you've spoken to, right?

My recommendation is to go to the payroll office, letter in hand, and suggest there has been a mistake. Point out the agreed-upon salary, and the number of hours you've worked. Then ask if you weren't supposed to be paid for those extra hours.

I say this because in my dealings I've noted that although within departments a lot of shenanigans happen, when another department starts looking into it they straighten up quick. The payroll officer knows the rules, and probably has the power to enforce them.

[DigitalC]

Originally Posted by incidental

I actually thought 6mo was a little short given the difficulties they are going to have filling this position. There were actually supposed to be three of us this year, but they only got me. I'm screwing them over six ways to Sunday by leaving - they need a minimum of four people to keep the operation running and with my departure, they'll only have three. If they can't find someone else, a major reorganization will be needed. My departure may make it difficult for them to get funding for the position in the future actually. I guess I could cut it down to three months, but I think that's when they'll start planning the schedule for the upcoming year. 2-4 weeks is absolutely out of the question.

Sigh. Once the dust settles, if people are still interested, I can explain what I actually do and some more of the details. This is a very atypical job for a number of reasons. It would probably make a good "Ask the <profession>" thread.

I suppose they could try to bad mouth me to the other job, but I don't think it's out of the question that the new job will call them for a reference, either officially or unofficially. My primary concern when I went to apply for the new job was actually the inter-organizational politics between the two jobs- I thought there was a distinct chance that the new job wouldn't consider me to avoid interfering with my current job. When I resign, my general plan is never to reference the salary issues, just let them know that I'm unhappy with the job and want to be closer to home (which is the truth). I'd prefer not to burn bridges if I can - I'm not a huge fan of conflict under any circumstances, really. I'm sure everyone is surprised...(dryly).

Assume you are as important to them as they are treating you, act accordingly.

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

You are also making a lot of assumptions that you should not be making, even aside from the 6 month notice thing. You say the these other palaces (both the ones nearer to and farther from home) will not hire you immediately -- that becuase of academic calendars it would be at least 6 months or a year. That is a ridiculous assumption. They hire when they need to hire, and if they have trouble finding qualified people, they hire when a qualified person comes available.

These are all academic positions open right now at UW Madison. They are hiring well into the school year, which has already started. And in another month or so there will be a bunch more postings with later start dates. And you see some start dates have already passed -- because they haven't found the person they want, but I guarantee you, if they find that person they will not ask him or her to wait another ten months for the start of the next school year.

Yeah... unless the position is a teaching one, I don't get this. I work for a university too. I was hired October 30th and began working November 8th. I didn't even have to wait for the spring term to begin.

[TruCelt]

The lead times for funding research positions are very different than those for funding teaching positions. I'm not sure it's helpful for us to be questioning the OP's knowledge of her industry. We also do not know what the stakes are of her leaving. A minimum of four people, and slots for three more seems to indicate a need for 24-7 surveillance of the experiment. There could be animals which would be left unfed if she just walks off. We don't kow, so let's quit picking this nit.

[Acsenray]

So why doesn't she just tell us what the deal is? She opened this thread to ask for advice but seems to be ignoring it because we don't have enough information to actually formulate any rational advice. Do either give us the relevant information or stop playing catch-the-fleeing-mouse games.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Anything can be a contract, so long as it evidences the intent of the parties. People have an idea that law is magical, that you have to have a certain kind of scroll or parchment with magic words written in a certain way in order for a legally enforceable contract to exist. But the law isn't Hogwarts. You can also have in many cases an enforceable contract in which some or all of the terms were never written down. A contract is a contract. See an employment lawyer.

IANAL but I believe this is correct. And, I think, there are certain default assumptions a judge would make. If you have a letter offering you "a job", by default that should mean full-time job.

Working 70 hours/week and being paid for 40 was quite common, at least in my Silicon Valley salad days. Working 40 hours/wk and being paid for less than 40 sounds unusual ... and illegal.

Originally Posted by incidental

I actually thought 6mo was a little short given the difficulties they are going to have filling this position.

With you as an example of how they treat their employees, it's easy to understand why they will have trouble filling the position!

Does the organization have money? If so, use your leverage against them.

[astro]

I don't know that any advice we could give is going to be helpful because you have cast your work circumstances to be so strange and apart from normal workplace procedures and norms that you reject all advice to stand up for yourself with "No, no I couldn't possibly do any of that, because of .....the nature of my work".

So far we know -

1: Hires are made a year and a half ahead of the time they will be working

2: It's a very small field where everyone knows everyone else

3: You are very critical to the operation of this program

4: This is a field where staffing is so critical people are expected to give 6 months to a years notice that they are leaving, and the company they are leaving from will be OK with them still being employed until that time

5: This is field where they will underpay you by 40% vs the representations made and you think it's not a good idea not to confront them on this.

I have to admit the context is baffling. 1-4 makes it sound like you should be getting paid very, very well (relative to normal salaries) for this small field, super critical work you do, and yet you are willing to take a financial beating. How can you be that super exclusive and critical to the operation and still have no financial leverage?