The only thing your wife can take as certain is that her current manager has communicated that she is too valuable to lose. Very good - he should be willing, therefore, to make up the difference between working at his store and working at another much closer.
IRS mileage rate is $.51 per mile. Your wife is driving an extra 24 miles a day. So she should get a raise of at least sixty bucks a week.
If her manager says No, find another job. If your wife finds another job, and then the manager says he will give her the extra sixty bucks, thank him and take the other job anyway.
The [almost] exact same thing has happened to me. There are several openings for a desk job in my company for which I am very well qualified, and at which I would make considerably more money.
My boss says I’m “too valuable” in this fucking warehouse and as long as I work at this company, I’ll be in this fucking warehouse. He refuses to authorize a transfer.
Unless you have a union or a contract, I’d say you’re screwed.
But she knew how far she’d have to drive when she accepted the position. She knew what she signed up for in that regard. Why should management pay to cover that travel time now? They could just fire her and hire someone who lives closer (or who lives just as far, but would be happy to have the job even though it’s a long drive)?
Living closer to the other location doesn’t give her entitlement for a position there just because it’s available. And if the manager at her current location really doesn’t want to lose her, he’s perfectly within his rights to call store #2 and ask them not to hire her. They didn’t have to agree to his request, but they did.
The biggest issue I see with this whole situation is that the HR person at store #2 told the OP’s wife the details of the request in the first place. That should have remained between management and HR.
If it was a Walmart manager calling up a Target manager, then I would agree with you. But both managers work for the same company. It’s not any different than the managers of two different departments here at my office having a conference call and deciding, whether or not my internal transfer is a good idea for the The Company or not.
Management thinks she’s valuable. Let’s let them put a dollar figure on that value. She attempted to renegotiate her position with the company into terms more favorable to herself, they said no, she is more valuable where she is. She can now make a counter proposal which is for more money at her current position, where the company thinks she is so valuable. The company’s reply may very well be “no,” but she has to ask before she’ll get an answer.
Calculating the savings from working closer is a good way to compute what a reasonable raise would be. I’d say the time difference in the commutes, valued at her current pay plus the mileage difference valued at the IRS value, or some other estimate of the cost per mile of travel. Then figure how much extra she’ll have to make per day to equal that amount. So then you’ll know if $.50/hour, $2/hour, etc. is a reasonable raise compared to the savings of living closer.
Companies renegotiate things with their customers and employees all the time. In most cases the company is the one negotiating from the position of power, which is probably the case here, too. If she truly is they lynchpin holding the department together, than that position of power over the company should be used to her advantage.
I didn’t read that she thought she had entitlement, but when seeking an (open?) position, she was denied because her current manager didn’t want to lose her. She, and her husband the OP, thought this was unfair. It’s unfair to her, but probably not unfair to the company.
Yeah, probably, but it’s too late now. However I see it as completely justified in using the information from HR in further negotiations. I see no duty on her to pretend like she never received this information.
If you’re really too valuable where you are, and if your boss means it when he says it, then he should be willing to put his money where his mouth is.
Otherwise he’s just guaranteeing that his employee will be pissed off and looking to leave at the first opportunity. I don’t understand how that could be a good management strategy.
Join the club. They tell me the same thing, too. I think too many people want to pretend work has to be fun. They’re more important than they really are at work. If they are as important as THEY think they should be that’s reason to quit. Um, no. Um, HELL no in a recession.
The circumstances have changed. And apparently she’s a valuable employee, so valuable that her current boss doesn’t want to lose her.
Why does she not have the right to try to get better working conditions, but the management has the right to hire and fire at will? If they’re free to fire her if they find someone else, then she should be free to work wherever she can get the most benefits for her time.
I say she should start sending her resume around. She might also send a note to the district manager after she finds a new job, letting him/her know that her old manager was looking after the particular store, but not looking after the company as a whole.
FWIW, I got a raise out of him and a couple of other perks, but the problem remains that I’m an aging man doing manual labor in a warehouse. I’m really not sure what the endgame is going to be when I’m too old to do this kind of work; find another job, I guess.
It’s not. Just because something is not to your liking doesn’t make it illegal.
As a manager, let me explain how it works. I typically hire people to fill a particular role or position within my team / project / department / whatever. If, all of a sudden, that person I hired decides they want to work on a different project or at a different location that is more convenient for them, I now have to find a replacement.
It’s sort of like when we hire a bunch of analysts and they wonder why we hired a project manager 3 months later instead of promoting one of them. It’s because we hired you for those analyst positions. You didn’t suddenly be qualified for a position requiring 3 years of your experience after 3 months just because a position opened up.
Not to the company. Your transportation costs are not really the companies concern. Maybe the company should only hire people within 3 miles of their stores?
And why do you think she was undervalued all this time? If she wasn’t a valued employee, they would fire her.
She is. At a different company if she so chooses. When you are an employee of the company, you are agreeing to work where they ask you to work. If you really don’t like it, start looking around for a new job if you can find one you like better.
Employees are paid what they are worth, not to cover their personal expenses. What they do with that paycheck is their business. Should we reduce your pay if you move closer to work?
Tell her to buy a bike if you want to save gas money. Healthy people are happier anyway.
Yeah, that’s a good idea. Quit a job where you are valued as an employee out of spite because they won’t let you transfer to an office 12 miles closer.
What the OP’s wife SHOULD have done is talk to her boss as soon as the new positioned opened up. The reality is that good managers also want their employees to be happy and if she really wants that transfer, at least he can manage to that.
Instead, what I gather is that she tried to apply for it on the DL thinking that a) she would just sneak out giving no thought as to the impact to the store she is leaving and b) that managers don’t actually speak to each other.
They tell me the same thing, too. I think too many people want to pretend work has to be fun. They’re more important than they really are at work. If they are as important as THEY think they should be that’s reason to quit. Um, no. Um, HELL no in a recession.