WWYD - Potential job offer but with a huge pay cut and in-office requirement

[SkampyOne]

So this might be a bit of a stretch on a Disney board, but here goes. I was part of a mass layoff a few years ago and haven't worked since. My former employer posted a role I'm uniquely qualified for in a different department and I've been invited for 3rd round interviews. Here's the catch: even though the role is at the same level as my old job (with 10 times the direct reports too), the salary is considerably less than what I was earning back then AND they want me in the office 3 days a week (I worked remotely the last dozen years). Though I don't live far, it can take almost 2 hours to drive each way plus the extra costs in terms of gas, tolls, maintenance & probably insurance too, because of the increased mileage. There's a big project with an upcoming deadline that will make for long days so I'm guessing those in office days will be about 14 hours, including the commute. I normally start my day with a 5-mile walk which has been great for my physical and mental health - I would have to give those up on in-office days. We only have 1 car so DH would be stuck at home those office days, impacting his mental health as well. I'm surprised that in this environment, I'm even considering saying no and continuing to live off my retirement savings, but I'm not sure why I would want the added stress of working more for less. I realize I sound spoiled to even have that opportunity but I was taken advantage of for years (my peers were paid more) and I want to at least be kept whole financially to make these sacrifices. Do I wait to see if I get the offer and try to play hardball? There's close to a 20% gap between my number and their max. Do I walk? WWYD?

 

[eticketplease]

2 hours to drive each way? For that commute I would be getting a cheap apartment near the work site. It doesn’t seem like you really need this job so I would be out.

 

[afan]

If you know their offer isn't going to change I'd walk and not waste anyone's time with another interview. If you think you can negotiate more pay or at least less days on office or cost to cover commuting and/or hotel for those nights you have to be in office, keep the next interviewer. They may be more willing to negotiate stuff that allows you to be in office than more pay. Also consider agreeing to be in office until the project that seems to be requiring the in office as thr amount of time you'll do 3 days and that after that you'll do less.

But also, and it seems like you have to an extent, really consider if this is somewhere you want to go back to. It seems like it probably isn't from your post.

 

[barkley]

continuing to live off my retirement savings

I guess for me it would come down to this. I'm guessing you are drawing from your retirement savings well before you ever intended to so will they be able to last for what your (pre layoff) intended number of years of retirement? if the answer is not a firm 'yes' then I assume the return to the new job would result in no longer drawing from the retirement and perhaps even being able to throw more at it to begin to replenish (perhaps exceed) what you've withdrawn. if that's the case then it's something I would strongly consider, esp. if I had been applying for other jobs unsuccessfully over the past couple of years and intended to continue b/c I think it likely looks better to have recent employment vs. dated (and a return to a prior employer who did lay-offs shows someone else that the former employer did reccognized and value your skills).

 

[Twilghtsprkle]

2 hours each way? No, just no. You will burn yourself out so quickly.

 

[FreeTime]

Could you make the new, lower amount doing something else that is closer to home? Maybe that is the trade off. Going back to work but doing something else. Have you not worked for a few years because you haven’t been able to find work or haven’t looked? If the latter, do you need to?

 

[amcnj]

If I didn’t really need the job financially, then I would be a little pickier, stating what it would take for me to accept the position. If I did need the money, I’d be more inclined to take the job, but would keep looking for something better too. Also how much I enjoy the work would factor in.

I commuted an hour and a half each way, five days a week, for many years, so have an idea what that is like. This is an ongoing job, not just a temporary gig? Is the company more stable now, and not likely to do lay-offs again?

 

[gottalovepluto]

You’ve lived off your retirement account for 2 years and you didn’t intend to at this point in your life? Unless you have baller level retirement tucked away you take this job and suck up the misery until you find something better. On the mental health- whatever issues you’re feeling/have had will pale in comparison to not having a retirement account left when you need it.

 

[reddog21]

I would have stopped at the 2 hr commute unless there willing to negotiate the work from home situation.

 

[Twilghtsprkle]

I would have stopped at the 2 hr commute unless there willing to negotiate the work from home situation.

Exactly. 20% pay cut and 12 hours of commuting (you need to put a value on your time) plus gas & wear to the car. Together that adds up to more than a 20% cut.

Taking a job close to home for a 30% cut would have you come out ahead of this.

 

[gottalovepluto]

Exactly. 20% pay cut and 12 hours of commuting (you need to put a value on your time) plus gas & wear to the car. Together that adds up to more than a 20% cut.

Taking a job close to home for a 30% cut would have you come out ahead of this.

What pay cut and what job that actually exists? Serious bummer but they haven’t had a paycheck for a couple years.

 

[barkley]

What pay cut and what job that actually exists? Serious bummer but they haven’t had a paycheck for a couple years.

that's my thought too. I would think if there was something in close proximity (unless she's had no desire to return to work for the time being) she would have sought it out. I'm not surprised about any employer requiring at least some in person days these days.

 

[leebee]

I'd keep interviewing for the position. If you get the offer, then start negotiating, for better pay, WFH, or a combination. Hiring you back at a pay cut and adding 5 days of commuting is a negative, and they know that, but my guess is they are low-balling the offer (because that's what companies do). Also, as you said you are pretty uniquely qualified for this, so I'd see if I get the offer then negotiate. It'd bother me more to be tapping into my retirement; not only would I be using it sooner than planned, but these are also years that you'd expected to be working and adding to the retirement, not draining it.

 

[DCL58]

I would take it and continue to look for another job. Always seems easier to get a new job if you already have one. Plus, you could stop the early retirement withdrawals.

Taking a job you don’t like doesn’t mean you have to stay there forever. Use it as a stepping stone to something better.

 

[reddog21]

I'd keep interviewing for the position. If you get the offer, then start negotiating, for better pay, WFH, or a combination.

Whenever I interview and notice the address on an application is far away, my first question is whether they’re willing to make the commute. We handle prescreening before interviews, so that question comes up early, but I always ask again during the first in-person meeting. We don't budge on work from home schedule especially for new hires.

If the commute is an issue, the OP should have asked during the initial interview whether working from home was flexible. There’s no point in wasting anyone’s time if you can’t or don’t want to meet the job requirements as originally offered.

 

[brockash]

Exactly. 20% pay cut and 12 hours of commuting (you need to put a value on your time) plus gas & wear to the car. Together that adds up to more than a 20% cut.

Taking a job close to home for a 30% cut would have you come out ahead of this.

Yes, I'd look for something (anything) close to home really no matter the pay or field to be getting an income while you continue to look for a job you want. Just do part time if you want, but bring in some kind of money to offset what you're pulling from your retirement. Having said that, I wouldn't consider working for my sane company for 20% less, 2 hr. commute 3x week in a place that has a pattern of taking advantage of its employees.

 

[MsOnceUponATime]

I'm not sure where you're located, but I would not be commuting 2 hours one way. I currently commute a minimum of 1 hour each way (can be more/can be less) and have been commuting for YEARS.

It's starting to take a toll on me now... think long and hard about a 2 hour (one way) commute.

 

[tvguy]

I would take it and continue to look for another job. Always seems easier to get a new job if you already have one. Plus, you could stop the early retirement withdrawals.

Taking a job you don’t like doesn’t mean you have to stay there forever. Use it as a stepping stone to something better.

This would be my advice. Something coming in is better than nothing coming in.

 

[tvguy]

I'd keep interviewing for the position. If you get the offer, then start negotiating, for better pay, WFH, or a combination. Hiring you back at a pay cut and adding 5 days of commuting is a negative, and they know that, but my guess is they are low-balling the offer (because that's what companies do). Also, as you said you are pretty uniquely qualified for this, so I'd see if I get the offer then negotiate. It'd bother me more to be tapping into my retirement; not only would I be using it sooner than planned, but these are also years that you'd expected to be working and adding to the retirement, not draining it.

You really have to be careful to know how far you can ask them to stretch. At least in my experience, a 20% salary gap is a pretty big stretch for most managers, especially if they are owned by a corporation. They may not want to waste any more time with you if what they CAN pay you is nowhere near what you are asking.
I applied for a job at a place I had worked at 16 years previously. They were a family owned company when I worked there, they had since been purchased by a corporation I got a call from the guy doing the hiring and he said he had pulled my file and said he wanted me to know I was their top candidate, but what I was making 16 years before was much more than the salary ceiling corporate had put on the position.

 

[barkley]

Whenever I interview and notice the address on an application is far away, my first question is whether they’re willing to make the commute. We handle prescreening before interviews, so that question comes up early, but I always ask again during the first in-person meeting.

I really wish HR where I worked would have permitted us to inquire of out of area applicants (out of region-no way they could commute) if they had researched housing and other living expenses in the areas surrounding our offices. it never failed that we would get highly qualified applicants who just saw that we were paying the highest rate in that state for the identical job they were doing elsewhere and they were ready to pull up stakes and move for it. the thing was, housing back then was SO much higher where we worked as compared to most other places that the majority of our workforce commuted (as much as 2 hours each way per day in good traffic) to get even a small break on housing (it was still more than people were used to paying elsewhere) so there was the added cost of gas and tolls, wear and tear on your car (no feasable public transportation). we inevitably would make an employment offer, it would be accepted and then during the 30 days or so before they were scheduled to report they would call and withdraw their acceptance always saying 'i did'nt know it cost so much to live there'.