[ad_1]
A reader writes:
TLDR: I used to be given a lowball job provide. I mentioned it was lower than my earlier complete comp, which it was. I used to be requested my earlier wage and, stupidly, gave it. Asking wage historical past is illegitimate within the nearest metropolis and which will or might not cowl me. Can I exploit the specter of authorized motion to barter a greater provide?
I used to be laid off. I utilized for a job at a close-by firm a buddy works at. The interview course of was actually quick, lower than per week from preliminary submission to ultimate interview. I believed I killed it. My buddy on the within agreed. However after the ultimate interview it took three entire weeks to get a suggestion. Apparently the CFO needed to log out on all the things personally and had a giant backlog.
The preliminary provide was lower than I had been making at my earlier job and I made the error of claiming it like that. The in-house recruiter requested what I used to be making and I’m dangerous at considering on my ft, so I instructed her. This job is in a suburb of Philadelphia, and Philadelphia has the Wage Fairness Ordinance making it unlawful to ask wage historical past. When you learn the legislation itself, it seems like I’m coated as a result of the corporate has staff and an workplace in Philly. However in case you learn an official FAQ, it doesn’t cowl you if the job location is outdoors Philly, which that is.
Can I exploit the specter of authorized motion to barter a greater provide? I didn’t give a quantity for what I’m in search of. The recruiter ran off to get a brand new quantity based mostly on my historical past. However I need a increased provide since my final wage misplaced $10,000 in two years from raises not maintaining with inflation. Additionally, I’ve expertise now in a know-how which my prior employer mentioned they’d have given me a better title for if I had had that coming in.
I used to be interested by saying, “We don’t should get legal professionals concerned and let your supervisor know, if..”
It’s a nasty concept!
At the beginning, you don’t seem to truly be coated by Philadelphia’s legislation. Town’s FAQ on the legislation says it solely applies to positions situated inside Philadelphia, which this job will not be. (There are some exceptions to that, corresponding to in case you’d be spending loads of time within the metropolis, however I’m assuming you’ll have talked about it if these utilized.)
When you’re not coated by the legislation, you don’t have any standing to threaten authorized motion.
However even in case you had been coated, “we don’t should get legal professionals concerned and let your supervisor know” is a nasty strategy. First, this isn’t actually a authorized battle; you’d merely be reporting them to the Philadelphia Fee on Human Relations. Extra importantly, you’re tying collectively two issues that don’t essentially belong collectively. Sure, they shouldn’t ask candidates about wage historical past (if certainly you had been coated below the legislation), however that they had already made you a suggestion with out having that data, and also you volunteered data about your earlier wage as a negotiation level. They could have nonetheless been in technical violation once they requested you to elaborate (it’s not totally clear from the data on town’s web site), however introducing that data after which threatening authorized motion once they engaged with you on it received’t make you seem like you’re working in good religion.
It’s additionally unlikely to work. Probably, they’ll be delay by the risk and simply let you know that their authentic provide — the one they made with none data about your wage historical past — is agency.
Even when it labored, although, it’s unlikely to be in your greatest pursuits. They made you a suggestion that was presumably inside their wage construction for the function and the staff. Let’s say you efficiently threaten them into providing extra. What are the possibilities you’re going to seek out it straightforward to get raises there sooner or later versus having your wage stagnate as a result of they don’t need it to get much more out of sync with others doing related work? If you need to threaten an employer into providing you extra, you’re higher off simply concluding that they don’t pay what you need … fairly than embedding your self into an organization that you just consider underpays (and which can presumably proceed to underpay and resist elevating your wage sooner or later).
To be clear, I’m not saying we shouldn’t maintain corporations accountable for following the legislation. And I hate that employees contemplating holding corporations legally accountable have to consider whether or not it’s going to get them labeled overly adversarial or so forth. However in actuality, you do — and on this case you’ve additionally bought to contemplate whether or not making threats over it’s going to get you the end result you need or simply poison the properly.
All that mentioned, in case you assume they violated the legislation, by all means report them to the company charged with dealing with it! However utilizing it to attempt to negotiate extra money isn’t a superb technique.
[ad_2]
