Strange Job Offer

[Flooble]

I've just successfully interviewed for a new role.

However, having finally obtained the contract it's rather bizarre. The salary is decent for out in the sticks; (well above £50K), however, there are no benefits attached. Everything is the legal minimum - 20 days holiday, 1% Auto-enrolment pension and ... that's it.

It seems weird for a firm which on the surface seemed like a really good place to work (staff all appeared happy and contented; relaxed management; good strong growth; plenty of awards; good customer base etc.). Particularly for a senior level role, I'd expect reasonable pension, leave and other benefit arrangements. Especially things which cost very little to provide (like occupational sick pay, a reasonable holiday entitlement etc.)

Has anyone else encountered such a huge disparity between salary on offer and the rest of the benefits package? I'm trying to work out what I have missed regarding the culture and also the probability of the guys I'd be working with being in a pretty bad place (combine a more junior role on lower pay with the lack of benefits and I can't see it being a good place to be for them).

[SystemParanoia]

sounds like you're going to grow to hate this place.

[Flooble]

Quite possibly - the miserly nature of the benefits package rings alarm bells for me as it suggests they don't value their staff.

I've been around the block too many times to fall for the "all chummy until you are in the door" approach.

Might see if I can arrange another visit to "meet some more of the guys" and try to corner some of the people I'd be working with on their own to maybe get some honesty.

[StevieBee]

Flooble said:

out in the sticks

Genrally, compared to city based companies, provincial and rural ones tend to need to compete less for talent. Some will pay a higher salary to attract people living further away. There are exceptions but attractive benefits are typically used to snare the good employees from competitors, the need to do so lessens region by region. If the salary is unusually high for the role and location then their thinking may be that you can afford to buy those benefits if you like.

What would you prefer: £50k with minimal benefits or £40k will full benefits?

Would you prefer to work in a company that's horrible but get £50k and the full beans.

Or would you prefer a nice place to work, with nice people and an interesting job with £50k and no beans?

It may also be the case that this particular company treats such benefits as ones you need to earn, once you've proven yourself. Worth asking on this point.

Bottom line is that nobody is forcing you to take the job and many factors come into play beyond pension and holidays and other add-ons.

[MitchT]

I'd much sooner have a big salary and no benefits - Means I can choose my own benefits. Believe me, there's no joy in working for a place that prides itself on perks but pays so badly that you don't stand a cat in hell's chance of ever buying your own home or even having the heating on as much as you need during the winter. That said, if I were a highly experienced person with a proven track record I'd expect them to match the annual leave in a job offer to that of my previous employer.

ETA: Are they reviewed on Glassdoor? That'll speak volumes.

Edited by MitchT on Wednesday 30th August 11:44

[anonymous-user]

I worked for Infosys many moons ago (Indian IT co.) that worked like that - good salary, minimal legal benefits.

It did look a bit like they wanted people who could do the job (hence decent salary), but didn't value them as people (hence no benefits)

They lived up to my expectations and I left within a year

[Flooble]

Thanks guys - those are good insights and useful to get another perspective.

I think my main concern was around the more junior guys; with the non-salary bits being on the bare legal minimums my worry is around motivating staff who may not have a big salary either.

I'd best find a way to, somehow, ascertain whether what you guys have suggested may be the case - bigger salary to compensate for no benefits. Or if, as I fear, it's a case of "big salary for the big bods, everyone else gets low pay and no benefits".

Nothing on glassdoor sadly, as the solitary review says "Great Benefits and Bonuses". So something's not right ...

[boxst]

It is a relatively new company? I took a 'risk' and worked for one that paid well, but had no health insurance, pension or in fact anything else really.

As they grew bigger they did introduce all of those things.

[MitchT]

keirik said:

It did look a bit like they wanted people who could do the job (hence decent salary), but didn't value them as people (hence no benefits)

Benefits don't constitute valuing people. Paying well constitutes valuing people. In my experience companies underpay you and then provide benefits equal to about a tenth of the shortfall between what you get paid and what you should be getting paid and think they're they holy grail of great places to work. Benefits are just a thinly veiled way that employers screw people over while arming themselves with the ammunition that they need to take apart any complaint about st pay. Just pay properly and be done wtih it.

Flooble said:

Nothing on glassdoor sadly, as the solitary review says "Great Benefits and Bonuses". So something's not right ...

Probably one of the directors!

[barryrs]

I've had this in the past and in my experience the jobs that paid good wages and minimal benefits tended to be limited companies owned outright by the MD.

I have found that they like the predictability of costs/overheads to the business.

[Flooble]

Not that new a company and not owned by the MD (listed on the stock market) - but many thanks for everyone whose taken the time to comment, it's much appreciated and has helped me to assess the situation.

[ecs]

I used to work for a company like that, +£60k salary but 20 days holiday and bare legal minimum pension. Everyone would pretend it was a great place to work because they had a shed for a meeting room and they'd give you free beers on a Friday. They were missing the point though, I'd rather be able to go on a few decent holidays a year and take time off over Christmas - that last one will really grate on you when you run out of holiday and end up working those stty days between Christmas an New Year.

[SaTTaN]

I worked somewhere before where they paid c10% ish above 'market rates' but no benefits like health, c2w etc. but their reasoning was it was a pain/cost for them to administer those schemes (reasonably small company 2-300ppl) and they'd rather pay the cash direct to staff so they could sort themselves out.

I was quite happy with it.

[SystemParanoia]

ecs said:

I used to work for a company like that, +£60k salary but 20 days holiday and bare legal minimum pension. Everyone would pretend it was a great place to work because they had a shed for a meeting room and they'd give you free beers on a Friday. They were missing the point though, I'd rather be able to go on a few decent holidays a year and take time off over Christmas - that last one will really grate on you when you run out of holiday and end up working those stty days between Christmas an New Year.

On £60k p/a ... i wouldnt be moaning about a few days over xmas.. i'd also accept 15 days holiday
infact.. id probably never moan again

[anonymous-user]

MitchT said:

keirik said:

It did look a bit like they wanted people who could do the job (hence decent salary), but didn't value them as people (hence no benefits)

Benefits don't constitute valuing people. Paying well constitutes valuing people. In my experience companies underpay you and then provide benefits equal to about a tenth of the shortfall between what you get paid and what you should be getting paid and think they're they holy grail of great places to work. Benefits are just a thinly veiled way that employers screw people over while arming themselves with the ammunition that they need to take apart any complaint about st pay. Just pay properly and be done wtih it.

I think you may need to check your communist party membership card, it must be looking well thumbed, and you missed out use of the words bourgeoisie and proletariat :-)

I always went after jobs based on the salary I wanted and the benefits were a bonus. Not giving any benefits indicates (in my experience) that they don't value people, just the job they can do and they'll screw you as soon as look at you and replace you with a cheaper body. Having benefits indicates (again in my experience) they've thought about staff well being.

Obviously your experience is different from mine

[Sheepshanks]

Flooble said:

Everything is the legal minimum - 20 days holiday, 1% Auto-enrolment pension and ... that's it.

Perhaps it's negotiable? I worked for a fairly big company and I had twice the pension of other immediate colleagues. I found out one colleague had much more of his salary fixed and less as bonus than I did (I was about 70/30, he was 90/10). Another was getting a higher car allowance. Only main holidays (ie whole weeks off) were tracked - odd days no one took any notice.

[mikef]

But is it negotiable for the existing junior staff you'd be relying on?

Sounds to me like a company that wants to be able to downsize quickly with minimal liabilities. I'd be taking a good look at the accounts and order book/pipeline

[ecs]

SystemParanoia said:

ecs said:

I used to work for a company like that, +£60k salary but 20 days holiday and bare legal minimum pension. Everyone would pretend it was a great place to work because they had a shed for a meeting room and they'd give you free beers on a Friday. They were missing the point though, I'd rather be able to go on a few decent holidays a year and take time off over Christmas - that last one will really grate on you when you run out of holiday and end up working those stty days between Christmas an New Year.

On £60k p/a ... i wouldnt be moaning about a few days over xmas.. i'd also accept 15 days holiday
infact.. id probably never moan again

Burnout is real and only taking 15 days holiday would kill you!

[xjay1337]

Work life balance.

Maybe negotiate extra holiday.

Go back and try to speak to some long term employees and get a feeling for how it is?

[alorotom]

SystemParanoia said:

On £60k p/a ... i wouldnt be moaning about a few days over xmas.. i'd also accept 15 days holiday
infact.. id probably never moan again

I used to think like that ... its not that much money and soon becomes not enough

15days AL is crazy, the minimum I will take is 25 and thats my concern about considering roles in the US at the moment that have zero AL or <5days AL ... scary thought really and taking unpaid leave is a false economy