Employer surprises employee with a "new offer"—a pay cut —after he already agreed to a transfer to be with his family after 5 months of long-distance separation for the job: 'Why would they literally take money out of my pocket?'

This employee left his job where he was underappreciated, seeking out greener pastures. He shared the following story with an online workplace community, voicing his frustration and asking for advice on how to handle the complex organizational issue he faced and the implications it had on his personal life and overall work-life balance.

After 5 months working apart from his family for the new employer, the employee took an opportunity to relocate to an area with a lower cost of living so that his family could move and join him. The position was a higher-leverage one with arguably more responsibility, and it gave him an exciting new problem to solve at work and fulfilled a need for the company. So it seemed like a win-win. 

So, he was surprised when he was told that he was "getting a new offer," and it turned out to be a pay cut. The employer claims that this is simply to match the earning rate for the lower cost-of-living area, but the employee feels that this is a cheap, unnecessary, and unfair cost-saving measure for the company. 

Relocate for the company, "That'll be a salary adjustment"

He got a new job in a new city, moving from one high-cost-of-living area to another. The problem? He and his wife already owned a house in the city where his previous job had been located. So the family waited while they tried to sell the house at a favorable price.

I left a company back in April that I was extremely undervalued in and got a significant raise, relocation benefit, and increase in benefits. All good.

The employee and his wife soon found, however, that it was going to be impossible to purchase real estate in the new city, so the family never came. 

Well, it had me move from one high cost of living area to another, so all a win. Except the housing was just nuts. Everything similarly priced except the houses. Those were unimaginably higher. My wife was not impressed. I enjoyed the job and the new area but my wife and kid stayed behind until we were sure we'd get the best price for selling our house to be able to attempt to buy a house in the new area.

After 5 months, there was an opportunity for him to relocate, a place that he had identified as a weak point of the organization. He made the suggestion to his employer himself of moving to a higher-impact role in a cheaper area that was more suited to their family to move to.

Then, after about 5 months at the job, I recognized a hole in my organization. It was somewhere to build value for my team and steer a category that was in desperate need of a strategy in a good direction. The benefit is that it's something I can sink my teeth into and really make an impact. It's a slight increase in scope but nothing Earth shattering.

His wife loved the new area, and the move would help a lot with his persona life. His boss said the reloacion would come wiht h a new offer.

Also, my wife was much happier at the new area and it seems like it would solve a ton of issues. Company gets a higher tier contributor in an area that needs a lot of love and I get to actually afford a house. Complete "Win/Win".

Then my new boss tells me I'm getting a new offer.

“Why would they literally take money out of my pocket?" The employee couldn't help but wonder as he considered the possibility that he might receive a pay cut moving to a lower-income area.

I get it, I'm relocating from a very high cost of living location to a much lower cost of living area. I figured it was a possibility, but I thought: "I'm a sunk cost already. Why would they literally take money out of my pocket?"

I don't know the actual amount yet, but my new boss told me that the company is going to do the adjustment and he "made it clear that the compensation had to still be attractive" but I don't know.

The employee hoped that at least it wouldn't be too much of a paycut. 

If it's a small amount, and I can honestly absorb 5 - 10% reduction and still come out ahead. Even from my last job and location, this points to still being a net positive. I should be thankful that I am employed, housed and can take care of my family.

But, he still felt put-out by the entire thing. At the end of the day, he had proposed fixing a weakness, a hole in the organization. It just so hapopened that this also fixed a problem for him in his personal life. What should have been a “win-win” for both parties now felt like he was being taken advantage of. That the penny pinching and saving cost wasn't even worth the effort of the employer.

But I'm still f**ng p**sed that they are adjusting at all. It's needlessly greedy on their end. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am coming from this being such an awesome move and win for me and the company but seeing exactly how little they value me.

Appreciate listening to the rant.

The employees' own “TL:DR” (Too long; didn't read) summarizing the issue. 

TL:DR

I took a new job, moved to a higher cost of living area to an even higher one, but pivoted to a need at the company and a lower cost of living area. Then they dropped a compensation adjustment against me.

If you've ever tried to make this situation work, where you're living in another city apart from your family, it's not easy. Especially when you have young children, you really start missing all of those evenings with the kids, and the time apart starts to strain your relationship with your spouse more and more as you miss all of those little moments together.

It's one of those things that you know is going to be challenging before going into the arrangement. And even if you and your spouse are fully on the same page and have a strong bond and healthy communication strategies, your relationship is going to be tested. I think these things always reach a point where you realize it can't go on any longer, and it's time to end the long-distance.

I tried long-distance once with my longtime partner (my girlfriend for all you older folks out there), and it wasn't easy. We were living a 3-hour drive apart, and that distance really put a strain on our relationship. We each spent many a Friday night driving the distance, tired and stressed out already from a long week of work. And every Sunday afternoon was pure heartbreak as you readied to part for another week. 

So I can totally relate to the employee's struggle here. The recognition that maybe they underestimated how hard it would be, and the desperation to bring the current arrangement to an end, is a feeling that is very familiar. 

At the end of the day, I kind of understand things on the employer's part. I know, right? But hear me out. 

My experience

A story from my past life working front-line high-end retail…

At a previous job where I worked, branches were spread out all over the country. I lived and worked in the very center of one of the most expensive cities in the region. One of the most expensive cities in the world, in all actuality.

The showroom I managed was the crown jewel of the company. And it was really completely unlike all of the other stores. The clientele were some of the wealthiest in the country. They expected—no… demanded a higher level of service. We were also busier than any other store in the business by transactions and feet through the door. It was a lot of work and pressure to keep up with everything. But as you can imagine, the sales were much higher, and the store was extremely profitable. 

However, I and my staff were paid the same rate as any other store in the business. I made serious sacrifices to my personal life and my mental health to keep that place running during my time there. And yet my compensation didn't reflect any of the additional cost of living or responsibility that came with the location of the showroom. 

My arguments were:

1. The clientele were some of the richest in the country.
2. The turnover of the store was higher.
3. The store was the premier showroom of the organization's product.

And yet, in the name of fairness (and probably paying everyone a little less), I was paid the same as the manager in the lowest-turnover job in the middle of nowhere.

It was “fair,” but “fair” in the sense that “fair” was equitable. But was equitable really fair here?

I think, relatively, I was actually paid less per effort than anyone else in the company. So that didn't seem really fair to me.

Location vs. Responsibility

But, really, my argument isn't based on location at all. I didn't necessarily think that I should be paid more because of where I was, or that other managers should be paid less because of where they were. I thought I should have been paid more because of the expectation and responsibility that were placed on me. This represented a significant burden on my personal life. That and the results of my role: I had the highest sales in the company, even as a manager,  and my store earned more than any other. At the end of the day, if everything is about the money, it just makes sense. Right?

So here's where the employee in this story has a point: There's no reason he should be getting paid less for taking on more responsibility. Not when he is taking on a recognized vital role in the company. Maybe if he had been hired in the region in the first place, among staff with lower wages, the employer could consider paying him less. But when he is moving from another location and taking on a more vital role in the organization, I don't think the employer has a leg to stand on here. Why make an issue with a good, honest, hard worker where there isn't one?

Seems like this hasn't been thought through. At worst, it's an incompetent decision; at best, it's a misapplication of a blanket policy.

That's my take on this issue. What's your take here?

See some of the key responses from the original discussion below, then let me know your thoughts.