Is this offer normal? 4

[manpower401]

I need your opinion about the job offer I received.

I am in the geotechnical engineering field. Recently, I had a job interview with an engineering company. Everything seemed to go well, coversations with staffs were delight, and the chief of the department seemed to approve me as a good fit for that position.

Before the end of the interview, the president made an offer. He offered an hourly rate for 40 hr/wk which is compose of 70% of my desired salary. Other 30% was filled with 1.5 times higher overtime rate for additional 5 hr/wk.
He told that the company expects me to work at least 45 hr/wk, and verbally guaranteed 45 hours/wk through the year.
The total would be close to what I wanted and I don't mind to work 45 hr/wk.

However, I don't understand why he doesn't match it with the basic hourly rate only if he can guarantee 45 hours?

Is he trying to take an advantage over me?
Even though I am a foreigner, I have 4 yrs of engineering experiences and they seem not have any problem with either my ability or nationality.

Am I overreacting?

Thanks for your input

 

[TheTick]

I would consider this a red flag. Such half-baked idea would not emerge from a trustworthy soul.

In many states, this might not even be legal.

 

[MintJulep]

I don't see how 5 hours of OT at 1.5 rate equates to 30% of anything.

To me it seems like you get to work 112.5% of a 40 hour week for 88% of the salary that you want.

 

[ewh]

If he can guarantee 45 hours/week, then he should be able to offer you a salary based on the same amount. That way, if it ever did dip below 45 hours, you would get the same paycheck.

 

[manpower401]

sorry for a mistake.
MintJulep was right.
basic salary takes about 84% and 1.5 OT for 5 hrs equates 16%.

 

[JAE]

There are many firms that have higher than 40 hour work weeks. One firm I used to work for had a 44 hour work week.

Yes, its a "philosophy" of a company to do such a thing. You ask: "Is he trying to take an advantage over me?", that may be true, or it may not - the key would be to ask if the other employees share the same condition.

Under US labor laws (not sure where you are geographically) - it is legal for firms to demand overtime when the flow of business requires it.

 

[whyun]

One of my former employers offered a reasonably attractive signing bonus. After a few years I realized that it was a method he used to "lower" my salary by that amount EACH YEAR. Very smart move on his part, and naive decision on my part...

 

[Ron]

It just rubs me the wrong way to see companies offering "professional" positions at "hourly" rates....personally, I think it demeans the profession. This is one employer (among many, unfortunately) who is helping to send our profession to its grave by making and promoting professional services as a commodity.

We're professionals. We should get paid a fair salary and we should work to the level our conscience directs us, but in no case less than 40-45 hours for our salary. To work more hours shows our dedication and commitment and should be rewarded according (though admittedly it doesn't always happen).

 

[born2drill]

manpower401, look at the offer for what it is: at worst you work a 40 hour week and make 84% of what you're hoping for. I'd guess that over a year you'd average somewhere between the 40 and 45 hours and probably get more than 90% of what you're asking for.

That's the deal that's been put in front of you. It's not dishonest, you just have to decide if you want to go work for this new firm for that amount of money. You can always reject the offer if you don't like it, or go back and ask for a better deal and see what they say.

On a side note, try working for a contractor. Overtime pay doesn't exist, and a 45 hour week is a luxury you'll rarely have. (And it's completely worth it)

 

[SacreBleu]

manpower,
That sounds like the company I used to work for. All smoke and mirrors when it came to compensation. But if you have no other offers, it is not such a bad deal. They gave me plenty of profit-sharing bonuses.
It is unfortunate that companies are increasing this trend to confuse us regarding compensation.
Work smarter, not harder. For every task you do, find a way to do it quicker, and spend the extra time tinkering with Excell. It keeps your mind sharp, and really helps automate the mundane, repetitive tasks.
At the company I used to work for, it was really hard to track time, and no one really managed the tme sheet data anyway. So, as a lark, I devised a time sheet on Excel which automatically put in correct dates, and after inputting 12 or so current jobs I had worked on in the 2-week cycle, it would randomly input hours, thus filling the time sheet automatically. Took about 2 minutes every 2 weeks to do my time sheet.

 

[LHA]

Manpower:

I second a combination of jae's and born2drill's responses. Take the offer, if it as a package (including perks and benefits) seems worth it to you; look elsewhere if the offer does not. Hopefully you have looked elsewhere regardless, so you can make that call.

Ron:
I am a PE. I was offered a crappy salary to stay at my previous job. So I went out and got a new job, with a better salary (and the unlimited hours expected of me which go with a salary). I then found my current job, which pays straight time for all hours, reg or OT, it doesn't matter. I make more here because of that fact.

I do not consider more money for comparable work "demeaning" at all. I am a professional, and my professional services ARE a commodity, which I sell for as much as I can get for them. My employer, as a buyer of that commodity, tries (and must, per the rules of market economics) to purchase that commodity as cheaply as possible. It all seems fair to me.


Remember: The Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is comprised of the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.”
-Steve

 

[SacreBleu]

I consider this latest trend in "smoke and mirrors" salary compensation to be BS. However, if the company treats you well otherwise, no problem. You can always look for another job...your chances of getting hired if you are currently employed are much better.
As for the 45 hour work week vs. 40, that is not such a big deal-engineers typically expect to work at least 45. There was an interesting study that found what employees "really" work in terms of truly productive hours.

 

[manpower401]

Thanks for your opinions.

I understand that employers always look for quality engineers with the minimum cost from their pocket.

I don't mind to work overtime. Even 50 hours a week would be OK, if I am compensated properly. I sent a counter proposal offer today, so I will see how they respond.

 

[plasgears]

An overtime scheme is better than casual 'required' 2-3 hr daily overtime and four hours on Sat. That makes your scheme look good in comparison.

 

[That1Guy]

Pardon me if this is obvious, but it sounds like he's saying "Well, if you include overtime, we can nearly match what you're asking."

This is assuming he didn't specifically break down the percentage separation. I personally find the 1.5x overtime to be unusual, but otherwise, it sounds pretty common, or so my recent experience dictates. The two companies I interviewed with a couple of months ago both told me roughly that they would pay me my desired range if you included overtime at roughly 10% and 1x base, which works out to about 44-45 hrs a week. As long as you have the work to allow you the 5hrs overtime at the higher rate, it doesn't sound like that bad a deal. Particularly if you have higher overtime than the 5hrs. However, if work slows to 40hrs a week, you're in quite a pickle. I'd say it would mostly depend on your perception of the anticipated workflow.

Let us know how it works out.

 

[GTstartup]

What you describe is "salary plus overtime" and he is using the OT to get to your stated desired income. Salary plus OT is more common than you think in the US for engineers. It's not "smoke and mirrors", or "illegal" or demeaning. It sounds like a good deal to me because, for sure, even with just salary you would be expected to work at least 5 hours OT. On the upside it seems like you could make more than you required if you have to work more than 5 hours OT.

What would you rather have salary plus OT but paid for salary only, or salary plus OT and paid for every hour over 40? Sounds like a no brainer to me.

I say jump at it.

 

[SacreBleu]

GT,
It is smoke and mirrors, because if things slow down, the employer can get away with paying only 70% of the expected salary for a 40 hour week.
Remember, I said that I worked for a company that sounds exactly as described by the original post. The only reason that I put up with this sort of deceit is because there were large profit-sharing bonuses.
It is a bad trend, no doubt being circulated around to the advantage of employers who want to confuse prospective employees.

 

[GTstartup]

Sacrebleu,

I guess it depends on how many hours are worked. Worse case scenario when things are slow, he gets 86% of his expected salary. When things are busy he makes more.

It's not smoke and mirrors, deceit or confusing because he has been told the situation up front. It's purely an exercise in economic risk-reward. Don't forget the OT over 40 is paid at 1.5 times regular rate.

I can only relate to my own experience in which, for example, its not unusual to work 80+ hours a week. It's gonna be pretty hard to convince me I should turn in my 6 figure plus earnings for a non confusing, deceitless fixed salary of 40 hours per week.

My vote is still go for it, at the end of the year, do the math and if you don't like it....quit.

 

[SacreBleu]

GT,
By now, he probably is already working at the company. So just for the sake of some friendly head-butting, read his original post. Worst-case scenario is 70% of his expected salary, not 86%.
I think more and more he is speaking of the same exact company I worked for 3-1/2 years. It had a MBA (non-engineer), and also a "hack" lawyer as vice-presidents. They were probably the modern equivalant of the the "evil Vizier" manipulating the "Leader".
I am so glad I work for a no-nonsense, straight-answers sort of a company now.
As I said above, its no big deal, manpower401 can handle the 45 hours, and its a free country.
Just some humor.

 

[hunt401]

Thanks Sacrebleu and GTstartup.
I agree with both opinions. I gave a serious thought about this and decided to take it. I know it is not the best offer, but I need to move on to build up more experiences.
One thing I've been worried about was when there are not enough projects for me to work over 45 hours a week, as noticed by GT. Will be the CEO's guarantee for the min. 45 hr/wk valid even under worse situations? Nobody knows.
Since they are very active in the market, I wouldn't have to worry about that for at least a couple of years.

And SacreBleu,
I don't think it's the same company you worked for. There is no structural engineering department in this company. I knew that they are not the only one doing the same trick.