Inaccurate Job Offer Letter

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

The other poster hasn't assumed

And I didn't say they had. However most people were giving responses which were only correct IF it were the case. Which it seems it isn't.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

RichieRooo wrote: »

The job is a Software Development role.
I handed in my notice at my previous employer which was a 37.5 hour week, based on the terms set out in the job offer letter at my new employer. Given they stated 09:00 - 17:30 with an hour break for lunch that means they were offering the same 37.5 hour week.

I have since consulted them about this.
All they have come back with is a stuttering apology from the MD.

They say they can't change my hours and they can't up my salary either and if I feel I want to leave then I can.

I feel really mislead given I accepted the job based on those terms in the offer letter.

Yeah. I work in software development. The fact that you have even brought this up probably means they now prefer you would leave.

Nobody routinely takes hour-long lunch breaks in this industry, although there's almost always flexibility to take time if you need it. You tend to just eat when you have the time and do what you need to to do when you need to do it.

EDIT: I don't work long hours, I never have, by industry standards. But I very rarely take longer for lunch than is needed to buy a sandwich, and exceeding the working day by half an hour a day isn't even worth remarking on. It takes you that long to finish off what you are doing and shut down.

RichieRooo

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Yeah. I work in software development. The fact that you have even brought this up probably means they now prefer you would leave.

Nobody routinely takes hour-long lunch breaks in this industry, although there's almost always flexibility to take time if you need it. You tend to just eat when you have the time and do what you need to to do when you need to do it.

EDIT: I don't work long hours, I never have, by industry standards. But I very rarely take longer for lunch than is needed to buy a sandwich, and exceeding the working day by half an hour a day isn't even worth remarking on. It takes you that long to finish off what you are doing and shut down.

You're missing the point.
The salary they offered me was based on a 40 hour week and they led me to believe it was based on a 37.5 hour week on the offer letter.
I could take no lunch break if I desired but I'd still have to work 40 hours instead of 37.5.

makeyourdaddyproud

37.5 hour working week in an IT job (some are even 35) is the norm. 40 hours roles do exist but are quite rare.

I am wondering whether a little bit of subterfuge played a part here as the number of working hours is not something HR would get wrong; something is definitely amiss.

I mean, if there was a template file for employment and they missed the edit, I would presume that normal daily tenure is 37.5 hours, and they were now hoping to get more bangs for their buck.

You should walk away.

Scorpio33

RichieRooo wrote: »

You're missing the point.
The salary they offered me was based on a 40 hour week and they led me to believe it was based on a 37.5 hour week on the offer letter.
I could take no lunch break if I desired but I'd still have to work 40 hours instead of 37.5.

Agreed! Just because "Nobody routinely takes hour-long lunch breaks in this industry" doesn't mean that it should apply to you.


You are supplying your labour in exchange for a salary. The terms of that supply of labour were stipulated in both your contract and offer letter.


You have the right to be pee'd off about the situation - the terms you agreed to have been changed.




Practically what can you do?


1 - Complain to your employers. As you have been there for less than 2 years, they can get rid of you for no reason. So the chances are that they will not be happy with the course of action you are taking and it will be difficult to have a successful career at that employer.


2 - Not say anything to your employers. Quite rightly, you have been at best, misled by your employers and not saying anything could lead to a huge amount of resentment on your part which again will make it difficult to have a successful career at that employer, unless the good aspects about the role outweigh this issue.


3 - Don't say anything, but plan your escape from the job. Get your CV up to date including this role. Actively look for an alternative role. Tap up your contacts. Hope you get something better. When you do, jump ship. Assuming this is you only time this has happened, most employers will be forgiving. One mistake in employment in your career happens to many people.


or 4 - Resign now and look for something better. Clearly only an option if you can afford it.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

37.5 hour working week in an IT job (some are even 35) is the norm. 40 hours roles do exist but are quite rare.

I am wondering whether a little bit of subterfuge played a part here as the number of working hours is not something HR would get wrong; something is definitely amiss.

I mean, if there was a template file for employment and they missed the edit, I would presume that normal daily tenure is 37.5 hours, and they were now hoping to get more bangs for their buck.

You should walk away.

In a software dev role the working hours are nothing more than a guideline. It's not like an hourly paid job.

tomtontom

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

37.5 hour working week in an IT job (some are even 35) is the norm. 40 hours roles do exist but are quite rare.

I am wondering whether a little bit of subterfuge played a part here as the number of working hours is not something HR would get wrong; something is definitely amiss.

I mean, if there was a template file for employment and they missed the edit, I would presume that normal daily tenure is 37.5 hours, and they were now hoping to get more bangs for their buck.

You should walk away.

If you have another job to go to or funds to support yourself whilst seeking alternative work.

Surely you're not suggesting the OP make themselves unemployed only something so trivial?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

RichieRooo wrote: »

You're missing the point.
The salary they offered me was based on a 40 hour week and they led me to believe it was based on a 37.5 hour week on the offer letter.
I could take no lunch break if I desired but I'd still have to work 40 hours instead of 37.5.

I know. That's not the point.. The point is they probably expect you to work the hours you need to work to get the job done.

What you have done is given them the impression you wanted to be routinely swanning off for your full hour every day, coming in bang on 9 and leaving at bang on 5:30. They wouldn't have hired you if they thought this was going to be the case.

You are not paid by the hour. You are being paid to do a professional salaried job. The start and finish hours are as advertised. This is a non-issue. If you want to stay there then you need to keep quiet about it.

makeyourdaddyproud

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

In a software dev role the working hours are nothing more than a guideline. It's not like an hourly paid job.

What? I think you need to re-read what you said, then rinse repeat.

All the perm contracts in the past i've had stated the hours as a fact.

The OP was expecting a contract stating the previously agreed hours. It's not a guideline! Employment contracts give you parameters with which you work under but are never just guidelines.

I do accept that the nature of the job can mean working outside those parameters occasionally as the business dictates, but that is not the same as "bunging" in a few more hours as a contingency.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

I mean, if there was a template file for employment and they missed the edit, I would presume that normal daily tenure is 37.5 hours, and they were now hoping to get more bangs for their buck.

In no software role I have ever worked would the company think that by changing lunch break from an hour to half an hour they would "get more bangs for their buck" because, once again, most people on 37.5 hour weeks work more than 40 anyway, be that working through lunch (not a concept that even exists in the industry) or overstaying.