New company, no benefits yet, asked to travel on own $$

Anonymous
I'll try to simplify the backstory: Husband is a DoD contractor; his company just lost the recompete for long-running government contract. His company has washed their hands of the employees on the contract, but the company that won the new contract has extended offers to the existing employees to stay on board (we realize the new company doesn't HAVE to do this, and are grateful). New company is offering the positions at 50% paycuts (minimum...most people are losing more) and although they offer insurance we'll be paying more than quadruple what we're currently paying. Husband was already way underpaid so it's killllling us financially but we're rolling with the punches and he's applying for new jobs like crazy.

Here's the thing: the new company takes over on Friday. Pay cuts are immediate (ouch). New benefits (health, life insurance, etc.) won't kick in until the May 1. We're crossing our fingers everyone stays healthy so we don't have to pay the almost $2K for Cobra for those couple of weeks. The company is requiring that DH travel next week - cross country, with no health or life insurance coverage, ON HIS OWN DIME. It will cost several thousand dollars, and there's a "promise" (not yet secured in writing) of reimbursement. I'm completely opposed to the idea of putting that much money on our personal credit cards without any reimbursement plan (especially since DH is actively looking for a new job and could possibly be putting in notice soon. Will they pay him back if he's bailing on them?). Given the severity of pay cuts and the virtually nonexistent benefits, I'm just skeptical about their ability to pay employees back for such an expensive trip. And it makes me nervous that he's traveling without life or health insurance. We haven't taken out a life insurance policy beyond what our workplaces have offered, and it'll be the first thing we do once he's in a new job and we have the funds. We're hanging on by a thread right now.

WWYD?
Anonymous
Take the job and have him tell the company with pay cut, he cannot afford the travel expenses, especially when you ready are going without health insurance. He needs to focus on getting a new job. When he knows a contract is coming to an end or what ever, he needs to jump ship then, not wait for a take over.
Anonymous
Don't do it. It seems that the new company has problems with cash flow. Is the new company a newly created company too? Does it have a track record of success and stsbility? If it does, then it seems stingy.

Either way it's a bad bad sign. Your husbands refusal to travel is totally reasonable. Was your husband underpaid according to the market? Or just your desires?
Anonymous
Absolutely not! You are right that they may never actually pay him back.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Don't do it. It seems that the new company has problems with cash flow. Is the new company a newly created company too? Does it have a track record of success and stsbility? If it does, then it seems stingy.

Either way it's a bad bad sign. Your husbands refusal to travel is totally reasonable. Was your husband underpaid according to the market? Or just your desires?


Definitely underpaid according to the market. People in his same position with less education made 40/50K more (wow). He's not former military, which many of the employees are, so he has always thought he's that much less experienced, even if that military experience for others was in a completely unrelated area. He's one of those people who will stay in the same place for years and years and never actively pursue promotions or raises because it would seem stingy and demanding or ungrateful - he believes hard work pays off and good companies reward you for diligence and loyalty. It's been a point of contention between us and while I hate to see this happening to him, I also see it as a huge reality check that has opened his eyes. I don't know of many companies that will hand you more money or promotions if you seem content where you are.

To the PP who suggested he look for jobs when the writing is own the wall, not after takeover, I couldn't agree more. I wish I could have been more convincing in that department.

And yes, it's a tiny new company. They offered an insanely low bid and it was accepted. I think now they're scrambling to staff the contract at the insanely low amount, which is why I'm with you and concerned they may not be able to reimburse (or will find a shady way around it).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I'll try to simplify the backstory: Husband is a DoD contractor; his company just lost the recompete for long-running government contract. His company has washed their hands of the employees on the contract, but the company that won the new contract has extended offers to the existing employees to stay on board (we realize the new company doesn't HAVE to do this, and are grateful). New company is offering the positions at 50% paycuts (minimum...most people are losing more) and although they offer insurance we'll be paying more than quadruple what we're currently paying. Husband was already way underpaid so it's killllling us financially but we're rolling with the punches and he's applying for new jobs like crazy.

Here's the thing: the new company takes over on Friday. Pay cuts are immediate (ouch). New benefits (health, life insurance, etc.) won't kick in until the May 1. We're crossing our fingers everyone stays healthy so we don't have to pay the almost $2K for Cobra for those couple of weeks. The company is requiring that DH travel next week - cross country, with no health or life insurance coverage, ON HIS OWN DIME. It will cost several thousand dollars, and there's a "promise" (not yet secured in writing) of reimbursement. I'm completely opposed to the idea of putting that much money on our personal credit cards without any reimbursement plan (especially since DH is actively looking for a new job and could possibly be putting in notice soon. Will they pay him back if he's bailing on them?). Given the severity of pay cuts and the virtually nonexistent benefits, I'm just skeptical about their ability to pay employees back for such an expensive trip. And it makes me nervous that he's traveling without life or health insurance. We haven't taken out a life insurance policy beyond what our workplaces have offered, and it'll be the first thing we do once he's in a new job and we have the funds. We're hanging on by a thread right now.

WWYD?


IME if you have health insurance on April 1 you have it for the whole month of APril. So if the new insurance starts up May 1 you would have no gap in coverage.

Consult HR at old company.
Anonymous
Op again - sorry - one of the reasons he's compelled to travel is that the clients he's traveling to support depend on him so much. They're also aware of the situation and several people have been trying to help him find a job. He wants to follow through with his obligation to his client, and also put in face time with those clients who are trying to help him (which I totally understand and support).

If it were just a random trip for the new company and a new client, this would be a no-brainier.
Anonymous
Don't do it. We lost contracts to companies like this and thy abuse their employees and really underpay.
Anonymous
Is your husband's contract covered under the service contract act? If it is they are required to offer the role to the incumbents (not at the same salary though), there are required benefit allowances, etc. He should absolutely not travel without being covered by benefits, including proof of workers comp and life insurance and absolutely not front any money. He will not get it back.

Honestly in this situation I would not join this Comoany. I would make getting a new job his FT job. He can hustle at night and drive Uber or deliver pizza. Do you work? What type of benefits do you get?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Op again - sorry - one of the reasons he's compelled to travel is that the clients he's traveling to support depend on him so much. They're also aware of the situation and several people have been trying to help him find a job. He wants to follow through with his obligation to his client, and also put in face time with those clients who are trying to help him (which I totally understand and support).

If it were just a random trip for the new company and a new client, this would be a no-brainier.


No, it's still a no brainer. His loyalty is admirable, however, he doesn't have an obligation to the client since he's not getting paid by his employer. He should refuse the trip until the company can cover the expense.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Is your husband's contract covered under the service contract act? If it is they are required to offer the role to the incumbents (not at the same salary though), there are required benefit allowances, etc. He should absolutely not travel without being covered by benefits, including proof of workers comp and life insurance and absolutely not front any money. He will not get it back.

Honestly in this situation I would not join this Comoany. I would make getting a new job his FT job. He can hustle at night and drive Uber or deliver pizza. Do you work? What type of benefits do you get?


OP here. It must be - it is a services contract. So maybe that answers the question of why even bother offering people these jobs at such low salaries. They've fulfilled the requirement of offering the role to the incumbents, but at salaries no one could possible accept (seriously: senior managers, retired Colonels, being offered 50K). I imagine they have their own people waiting in the wings and they're expecting pretty much everyone to bail.

I'm not employed full time right now. I left the fed gov three years ago to stay at home with our daughter; I freelance 20 or so hours a week so no benefits and it's not enough to pay our bills. I wish that weren't the case but it's just where we are right now. We're not ruling out me going back to work (I was making more than he was when I left, so it would make things easier financially) but we're trying to give this a couple more weeks. He has some promising leads; he just needs to bring in a salary (and benefits) until something concrete comes through. If the travel thing weren't an obstacle, it wouldn't be so bad. He's doing his job, using whatever spare time he has to job hunt and interview, and he's got a salary and benefits (albeit crappy) until he gets a better offer.

I know he doesn't want to rock the boat by refusing to travel but I guess not wanting to rock the boat sort of got us here in the first place
Anonymous
Rock the boat. They know that if they can get him to take the job at the ridiculously low salary, they have a great deal. Refuse to travel without expenses paid - that's not being difficult. The government is good for paying the company, so they need to pay him.

Life lesson, for others, also. Don't leave the Fed job, leave the contacting job. The grass may look greener in the contracting world, but stories like OPs are getting more and more common. When you have the option, one half of the couple keep a fed job with firm benefits and stability. I've seen too many twenty- and thirty- somethings throw over the government job for the contacting one and wind up in a terrible place. Sorry, OP, it's happening to you.
Anonymous

Oh no no no. He refuses to travel, period. Any client of his will completely understand this. "Sorry, Bob, I can't come to work with you next week after all, the new company cannot pay my travel fees." Done.

The new company is trying to get rid of everyone, that much is obvious.
Ask for travel pay, if they say yes, then ask for a raise, if they say yes, then leave when a new job materializes. If they say no at any point, just walk away. You play hardball with these people.

Anonymous
Oh my god no. Never.

Forget reimbursement: it's just not how it's done in any company anymore. They cover the costs or he doesn't go. It's non negotiable.
Anonymous
How much savings do you have? I think you should start looking for a job and work until you have more savings. Maybe a year or two.
post reply Forum Index » Jobs and Careers
Message Quick Reply
Go to: