Maybe a dumb question…backing out of an employment offer after it was accepted? (1 Viewer)

[Grahamburn]

You seem to think I don't produce during the work day. My value is just fine, and despite my attitude I still get performance bonuses. But I'm working per my contract not giving you anything for free. As I said what did picking up the slack for others and working 60 hours a week get me? Nothing but stress and more BS to deal with. Fem

Didn't meant to make anything personal honestly. Just using your words as a mentality for many in the workforce in general. If you don't care why would the company care about you? Causality dilemma I guess.

That's my point. No matter how much you care about a company they don't care about you.

*I already said YMMV but at the big companies I worked for that took me a while to open my eyes. THey care about the almighty $$$ and I was part of 4 mergers YES 4@!#@#

At most larger companies I'd say you're probably right, but doesn't everyone know that going in? They can pay you more and the benefits are likely better, but if things go south cya later.

 

[Anarchy99]

To give a more serious answer, as others have mentioned, in a case like this, it's best to look at things in reverse. Our daughter a couple of years ago was offered and accepted a position 1,000+ miles away. She had already resigned the job she had, given up her housing, had packed up all her belongings, and had scheduled a moving company to transport her stuff. She had agreed to a rental in her new city and put down deposit money. The day she was supposed to head out, the company notified her they were going in a different direction and her services were no longer needed. When she explained all that to them, they essentially told her too bad, so sad. She was able to get her deposit money back and put her stuff in storage instead. She ended getting a much better job for way more money someplace else, so things worked out in the end. Bottom line, I wouldn't feel that bad about turning down a position you already accepted. Companies rescind offers after the fact pretty often, it's not the end of the world.

 

[bigbottom]

To give a more serious answer, as others have mentioned, in a case like this, it's best to look at things in reverse. Our daughter a couple of years ago was offered and accepted a position 1,000+ miles away. She had already resigned the job she had, given up her housing, had packed up all her belongings, and had scheduled a moving company to transport her stuff. She had agreed to a rental in her new city and put down deposit money. The day she was supposed to head out, the company notified her they were going in a different direction and her services were no longer needed. When she explained all that to them, they essentially told her too bad, so sad. She was able to get her deposit money back and put her stuff in storage instead. She ended getting a much better job for way more money someplace else, so things worked out in the end. Bottom line, I wouldn't feel that bad about turning down a position you already accepted. Companied rescind offers after the fact pretty often, it's not the end of the world.

I think she may have had legal recourse to recover some damages if she was intent on pursuing it.

Here’s an excerpt from a publication discussing PA law:

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania articulated the necessary elements for a claim of promissory estoppel as requiring:

(1) the promisor made a promise that he should have reasonably expected would induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee; (2) the promisee actually took action or refrained from taking action in reliance on the promise; and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

Damages in a Detrimental Reliance Dispute​

In detrimental reliance lawsuits, plaintiffs are generally limited to “reliance” damages, i.e., those losses directly suffered by the plaintiff as a result of their reliance. The damages are designed to restore the injured party to the economic position occupied before the party acted in reasonable reliance on the promise.

 

[Anarchy99]

To give a more serious answer, as others have mentioned, in a case like this, it's best to look at things in reverse. Our daughter a couple of years ago was offered and accepted a position 1,000+ miles away. She had already resigned the job she had, given up her housing, had packed up all her belongings, and had scheduled a moving company to transport her stuff. She had agreed to a rental in her new city and put down deposit money. The day she was supposed to head out, the company notified her they were going in a different direction and her services were no longer needed. When she explained all that to them, they essentially told her too bad, so sad. She was able to get her deposit money back and put her stuff in storage instead. She ended getting a much better job for way more money someplace else, so things worked out in the end. Bottom line, I wouldn't feel that bad about turning down a position you already accepted. Companied rescind offers after the fact pretty often, it's not the end of the world.

I think she may have had legal recourse to recover some damages if she was intent on pursuing it.

Here’s an excerpt from a publication discussing PA law:

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania articulated the necessary elements for a claim of promissory estoppel as requiring:

(1) the promisor made a promise that he should have reasonably expected would induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee; (2) the promisee actually took action or refrained from taking action in reliance on the promise; and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

Damages in a Detrimental Reliance Dispute​

In detrimental reliance lawsuits, plaintiffs are generally limited to “reliance” damages, i.e., those losses directly suffered by the plaintiff as a result of their reliance. The damages are designed to restore the injured party to the economic position occupied before the party acted in reasonable reliance on the promise.

That all may be true, but a 20-something-year-old wasn't going to get involved in suing a company out of state, chewing up months and months of time, and potentially racking up legal fees along the way. She ended up moving 1,000 miles the opposite direction and ended up way better off. I don't know how stuff like this works, but she didn't really lose much money out of pocket (she got her deposit money back, her only expense was a month of belongings in storage, and a month without pay). IIRC, she got a sign-on bonus and doubled her pay at her new job, which more than exceeded her costs for her storage unit and lost wages. Again, not sure how the law works and how they compute things, but her economic position improved after the company reneged on their promise. IMO, she was more than happy to move on in her new locale and new career path rather than dragging things out hoping to hopefully collect something in a year. Also, not sure how that would have been filed through the courts . . . the company that promised her employment was in State A, she was living in State B, and she ended up in State C.

 

[bigbottom]

To give a more serious answer, as others have mentioned, in a case like this, it's best to look at things in reverse. Our daughter a couple of years ago was offered and accepted a position 1,000+ miles away. She had already resigned the job she had, given up her housing, had packed up all her belongings, and had scheduled a moving company to transport her stuff. She had agreed to a rental in her new city and put down deposit money. The day she was supposed to head out, the company notified her they were going in a different direction and her services were no longer needed. When she explained all that to them, they essentially told her too bad, so sad. She was able to get her deposit money back and put her stuff in storage instead. She ended getting a much better job for way more money someplace else, so things worked out in the end. Bottom line, I wouldn't feel that bad about turning down a position you already accepted. Companied rescind offers after the fact pretty often, it's not the end of the world.

I think she may have had legal recourse to recover some damages if she was intent on pursuing it.

Here’s an excerpt from a publication discussing PA law:

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania articulated the necessary elements for a claim of promissory estoppel as requiring:

(1) the promisor made a promise that he should have reasonably expected would induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee; (2) the promisee actually took action or refrained from taking action in reliance on the promise; and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

Damages in a Detrimental Reliance Dispute​

In detrimental reliance lawsuits, plaintiffs are generally limited to “reliance” damages, i.e., those losses directly suffered by the plaintiff as a result of their reliance. The damages are designed to restore the injured party to the economic position occupied before the party acted in reasonable reliance on the promise.

That all may be true, but a 20-something-year-old wasn't going to get involved in suing a company out of state, chewing up months and months of time, and potentially racking up legal fees along the way. She ended up moving 1,000 miles the opposite direction and ended up way better off. I don't know how stuff like this works, but she didn't really lose much money out of pocket (she got her deposit money back, her only expense was a month of belongings in storage, and a month without pay). IIRC, she got a sign-on bonus and doubled her pay at her new job, which more than exceeded her costs for her storage unit and lost wages. Again, not sure how the law works and how they compute things, but her economic position improved after the company reneged on their promise. IMO, she was more than happy to move on in her new locale and new career path rather than dragging things out hoping to hopefully collect something in a year. Also, not sure how that would have been filed through the courts . . . the company that promised her employment was in State A, she was living in State B, and she ended up in State C.

An outcome that doesn’t include litigation is usually the much better outcome. So glad it worked out for your daughter. I just offered the above to point out that what the company did wasn’t completely without legal risk.

 

[Anarchy99]

An outcome that doesn’t include litigation is usually the much better outcome. So glad it worked out for your daughter. I just offered the above to point out that what the company did wasn’t completely without legal risk.

Thanks for that. Over the years, I've seen companies do a lot of things that came with legal risk, exposure, and liability where they banked on the fact that most individuals don't have the time, resources, or desire to take on a big company and launch a prolonged legal battle. IMO, that becomes part of a company's business strategy, even if they know what they did was wrong. If only one person sues them out of 20 instances, it's in their best interest not to worry that much about legal implications (and they can always settle if things start going against them in a court case).

 

[The Z Machine]

The company isn't laying off their best performers. They're trimming the fat.

This isn’t true everywhere. Maybe what you say is the norm, I really don’t know, but there’s some companies where their focus is hitting their quarterly numbers. Some of these can be great places to work but lack of job security can cause a good deal of anxiety.

Either way, I've been just skinny enough to keep going

23 years and counting over here.

May not be one size fits all.

Agree, I’m just saying a blanket statement like “The company isn’t laying off their best performers” isn’t always accurate. Both sides of the employment equation need to understand how this works. When I read @belljr say “F ‘em” I’m hearing the same thing when a company says “we have to let you go” - they have no loyalty, they almost never really HAVE to let you go. They are essentially saying “f you, get out”. As long as we can all be adults and understand this then no problem. Just don’t be surprised when people do the same things to you.

Correct. I've heard from multiple managers that they targeted long-timers for layoffs because of their higher pay. Anecdotal, I know. I'm also not saying that's the norm but it happens.

This happened at my company. Lots of white men in their 50s got cut, NY boss included who had 30+ years in the company. They didn't offer him an early retirement; he just got let go.

 

[SoBeDad]

My favorite was the guy who resigned at 8:00 am on the first day of the fall semester. It's fine to get mad about it, but we have no realistic recourse.

We had a study coordinator position resign after day 1 of a 2 day orientation in 2018. She said she found a better paying job closer to home. There was no recourse (not sure if she got paid for 1 day). On linkedin I see that's she's advanced her career over 4 jobs since.

She previously worked for us from 2014-2016, did a great job, and quit due to the birth of her first child. I warned management about the traffic issue, which is a major issue in Miami and has led to multiple departures where I work. In hind-sight, she was a go-getter, over-qualified, and with limited chance for advancement, she wouldn't have stayed long anyway.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Just had someone in my company resign this past week via email. Sent an email to his manager at 7:30pm saying “resigning effective immediately.” Sounded like he was dealing with some mental health stuff, and he didn’t think he could do that in tandem with working any longer. I felt bad that we couldn’t support him better or differently. Then again, it’s also possible it was all a lie and he just didn’t know how else to resign.