8k salary increase. HELP.

[OneDayAHouse]

I need help getting my manager to see I should get this position that would increase my annual salary by 8k.

My situation goes as follows.

A little over 2 Months ago I was a full time co worker, 40 hrs per week, with an hourly pay that amounted to roughly 28k annually at Company X. I applied for a full time position in a different department within the same company and interviewed with Manager M. This new position would pay around 39k annually for the same 40 hrs per week. In my interview I was told by Manager M that realistically I had no chance of getting that position because someone within that department who was slotted at 32 hrs per week would just get bumped up to the 40 hrs per week position. Coincidentally I wound up receiving the position that said coworker was vacating to take the 40hrs per week slot.

So I got my new job in my new department working 32hrs per week at a rate that adds up to roughly 31k annually. A small bump in take home pay for less hours worked, awesome I'll take it. Now 2 months later a different coworker decided to go back to school full time leaving open another 40 hrs per week position that would bump up my pay to roughly 39k annually. I immediately jumped on this and had my interview today.

Manager M gave me a weird vibe from the beginning of the interview. The interview itself was about 1/4 the length of time that the first one took. I felt like I did awesome in my interview though and felt like my supervisor who was also in the interview room agreed with me. However Manager M decided to stop the interview short and emphasized that I had ONLY been in the department for 2 months and told me not to assume I will get the position because I am the only applicant actually already working in the department. He also let me know that corporate was going to put a freeze on hiring from within the company for a few months in order to stop the turnover within the departments, and stressed that if he moved me up to the 40hrs per week position it would leave my current 32hrs position unfilled. In essence it would leave him one person short for a few months. He also stressed his main priority was to have a fully staffed department.

Do you guys have any thoughts on how I should approach this?
I know he likes my work, especially my supervisor but I feel like it's more important to him to be fully staffed than give me the position I deserve. The increase in income would definitely help me push to FIRE earlier. I don't want to let this slip away. Any advice is welcomed.

(p.s. all my coworkers believe I deserve it as well, and have told me that they feel I am way further ahead than they were 2 months in)

Thanks for reading.

[11ducks]

I would approach it from the 'poor, need more hours' angle. If you can subtly hint that you are really wanting a full time position, then he may have concerns that you'll leave (leaving him with two jobs to fill).

[Linea_Norway]

<...> If you can subtly hint that you are really wanting a full time position, then he may have concerns that you'll leave (leaving him with two jobs to fill).

Indeed. I've just been listening to some financial podcasts. It turns out that people who have set themselves a goal and are willing to leave when their boss doesn't help them getting there, are in the best negotiating position. Difficult for the OP to be like this if he hasn't built up a pile of FY money yet.
Maybe the best strategy in this case is to look for another job and get a higher offer from them. Then go back to your boss to renegotiate.

[Guesl982374]

Please let me translate from the perspective of Manager M:

Manager M gave me a weird vibe from the beginning of the interview. The interview itself was about 1/4 the length of time that the first one took.

There is no way I want to shift people on my team around. There is no way I am giving you this job. I am only interviewing you out of courtesy. I am not actually listening.

However Manager M decided to stop the interview short and emphasized that I had ONLY been in the department for 2 months and told me not to assume I will get the position because I am the only applicant actually already working in the department.

Applying to a different role after 2 months within a company is highly against company culture. We just trained you to do a specific job and now you want me to train you again on a different job as well as training someone to back fill you? You are effectively doubling my work. No thanks.

He also let me know that corporate was going to put a freeze on hiring from within the company for a few months in order to stop the turnover within the departments..

Negotiation tactic - Appeal to a Higher Authority (e.g. its out of my control so don't blame me that you aren't getting this job)

he stressed that if he moved me up to the 40hrs per week position it would leave my current 32hrs position unfilled. In essence it would leave him one person short for a few months. He also stressed his main priority was to have a fully staffed department.

See the comment two quotes up --> We just trained you to do a specific job and now you want me to train you again on a different job as well as training someone to back fill you? You are effectively doubling my work. No thanks.

From my standpoint, you have a very low probability of getting this job given the short period in your current role. The only way I see you getting this is if you have FU money are are willing to walk away from your current job leaving Manager M with TWO open spots instead of just one at which point it is less painful for him/her to promote you. Even then, there might be other political pain points you aren't seeing that would prevent Manager M from promoting you.

[OneDayAHouse]

11ducks: The funny thing is that since day one on my first interview I let him know that my intentions were to have the full time job and not the 32 hours per week job. When I accepted the 32hrs per week position I reiterated that although this was a nice move for me within the company that my ultimate short term goal was getting the 40hrs per week position. Even in the interview yesterday I clearly stated to them that the reason I was in that department (which i enjoy a lot more than my old department) was to be employed full time. I don't think I can be subtle about it anymore lol

Linda_Norway: I'm working towards that point!! FU money would be awesome here but unfortunately I'm still in the getting rid of debt stage :( I'm almost out of this stage though, and then off we go to the building FU money stage.

Liberty Stache:

There is no way I want to shift people on my team around. There is no way I am giving you this job. I am only interviewing you out of courtesy. I am not actually listening.

This is exactly how I took it as well.

Applying to a different role after 2 months within a company is highly against company culture. We just trained you to do a specific job and now you want me to train you again on a different job as well as training someone to back fill you? You are effectively doubling my work. No thanks.

I should have provided a little more clarity. Effectively the position I'm in now and the new position I would have would be the exact same job. The only difference would be the bump in hours from 32per week to 40 per week thus the take home pay increase. Essentially there would be no need to train me a second time, and the person coming in to our department would need to be trained once either way.

Manager M stressed that promoting me up would cause us to have a vacant position for a few months and he felt it was really important to have a full staff. Still leading to me not getting the job/promotion.

Negotiation tactic - Appeal to a Higher Authority (e.g. its out of my control so don't blame me that you aren't getting this job)

I can see what you mean about putting the blame on corporate and taking it off his shoulders. Could be that this is what he did, I will investigate further to see if his statement was in fact accurate.

Yeah I don't think my chances are very high at this point. I will try to play my cards right and work through my supervisor who seems to really like my work. I have a couple ideas up my sleeve.


Thanks for the responses!

[Guesl982374]

Applying to a different role after 2 months within a company is highly against company culture. We just trained you to do a specific job and now you want me to train you again on a different job as well as training someone to back fill you? You are effectively doubling my work. No thanks.

I should have provided a little more clarity. Effectively the position I'm in now and the new position I would have would be the exact same job. The only difference would be the bump in hours from 32per week to 40 per week thus the take home pay increase. Essentially there would be no need to train me a second time, and the person coming in to our department would need to be trained once either way.

Manager M stressed that promoting me up would cause us to have a vacant position for a few months and he felt it was really important to have a full staff. Still leading to me not getting the job/promotion.
[/quote]

Is there any way you can take on overtime and do both roles to help alleviate your manager's problem? He's probably thinking that it's easier to get someone to take a full time roll than a 32 hour a week roll. If he can solve his open position problem by ramping up your hours he might be able to do it cheaper (because of benefits) with one person vs. two.

[J Boogie]

Applying to a different role after 2 months within a company is highly against company culture. We just trained you to do a specific job and now you want me to train you again on a different job as well as training someone to back fill you? You are effectively doubling my work. No thanks.

I should have provided a little more clarity. Effectively the position I'm in now and the new position I would have would be the exact same job. The only difference would be the bump in hours from 32per week to 40 per week thus the take home pay increase. Essentially there would be no need to train me a second time, and the person coming in to our department would need to be trained once either way.

Manager M stressed that promoting me up would cause us to have a vacant position for a few months and he felt it was really important to have a full staff. Still leading to me not getting the job/promotion.

Is there any way you can take on overtime and do both roles to help alleviate your manager's problem? He's probably thinking that it's easier to get someone to take a full time roll than a 32 hour a week roll. If he can solve his open position problem by ramping up your hours he might be able to do it cheaper (because of benefits) with one person vs. two.
[/quote]

Not surprised that someone whose signature says "Sloth, like rust, consumes faster than labor wears, while the used key is always bright" is advocating for someone to work a 72 hour week :)

[11ducks]

Ooh, now that's a solution! Offer to take on both roles, tell him you'll do them for the equivalent of a 60-hr week pay packet (roughly $60k).

[RobFIRE]

It sounds to me like you need to find out the real reason(s) why your manager doesn't want to give you the increase in hours (if you say the two jobs are for the same role then effectively it is just an increase in hours and corresponding increase in pay). As mentioned, it could be that the manager thinks it will be hard to fill the 32-hours a week role. Though it could be some other reason(s) that you may not be able to guess (whether that is internal politics higher up in the company leading to unexpected behaviours/priorities in the lower management, or some personal view/"we do it this way" attitude that your manager has but doesn't make clear).

Any option of getting other offers/threatening to leave is a risky choice unless you are prepared to leave outright.

I think I'd be trying to have a quiet word with the manager / other managers who may understand the scenario to see what the real reason(s) are, and then what options you have (taking the 40-hour job on a temporary/trial basis etc.), or what results you need to show/boxes you need to tick for the manager to give you the role.

Overall though, only 2 months in a new role isn't very long, and I don't necessarily think it's unreasonable that a manager may think more experience in the department/role is preferable before increasing the hours. So your best option might be to be prepared to wait a few more months.

[marty998]

His priority is to have a fully staffed department but he's not going to hire you into that position to fill a vacancy.

There is some irony in there.... if you move into it (noting it is exactly the same position) he's solved 8 hours out of the 40 hour hole in his team, only has to solve 32h now.

This is exceptionally poor management on your Company's behalf. The best thing a company can do is provide rotation and development opportunities to their existing staff. It is infinitely better to upskill your staff and does more to incrementally increase productivity and workplace culture than any other measure.

Manager X needs to be trained in how to be a manager IMO.

Every year my team has turnover - I love it. It makes me look good that my staff go on to get promotions and development opportunities. Shows I can foster talent in an organisation.

Your workplace culture needs to change.

[Guesl982374]

Not surprised that someone whose signature says "Sloth, like rust, consumes faster than labor wears, while the used key is always bright" is advocating for someone to work a 72 hour week :)

Haha...you got me. I am a firm believer that most successful people (for the sake of this argument, lets say an income of at least $1-200K/yr) need to put in the time upfront. My personal experience has been that anyone I speak to who is at or above that range went through a shitty period during their career where they had to work 60-100 hours per week. Whether it was working full time while going to school or multiple jobs or just a really demanding job / business (ownership), I've met very few people at or above that level that didn't have to go through the shitty overworked period (probably <50 out of 500+ people). Typically it happens in your 20s.

[Guesl982374]

His priority is to have a fully staffed department but he's not going to hire you into that position to fill a vacancy.

There is some irony in there.... if you move into it (noting it is exactly the same position) he's solved 8 hours out of the 40 hour hole in his team, only has to solve 32h now.

This is exceptionally poor management on your Company's behalf. The best thing a company can do is provide rotation and development opportunities to their existing staff. It is infinitely better to upskill your staff and does more to incrementally increase productivity and workplace culture than any other measure.

Manager X needs to be trained in how to be a manager IMO.

Every year my team has turnover - I love it. It makes me look good that my staff go on to get promotions and development opportunities. Shows I can foster talent in an organisation.

Your workplace culture needs to change.

This could be as simple as its easier in this specific industry/job type to fill a 40 hour / week job vs. a 32 hour / week job. However I would agree if typical workers in the industry at hand typically want more flexibly or if the OP was in his/her current role for more than the stated 2 months.

[OneDayAHouse]

I work in a sales job. At my company they hire as follows. The better workers get the higher and of the range for their tier.

Tier 1: 12-21hrs per week (with 12 being guaranteed)
Tier 2: 22-32hrs per week (with 22 being guaranteed) My current slot.
Tier 3: 32-40hrs per week (with 32 being guaranteed)
Team Leads/Supervisors
Department Managers
And higher ups...

The pay varies depending in which department you work, with $12 per hour being the minimum and ~$22 per hour being the max in the first 3 tiers. Team leads and up start at ~$23 and go up from there.

Before this position I was a tier 3 but only making $13.50 per hour. Once I got this position my hourly pay jumped up to $18.75 but my position went down to Tier 2 in a more desirable department (I enjoy my work a lot more now).

August/September is our busiest time of the year. It is because of this that the company puts a stop on hiring in late June in order to get all coworkers settled in to their new positions before starting the month of August.

Now in my situation I feel I am clearly the best option to get the tier 3 role (which is the same job with a bump in hours). I feel that management knows this as well. The problem is that if they bump me up to Tier 3 then my current tier 2 position becomes vacant. Filling a vacancy takes between 2 to 4 weeks from posting to actual hiring, so they will not be allowed to fill it until after September, leaving them "understaffed" for a couple of months during our busiest time of the year. This is where the problem lies.

I actually had a conversation with my supervisor yesterday on my day off. I asked for some clarity on the situation and she basically said in code that I'm not getting the job, even though she thinks I should. She also reiterated that it was just bad timing and bad luck for me. I let her know that I need to be in a better place financially because of upcoming life events and that I was going to explore my options. She immediately stated she wished the circumstances were different and told me she would talk to my manager to see if there was anything they could do.

So that's were I'm at.

[OneDayAHouse]

To the point that is being made that I have only been in the position for 2 months I say I would be a lot further ahead than the person being hired, who would have been in the role for 0 days. This position is very specialized, and we went though a month of training before even being allowed to be on the sales floor. I know I have only been here 2 months but in comparison to someone who got hired on the exact same date as me and went through the exact same training as me I am way ahead in terms of knowledge and ability (at least that is what my coworkers and even managers have told me).

As for working 60+ hours and filling both roles, I wouldn't be opposed to doing that if it was allowed lol at least for only a short time period, it would get me to FIRE faster. I kind of already did this for a couple years. At one point I was going to school and had 3 part time jobs working 70+ hours per week but with horrible pay around $9 per hour for each. When I left school I was working 2 part time jobs plus a weekend morning job and one of them was a 3am or 4am start time job. Needless to say I got burned out... I didn't know how to manage my money at all during those years and never got ahead.

[Maenad]

He also let me know that corporate was going to put a freeze on hiring from within the company for a few months in order to stop the turnover within the departments, and stressed that if he moved me up to the 40hrs per week position it would leave my current 32hrs position unfilled. In essence it would leave him one person short for a few months. He also stressed his main priority was to have a fully staffed department

Translation: We've had a lot of internal turnover and it's perceived to be causing a decrease in productivity. No one knows why the internal turnover is high, so we're going to use the blunt instrument we have (hiring freeze) to stop it while we figure out what's going on. That's assuming they can or want to figure it out - some companies do, some don't. The manager is likely dealing with a lot of internal political stuff - I was a supervisor interviewing internal candidates for a position once, and our top choice was someone we couldn't get, because the area he was working in was so understaffed that losing him would be a major blow and the hiring manager didn't want to piss off the manager of that area. Sucks, but that's how it is sometimes.

My recommendation is to interview elsewhere and get a better offer. You can either just leave for greener pastures or use it as leverage to get a raise. (How to position yourself in interviews when you've only been in your current position for 2 months is another question for another post.)

I also hear from you that you want the money, but your manager doesn't care about that. What does the manager want? Usually if you can make him believe that you can perform the higher-paying job (by showing examples of how you've done so recently or by voluntarily taking on some of the tasks*), and can make him believe that you'll stick around once you get it, you'll have a much better shot. Jumping around after 2 months and stressing that you want more money makes you look like a flight risk. Most companies want anywhere from 6 months to 2 years in a role before you can move internally.

*If you do some of this extra work and don't get the position, it still looks good on your resume for when you're searching for your next job elsewhere.

[nara]

You accepted a 32 hour a week position without any promise that this will lead to a 40 hour position. A 32 hour a week position is harder to fill than a 40 hour and now that they have they aren't willing to negotiate because you have shown them that you need this job and are willing to take it even for fewer hours. I would imagine that this isn't a very good company if they wouldn't allow someone who was trying to get a  foot in the door to move up to full-time after having some opportunity to prove themselves... but I have no idea how your company works and if they only hire new employees at 32 initially and consider moving to 40 a promotion.

[runewell]

What sort of work is this?  Are there alternatives?