Topic: Job stuff, start dates, srs business.

[shock]

HALP

Ok: I have a seasonal job as a supervisor with my university right now.  Originally, it was set to run until Sept 1st.  I graduated in May and just started looking for employment.  I got a good chance at a law firm for a paralegal position and I nailed the interview/etc and I got a job offer.  During the interview, I talked a lot about my current job.  I was also directly asked about a start date and I basically said that "I can't nail anything down right now, but if an offer were extended, I'm sure I'd be able to work with your firm and my current employer to work out something amicable."  We continued our interview as usual.

I got the offer phone call from her today.  It was quick and to the point: they had it down to me and one other candidate, and they went with me.  They were hoping I could give them a decision by tomorrow morning, though, because the other candidate has an offer at another organization that expires then.  They want to give him the bad news before that so he can take that position.  Nothing was mentioned about a start date.

She followed up with the offer letter.  It does not have a start date either.  Instead, it reads "Your official hire date will be determined upon your acceptance of this offer."

To me, this means there will be some leeway in deciding when I start.  I've spoken with my current employer a lot about the situation.  My boss wants me to do my absolute best to make it until August 7th.  My current job gives me free room and board in DC (read: expensive), so that further complicates the situation.  He has said he won't evict me or charge me, but it still makes it tricky.  I've also worked there for three years and a lot of my friends work there, so I want to not fuck them over more than I have to.

Question: Do I...

1) Accept the offer and say that "I'll be following up with my employer immediately regarding a start date."  I would then draft a message that explains the nuances and asks for the start of August 7th, after having it proofed by my current boss.  I'd send it out tomorrow.  They know that 1) I have a job, 2) the minimum for a leaving a job is two weeks.  We could hereby begin the negotiations, AFTER I have accepted the offer letter.  If they don't agree with that date, I don't really care THAT much and can move it up.  I figure they will be significantly less likely to drop at this point.

2) Have a conversation with the woman BEFORE accepting the offer about a start date.  My fear in this scenario is losing the offer over trying to not dick over my old job.  After all, she already has someone else who is well-qualified for the position in her pocket right now (and she won't in two days).  This is what my employer wants me to do.

HALP HALP HALP

[Cobra951]

If you're involved with legal stuff, you probably know that offer + acceptance = done deal.  I would go with that, but do my best for timing to remain flexible enough to (a) not dick old job mates & bosses, and (b) give new job bosses a reasonable start date.  If push comes to shove, your future takes precedence over everything else.  So I would go with your "1)" or close to that.  That's the best I can do with what I know of your situation.

[idolminds]

Find out who the other guys that they are thinking of hiring, then kill him so you can take your time deciding.

Or listen to Cobra.

[shock]

I just accepted it.  Freaking out over.

Yay future!

[Cobra951]

Congrats!  Hope it works out well for you.

[scottws]

When I left my old job, I knew I was leaving at a bad time for that company, which was really small and already struggling with another departure that they hadn't filled after 1.5 mos.  It wasn't that they were trying and couldn't get any candidates or get the right fit, I think they were trying to slide for a few months with a smaller workforce to save on salary.

I put in my resignation letter that my last day would be two weeks from the date of my resignation but my boss asked for four weeks.  I pretty much laughed and said no, but gave him three or so extra days.  But the situation was different.  That company was headed for the shitter and I had zero respect for my old boss and half the office.  But they loved me.  It was almost comical.

Anyway, congrats on the new job!

[gpw11]

If you're involved with legal stuff, you probably know that offer + acceptance = done deal.

Not without consideration 

Anyways, unless you live in some backwards assed place, there's no technical obligation for giving two weeks notice, people just do it for the reference.  Employers are usually lenient with start dates assuming it's because you're finishing up at your last place: they want to know you're the kind of guy who will tie up loose ends and it's a good sign you won't leave them hanging.

But it seems like your problem is solved.

[Cobra951]

I'd say quitting your current job and freeing your time for the new employer is mighty valuable consideration.  The new job is the valuable consideration brought to the table by the new employer.  Yes?  I'd argue that anyway.

[shock]

I ended up compromising between 2 weeks and what my current employer wanted (4 weeks).  I met them right in the middle with 3.  Both can live with it. 

This is my first full time, non-seasonal job.  Weird!  Salary and benefits.  Wheee.

[Quemaqua]

Welcome to the rest of your life.  Hope it doesn't suck the life out of you before you're 30.

[scottws]

Oh come now, it's not all bad.  The perpetual work vs. having summer breaks or summer jobs stinks, sure.  But at least you generally command higher salaries with a career and can do some of the finer things in life.  I was happy to make $17,000 a year at the ice company the first few years.  I make significantly more than that now and it enables me to take vacations to places like the Dominican Republic and get the car I wanted.  Still working on the HD stuff.

[gpw11]

I'd say quitting your current job and freeing your time for the new employer is mighty valuable consideration.  The new job is the valuable consideration brought to the table by the new employer.  Yes?  I'd argue that anyway.

I can certainly agree with you, but I imagine it'd be hell to go over in court if you had to.  I'm no lawyer, but consideration is usually the basis of the messiest of contract disputes and a difficult thing to prove....which is why a lot of companies use contracts under seal (the seal signifies that enough levy has come to the signing of the contract to make consideration unnecessary) or people pass a dollar/penny/whatever at a signing. You know, just to cover yourself.

[Cobra951]

Yeah, like selling a car for a dollar to seal that transaction legally as a legit deal, even if you just wanted to give it away.  I also think that jobs have a whole slew of legal baggage which supersedes contract law.  In many states you can be dismissed from a job for any reason that doesn't violate public policy or discrimination laws.  Making that possible needs some sort of legal mechanism to sweep aside any conceivable implied contracts during the process of employment.

[gpw11]

Yeah, like selling a car for a dollar to seal that transaction legally as a legit deal, even if you just wanted to give it away.  I also think that jobs have a whole slew of legal baggage which supersedes contract law.  In many states you can be dismissed from a job for any reason that doesn't violate public policy or discrimination laws.  Making that possible needs some sort of legal mechanism to sweep aside any conceivable implied contracts during the process of employment.

The dollar for a car thing often has the added benefit of avoiding any gift taxes, if applicable. As for jobs and legal baggage, I know what you're saying.  Contract terms SHOULD be set out to work in conjunction and in addition to local laws regarding labour (as long as they're not in direct conflict).  So, if you fired me, that's fine from a legal standpoint, but you'd have to pay me out whatever is agreed to in the contract as severance...possibly to the end of term if I provide a very rare service. Any smart employer should, however, have enough added stipulations and terms attached to that contract to make it null and void in the case that the person ever has to be fired in the first place. 

I think that's how it SHOULD work, but I could be wrong. I'm sure it's quite different in different places though.   End of the day, with employment law, employers can get away with a lot. Initiating a wrongful termination suit is a good way to tell your future employees that they should probably just pass over you, and as such, unless the amount on the table is astronomical, most won't bother and will just go and hit the pavement.