Not sure if this is the right place… I have been job searching since January. I have turned down offers of employment more this past year than ever before (below living wage). I'm not being picky. I have 2 simple requirements: remote & a living wage (in Canada the poverty line is $60k).
I became excited at the idea of working for a girls not-for-profit especially one dedicated to their newly redesigned brand of empowering girls (historically their programming has been criticized as antiquated, sexist with light traces of religious undertones) and yay! they've done a complete rebrand which is why I applied. I had to decline, but this time, I sent more than the short “thanks but no thanks”. I guess I held them to a higher standard than other organizations as their board of directors, executive director are women and many of them mother's at that.
TLDR: The multi-national girls organization (not-for-profit) newly relaunched with the mission of girls empowerment, creating barriers for mother's returning to work, disregarding all previous experience before maternity break, paying below poverty line and restricting other employment while an employee.
- posting had no salary until after the reference check nor was I ever told the salary range (they asked me)
- offer was $44k for a 1 year contract (glassdoor.ca had their position averaging $15k above for the same role in their company vs. corporate average)
- offer had 3 weeks vacation (paid out) – what human doesn't want any vacation in a year?
- job posting had mid-level requirements (vs entry-level)
- all of their salaries are now posted and at $40-44k for full time work.
Here's my (edited for privacy) reply to the offer:
“Dear [HR person]
Thank you for the offer, I am declining the position, as the salary is well below market value for both the role and my experience.
The contract is written in such a way that it comes across as restrictive and insulting. The pay is on the low end for a candidate with over a decade of experience, and the stipulation that I seek permission from [organization] before taking any other jobs is a bit shocking considering the salary would not allow for a family to live above the poverty line (in Canada is minimum $60k based on most recent findings). During the interview, I acknowledged pay for a not-for-profit was relatively lower than corporate positions however, when salaries are now freely shared on places like GlassDoor (screen shot attached) it's insulting that you would offer me the very bottom of [organization]'s salary range for the position described. Additionally, anyone doing their due diligence (an ideal candidate perhaps?) would have reviewed the charity profile and recognize that while yes, donations may be down, the endowment plus lack of program expenses would not have been a valid reason for such a low offer.
As I am a job seeker, I have had the opportunity to go through the entire hiring process with other organizations (not-for-profit, government, and private sector) in the last few months. I can say that your reference process was one of the most onerous and difficult. It was discussed, at length, my employment history and family circumstances during the interviews. As is common, requesting 3 recent references is the norm, however what is not the norm is that after I stated that I had only one supervisor in the last 5 years (1 employer), the fact that [organization] was unwilling to accept written references going back almost 20 years as well as my only “recent” professional reference made me feel like the organization was not willing to accommodate the reality of working mothers. To add further barriers, when reminded that I've only had 1 employer in the last 5 years, to follow up the request for 3 recent professional references, plus adding a more stringent requirement that 2 of them being someone I reported to directly, is uncompromising rigid, prejudicial and exclusionary for any company let alone one meant to empower girls.
Providing personal references is a personal and time-consuming request, one that prospective employers have a duty to respect both the referees time and to take care not burn the referee for future references. The fact that [organization]'s reference check process required a referee to essentially have an interview about the candidate (think prescreen employment interview questions such as “describe a time in which the candidate had a problem with a peer how did they deal with it ….”, etc) was more stringent than all three of my previous reference checks for positions requiring Government of Canada Top Secret Clearance. If you must rely on these questions (knowing that the majority of companies only provide yes or no answers for legal issues these days), perhaps emailing the questions prior to the call would allow the referee to be mentally prepared to provide the details you are seeking (which is in the best interest of all parties involved). Many companies have discontinued the reference process all together if a background check is being performed (as you [organization] does) or asking for work samples as 'proof' of capabilities. I really hope going forward that [organization] reviews their hiring practices and considers moving to a more modern format, and one that is more inclusive to the reality of today’s changed market.
All these barriers to jump through for a position that doesn't even pay above the poverty line while stipulating the power to restrict other employment is astounding but what makes it shameful is when you consider the number of mothers as applicants and staff. I am fortunate to be in a position to decline an offer of employment so I can say this but many others can’t, so it is my duty. How can you state to empower girls when your hiring practices discourage and are prejudiced against mother's returning to work? I had really hoped that [organization] would be the forward-thinking organization that supports mother's going back into the workforce or at least would try and make it better for us. There are a couple [organization] Press Releases from 2018 & 2019 you may want to review on the subject. Since [current viral epidemic], there have been many articles on productivity, remote work, and flexible work hours, many more on inclusion practices specifically for women, LinkedIn has proven to be a great resource as well.
On the whole, the reference experience and contract offered tells me that you are penalizing women for the years not working while raising a family and not giving credit for my 15+ years admin, 8 years as an [redacted] and cumulative 25+ years work experience before taking these past 2 years off having a baby.
While I am disheartened that [organization]'s recruiting practices are in direct contradiction to the stated values, I do wish you well and hope you find a candidate better suited for the organization and look forward to the day women's employment isn't penalized for taking time off to raise children. “
Here's the drama: I was proud of the reply I sent. I felt brave and strong for standing up for myself so I shared it with a few trusted people and I have been receiving major flack from family and friends for a) not accepting the job offer (too picky) b) “rudely” so that I left no option for renegotiation (sabotaging any potential of it) and c) I shouldn't have called out a not-for-profit (even if it's a massive organization in the USA as well).
• I'm using a throwaway cuz privacy
• It has been over a week since I sent this (yes, the day before International Women's Day) as I hoped someone from the organization would get back to me about it.
So… Tips on how do I do it differently next time?