Professional Advice

[Reilly]

Get a puppy. Then do whatever you want. Sounds like you want to go back to the old job. Whatever you choose, blame the dog.

"The commute was too much for the dog, I had to go back."

"Oh, I can't go back, I just got settled at the new place, got a puppy, I'm at a really good place in life."

Make sure it's a cute puppy. Then, show whoever you're explaining things to a photo of said dog. They'll understand.

if things don't work out, you'll have a puppy.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Get a puppy. Then do whatever you want. Sounds like you want to go back to the old job. Whatever you choose, blame the dog.

"The commute was too much for the dog, I had to go back."

"Oh, I can't go back, I just got settled at the new place, got a puppy, I'm at a really good place in life."

Make sure it's a cute puppy. Then, show whoever you're explaining things to a photo of said dog. They'll understand.

if things don't work out, you'll have a puppy.

This guy sounds like management material.

[YmoBeThere]

You described having left the old job to this job as having sought out greener pastures. Why did you leave the old job? Unhappy with role, compensation, culture, etc.? Which of those will be changing if you go back. FWIW, I took a counter-offer years ago, but ended up leaving after 18 months anyway. The culture was just not for me and that won out in the end...

[mgtr]

I worked in NYC for quite a few years at a really large company. I saw people come and go -- the really good ones got away with the revolving door approach without blotting their copy book, others got a bad rep. In your situation, I really wonder if 15% is a sufficient increase to change everything. However, it sounds as though you have non-salary preferences for the original company. If it is just about money, I would talk to someone in your current company to see what arrangements can be made. If you are good, they will pay up to keep you.

[BandAlum83]

If you return to your old company within a year, you will not incur a break in service for eligibility for benefits. So, for instance, if you are in danger of forfeiting company match on your 401(k) contributions, your service will be restored as though you never left. Chances are also that you won't have any waiting period for Health insurance.

Not a big deal, I know, but something people don't always calculate into their decision making.

Otherwise, I see a lot of good info in the responses here.

Also, the article is a few years old, but still on point:

Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

Staying employed at the same company for over two years on average is going to make you earn less over your lifetime by about 50% or more.

In 2014, the average employee is going to earn less than a 1% raise and there is very little that we can do to change management’s decision. But, we can decide whether we want to stay at a company that is going to give us a raise for less than 1%. The average raise an employee receives for leaving is between a 10% to 20% increase in salary.

[left_hook_lacey]

If you return to your old company within a year, you will not incur a break in service for eligibility for benefits. So, for instance, if you are in danger of forfeiting company match on your 401(k) contributions, your service will be restored as though you never left. Chances are also that you won't have any waiting period for Health insurance.

Not a big deal, I know, but something people don't always calculate into their decision making.

Otherwise, I see a lot of good info in the responses here.

Also, the article is a few years old, but still on point:

Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

Is this a mandated law or just a general rule for most companies? Does it include things like vacation accruement and tuition reimbursement? Those two things are part of what I'll be negotiating if I go back. I want my vacation service years to start back where I left off as I'd be getting another week of vacation in a couple years. Also, I'm going back to school, and since I've left my old job, I'm having to sit through the one year waiting period at my new job before they'll sponsor tuition reimbursement.

[Jeffrey]

Also, the article is a few years old, but still on point:

Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

FWIW, I disagree with the articles methodology and conclusion.

[swood1000]

Also, the article is a few years old, but still on point:

Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

It also seems intuitive that less competent people might have greater reluctance to switch jobs as long as their current position is secure. Who can say what will happen after six months at a new job, especially if they sold themselves as being more productive than was warranted? This would account for at least a part of the people who don't switch jobs are paid less.

[PackMan97]

Is this a mandated law or just a general rule for most companies? Does it include things like vacation accruement and tuition reimbursement? Those two things are part of what I'll be negotiating if I go back. I want my vacation service years to start back where I left off as I'd be getting another week of vacation in a couple years. Also, I'm going back to school, and since I've left my old job, I'm having to sit through the one year waiting period at my new job before they'll sponsor tuition reimbursement.

I would think it's just a rule. My employer has a 6mo look back for keeping seniority, a former employer had two years.

[left_hook_lacey]

It also seems intuitive that less competent people might have greater reluctance to switch jobs as long as their current position is secure. Who can say what will happen after six months at a new job, especially if they sold themselves as being more productive than was warranted? This would account for at least a part of the people who don't switch jobs are paid less.

FWIW, articles like the one mentioned up thread, combined with my own observations of, and conversations with, other colleagues in my field are what drove me to entertain the idea of leaving in the first place.

Case in point, my salary will have increased 31% in 6 months simply by leaving and then going back. I had spoken to some higher level people at my old company, and upon finding out that they were actually in their 2nd stint with the company I asked, "Why did you leave in the first place? You like it here and are good at the job." Each time, their responses were some version of "the fastest way to advance in both pay and rank is to leave. If you really like the company, you should leave for a couple of years, get your pay and rank bumps, then come back. It'll be exponentially worth it later in your career."

Another case study. One of my old managers had been at that company for 19 years. He started there straight out of high school as an operator on the shop floor, worked his way through college, moved up the ranks. He eventually became production manager over the entire site at 30 years old and was next in line to be operations manager. He loved the place and never thought about leaving. Then, we got a new VP of operations over North America and they butted heads. Long story short, for the first time ever, he looked elsewhere. Within four weeks, he had another job, higher rank, more pay, more vacation, more prestigious company. If he had changed companies two, maybe three times over those 19 years, how much could he be making now?

[Jeffrey]

FWIW, articles like the one mentioned up thread, combined with my own observations of, and conversations with, other colleagues in my field are what drove me to entertain the idea of leaving in the first place.

Case in point, my salary will have increased 31% in 6 months simply by leaving and then going back. I had spoken to some higher level people at my old company, and upon finding out that they were actually in their 2nd stint with the company I asked, "Why did you leave in the first place? You like it here and are good at the job." Each time, their responses were some version of "the fastest way to advance in both pay and rank is to leave. If you really like the company, you should leave for a couple of years, get your pay and rank bumps, then come back. It'll be exponentially worth it later in your career."

Another case study. One of my old managers had been at that company for 19 years. He started there straight out of high school as an operator on the shop floor, worked his way through college, moved up the ranks. He eventually became production manager over the entire site at 30 years old and was next in line to be operations manager. He loved the place and never thought about leaving. Then, we got a new VP of operations over North America and they butted heads. Long story short, for the first time ever, he looked elsewhere. Within four weeks, he had another job, higher rank, more pay, more vacation, more prestigious company. If he had changed companies two, maybe three times over those 19 years, how much could he be making now?

You appear certain it's your best approach. So, why are you hesitating?

[swood1000]

These seem to be the reasons for moving:

1. 15% salary increase
2. Position with more authority.
3. Current job has double the commute time. (Hopefully this does not involve a current commute of 20 minutes. I used to work in New York City, where a commute of an hour does not seem at all onerous.) When you accepted the offer with your current company you didn’t realize the impact on your personal life.
4. The bad optics of moving too quickly can be overcome by moving but staying at the company for a period of time.
5. It may be a long time before such an opportunity is available, and the next one might require a move to a different city.

Reasons for staying:

1. During your first two months your current company paid you to go to school, a complete financial loss for them. After that it took time before you were completely trained and you are just now being fully productive (and probably have not yet been able to give them the performance that they eventually expected when they hired you). The current firm has not yet been able to recover the cost of training you, so their experience with you has been a net financial loss and hiring you was a big mistake through no fault of theirs.
2. You have had to take many classes and pass exams. All of that will be down the drain except to enable your old company to trot you out in order to bedazzle FDA auditors and make the company seem more proficient than is warranted.
3. By leaving you’ll be giving up working with the new technologies, which could give you access to positions at other firms paying even more and being more enjoyable, especially if the current firm has a higher profile in the industry. Your lack of knowledge in this and other areas available in your current company could derail your career potential and make you less attractive to the big players. In ten years’ time the absence of such knowledge/experience could make your skill set seem antiquated. Consider the relative value of immediate benefit compared to the opportunities you are foreclosing.
4. Bad optics of moving too quickly could make you ineligible for transfer for a period of time. If you go back to the old company you would have to overcome this by staying for a period of time, making it impossible to accept offers elsewhere during that time, especially if you make such a commitment during your interviews in order to induce them to formalize the offer.
5. The presumed benefit of multiple job changes may assume that you have a record of staying at those jobs for longer than your training period.

Go to Amazon and find a book aimed at advising people who have not stayed long enough in their current jobs, and are considering leaving, as to what kinds of questions to expect from prospective employers and the best ways to answer them without deceit.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It seems to me you want to make the move, but need justification. As I said, I don't know your industry, but I would think that your narrative, if asked in the furture could be summed up neatly:

I had a good job with a good company. A former boss encouraged me to follow him to a new opportunity, which I indulged. After a short time, I realized that the previous employer was a better fit for me and they made me a generous offer. I was welcomed back with open arms, and I am thankful for that.

Note: this explanation works only once. If you don't stick with the new/old job for a significant amount of time, you will open yourself up to more scrutiny.

[Jeffrey]

Note: this explanation works only once. If you don't stick with the new/old job for a significant amount of time, you will open yourself up to more scrutiny.

Note: this is not in harmony with the article linked above, "Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less".

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Note: this is not in harmony with the article linked above, "Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less".

Different perspectives.

[Jeffrey]

Different perspectives.

Absolutely, and I strongly agree with yours!

[CrazyNotCrazie]

One minor piece of advice here: if you go back to your original employer, can you hold off until January before resigning. That way your resume will say "2017-2018" for the place you are leaving. A few years down the road, people can assume you were there for 1.5 years. Obviously, if you are specifically asked, you should be honest and others have provided good ideas, but this will help with the optics.

[BandAlum83]

One minor piece of advice here: if you go back to your original employer, can you hold off until January before resigning. That way your resume will say "2017-2018" for the place you are leaving. A few years down the road, people can assume you were there for 1.5 years. Obviously, if you are specifically asked, you should be honest and others have provided good ideas, but this will help with the optics.

Resumes really should include month and year of the start and end of employment. If I see a resume without that, I will heavily scrutinize in order to see what the candidate might be hiding. Worst case, the individual won't get an interview. I probably have plenty of other candidates and can't interview everyone. That one item could be disqualifying.

[swood1000]

One minor piece of advice here: if you go back to your original employer, can you hold off until January before resigning. That way your resume will say "2017-2018" for the place you are leaving. A few years down the road, people can assume you were there for 1.5 years. Obviously, if you are specifically asked, you should be honest and others have provided good ideas, but this will help with the optics.

On the other hand, this could make the person appear less than straightforward, and somewhat disingenuous, if the interviewer asks the exact length of time. He might then start wondering what else on the résumé should be questioned and whether they want to hire a person who appears to have a penchant for making misleading but technically true statements.

[BandAlum83]

Is this a mandated law or just a general rule for most companies? Does it include things like vacation accruement and tuition reimbursement? Those two things are part of what I'll be negotiating if I go back. I want my vacation service years to start back where I left off as I'd be getting another week of vacation in a couple years. Also, I'm going back to school, and since I've left my old job, I'm having to sit through the one year waiting period at my new job before they'll sponsor tuition reimbursement.

It is a law for any pension or welfare benefit plan that is protected under ERISA. So 401(k) plans and health plans are a clear yes. There is some case law (I am not an attorney, I have consulted in the HR, payroll and benefit space for 30+ years) that would lead one to conclude that tuition reimbursement plans and vacation plans are not ERISA protected benefits.

Link while ERISA can cover almost any type of benefit, some are not. He explained, “[T]he Department of Labor issued a ruling early on excluding unemployment benefits and most vacation benefit plans. While many employers have tried to create ERISA plans for their vacation benefits so they could escape from state laws, most attempts have failed.”

That being said, some companies may have policies to bridge service for these plans. Generally speaking, these plans cannot be discriminatory, so "special deals" that are negotiated just for you will probably not be possible, unless they are wrapped into some sort of signing bonus or ongoing incentive bonus. Don't be surprised if you are told negotiating either benefit is off the table. Instead, try to negotiate a signing bonus. Ongoing incentive plans at many companies are standardized, so you may have no leverage there.

And as I said, this isn't legal advice, it's life and professional experience advice.