Tweet
The part that is unreasonable to me – my dept is actually MAKING money off of me taking leave since they do not have to pay me (for argument’s sake let’s stick to the 4 weeks unpaid part) but I still have to make up my salary (that I am not getting) + overhead. The salary part is the part that is unfair to me. They are essentially keeping that!
I think our disagreement here is largely semantic. If we stick to the 4 weeks unpaid, which I agree is he worst part of your deal, then all I would say is that it is a bad deal.
There is a difference between a reasonable offer and acting reasonably with respect to the contract.
In most cases, my standard for acting reasonably with respect to the contract, has little to do with how good or bad a deal it is. All it comes down to is that if this was in the contract and you agreed to it. If so, then I think it is reasonable to do what they said they would do.
If they are not following the contract, or treating other employees with the same contract language differently (as it sounds like may be the case), then we start venturing into unreasonable territory.
Now if we go back in a time machine to back before you signed the contract and analyzed it with the clarity that you have now, I would say that part of the offer may be a little unreasonable. How reasonable an offer is really just depends on market conditions and what alternatives are available. If, for some reason, all employers in the area are offering the same seemingly bad deal, then that makes the offer reasonable. Similarly it possible for someone to make you an unreasonable offer (i.e., way below market conditions) but if you sign the contract, then it becomes entirely reasonable for them to hold you to the contract.
With regard to the four weeks unpaid and how they are handling it, I would have considered negotiating it as it seems a little unreasonable to me. Also I don't think it is so unreasonable that I'd consider the offer insulting and just walk away without any discussion.
Here's how I see it. Assume
X = the overhead cost they have to pay when you are out
Y = the overhead cost they have to pay when you are working + the cost of paying you
I think that the true cost to your employer of you taking completely unpaid leave is likely somewhere between X and Y. It is definitely just more than X, i.e., strict overhead cost (rent, some answering the phones, malpractice, etc) when you are out. There is some general disruption to the practice that is hard to put a price on. But that cost certainly exists. It sounds like they want you to "pay back" (using your language) Y. You think it is only fair for them to ask for X. The "fair" amount is likely somewhere between. But it's hard to say. I know that for many private practitioners the cost of taking significant periods of unpaid leave is actually greater than Y (when they're unavailable for a long time they lose patients and referral sources). Without knowing a lot more about the situation it's hard to say how bad an offer that part was, but I'd agree that it doesn't sound great. However, if that part is agreed to in a contract, it's perfectly reasonable at that point to stick to it.
In your position, during negotiations what I would have done is point out this issue. If I thought I might take significant unpaid leave, I'd negotiate it pretty hard. If not I would tell them that I accept this bad part of the deal and look for a concession elsewhere. But that ship has sailed. At this point the only issue with respect to reasonability is what's actually in the contract. If it's in there, it's reasonable for them to do it.
Comment