"I have noticed during my current global job search that significantly fewer organizations are offering relocation reimbursement. Many companies simply will not consider candidates who are not 'local' - subjective definition to avoid paying relocation expenses and to make their selection process easier perhaps. In this global economic downturn, the above does not surprise me; however, when those who are hiring claim to want the 'best' person for the job, yet limit their search by geography, it's not logical and not in the employers best interest potentially.
It is understandable that companies want to cut costs during these challenging economic times, however. Also, companies know that they can get good candidates for less money and fewer benefits - negatively exploiting the fact that there is such a high un- and under- employment rate. I recently returned from working 2 yrs in Asia for a gov't employer; this employer provided some limited relocation funds to get there (and this was for a VP role), but not to move back home again to the US .. and even the initial relocation funds did not nearly cover my total moving expenses, - and I moved as frugally as possible, i.e., hiring low budget movers from Craigs List website.
For Full Story
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteProviding relocation assistance to new hires to offset the basic expense of moving to a new job is essential. It puts the new relationship between the new hire and the employer on positive footing. Doing otherwise will appear "cheap" particularly if the employer shows profit margins in the $millions.
ReplyDeleteIf companies truly believe that their future success depends on its employees (which it does) they better enrich that relationship with meaningful career paths, leading edge training, competitive compensation and the essential capability to attract TOP TIER candidates.
Anything less will make a company vulnerable to high attrition, low morale, and poor performances-- which lead to poor services and/or products, and eventually the loss of customers.
Being frugal has its benefits but not if it is at the expense of the very people who provide the quality services and products for a company.