Otdfbt

Talk to your manager, not HR.

I've seen this happen before, including with an employee I managed. Not everyone wins the H1-B lottery and the best the company can do is to have you work remote in another country such as Canada for 12-18 months. After that period, you can be eligible for an L1 visa or similar, then come back to the United States.

The pay cuts I've observed for transferring from USA to Canada are nowhere near the drop you are describing. But I have a theory about this. Those in the HR department sorting this out - the same ones who incorrectly processed your visa application - are just going off a salary spreadsheet for a similarly titled position in Canada or elsewhere. Something like this may have happened:

Oh your title is Network Operations Engineer here... I don't see a posi... oh wait... we have "Network Coordinator" job title in our Canadian subsidiary... it's probably the same thing...

They have no idea what you do or what you're really worth - but your manager does. He needs to advocate for you.

However, salaries of Canadian IT workers are still less than their counterparts in the United States. And the way the company structures salaries and job levels relative to title can be different. These job title and job level differences can also cause issues when you renegotiate your job back a year later.

In any case, here are a few things you can negotiate for:

• Ask to be promoted now to a salary you would likely be making in 1-2 years. That should make you eligible for equivalent higher pay in Canada or India. It's still a pay cut when you move, but better than the lateral transfer they are offering now. It's a discussion you'll need to have with your manager who is not use to these situations.




• Full relocation expenses now and when you come back.




• Periodic travel to visit the home office to sync up face to face with your colleagues.




• Seniority time, for such things as vacation accrual, carried over between job transitions. I call this out because these international transfers are often treated as resigning from the main company and getting rehired by a subsidiary company in the other country.

I recommend measuring how much advocacy your managers put in for you and how the situation improves after you negotiate wrt to the above. If you feel like the company is invested in you and invested in bringing you back, then it's a positive sign this could work out.

If you enjoy the job, the company, and the prospects of working in the United States, this could be better for the long term. But only you can decide for yourself if that is true.

Unfortunately, HR did not file paperwork on time, and my visa will expire in a month.

Lesson learned here: NEVER let HR handle an immigration issue for you. I've seen departments even in otherwise well run companies that were impressively incompetent. You need to stay in the drivers seat and check and nag at least once a week.

Is it wrong to expect that they continue my current pay scale if they
want me to continue to work for them from a different location due to
an administrative mistake ?

Doesn't matter if it's wrong or right or whether it was an administrative mistake or not. You need to focus on your options. The India option could make sense if the company agrees to let you do this for a year and then bring you back on an L1 Visa (if that's an option). L1s are a lot easier and less of a lottery then H1B. Once back, you can start going for a green card right away (if that's what you want)

Compensation is tricky. If the company has a local office, they probably want to pay you at the local market rate, otherwise it upsets the salary structure in the local office. If that's acceptable for you or not, is your call. Ideally the local market rate reflects the cost of living differences between the countries, so it should not be too much of a value cut, but I agree that 35k feels low. You need to weigh the pay cut against the potential chance to get back in the US quickly and how important that is to you.

I read this first as a $35k pay cut going to India, which would have been unfortunate, but there is lower cost of living. But cutting down to $35k is insulting. And less than half the salary going to Canada is insulting both to you and all Canadians.

I’d first talk to people who care about what you do, and not what you cost, like your manager and his manager. If they want to keep you and are told about these ridiculous offers, they might be able to do something to increase it to something reasonable.

Otherwise, if you can get the same or more in India, leave the company.

Is it wrong to expect that they continue my current pay scale if they
want me to continue to work for them from a different location due to
an administrative mistake ?

Well the administrative mistake certainly does screw things up.

I assume they are intending to pay you somewhere near the going rate in the country where you would reside. And I assume that for example, they wouldn't want one worker in India making the equivalent of USD$145K, while everyone else there makes 75% less.

Still, this is completely within your control. You get to decide how much it's worth giving up in your salary to stay with this company while they work toward getting you back into the US (if anything).

If they aren't offering what you think you are worth, and what you could get elsewhere, then just say No and see what their response is.

And if it comes to that, find a new job then quit.

The first thing you may want to consider is how much you want to live in the USA (and/or work at your current company). One thing to include in your calculation is that, if you return to India or move to Canada, quit your current job, and find a new one locally, you may not be able to transfer back to the USA so easily. You may wind up, for example, going to India, getting a $50K USD/year job, but then that's all you're getting unless you do another job search.

The first thing to do is to decide if that's what you want. If you'd like to go back to the USA after a year, ask your company, if you do what they ask, then will they guarantee that they will get you visa status and return you to your previous level of compensation in a year? Don't be committal about it; don't say "If you say you will do this then I guarantee I will do what you ask as well". Just get the information from them, in a hypothetical way, like "I want to know, can you promise me this?"

Once you have that information, then you can weigh that as well: Is taking a pay cut of 50% to work in Canada for a year, plus the promise of moving back to the USA after a year and getting your old salary back, worth it? Or, conversely, if they don't make you that promise, then you have that as well: "Is it worth taking a 50% pay cut when I am not guaranteed job security etc?" (the latter answer is probably no, the former is up to you).

If they make this promise to you, get it in writing, as a formal contract, that can be enforced in court should they try to reneg on their responsibilities. It sounds like the HR of this company is irresponsible at best and you should get compensation for their recklessness.

As for the main question, this sounds a bit weird. If you're doing the same job but at a different location, you should get the same pay. I would ask to confirm with them if your responsibilities will change, and if they won't, I would push to make some changes. What those changes are are up to you and may depend on the nature of the work you're doing so I won't suggest anything concrete, but I would push for less pay = less responsibility.

I worked as an expat in a large company for half a decade, and we had lot of colleagues abroad in one or more countries where often there were frequent problems with the work VISA (corruption, quotas, delays, periods of political tension/unrest and so on).

When someone who had been promised a certain salary had to return temporarily for some months to their home country due to work visa complications, they continued to pay the full salary as if the employee was abroad to keep the employee happy and with the company (and fulfil the promise). A period of six months was fairly common, I knew a couple of cases were that period went up to (almost) a year.

I would accept no less than the current salary, no matter what the excuses. After all, it was their fault.

I am ignoring all of the discussion about how to deal with an incompetent HR department (which is an intrinsic part of the question, I agree) to focus on one aspect: It is clear that you feel you are entitled to the same pay for the same work, no matter where you live.

I want to address that assumption.

1. 
   

   It may cost them more.

   
   
   

   If you are going to be working out of a home office, and they are expected to supply computers, Internet, furniture, IT support, training etc., it will cost them more than giving you a spare desk in an existing office.

   
   
   

   Local payroll tax rates/superannuation/health care requirements may be different. In any case, they may need accountants and lawyers familiar with the local laws.

   
   


2. 
   

   It may be lesser work.

   
   
   

   It is more difficult to keep an eye on your attendance, whether you are struggling, your attitudes, how you are treating customers, health and other factors.

   
   
   

   Communication is more difficult, and time-zones mean delays in responses and deliverables - generally quality suffers.

   
   


3. 
   

   You work product isn't the only factor.

   
   
   

   The amount they pay for employees is not only determined by demand -
   i.e. how much they need your work product.
   It is a negotiation that is also affected by how much it would cost them to get someone else to do it and how much you need the money. If you live in India or Canada or parts of Australia, your cost of living will be much lower. You don't need as much money to live the same lifestyle or to save the same amount each month.

   
   
   

   If they paid you the same amount in those countries, you would be financially benefiting from the changed arrangements.

   
   

I am not saying that a 50% or 75% pay reduction is acceptable. I don't think the above factors add up to anything like that large a reduction.

I am saying: Ignore the other answers and the voice in your head that says 100% of your salary is the only fair price wherever you end up. Be prepared to budge a little, especially taking cost of living into account.

It is a simple fact that the same work in different locations commands different rates of pay and cost of living has to be factored into any calculation of a jobs value. Only you can decide if a pay rate in a given location is a good deal for you.

Salary

I would suggest that rather than looking at the absolute salary offers in U.S. dollar terms, you look at comparative salaries in those areas, after tax if possible.

If you are in the upper quartile in the U.S. for instance, then it is reasonable to expect to be in the upper quartile in either Canada or India too. If you are on median salary in the U.S. but being offered upper quartile in India and lower quartile in Canada, then that gives you some idea about how you can expect your standard of living to change as a result of that move.

At the very least, look up the median salaries in those locations, for the work that you do. This should help you make an informed decision and may help with negotiating a better deal.

Cost of living

The cost of living can vary enormously depending on where you live. A salary in one location may include healthcare, in another you might be expected to pay for it out of your salary, while in some locations it not be necessary at all. Tax rates, rent/mortgage costs, car insurance/public transport costs, supermarket prices, inflation, the cost of entertainment & socialising, internet access and mobile phone costs. So many things can affect how much it costs to love somewhere.

This all takes some research, and it helps a lot if you can talk to someone who actually lives in the place you're considering.

Consider how frugal you are

How much you spend verses how much you save will have a big effect on on your salary/living costs calculation. If you save very little, and your salary halves, but your cost of living drops by 75%, you would end up with more spare cash at the end of every month.

If you are saving enough of your salary however, a 75% drop in cost of living will not be able to cover the 50% loss in salary.

Intangibles

Beyond salary and the tangible costs of living somewhere there are other intangible costs. I've always lived in towns and small cities, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of living somewhere where it would be non trivial to get out into the countryside. Being far away from family and friends, falls into this category.

Only you can decide how much these things are worth to you. It might be much cheaper and easier to visit your sister in America if you are living in Canada than if you are living in India or Australia.

Examples from personal experience

Early in my career I decided that I didn't want to work in London, even though the rates there were, and still are, significantly higher. I didn't want the extra pressure of a city job, or to have to decide between paying sky high rents or suffering a gruelling commute. Even though the extra pay would have been nice, it wasn't worth it for me once I took into account the extra expenses or the inconvenience of living in London.

More recently, a company I was working for invited me to move to their HQ in Switzerland when they closed their UK office. They flew my partner and I out there, showed us where I would be working, the beautiful campus, the excellent standard of living, the awesome views of the mountains from the windows of the office I would be in, but when it came down to the money, it was insulting. They were basically offering me my Oxford wage, to live in one of the most expensive countries on earth. I knew the economics simply wouldn't work out - I would be massively poorer.

For years head office had been complaining that all of their software projects were failing and saying that we were highly valued because our software engineering talent. However, when I saw their offer, I understood why. It was in the lowest quartile of software engineer salaries in the area, way below the median salary. All the decent software engineers were working for companies who paid a decent salary. Obviously I declined their offer and found a better paying job in Oxford. The company didn't recruit a single software engineer from the UK office to join them.

Summary

The point I'm trying to make is that salary is not the only thing to take into account.

If you subtract all of your outgoings from your salary, and you are better off, a lower salary might still be worthwhile. Even if you lose out money wise, you may want to try to put a value on quality of life issues such as stress and environment.

Also, you have nothing to lose by attempting to negotiate. If you go in there with details of how much worse off you will be and how their offer compares to other similar roles in the area, you may be able to increase their offer. It didn't help me in my Swiss salary negotiations, since they refused to even consider a higher salary, but at least I had the information to justify my decision to cut and run.

Is it wrong to expect that they continue my current pay scale if they
want me to continue to work for them from a different location due to
an administrative mistake ?

I'm going against all the other answers here - and I'm going to reply yes.
Consider if the situation were the other way around; Where you were having to migrate to a place that had a higher average pay for the given job. You'd expect a pay rise before even considering moving.

The question really is it wrong to have to take a pay cut after their mistake - and for that you will have to look at your life plans; where you want to be long term; and how much you want to work for them. From what you've described, your main reason for being there was to be in the US. Now that this is out the question for a year, do you trust them to put it in good time next year?

You are not wrong to expect core competencies, if they have really fumbled the ball. There may be deeper issues. On the face of it they are negligent and if they terminate you, damages should be assessable.

It is wrong/opportunistic for them to ask for a pay cut. It is possibly unlawful as they should not be undercutting the local US rate.

In fact as they are requiring you to travel, you should be paid a per deim allowance and some expenses on top of your normal salary. Hotels until find somewhere to live, and then something towards your rent.

• So what is really happening here is they are transferring you to their overseas entity.

Don't sign anything without running it past a lawyer specialising in these cases.

If HR is not competent with the H1B, they will not be competent with the E-3. You may want to check that your company is not being sanctioned for this kind of behaviour already. They "may not be able to sponsor" as the expression goes. E-3 is effectively cost free to them so of they cannot do it something is wrong.

Not that it matters in the current climate, but E-3 visas are supposed to preclude any future migration path (beware of claims to the contrary), and you must leave the country on demand (10 days) if you leave your employer. You'll need to travel to Australia to apply, so there are all costs. But an E-3 also has an indefinite rollover count.