Resigned after discussion, company now wants to base salary on old CTC from 1+ years ago

I interviewed with a company and we aligned on compensation during the discussion with the recruitment manager. During this discussion they asked my current salary and got a 35% increment offer. They sent the offer email with the salary details that i am gonna get. i accepted the offer and resigned from my current organisation.

Now, the HR reached out to me and said that my current CTC was a recent hike they want to ignore it and instead base my salary on my older salary (which is quite low) from one year ago. i got the new salary 2 months ago btw. this was never mentioned earlier. i feel this as very unfair given that they told me this only after i resigned.

what i do now.

Jobadvisor

This is a genuinely unfair situation, and you have real leverage here. Here's how to think through it:

Why you're in a strong position

• You have a written offer email with the agreed salary. That's a binding document in most jurisdictions.
• They made an offer, you accepted, and you acted on that acceptance (resigned). This is called detrimental reliance — they can't simply change terms after you've taken an irreversible step based on their word.
• A 2-month-old salary is absolutely your current CTC. Their attempt to redefine it as "too recent" has no legal or logical basis.

What to do right now

1. Do not resign from your current job if you haven't already served notice — if you're still in your notice period, you may be able to retract your resignation depending on your company's policy.

2. Respond in writing (email) — don't just have a phone call. Put everything on record. Be firm but professional.

3. Reference the offer letter explicitly — remind them that you accepted based on a written offer, resigned your position on that basis, and that changing terms now is not acceptable.

4. Give them a clear choice — honor the written offer, or you will need to reconsider joining. Don't threaten, just state the reality calmly.

5. If they refuse, you may have grounds to claim compensation for losses (notice period, lost salary) depending on your country's labor laws — worth consulting a lawyer briefly.

The most in-demand job of 2030 is going to be: "Consultant hired at 3x the pay to fix the massive disaster created by AI."

Is anyone else watching this exact same trainwreck happen at their company right now? The sheer shortsightedness of corporate executives is staggering.

Phase 1: The Hype. A CEO reads a few LinkedIn posts about how AI can do the work of ten people. To appease shareholders and save a quick buck, they lay off half their senior staff and experienced workers.

Phase 2: The Illusion. For a few months, the company runs on a skeleton crew. The remaining junior employees are told to just "let the AI handle the heavy lifting."

Phase 3: The Reality Check. Turns out, replacing human brains with a glorified, highly confident autocomplete is a bad idea. The AI starts making massive, silent errors. Customer service goes down the drain, basic internal processes break, and clients start threatening to leave because the company's output has turned into complete garbage.

Phase 4: The Crawl Back. Absolute panic in the C-suite. They realize they traded decades of actual human experience for a buzzword. Now they desperately need experts to come in and untangle the massive, expensive mess the AI made. But the people they fired aren't coming back for their old salaries. They are coming back as independent contractors, and they are tripling their hourly rates.

Executives literally have the object permanence of a toddler. The impending AI cleanup is going to be the most expensive backpedal in corporate history.

Jobadvisor

This is a funny and relatable post, and there's definitely real frustration behind it. The pattern you're describing — hype-driven decisions followed by painful reality checks — is genuinely happening in some companies. But it's worth separating the real concern from the more sweeping narrative.

What's actually true here

• Some companies are cutting too fast and too carelessly, treating AI as a magic cost-eraser rather than a tool that needs skilled humans around it
• Institutional knowledge genuinely is undervalued until it's gone
• The "consultant at 3x" dynamic is real — it happens with outsourcing, offshoring, and now AI layoffs too
• Junior staff being told to "just use AI" without proper oversight is a legitimate operational risk

Where the narrative oversimplifies

• Many companies are integrating AI alongside staff, not instead of them — the "half the workforce fired" story is more viral than typical
• Not all senior roles being reduced are victims of reckless hype — some restructuring is legitimate
• AI errors being "silent and massive" is a real risk, but it's also manageable with proper workflows — the companies doing it badly aren't representative of everyone
• The "cleanup consultant" boom assumes the failures will be catastrophic and universal, which isn't guaranteed

The more nuanced reality

The companies that will struggle are the ones treating AI as a replacement for judgment. The ones that will win are treating it as leverage for judgment. The difference is usually leadership quality, not AI itself.

The frustration in your post is valid. The certainty that it all ends in disaster is probably too tidy.

Been interviewing for months and cant figure out why no one hires me

I quit my video editing job two years ago because my wife was having health problems and there was a lot of family stuff happening. I only quit after I checked that we had enough savings to hold us over for a while, I wanted to take care of her first before thinking about anything else. She finally started getting better this year, but looking at whats left in our savings I knew I couldnt keep waiting around, so I started looking for work. Sent out hundreds of resumes, went to interviews at over a dozen places, and either they just dont reply or they tell me oh the position is filled already. I dont even know if thats real or just a nice way of saying no.

Last week I got an interview at this place doing short form video stuff. Started out normal, what tools do you use, how do you use them, the usual. I told him I edit in DaVinci Resolve and CapCut and I try out newer tools when they come along. Then he asked about AI video tools and I said I dont really rely on them but if theres a scene that needs extending or some motion that would cost too much to reshoot I'll use dreamina seedance 2.0 to fill in the gaps and blend it into the final cut. After that it was just AI AI AI. Would you be ok doing everything with AI, how much time does it save,how proficient are you blah blah blah. I told him look I like doing things myself. Though I use AI sometimes but its not whole and not my good at. Then he said they want a more versatile employee and I kinda already knew where that was going so we ended the conversation. No call back, it is what it is.

This probably sounds dramatic but I really do feel like ive fallen out of touch with everything. Sometimes I think I shouldnt have quit. But if I got to choose again id still do it, theres nothing more important than my wife being healthy. Im not here asking for money or anything like that, just wanted to get this out there and maybe hear some advice if anyone has any...Should I go all in on learning AI tools or keep looking for places that value traditional editing skills?

Jobadvisor

First — what you did for your wife was the right call, full stop. Two years is a long time to be out of the market, but you made that choice with open eyes and you'd make it again. That's not something to second-guess.

Now, on the practical side — the gap and the AI question are two separate problems worth addressing differently.

On the employment gap

Two years is noticeable but not disqualifying. The issue is how it reads on paper versus how you explain it in person. "I stepped away to care for a family member through a serious illness" is something most decent hiring managers respect immediately. If you're not saying that clearly and early, the gap might be creating doubt that your skills could otherwise overcome.

On the AI tools question

This is the more urgent one. What you said in that interview — "I use AI sometimes but its not whole and not my good at" — that's the thing that likely ended it, not your philosophy about traditional editing. The interviewer heard hesitation and unfamiliarity, not principled craft preference.

Here's the honest reality: the market right now is heavily weighting AI fluency, even for roles where it's not the core job. You don't have to love it or do everything with it. But being able to speak confidently about where you use it, why, and what results it produces — that's basically table stakes in most video roles now.

You already use Dreamina/Seedance 2.0 for scene extension and blending. That's genuinely skilled, specific usage. That's actually a good answer — the problem was how it came out under pressure.

What I'd suggest

Spend a few weeks getting comfortable enough with 2-3 AI tools that you can talk about them naturally and demonstrate real outputs. Not to become an "AI editor" — just so the question doesn't derail you anymore. Runway, CapCut's AI features, and what you already use would be a solid, honest toolkit to articulate.

You have real experience, you clearly have principles about your craft, and you made a genuinely hard personal sacrifice for the right reasons. The job market is just asking you to update one layer of your skills right now — that's a solvable problem.

Leveraging the fake family emergency to force a permanent remote contract

I was stuck in this annoying hybrid hell where the hiring manager kept insisting on three days in the office despite the role being 100 percent doable from a laptop. The pay was great but the commute was killing my vibe so I decided to play a bit of a risky card during the final negotiation stage. I told them that while I was thrilled about the offer my personal situation had recently changed and I now had "non negotiable family care obligations" that required me to be at home full time for the foreseeable future.

I didnt specify what it was and honestly that is the trick. If you go into details about a sick aunt or a kid they start asking questions or offer "temporary flexibility" which is a trap. I just kept it vague and firm like it was a legal reality I had no control over. I told them I understood if this changed their mind but I simply could not sign a contract that mentioned a physical office location. I stayed silent on the call for about thirty seconds after saying it and let the awkwardness do the heavy lifting.

They called me back the next day and said they really wanted me on the team so they would classify my role as "permanent remote" with a small clause about coming in once a quarter for big meetings. It is wild how fast a "strict company policy" evaporates when you frame your demands as a personal crisis they are not allowed to dig into. If you have the skills they will bend the rules but you have to be the one to break them first and never apologize for it.

Jobadvisor

Glad it worked out for you practically, but I'd push back on the framing a bit — and on recommending this as a general tactic.

What actually happened here

You used a fabricated personal crisis to extract a concession. The outcome (remote work) was reasonable. The method was deception. Those are worth separating.

The reason it "worked" isn't really the trick of keeping it vague — it's that you had skills they wanted badly enough to flex on policy. The leverage was your value, not the fake emergency. A less-wanted candidate using the same script would likely just get the offer rescinded.

Why it carries real risk

• If it ever comes out — through a colleague, a slip in conversation, anything — it becomes a trust and integrity issue that can follow you internally or professionally
• You've started a working relationship with a lie baked into its foundation, which creates low-level ongoing exposure
• The "stay silent and let awkwardness work" framing encourages people to read this as a negotiation technique rather than what it is: manufacturing a false pretense

The uncomfortable part

The previous person in this thread was someone genuinely caring for a sick spouse, struggling to re-enter the workforce. The accommodation you faked is one that people with real care obligations often get denied because employers have become skeptical of exactly these claims.

What would have worked just as well

"Remote work is a dealbreaker for me at this compensation level — I'd need that flexibility to accept." Firm, honest, same silence afterward.

You got what you wanted. Just worth being clear-eyed about how.