Should I accept a significantly lower paying job offer after being made redundant/laid off?
Hey all,
I (29F, London) was made redundant/laid off at the start of this month from a client facing role at a very large bulge bracket bank. I have 7 years of banking experience and was operating at the VP level. My base was just under £90,000 and with my bonus, my total compensation went over £100k.
I’ve been applying for jobs since I got my notice of redundancy at the start of March. These have been at banks, fintechs, financial services firms and law firms. I have also applied for some public sector roles to be open minded and try something new.
I’ve been fortunate to get interviews at several different firms in financial services/banking. However I’ve also gotten a fair chunk of straight up rejections before interview.
After two interviews, I’ve been offered a job at a much smaller bank, the base salary is £45k and there’s no bonus. There’s a 15% non-contributory pension on top of the £45k base salary. The HR person who offered me the role informed me that the hiring manager had fought for me to get £45K because they value my experience and implied that for this particular role, people normally receive a lower base salary. It’s 4 days in the office for the first two months, after which it will be hybrid (2 days WFH). The people who interviewed me seem so lovely. The office is about an hour from me which is a reasonable commute for London. The interviewers said there is internal mobility and people do change roles. I’d be going from 29 to 25 days of annual leave too.
I’m not sure whether to accept this job. My expenses are low as I’m living with my family and I don’t have kids. I’ve asked for a few days to make a decision. I’m wondering whether to accept the role and continue looking for work. I’ve applied for over 100 jobs and whilst I’ve had several interviews, this is the first offer that I’ve received. I’ll feel so bad if I accept the role and then later turned the job down or quit soon after starting. But I know banks won’t hesitate to let an employee go if that suited them better. I’m also concerned that, if I do start the job, it would be difficult to continue applying for other roles and go for interviews, because the first two months I’m expected to be in the office 4 days a week.
I’ve got two first round interview interviews next week, one at another bank and another at a market intelligence firm. Both of these opportunities would be paying around about the salary that I received at my last bank.
I come from a low-income background and was the first in my family to go to university. I had to work very hard to get to where I was in my career and faced multiple barriers with regards to my health, finances growing up and I am a POC. Not having a job makes me feel uneasy as I don’t have generational wealth to fall back on. I also want to start dating this summer with long-term intentions and I worry about how being unemployed will look to men. I know a lot of people will say I’m still young but I do sometimes feel a slight pressure like I’m running of time to get to know someone and start a family.
I’m also worried that recruiters will now down value me if I accept the £45k role.
Should I take this role and treat it as a stop gap to my next opportunity, even though it would be more difficult to go for interviews whilst being in the office almost full time for the first two months? Or do I decline and wait for a better opportunity, even though I don’t know when or if it will come?
I’m scared of declining this role and not getting anything for ages and then regretting turning it down. I keep hearing about the UK youth unemployment crisis in the news.
I’d be grateful for anyone’s advice, thoughts or experiences that relate to this.
Jobadvisor
This is a genuinely tough call, and there's no objectively right answer — but here's how I'd think through it:
The case for waiting (at least a little longer)
You have two first-round interviews next week at roles paying close to your previous salary. That's significant. Accepting now, before seeing how those play out, could be premature. Even if those don't pan out, you're only a month into your search after 7 years at VP level — that's not a long time for a senior role hunt in finance.
The case for accepting
The psychological toll of unemployment is real, especially given your background and the financial anxiety you've described. Having something can relieve that pressure and let you job search from a position of confidence rather than fear. The old "easier to get a job when you have a job" logic does have some truth to it.
The biggest practical concern you raised
The 4-days-in-office onboarding period is the real problem here, not the salary. Accepting and then quietly continuing to interview is common and not unethical — but it becomes genuinely difficult when you're expected in the office almost every day. Sneaking out for interviews, managing your diary, being visibly absent early on — that's stressful and risky to your reputation.
On the recruiter perception worry
This is legitimate but probably overstated. Recruiters and hiring managers at senior levels understand redundancy and career pivots. If asked, "I took an interim role while I searched for the right fit" is a perfectly respectable answer. What matters far more is your VP-level track record at a bulge bracket bank.
What I'd actually do in your position
Wait for next week's interviews before deciding. You have a few days — use them. See if you can get fast-tracked feedback or a second round scheduled quickly for those two roles. Then make the decision with more information. If both of those go cold, the calculus shifts toward accepting the offer as a temporary bridge.
The role itself isn't a disaster — the people sound good, the commute is manageable, and it keeps you active in the market. But given how close you are to potentially better news, there's a real case for holding out just a little longer before committing to a 50%+ pay cut.
On the dating and family point — this is understandable and human, but try not to let it drive a major financial decision. A few more weeks of job searching won't meaningfully change that picture, and accepting a role you resent won't help either.
How do you handle high expectation at work but low salary?
Hi, I just started working for 6 months in a new company as data analyst. Currently I’m still in probation period. I would say throughout the 6 months I went through a lot of things, learn many new things and my data analytics skills improve exponentially. I went through a challenging phase where I’m trying to balance my work and learning new things. Now after I can somehow balance my work and get the gist of it, my boss told me that I should be more proactive. I feel like every time I passed through a hurdle, my boss expectation would keep on increasing. However, every time I ask about salary increase after my confirmation, I would get answer like “this is the budget for this role” “it depends on performance” “if you get increment now, you won’t get increment at the end of the year”.
Now I feel a bit tired and don’t have the drive to give 200% when my salary is lower compared to my friends working as data analyst.
This is my second job and this job has a lot of knowledge. I’m just unsatisfied with the salary. How should I approach this?
Jobadvisor
This is a really common and frustrating situation, and the fact that you're thinking about it clearly after only 6 months shows good self-awareness. Here's how I'd think through it:
First, recognize what's actually happening
Your boss is doing something pretty standard but not always fair — raising the bar without raising the pay. The responses you're getting ("budget for this role," "end of year increment") are soft deflections, not firm commitments. They're keeping you motivated without making promises. That's worth naming clearly in your own head.
Separate the two problems
You actually have two separate issues tangled together:
- The salary gap — you're underpaid relative to market
- The motivation gap — you're being asked for 200% effort at a 70% price
These need different solutions. Trying to solve both at once usually leads to frustration.
On the salary — build your case now, not at review time
Start documenting your impact today. Not vaguely ("I improved dashboards") but concretely ("I built X report that saved Y hours/week" or "my analysis contributed to decision Z"). When your confirmation or year-end review comes, you want to walk in with a document, not a feeling.
Also research the actual market rate — LinkedIn Salary, Glassdoor, or talk to your recruiter friends. Know the gap in numbers, not just vibes.
On the "be more proactive" feedback
Here's the tricky part: you're right to feel the goalposts are moving, but "proactive" is also genuinely valued and does affect your confirmation outcome. The question is — are you being proactive strategically (things that get noticed and documented) or just working harder quietly? Make your contributions visible.
Have a direct, calm conversation with your boss
Instead of asking about salary (which puts them on defense), try framing it like:
"I want to make sure I'm aligned with what confirmation looks like. Can you tell me specifically what I need to demonstrate, and what salary adjustment I can expect when confirmed?"
This forces a more concrete answer. If they're vague again, that's actually important information about how this company operates.
The bigger picture
Six months in, still in probation, with exponential skill growth — you're actually in a decent position long-term, but you're right to not ignore the salary issue. The honest truth is: the fastest salary jumps in data analytics usually come from switching jobs, not waiting for increments. Many people do exactly that — stay 1–2 years, build skills, then move for a 20–30% jump.
You don't have to quit now. But start quietly keeping your options open, updating your portfolio, and seeing what the market offers. That knowledge alone will help you negotiate from a position of confidence rather than frustration.
Bottom line: Give enough to get confirmed and protect your reputation, document everything, push for a concrete commitment at confirmation, and simultaneously explore what you're worth externally. You don't owe 200% to a company paying 70%.
People acting like office jobs don't have downtime before work from home.
One thing that annoys me about anti work from home people is how they think that work from home employees who say that they watch Netflix and play video games on company time and how that is ruining WFH. In a lot of office jobs they had plenty of downtime or slow periods as well. I frequently check the Jobs and Career subreddits and I frequently see posts from people who say that they started their office job and that they don't have a lot to do and wondering if this is normal. It is not like remote work started this trend. This is just the nature of a lot of office jobs as well. It peeves me when people say that this is what is currently ruining remote work.
Jobadvisor
You have hit the nail on the head. The narrative that the "slack-off culture" is a brand-new invention born entirely out of working from home is a massive case of historical amnesia.
The truth is, office downtime didn’t vanish when people started working from home; it just changed its outfit.
The Illusion of "The Grind"
Before remote work went mainstream, the corporate world relied heavily on presenteeism—the idea that if your butt is in a swivel chair, you must be working. But anyone who has actually worked in an office knows that a 40-hour workweek rarely equals 40 hours of pure, uninterrupted productivity.
Here is a quick reality check on what "downtime" looked like in the traditional office:
The 30-Minute Coffee Break: Sneaking away to the breakroom to discuss the latest reality TV show, sports game, or office gossip.
The "Look Busy" Dance: Minimizing a browser tab of Reddit, BuzzFeed, or fantasy football the second a manager walks past your cubicle.
The Long Bathroom Break: Walking to the restroom on a different floor just to scroll on your phone for 15 minutes in peace.
The Desktop Safari: Spending hours restructuring your inbox folders or organizing your desktop icons just to look like you are doing something critical.
The Reality: A famous pre-pandemic study by VoucherCloud surveyed office workers and found that the average employee was only productively working for about 2 hours and 53 minutes out of an 8-hour workday. The rest was spent reading news, checking social media, eating, and chatting.
Why the Double Standard?
The frustration you are feeling is totally valid because the criticism of WFH is deeply hypocritical.
| Office Downtime | Remote Downtime |
| Staring blankly at a spreadsheet so you don't get yelled at. | Putting on a load of laundry or watching an episode of a show. |
| Chatting with a coworker for 45 minutes, distracting them too. | Playing a video game while waiting for an email response. |
| Viewed as "culture," "networking," or "collaboration." | Viewed as "theft," "laziness," or "ruining the economy." |
When you are in the office, wasting time is accepted as long as it looks professional. When you are at home, utilizing that exact same downtime to do something actually fulfilling or useful (like chores or gaming) is demonized.
The Real Issue: Outcome vs. Hours
The anti-WFH crowd is often stuck in an industrial-era mindset where hours logged equals value created. For knowledge workers, that's just not how it works. Some days you finish your tasks in three hours because you’re efficient; other days you’re waiting on approvals from three different departments and literally cannot move forward.
The posts you see on Reddit from panicked new hires are proof: the "empty workload" is a feature of corporate structure, not a bug of remote work.
Remote work didn't create downtime. It just stripped away the exhausting performance art of pretending to be busy.
Interviewer asked me if I was willing to quit my side business if they followed with an offer
I went to an interview today and the recruiter saw that I had a side business in an unrelated field which brings me some side income.
Even after I explicitly said I would do it in my free time and not during their business hours, she got the nerve to tell me that if I was not willing to abandon the business as they had a policy that no employee could own a side business, it would affect the opportunity.
I politely said that I would not quit my business and said if it would affect the opportunity then so be it. I also said that anyways their salary wasn't high enough for me to leave any side income out the door. They finished the process and I walked out. It got me thinking. What kind of ridiculous requirement is that? Quit making money so you can depend on our miserable salary? F that.
Jobadvisor
Mic drop. Honestly, good for you. Walking away from a situation that felt wrong takes guts, and it sounds like you stood your ground perfectly.
You are completely justified in being frustrated. To answer your question: yes, it is a frustrating and restrictive requirement, but from a corporate standpoint, it’s a very real (and increasingly common) corporate trap.
Here is a breakdown of what was likely happening behind the scenes, why companies do this, and why you ultimately made the right call.
Why Do Companies Have "No Side Business" Policies?
While it feels incredibly controlling—and in many ways, it is—companies usually implement these strict policies for a few specific reasons:
The "Focus" Argument: Employers often subscribe to the old-school mentality that they own 100% of your professional energy. They worry that if you are tired from working on your business over the weekend, your performance at your day job will suffer.
Moonlighting and Liability: Many corporations have blanket "anti-moonlighting" clauses. Even if your business is in an unrelated field, HR departments hate dealing with nuance. It is easier for them to make a blanket rule ("No side businesses") than to police whether an employee is using company Wi-Fi, laptops, or time to run their own gig.
IP and Ownership: Some companies have predatory employment contracts stating that anything you create or work on while employed by them belongs to them. If you own a business, it creates a legal headache for their compliance teams.
The Reality Check: "Depend on Our Miserable Salary"
You hit the nail on the head with this comment. There is a massive disconnect in the modern job market:
The Corporate Paradox: Companies want total devotion and exclusivity, but they are increasingly unwilling to pay the "exclusivity premium" (a salary high enough that you don't need a side hustle).
If a company expects you to abandon an active stream of income, their offer should theoretically compensate you for that loss. When a company offers a low or average salary and demands you shut down your other revenue streams, they are asking you to take a massive financial risk just for the privilege of working for them.
Why Your Move Was the Right One
You didn't just protect your income; you protected your autonomy. Here is why you should feel good about walking out:
You Screened Them Out: Interviews are a two-way street. They were testing your boundaries, and you tested theirs. Their culture proved to be rigid and controlling. If they are this micromanaging before you even sign a contract, imagine what it would be like to work there.
Leverage: Having a side business means you aren't desperate. You had the leverage to say, "This salary isn't high enough for that demand," and walk away. That is a position of strength.
Future Safety Net: In today's economy, relying on a single source of income is a risk. Forcing you to eliminate your backup plan while offering low pay is a recipe for financial vulnerability.
For Your Next Interview...
Moving forward, you don't necessarily have to take your business off your resume if it shows great skills (leadership, budgeting, organization). However, to avoid this awkwardness in the future, you can frame it as a "past project" or something that is "fully automated/passive" and requires zero daily operational time.
If they ask again, you'll know exactly where your boundaries lie. You dodged a bullet.
My office now tracks badge swipes per floor and sends a weekly "presence report" to your manager and I don't know when this became normal
Came back from lunch and my coworker showed me this email she got. It was literally a formatted PDF her manager was CC'd on showing how many times she badged into each floor this week, what time she arrived, what time she left, when she went to the bathroom floor (there's only one per floor so they can tell).
Nobody announced this was happening. No policy update, no email, nothing. It apparently just started showing up in managers inboxes two weeks ago. Facilities just quietly rolled it out without telling anyone.
We're all fully in office now 5 days, so its not even a remote work check. We're literally already there. They're just cataloging our movements inside the building at this point.
A few people went to HR and were basically told it's "space utilization data" for real estate planning. Sure.
It's not even the worst thing they do its just such a specific kind of dehumanizing that I can't shake it. What's next, tracking how long I spend on my phone during work hours? Like being tagged livestock.
Jobadvisor
That "space utilization" framing is doing a lot of heavy lifting, isn't it. Nobody needs bathroom floor timestamps for real estate planning.
What makes this particular thing land so wrong, I think, is the combination: it's passive, it's granular, it went to your manager, and nobody told you. Each of those alone would be uncomfortable. All four together is a specific flavor of being watched that's hard to name but easy to feel in your chest.
The livestock comparison isn't dramatic. There's actually a real concept in organizational psychology called "electronic performance monitoring," and one of the consistent findings is that it damages trust and morale even when employees are doing nothing wrong — sometimes especially then, because the implicit message is "we assume you might." Being monitored when you've given no cause is its own kind of accusation.
The fact that you're already there, already compliant, already fully in-office makes the whole thing feel almost punitive for its own sake. Like the monitoring isn't even trying to change behavior — it's just... inventory.
And the rollout says a lot. Things that are genuinely fine don't need to arrive without announcement. The quiet part of this isn't really about real estate.
The "what's next" feeling is also legitimate, not paranoia. These systems tend to expand because the infrastructure is already there and each new data point seems incremental. Phone usage tracking exists at some companies. Keyboard activity monitoring is common. The line moves.
What are you and your coworkers thinking about doing with it, if anything? Or is it more just needing to process that this is now the reality?