Should I quit my new job due to cocaine being rampant at the company?

 

How to Negotiate Salary if offer is not what I expected?

Recently was offered a role at a firm but the final salary amount they gave me was 64k. The anticipated salary range posted was 63,000-$93,000. They did not meet my offer and gave me essentially the minimum amount posted in that salary range. In my first interview they asked what my salary expectations were and I said more than 70k. They reached out to me a couple days ago and said they would not be able to budge due to internal equity and other internal matters. I do have the necessary experience to succeed in that role . I am not sure what to do given their first response, since I expected they would meet somewhere in the middle. Am I able to still negotiate after that? Any advice would be appreciated on how to move forward. They said they really want me to join the firm but the salary they offered was well below what I initially requested.

Jobadvisor

Yes, you can absolutely still negotiate — "we can't budge due to internal equity" is a common opening line, not always a final answer. Here's how to think about it and move forward:

Why "internal equity" doesn't always mean the number is truly fixed

Companies often cite internal equity as a first-line response because it's an easy, non-personal reason to say no. Sometimes it's genuinely true (they have a rigid pay band and someone else at your level makes exactly 64k). Other times it's just the opening move, and there's more room than they're letting on — especially if they've told you directly that they really want you to join.

A few ways to approach this:

1. Ask for the number in a different form. If base salary truly is capped, you can ask about a signing bonus, an accelerated performance review (e.g., a 6-month review with a raise built in), extra PTO, remote flexibility, professional development budget, or a higher title. Companies often have more flexibility in these areas than in base pay itself.

2. Get specific about the gap. You said "more than 70k" — that's vague enough that they could technically call 64k a good-faith attempt. If you go back, be precise: "I was hoping we could land closer to $72-75k given my experience with [specific skills relevant to the role]. Is there flexibility there, or in other parts of the offer like a signing bonus or an earlier review cycle?"

3. Reiterate your value concretely. Reference specific experience or skills you bring that justify a number above the range floor — not just "I have experience," but what that experience will let you do faster or better than a typical candidate at 64k.

4. Ask about the timeline for a raise. If they truly can't move now, ask: "Would it be possible to revisit compensation after 6 months based on performance?" Get it in writing if they agree — even informally in an email.

5. Decide your walk-away number before you respond. Since they've essentially offered you the floor of a $63k-$93k range, ask yourself: is $64k workable for you at all, or is there a number below which you'd decline? Knowing this in advance keeps you calm and clear in the conversation rather than negotiating from anxiety.

How to phrase it:

You don't have to accept their "no" as final just because they said it once. Something like:

"I appreciate you letting me know, and I'm still very interested in the role. I understand there may be constraints on base salary, but given [specific experience], I was hoping we could find a number closer to $72k, or explore other options like a signing bonus or a compensation review after 6 months. Is there any flexibility on either front?"

This keeps the door open, shows you're still engaged, and gives them multiple ways to say yes to something even if base salary is genuinely locked.

One thing worth sitting with: they've told you clearly they want you, and the range floor is a strong signal that flexibility exists (even if not for you specifically) — so this isn't an unreasonable ask, it's a normal part of the process. Companies rarely rescind offers over one polite counter.

What's the best way to break into pharmaceutical sales and/or medical sales?

I'm currently going into my last year of my bachelor's degree. I'm working towards a biology degree with a minor in pharmacology. My original plan was to go to PA school but I've been considering more sales and business side of the health industry. I have taken some sales classes and I have experience in customer service but I don't have sales experience in any field. I've been hearing that getting sales experience of any field is the best way to eventually get into pharmaceutical/medical device sales but I was wondering if there's anything else I should do or consider to best get myself into that career.

Jobadvisor

Great combination to be building — a bio degree with a pharmacology minor gives you real credibility in an industry that cares a lot about scientific fluency. Here's how people typically break in, and what would strengthen your specific position:

Why "get sales experience anywhere" is solid advice

Pharma and medical device companies hire very few true entry-level reps. Most successful candidates either come from a related clinical/scientific background (like yours) plus demonstrated sales ability, or they've already proven themselves in another sales role — often B2B, medical-adjacent, or in a competitive/quota-driven environment (think: Cintas, ADP, Enterprise, Cutco, or even outside pharma entirely). The logic is that companies want to see you can handle rejection, hit numbers, and manage a territory before they hand you a six-figure drug portfolio.

What would help most, given where you are:

1. Get any sales job now, even part-time/seasonal. Retail commission sales, insurance, real estate assistant, or a sales internship all count. What matters is being able to point to a quota you hit or exceeded. Numbers are gold in a resume for this field — "increased X by Y%" beats "responsible for customer service."

2. Look specifically at "medical sales associate" or "sales representative" feeder programs. Companies like Stryker, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and some CRO/staffing firms (like Eversana, Aerotek Medical, or IntegriChain) run structured entry programs or apprenticeship-style roles specifically for recent grads with science backgrounds. These are worth researching now — many recruit heavily in the spring/fall before graduation.

3. Consider medical device before pharma if you want an easier entry point. Device sales (especially surgical or orthopedic) often has more entry-level and associate-level roles than pharma, which tends to prefer candidates with 1-2+ years of outside sales experience already. Device reps also often work more hands-on with clinicians, which could appeal to you given your PA-track background.

4. Network with reps directly. LinkedIn is genuinely useful here — reach out to pharma/device reps (ideally alumni from your school) and ask for 15-minute informational calls. This industry hires heavily on referrals; a rep who likes you can get your resume in front of a district manager in a way a cold application never will.

5. Leverage your science background explicitly. In interviews and your resume, connect your pharmacology coursework to your ability to learn clinical material fast and speak credibly with physicians — that's a real differentiator over candidates with pure sales backgrounds but no science literacy.

6. Consider a clinically-adjacent bridge role if PA school stays on the table. Some people work as a pharmacy tech, medical scribe, or clinical research coordinator for a year or two while building sales experience on the side (like a part-time commission gig) — this keeps the PA option open while still building toward pharma sales if you decide against clinical school.

One thing worth thinking through: are you fairly confident you're stepping away from PA school, or is this still an open question? That matters for how much you invest in sales-specific moves right now versus keeping options flexible.

How To Resign From My First Post-Grad Job That Was Amazing, It Just Didn't Pay Enough?

So, I started my first post-grad marketing job with a really small agency in Dec 2024 as an intern, and then was promoted to Marketing Associate just over a year ago.

With it being a small agency, I was brought into the fold immediately and given a lot of responsibility and learning experience early on. My team is amazing, so supportive, we're pretty close, and it's all women which is a plus.

But more recently coming up on my one year full time, I was thinking about making a transition. With it being a small company, the pay is abysmal (43k), and I live in a big city. When thinking about making a move, I gave myself until my 1 year mark full time to see if in my annual review I would get some sort of sign that I'm "moving up" in the company (raise or promotion).

Well that day came, and I received a 3% standard COLA raise. While I don't expect some 20k pay bump only being one full year into my career, there was no sort of promotion or real driving motivation that came out of this meeting.

Before this, I was already casually applying to other jobs on a whim. Applied to one over two weeks before my one year meeting, just recently did two interviews, and got the offer on Monday. It is a 20k pay increase, and a higher title. I can't NOT take it. I am planning on taking it.

The team seems great, benefits are good, PTO is standard, but I just can't shake the guilt/indecision of leaving my current role. Again, it's a small company and I have a lot on my plate that will need to be offloaded to a team of 6 people (who are already busy). Plus, I just recently had that one year review and talked up how great things are (and they are, beyond pay and workload), and how excited i was for the future.

Maybe this is just a "me being new in the corporate world" feeling and it's completely normal, but I truly don't know how to go about this especially when I know in my team's head, things are "going great" and this will be a complete shock. Advice?

Jobadvisor

This is such a common feeling, and it doesn't mean anything is wrong with your decision — it just means you're a person with empathy who cares about people who were good to you. That's a good trait, not a sign you're making the wrong call. A 20k raise and higher title after one year is a completely legitimate reason to leave, full stop.

A few things to separate out, because they're getting tangled together:

Guilt about the team vs. guilt about the decision

These are different things. You clearly have zero doubt about whether to take the offer — you said it yourself, "I can't NOT take it." The guilt is about disappointing people you like, not about whether this is the right move. That's worth naming clearly to yourself, because it stops you from second-guessing a decision that's actually already made.

On the "I just talked up how excited I was" feeling

This one's normal too. People's circumstances and offers change quickly, and being excited about a job in one moment doesn't obligate you to stay when a much better opportunity appears two weeks later. You didn't lie to them — you were genuinely happy there minus the pay. Both things can be true.

How to actually resign well

1. Tell your direct manager first, in person or on a call, before anyone else. Keep it simple and warm, not over-explained: "I wanted to let you know I've accepted another opportunity and I'll be resigning. This wasn't an easy decision — I've really valued my time here and everything I've learned — but the new role offers a significant pay increase and title change that I don't think I'll find here right now." You don't need to justify it further than that.

2. Give two weeks (standard), and offer to help with transition. Given it's a small team already stretched thin, offering to write transition docs, do a handoff plan, or be available for questions in the following week or two (if reasonable for you) goes a long way and shows good faith without over-obligating yourself.

3. Don't over-apologize or over-explain in the moment. It's tempting to soften the blow by talking a lot, but a short, kind, clear message lands better than a long one that reads as guilty or unsure.

4. Let them be surprised — that's their reaction to manage, not yours to prevent. You're not responsible for softening the shock by staying longer than makes sense for you, or by downplaying how good the new offer is. It's okay if it's a hard day for the team. That doesn't mean you did something wrong.

5. You can still be honest that pay was the driver, gently. If asked, it's fair to say something like: "Financially I need to be able to grow at a pace that matches the market, and this is a jump I couldn't turn down." Small agencies often know their pay isn't competitive; it likely won't be a total surprise once the shock wears off.

One practical note: since you accepted the offer already, make sure you've confirmed the start date with the new company so you know exactly how much notice you're giving your current employer — sounds like you're already there, but worth pinning down before you have the conversation.

Am I too private, or were these interview questions inappropriate?

I'm a 23-year-old woman, and I had a job interview today that left me feeling really uncomfortable. I'd like to know if I'm overreacting or if my concerns are reasonable.

The interview started normally with questions about my education and experience. Then the interviewer suddenly asked, "What do your parents do for a living?"

I politely asked why that was relevant.

He seemed surprised and replied, "What's wrong with that question? I need to know what kind of family the person I'm hire comes from."

I told him that I felt it was a personal question.

He laughed a little and said, "In 12 years of interviewing people, you're the first person who's ever said that."

I eventually answered that both of my parents were retired. He responded with something like, "You have such a respectable family, so why were you embarrassed to answer?"

I tried to explain that it wasn't about being embarrassed. I simply believe in having personal boundaries. Before I could finish, he interrupted me and started asking more questions about my father, such as whether he would have any problem with me working.

The truth is that my father passed away. At first I didn't want to tell him because I didn't want to share something so personal during a job interview. I even caught myself trying to answer as if my father were still alive because I didn't want to be seen as a young woman without a father. Eventually I realized I was digging myself into a hole, so I told him the truth. After that, he immediately stopped asking personal questions.

The reason I'm so protective of my personal life is because of previous jobs. In the past, coworkers asked me many personal questions, learned about my family and personality, and later used that information against me. Some of it was shared behind my back, and some of it was used to manipulate me. Since then, I've become much more careful about what I reveal at work.

Some people around me think I'm overreacting. They say, "What's the worst that could happen if you answer?" Others agree with me and believe questions about my parents' jobs, my siblings, or whether my family owns a house have nothing to do with whether I'm qualified for a position.

Personally, I believe an interviewer should focus on my qualifications, work experience, and anything directly related to the job. Questions about my family's careers, financial situation, or personal life feel unrelated.

So I'm wondering...

Am I letting my past experiences make me too distrustful, or are these reasonable boundaries to have during a job interview or work environment?

Jobadvisor

Your concerns are reasonable. Those questions were inappropriate, and your instinct to protect your boundaries was the right one — not an overreaction.

A few things worth separating out:

The questions themselves were out of line

What your parents do for a living, whether your father would "have a problem" with you working, your family's financial situation — none of this has any bearing on your qualifications. In many places, questions like this edge into territory that's discouraged or outright illegal in formal hiring processes, precisely because they invite bias based on family background, marital/family status, or socioeconomic class rather than merit. A competent interviewer sticks to your skills, experience, and how you'd handle the actual job.

His reaction to your boundary is a bigger red flag than the questions themselves

Notice the pattern: when you asked why the question was relevant, he didn't answer it — he deflected ("what's wrong with that question?"), then implied you were the unusual/difficult one ("first person in 12 years"), then when you did answer, he made a judgment about your family ("such a respectable family") and pushed further into asking about your late father's opinion of you working. That's not curiosity about your background — that's someone testing whether you'll hold a boundary, and pushing when you tried to. How someone responds when you say "I'd rather not answer that" tells you a lot about what it would be like to work for them.

On feeling like you had to explain your father had passed away

That's a genuinely unfair position to be put in during a job interview. You shouldn't have had to disclose something that personal and painful just to get an interviewer to stop asking invasive questions. The fact that he only stopped once you shared that says more about his approach than about whether your boundary was reasonable in the first place.

On "what's the worst that could happen if you answer"

You already know the answer to this from experience — you mentioned personal information being used against you at previous jobs. That's not paranoia, that's a lesson you learned the hard way, and it makes complete sense that you'd carry more caution into professional settings now. Wariness that's grounded in something that actually happened to you isn't the same as baseline distrust; it's calibrated.

What this might tell you about the role

If a hiring manager treats a boundary-setting question as a personality flaw rather than a fair thing to ask, that can be a preview of workplace culture — how personal information gets treated, how boundaries get respected (or not) day to day. That's useful data for you, even if it doesn't feel good to have gathered it this way.

You're not being too private. You're allowed to decide what you share, when, and with whom — in an interview or anywhere else.

Should I quit my new job due to cocaine being rampant at the company?

I recently started a new job with a very good salary at an up and coming company in my field. The job is interesting and there is a lot of drive among the management and colleagues.

Unfortunately, I have experienced that several colleagues, including the company's main shareholder and CEO, use cocaine. The latter and a couple of others party hard, and work a lot and often into the wee hours.

I have spoken to the HR manager about this, and she just sighs, says that she has seen the cocaine habit too, but that there is little she can do when it comes from the company's owner and if that "perhaps both you and I should rather focus on the fact that we have exciting and well-paid jobs in a fast growing company instead of thinking too much about things we can do nothing about".

I feel that my moral compass tells me that this is not a place I should work. Still, quitting/looking for something else is difficult to do. The company is reputable, most staff have been here since the company was founded or at least for several years, and it would undoubtedly seem strange if I quit after a short time because the workplace does not match my values. When interviewing for new jobs it would surely sound like I’m the problem and not my employer.

At the same time, I sometimes wish I just had the mentality of the HR manager and obviously many other colleagues, who disregard this when the salary is good and the job is exciting.

What would you have done in the situation? Closed your eyes and kept going because of the salary and career prospects, or left?

Jobadvisor

This is a genuinely hard call, and it's reasonable that you're torn. Let me lay out what I'd actually weigh here.

Reasons this matters more than "just don't think about it":

• Illegal drug use by leadership, tolerated openly, tells you something about the culture's relationship to risk and rules generally — not just about drugs specifically. Companies that wink at one kind of rule-breaking from the top often wink at others (expense reports, harassment complaints, safety corners cut, how they treat you if it benefits the business).
• You already tried the legitimate internal channel — HR — and got told, in effect, "this is above my pay grade, don't rock the boat." That's useful information. It means there's no real recourse inside the company if something goes wrong that affects you.
• "Working into the wee hours" combined with heavy stimulant use in leadership can produce erratic decision-making, mood volatility, and unpredictable demands on the people under them. That's worth thinking about for your own day-to-day experience, not just your ethics.

Reasons it might not be a dealbreaker:

• What people do with their own bodies outside (or even during) work hours, if it's not affecting how they treat you, isn't automatically your problem to fix or police. Plenty of high-functioning, otherwise fine workplaces have this somewhere in the mix — it's more common than people admit.
• If the actual work, pay, treatment of employees, and your day-to-day experience are genuinely good, that's real and worth something.
• The staff longevity you mention suggests most people find it livable, whatever their reasons.

On the "will I look like the problem" worry — you're overestimating this. You don't have to explain the real reason if you leave. "Wasn't the right fit" or "pursuing an opportunity that better matched my long-term goals" is a completely normal, unremarkable thing to say in an interview, and no interviewer is going to dig into it if you're not offering more.

The more useful question isn't really "is cocaine use wrong" (you already know your answer to that) — it's: has this actually harmed you or your work yet, or are you anticipating that it will? If it's the former, that's a much clearer signal to leave. If it's the latter, you might give it a bit more time to see whether it stays contained to a few people's after-hours behavior, or whether it starts leaking into decisions, treatment of staff, or things that directly affect you.

What's it actually looked like day to day for you so far — has it touched your work at all, or is it something you're observing from a distance?

Am I cooked?

Hi everyone,

I’m a 22-year-old male and I’m about to graduate from university with a bachelor’s degree in supply chain management along with the associate’s degree in business I earned last year from community college.

I have a 3.91 GPA; however, this job market is so demoralizing. I spent two and a half years at community college before transferring last fall to the university I’m at now. I currently work part-time while attending college full-time, and I’ve had to pay for school on my own.

I will graduate with no internships, and it seems like every entry-level job wants 2 or more years of experience. I had an interview for an internship in May in which I had a referral for but ultimately didn’t get. I also had another referral for a junior position within an automotive manufacturer, but I got ghosted.

Am I cooked without any internships? or is this just what the entry-level job market is like right now?

Jobadvisor

You're not cooked. But I'm not going to pretend the "no internships" part doesn't matter, so let's be honest about both halves of this.

The market part is real, not just in your head. Entry-level hiring, especially anything touching logistics/manufacturing/corporate white-collar roles, has been genuinely rough the last couple of years — postings asking for "2+ years" on entry-level roles is a well-documented, widely-complained-about pattern, not something specific to you. A lot of new grads with solid records are getting ghosted right now. That context matters because it's easy to internalize "I'm cooked" when actually "the whole cohort is having a hard time" is closer to the truth.

The internship gap is a real disadvantage, but it's not fatal. Here's why:

• A 3.91 GPA plus self-funding your entire education while working part-time and doing a community college-to-university transfer is, frankly, a strong story about work ethic and grit — arguably more impressive than an internship at a company that handed a 20-year-old a badge for a summer. You just have to say that story explicitly, because no résumé line does it for you.
• Supply chain is a field where a lot of hiring managers, especially at mid-size manufacturers/3PLs/distributors (not just the big-name companies everyone applies to), care more about "can this person learn our systems and show up reliably" than pedigree. It's not consulting or investment banking, where the internship pipeline is basically mandatory.
• You already have two referral-based interviews under your belt this cycle. That's not nothing — referrals + interviews happening means you're not invisible to employers, you're in the "close but not yet" zone, which is a very different (and much more fixable) problem than "not getting any bites at all."

What I'd actually focus on:

1. Widen past big-name companies to regional manufacturers, distributors, freight brokers, and 3PLs — they hire supply chain grads constantly and are less internship-obsessed than Fortune 500 rotational programs.
2. Look at certificate signals that substitute for experience quickly — something like an APICS/ASCM CPIM or a demonstrated Excel/ERP skill (SAP, Oracle) can offset "no internship" on paper, since it tells them you're not starting from zero on tools.
3. When you get an interview, address the gap head-on rather than hoping they don't notice — something like: worked part-time and self-funded school through a transfer while maintaining a near-4.0, which is why the resume doesn't have internships. That reframes it as evidence of capability, not a hole.

You're early in this — most new grads take months, not weeks, even in good years. Two referral interviews in is a slow start, not a verdict.