[evercast]

Umm... This is a US-based job, right? As someone based in Europe, I find it absolutely shocking you have been requested to work ahead of your start date. This is not even eligible for asking if it's a red flag. It's insane.

edit: I see other commenters are like "well, standard practice, not necessarily that terrible". Am I living in a bubble or is it just Europe?

[oceliker]

I think people see it as a manager being kind and trying to involve their future employee in decisions that will impact them directly. (Assuming they are not expected to be actively leading the calls…)

I can envision a scenario where someone could complain for not being included in these conversations. Imagine you start a new job and the manager says “btw, we signed a contract with this vendor two weeks ago, so this is the tool you’ll use for the next three years. We thought about asking your input, but you technically weren’t an employee then.”

[brundolf]

Tone matters a lot here. There’s a huge difference between “You’re welcome to join these calls if you like, since it will impact how you work once you start” vs “We need you to be on these calls [with pushback/pressuring if you don't want to]”. This sounds like the latter, which is definitely not “being kind”.

[oceliker]

> “We need you to be on these calls [with pushback/pressuring if you don't want to]”.

I fully agree, pushback/pressuring would make this unacceptable. But I'm not seeing that in the post, even before correcting for the storyteller's (understandable) bias.

In my mind, the conversation is something like:

"hey can you join this call?"

"not unless you pay me for it"

"that's tricky to set up, but we'll make it up to you when you start"

It's still OK to say no to this, but it kind of feels like you'd start off on the wrong foot. The manager isn't trying to get away with having you do actual work for free -- they are not asking for anything like reports or deliverables. It's just dialing into a few Zoom calls (and "prep", which is extremely ambiguous and could use clarification by OP).

The vacation thing can also be a very real benefit. I don't think a lot of people would take PTO in their first couple of weeks, but your manager can say "thanks for joining the call earlier this month, how about you take this Friday off?"

[nopenopenopeno]

I think you’re confusing “tone” with literal meaning. This is not a matter of “tone.”

[brtkdotse]

This is a prime example of the fabled “soft skills”. Humans and our ways are incredibly squishy and ambiguous, so learning to interpret (and dispense) things like “tone” is incredibly valuable.

[pydry]

I can't imagine anybody complaining about the second scenario being given an iota of sympathy.

[rtkaratekid]

There is basically zero chance I would do these calls prior to an agreed on start date. I spend enough of my life working already.

[ianai]

This is not acceptable in the US either. You’re paid for your time by law.

[DnDGrognard]

Not for salaried (exempt) roles your not

[ianai]

That’s still being paid for your time.

[willcipriano]

> Not for salaried (exempt) roles your not

You are right, instead if you work at all they have to pay you for the whole week.

[nixgeek]

That’s inaccurate (IMO) and there’s nothing saying the minimum ‘accrual period’ for earnings is weekly as an exempt employee. Potentially differs by state and I’d be interested to learn of any where it is different, please cite?

It’s quite normal to see people start Tuesday on payroll, finish on Thursday, and they don’t get paid those whole weeks. They typically get those days paid, even if for example you “offboard” by lunchtime on your last day of work.

[willcipriano]

I don't know of any that are different, but salary law is consistent enough to know that the salary starts when the employee begins work, so in this case, moving the start date up is what is happening even if the employer isn't acknowledging it. The same goes if the employer says the start date is 1/1 but you only show up at 1/2. The salary starts when the work starts, and doesn't stop so long as you show up once a week or so.

From California but similar everywhere:

> Pursuant to California law, an exempt employee must receive his or her full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days, or hours worked.

https://www.yourlegalcorner.com/articles.asp?id=135&cat=emp

If employers don't like this, they can pay overtime instead.

[nixgeek]

That’s a good citation (thanks!) but it covers the period of time when you’re legally an employee, thus if you start Tuesday you’re not one Monday, and if you finish Thursday you’re not one on Friday.

In this case with OP, my guess is that left them two choices:

1/ Accelerate start and then as you note, pay the whole period even though it sounded like this occurred before Christmas, was only a few calls then a vacation.

2/ Pay an invoice, which is mucky since it’ll probably involve supplier setup via AP, they’re clearly a W-2 equivalent person so perhaps this complicates other things like tax or benefits, etc.

If the person is “unencumbered” (not currently employed or subject to something contractual like garden leave which prevents them assuming the new employment) and if there was real value to having them participate in the calls then certainly the easiest would be (1.) - and IME, this is how larger employers would do it.

[aeternum]

It's not really standard but can definitely happen with smaller companies < 1000. They are less well organized and probably didn't get the role filled in time so are trying to speed ramp-up.

You can always say no or provide strict times where you can help and typically there aren't any hard feelings.

[tasogare]

Yes this is crazy. Starting date means what it means, before that one is not in the job.

[guitarbill]

Some cultures have problems setting work/life boundaries. Because it is a cultural attitude, often it never occurs to some people they can say "no", or others are scared to. Which if maybe understandable if e.g. your medical insurance depends on your employer, but it's still messed up...

Fun fact though, many US employment contracts also insanely long and come with many restrictions. I don't see why you wouldn't just say "my current contract doesn't allow this, and it's probably in new company's interest to have a clean transition for IP law's sake" or some other vague reason

[aronpye]

> … many US employment contracts also insanely long …

Most US employees are employed “at will” and don’t have contracts …

[smattiuz]

Agreed. I've had requests ahead of start dates and it was not a problem for those I turned down; accepting/attending has always been optional and appreciated, but nothing more than that.

[Eldt]

This would not be accepted in Europe

[phendrenad2]

This isn't common in America, that's false information.