If a spouse/partner were being relocated by
their company, then the cost of the move will most likely be fully
covered. And thus, it's only fair for some companies to not offer
reimbursement for moving expenses (that some may collect twice in such a
situation). After all, why do you want a job in another
city?
Sorry
but you are mixing up two different things. Forced relocation due to a company
decision should and generally is paid by a company. However not paying
relocation expenses for a new hire is penny-wise pound foolish. As I stated
earlier the cost to move is expensive especially when the moving company wants a
cashiers check waiting for them. I know I don't have a spare $10K laying around
when I decide to move. I do not look at ads that do not pay relocation costs
especially when they are looking for someone with ten years plus
experience. Not only are companies cost
conscious, they may have been lost out too many times before when
their new hire flew the coop too soon, taking a different/better job in the area
not long after their arrival.
That is easily
remedied by a simple policy stating that the employee will reimburse the company
the relocation expenses on a pro-rata basis if they leave the company
voluntarily before their one-year hire date anniversary. That is what my company
does after they did get burned, but it only took once.
And if the move is 50 (or is it 75)
miles away from your old location, isn't it still tax deductible
anyway? Yes the expenses are tax-deductible but you still have to put the money upfront when you move and who can afford to wait almost a year for a refund (if one is due)? If you don't own a house, your expenses wouldn't be
that great anyway!
Sorry that does not compute. What if I am renting a 3 bedroom house? Would my expenses be less if I owned the house? Not by much! Voice of experience speaking -- two relocations in ten years time.
Peter A. Kurilecz CRM, CA |