An employee was left stunned after uncovering that his own role was being advertised publicly with a significantly higher pay range than what he currently earns. Sharing his experience on the Anti Work subreddit, he explained how the discovery completely altered his view of his employer and his future at the company.
The worker revealed that he has been employed as a logistics coordinator at a mid-sized distribution firm in Ohio for nearly three years. He initially joined the organisation with an annual salary of $42,000 and, after persistently requesting a raise, saw his pay increase to $45,000 the previous year. At the time, management justified the modest adjustment by citing financial limitations and insisting there was no flexibility in the budget.
The situation took an unexpected turn when he was helping a friend browse job listings on Indeed. Out of curiosity, he searched for openings at his own workplace and was shocked by what he found. The company had posted a vacancy for the same position he currently holds, with identical duties and expectations, but with a listed salary range between $60,000 and $63,000. According to him, the job description mirrored his daily responsibilities exactly, leaving no doubt that it was his role being advertised.
Disturbed by the revelation, he approached his manager the following morning, making an effort to remain composed. Instead of receiving clarity or reassurance, he was met with defensiveness. His manager reportedly explained that the higher figure reflected the going market rate for new hires and claimed it was unrealistic to revise existing employees’ salaries each time a new position was posted. This explanation only intensified the employee’s frustration, as he pointed out the irony of someone with no familiarity with the company’s systems being valued far more than him, despite his experience and the fact that he had personally trained recent hires for the same role.
For months, the company had maintained that salary increases were not feasible due to financial constraints. While the employee had some savings set aside as a safety net, he admitted he never anticipated such a glaring disparity. Feeling disillusioned and undervalued, he decided he had reached his breaking point. He updated his resume and began applying to rival companies in the region, concluding that if his employer could afford to offer a new recruit over $60,000, they would need to manage without him.
The post sparked strong reactions from other Reddit users. One commenter shared a similar experience, recalling how their workplace denied raises for years before quietly hiring a new employee at a much higher salary. Only after they resigned did management suddenly find the funds to offer a substantial raise, reinforcing the belief that leaving was the smartest option. Another user suggested the advertised salary might be exaggerated to attract candidates but agreed that the situation reflected deep-rooted unfairness in how employees are valued.
The worker revealed that he has been employed as a logistics coordinator at a mid-sized distribution firm in Ohio for nearly three years. He initially joined the organisation with an annual salary of $42,000 and, after persistently requesting a raise, saw his pay increase to $45,000 the previous year. At the time, management justified the modest adjustment by citing financial limitations and insisting there was no flexibility in the budget.
The situation took an unexpected turn when he was helping a friend browse job listings on Indeed. Out of curiosity, he searched for openings at his own workplace and was shocked by what he found. The company had posted a vacancy for the same position he currently holds, with identical duties and expectations, but with a listed salary range between $60,000 and $63,000. According to him, the job description mirrored his daily responsibilities exactly, leaving no doubt that it was his role being advertised.
Disturbed by the revelation, he approached his manager the following morning, making an effort to remain composed. Instead of receiving clarity or reassurance, he was met with defensiveness. His manager reportedly explained that the higher figure reflected the going market rate for new hires and claimed it was unrealistic to revise existing employees’ salaries each time a new position was posted. This explanation only intensified the employee’s frustration, as he pointed out the irony of someone with no familiarity with the company’s systems being valued far more than him, despite his experience and the fact that he had personally trained recent hires for the same role.
For months, the company had maintained that salary increases were not feasible due to financial constraints. While the employee had some savings set aside as a safety net, he admitted he never anticipated such a glaring disparity. Feeling disillusioned and undervalued, he decided he had reached his breaking point. He updated his resume and began applying to rival companies in the region, concluding that if his employer could afford to offer a new recruit over $60,000, they would need to manage without him.
The post sparked strong reactions from other Reddit users. One commenter shared a similar experience, recalling how their workplace denied raises for years before quietly hiring a new employee at a much higher salary. Only after they resigned did management suddenly find the funds to offer a substantial raise, reinforcing the belief that leaving was the smartest option. Another user suggested the advertised salary might be exaggerated to attract candidates but agreed that the situation reflected deep-rooted unfairness in how employees are valued.
