If that’s the case, the company can offer to pay for the first few weeks of housing.
The transition to A sounds like it would be easier and that he could expand his skill set. And if it doesn’t work out, he can always say truthfully that he wanted to learn something new, did, and found that he is more interested in doing xyz.
B sounds like it has a lot of risk involved. It could be worth it if the alternative was not working at all, but that’s not his situation.
As laid out, add my vote to A!
I say “A” all the way! It is Wednesday so what did he choose?
Well…it’s really Thursday…so he must have made his decision by now…and if he is moving…he should,be packed up and gone!
What did he decide!
“When asked about a face-to-face prior to starting he was told “We went to the same program at the same university. I know who you are. We don’t need to meet.””
^^^ That would be a bit creepy and raise some red flag. Why would the person not want to reveal him/herself if the person has some interaction/classmate/associate with OP’s son before? Probably be more of a foe than a friend in past relation. Sounds like a beginning of a suspense movie where a no good organization is looking for a down guy to take a fall for the organization’s crime to me.
As presented, Option A is the clear winner, but it’s possible that the OP is inserting their bias into the story.
To go through the cost and hassle of relocation, company B had better be the dream job, unless he was having a tough time getting employment. If job A doesn’t work out, at least he hasn’t gone through the gyration of moving for it.
Any update, OP? Company B sounds mysterious and unreasonable—not a good way to have a relationship of mutual respect.
I agree with all of you – that B stands for Bizarre! I thank everyone for agreeing with us that B was just not the right offer to accept.
He just accepted Job A – and they bumped the base a bit (7% actually). Since we are having a family trip to City B this weekend, my S offered to fly in a day early and meet face-to-face. The manager said it wasn’t necessary. And no, my son has never been to the company office. The HQ is in Europe and he’s spoken on the phone to people in the HQ including the CEO. They (collectively) are disgruntled because they feel he said he was open to relocation. Of course he’s open to relocation. All it costs is money … and your typical 20something hasn’t got a lot of extra cash to burn on the relo.
Without being totally transparent – the program that my son and the manager both graduated from is part of a well known, well thought of university with a terrific alumni network that produces a well educated high drive person in this specific industry. If I named it, you would all know it. In fact, one of his new co-workers at Company A is from the same program and expressed how great it was going to be to have another person from that program. (And 30% of the company’s employees also come from that program, so his degree and education is clearly valued.)
I agree that there are some red flags with Option B, especially with regards to no relocation assistance. I can actually think of a few situations that might justify the immediate start date. For example, there’s an immediate need to replace someone who has unexpectedly left the company or is leaving in days (death, retirement, family leave, etc.) The only thing I can think of that might “justify” the lack of relocation assistance is if this is a super highly sought after job/company and there’s a list of people who will take the job the minute OP’s child turns it down. One of my siblings took a job that had multiple qualified applicants. The job came with a very low relocation stipdend that didn’t come even close to covering the costs of moving. However, the job comes with an additional expense reimbursement after 12 months of staying in the position. (People use this job to gain experience and quickly move on to something bigger/better/different.)
I"m late to this thread, but your son is definitely making the right decision.
What I find most strange is that when your son said he wanted to meet the manager, the manager said no, but only from his perspective: Manager didn’t think he needed to meet son. Well, son shouldn’t take any position where the manager won’t meet with him. Son needs information which he will only get by meeting the person he’d be working for. That alone tells you all you need to know.
If it’s the type of job/company that hires grads from such a prestigious, well-known program, I’m even more surprised that it’s not the kind of job/company that would help with relocation costs.
They are disgruntled because they want him to drop everything and turn on a dime to be there to start next week, with no help from them? Boy did he make the right choice to tell them thanks, but no thanks!
Or want to have the manager meet the new possible hire…
Do they teach this???
It’s crazy NOT to meet the person who will be managing you before you accept a position. I am glad he didn’t take B—too weird and unreasonable.
When he wanted to move to his current city 2 years ago, he did take a job where he had not met, in person, anyone he’d be working with. It didn’t work out. That company had absolutely no investment in him – and Company B would have no investment in him either.
Related question: All of these companies that go through rounds and rounds of phone interviews – even when the applicant is in the same city twenty minutes away – what is going on? Are they really saving so much time/money by limiting interaction to a 30 minute phone call? It seems strange to me.
@doschicos It’s a startup. So the creds these guys (and gals) bring to the table are desirable, but it’s not a fully established firm. City B’s operation is a startup. They actually said they had to bring someone down from CityA (which isn’t fully totally up and running yet) to pinch hit while they hired for CityB – but S did not even interview at the Company B office in City A. So strange …
By keeping the hiring expenses to a bare minimum they keep replacement expenses to a minimum as well.
Mr. B had a boss who kept saying that people are commodity; if one does not work out, there is always another to fill the job after firing the first one. This sounds like one of those silicon-headed bosses.
It is strange not to meet someone in person or at least over video. My brother asked me to meet his candidate in person in NYC before he made an offer. My brother said, “Take him out to eat and make sure he acts like a human.” 
The usual process is to do few initial phone/video interviews then invite them in for a whole day interview. I don’t think I have hired anyone I haven’t met in person.
I know I have never hired anyone nor been hired by anyone I’ve never met in person. I like to get some sense of the person and whether I think we could get along well enough to work together. Meeting in person helps me figure that out.