High Salary Vs. Learning Opportunity?

Scráib

I'm wondering could I bounce this idea off people in the forum, I'm having trouble making my mind up!

I've been offered one job, and I've an interview this week for a job that I think I stand a strong chance of getting. The problem is should I be in the enviable position of being offered two jobs I'm not sure which one to pick.

• The first job is offering a great salary and it's in a multinational. It's a good job to get, and it's in the career direction I want to go. But it's similar to the role I'd be leaving, so I'm not really advancing or upping my responsibility. That said there's undoubtedly chances to advance over time in there once I prove myself.
• The second job has a much lower salary (30% less in fact) but it's also in the direction I want to go. They're offering a learning scheme with the ultimate aim being to advance to a project manager role. But the salary thing is niggling at me. If I have more responsibility surely I should be compensated for it?

Anyway that's my quandry. To be fair I've only been offered one job so far, so this could all be academic if I don't get offered the second job. I was unhappy in my previous job because my career was going nowhere and I was underpaid. So I think I'll be able to address one of these problems, but which one!?

qwytre

What age are you and how many years experience?
What salaries are on offer and for why type or roles?

Maybe you can negotiate the salary on the job you want. Is it paying market rates?

Scráib

I don't want to give a lot away here so I'll be as vague as I can:

I'm mid twenties with 3 years experience. Both roles are IT, customer-facing roles. The first role is offering 40k+ salary while the other is offering 30k+. The latter seems to have a clearer career progression with it, which makes it tempting.

As for market rates I believe the former is offering above the average. The latter is the salary offered because of the training required to get up to speed on the job. Apparently there's a renegotiation 6 months to a year down the line though. Will it bump to the level of the first job? I don't know. Am I being greedy thinking it will? Maybe!

Nody

Assuming the second one is not in a big multinational I'd go with the first for three reasons.

1) More pay is more pay - you have it and you're not in any way sure you'll get it in the second and as you advance the pay will continue up, not down. You're not likely to get a 30% pay raise in the second company honestly

2) International projects and experience - multinational tend to have a ton of projects going at any given time and if you show skill, and aptitude for it you're likely to get in on several projects before leading one

3) Training sure, but what about names - You may be on a training program or what ever in the second one but at the end of the day company name, project size and experience matters more then being PL for a small unknown company esp. if you want to move internationally and with 3 years experience I'd take big company name on the CV over small company name on the CV

Scráib

Nody wrote: »

Assuming the second one is not in a big multinational I'd go with the first for three reasons.

1) More pay is more pay - you have it and you're not in any way sure you'll get it in the second and as you advance the pay will continue up, not down. You're not likely to get a 30% pay raise in the second company honestly

2) International projects and experience - multinational tend to have a ton of projects going at any given time and if you show skill, and aptitude for it you're likely to get in on several projects before leading one

3) Training sure, but what about names - You may be on a training program or what ever in the second one but at the end of the day company name, project size and experience matters more then being PL for a small unknown company esp. if you want to move internationally and with 3 years experience I'd take big company name on the CV over small company name on the CV

That makes a lot of sense, thanks!

helimachoptor

Agree with Nody there OP, go with option 1

Tom Dunne

Personally, I would go for the multinational.

To this day, I am still appreciating the massive range of experience I got in the one I worked for some years back.

krd

Go for the higher money.

Companies will promise you all kinds of things, all kinds of opportunities, in the interview. If they're going to pay you 30k you'll get treated like all you're worth is 30k - if they pay you 40k, you'll get treated better.



Experience is what you get when you don't get paid.

tenchi-fan

Go for the high salary & make sure you're careful with that extra money.
Down the line, that extra €10k a year could be used for further training if you really wanted it.
But the low salary will probably stay low for the next few years.

Smoggy

Money money money.

Companies promise all sorts of sh1t and never deliver,but they can't welch on the pay.
Also the opportunity for promotion is often being in the right place at the right time.

tenchi-fan

Smoggy wrote: »

Money money money.

Companies promise all sorts of sh1t and never deliver,but they can't welch on the pay.

That's actually true. A job that promises lots of training sounds like a trainee position! You'll end of having to leave it just to advance, and the company will use the economic climate to renege on training, promotions and payrises.

Bandana boy

If I knew the training and potential advances were true and not just a line I would be tempted by Job 2 .but my experience is with multinationals if you have the talent and put in the effort you will get them from job 1
And it is very hard to make up the difference between 30-40 with internal promotions.
Job 1 all the way

Smoggy

A good internal pay rise would be 20% getting you from 30k to 36k, more responsibility, more time behind the desk, still less pay that the previous job, but at least they trained you well