On 17 Jul 2002, Gregory Kane wrote: > Let's talk reality. I currently work for SAIC and want the folks reading > this list to just take one minute, well maybe two, to look at > www.saic.com. We currently have a multitude of positions. Now let's talk > some sense. As a former recruiter, outplacement counselor and an industry > jack of all trades I believe that I have a pretty good handle on what is > going on. First. The jobs are there, but all to often the client does not > want to move to the job. Well in a tight market, if an individual is > hanging on to a location, then employment is NOT his or her prime goal. Hmmmm. I'm left with the sudden belief that you must be in a household where there's one "career" oriented person (whether you happen to have a spouse or not, the implication is that their needs/desires/career should be subservient to yours), and where it's not a consideration to avoid moving regularly with children. > The I want it "all" idea is gone. An individual can be successful, but > attitude keeps many down. Secondly, I need to make mega bucks $$$$$$. Well > who doesn't. However, reaching for the top can be hazardous. Typically > positions have a salary range associated with them. Take for example a > range from 55k to 90k. Sounds to broad? Well it's not. So here I sit with > a fairly standard skill set that the employer is looking for. What salary > should I be looking at? About 75k - tops! Why? Well the 90k is the > absolute top. If you get that you become a couple of things. One is the > first target of a layoff. Which is better - 75k for 4 years or 90k for 2? That really depends on your capabilities and your goals. In my experience, very few companies keep top talent for extended periods of time. Retention seems to be based on providing challenge and opportunity more than salary, but salary is certainly part of the criteria. > Do the math. Additionally, with the 90k the employer has no headroom to > work with the employee. Raises, schooling, seminars, etc. The employer is > far less inclined to give any of these. At 75k there is room for the > employee to grow both financially and with education paid by the company. > You suddenly become an employee that the company sees as wanting to grow > with the company, not bleed it dry. Frankly I'm doing the math. Part of what I've been seeing is definately a reaction to inflated salaries during the tech boom - but some of it is also a desire on the part of the employeer to get as much as possible, for as little as possible (nothing new there *grin*). If I've worked for years, educated myself, mentored others, and become one of the better people in my field, why should I deliberately undervalue myself? There's a difference between "wanting it all", and wanting to be valued appropriately for what you're capable of doing. cheers! ========================================================================== "A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 17 2002 - 10:54:17 PDT