Would you take this "promotion"?

[Tim86]

The scenario is that at my work there is a new job advertised for a relief supervisor position.

I would have to change my roster for this position which would actually mean a decrease in pay even with the increased rate I would get on those 30 something times per year that I'll be acting in a supervisory role. This decrease is due to a less favourable roster in terms of penalty rates (i.e. no sundays). In fact to make up for the drop in pay I would have to pick up an extra shift and work 6 hours extra per fortnight.

So would you take on more responsibilities, work 6 more hours, work a shift with more late night finishes (midnight instead of 6pm), all for the same money to become a relief supervisor?

I'm currently on 70K per year or thereabouts. The new position pays the same if I pick up an extra shift. The one reason to take the position is that it then qualifies me to one day apply for a full supervisory position. That pays around 92k - 115k per year. That might take anywhere from 3 - 10 years to become a full supervisor...


The alternative is that I just accept my 70k per year salary and focus on making money in other ways. I can start up my own business on the side and get some good income that way potentially. Or I can just focus on property to make the bigger $$$ and forget about trying to get ahead in my day to day job as the pay off for the effort and potential of a very long wait for the pay off may not be worth it...

So what do you think? Should I bother?

 

[EN710]

I was in a similar position where I can move to a more senior role, with slightly higher package but more hours. Despite wanting to take it as it opens up future senior positions (with better pays of course), I rejected the role as, the current work is not bad - hours, people and workload are good. I didn't want that additional hours as it actually means I get pay less per hour and less time to spend with significant other.

But its different for everyone. How will the changes affect your daily life and time spent on things that you consider important? Can you accept those trade offs?

 

[wylie]

Sounds like a dud deal to me. Work harder and longer in the hope you "might" get a better position in 3 - 10 years.

 

[D.T.]

You seem like you're willing to do additional hours/days in that new position... is there any scope to do that in your current position to earn extra money?

If not, I'd probably take the spot. It'll give you an idea of whether you like that role or not so that you don't waste your time going for it later on. If you do like it, then that'll give you more motivation to work for it and / or the skills to obtain that same role either there or somewhere else.

This then equals extra income which equals extra serviceability which equals extra houses which equals extra life

 

[CHAOS]

hubby has been in similar position with managerial roles offered. he has never taken them because they are a pay cut, a change from wage to salary - which means lots of extra hours and no overtime pay - and managers come under a different agreement. The general saying is take one of those and you are one step closer to the door.
Instead he keeps his wage, can pick up 12hr overtime shifts at double pay if he chooses.

Do you desire to be a supervisor? Or only interested for the extra $ down the track?

 

[moyjos]

Nope don't do it...lnstead.......Pretend you did and put that "drop in wages" into a high interest account for your next IP purchase. I bet you get another IP before the person that takes that job gets back to your current salary.

It is all about working smarter ..not working harder

 

[weg]

So would you take on more responsibilities, work 6 more hours, work a shift with more late night finishes (midnight instead of 6pm), all for the same money to become a relief supervisor?

I'm currently on 70K per year or thereabouts.






That pays around 92k - 115k per year. That might take anywhere from 3 - 10 years to become a full supervisor...



So that's a bit extra you need to put in, for no drop in pay (by working the extra 6 hours), to get the experience that leads to an extra 22K to 45K a year down the track.

OK, I'll go against the grain here and say, do it. Are those conditions that bad? People often go to greater lengths (in time, effort, and money) to get that opportunity.


The alternative is that I just accept my 70k per year salary and focus on making money in other ways.

You can be a full supervisor and still make money in other ways.

In my job relieving up is a significant drop in pay and a full promotion often means the same pay, and for a time a drop in pay before it rises to the same rate with years of experience, and people still jump at the opportunity.

Not that I understand that.

 

[geoffw]

It might also depend on whether a supervisory role might lead you in terms of a career move in another company. It may look better on a resume and open opportunities.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Where's your career going? Is it important to you? What else are you doing to advance your career?

At some point you will decide your career has gone far enough. Mine certainly has.

Also, there's a saying in some professions: sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards.

 

[D_One]

I would say do it. A bit of sacrifice now for future reward. Isn't that what investing is about too. Capital growth is not guaranteed, but yet, we sacrifice a bit of our lifestyle now in hope that in the future, our asset base has grown.

You may also be able to negotiate with your employer that you wouldn't be worse off by the 'promotion'.

 

[fernfurn]

Being a women, it is probably different, but I always found I had to apply for a new job to get a promotion in position and pay, so I wouldnt take it, just move on to a better position when you are ready.

 

[skater]

I'm another one that says don't take it. You work less favourable hours, earn less income, all in the 'hope' that someday you'll get a break and get a proper promotion.

In reality, that may, or may not ever happen. I'd only be willing to take it if I was looking for a supervisory position with another company, so that I could put it on the resume.

 

[keithj]

Is your end goal to progress up the career ladder, or to generate independent income ? The promise of a career is over-rated IMO.

 

[marg4000]

Sometimes you have to take one step back to move two steps forwards.

You have to balance the relatively short-term loss of pay with career prospects. Once you have supervisory experience it will qualify you for more positions, and it is not necessary to wait for one to appear in the company you work for.
Marg

 

[Ace in the Hole]

No.

Earning more in less time should be the goal, this deal is backwards....
Opportunities will come along every day if you are open to them.
Don't fall for promises which may never eventuate.

 

[Nemo30]

I think it would matter what industry you work in. In some you can skip a few rungs of the ladder just by applying for higher level positions. If your industry was like that, I definitely wouldnt take the job.

On the other hand, if that is the only way of getting a higher paying position I would. Three years isn't long.

Much easier to build an income producing asset base on a higher income.

 

[wylie]

On the other hand, if that is the only way of getting a higher paying position I would. Three years isn't long.

The original post says there "might" be a chance of promotion within 3 - 10 years.

That is a long time for a "possible" promotion.

Unless this was something I loved doing, and was passionate about, and there was a promise of some reward for the longer hours and less pay, I would be looking elsewhere, or sticking with what I was doing now and putting those extra hours into something else that either brings enjoyment (family, time at home) or can make money outside of the usual job.

Perhaps it is just the way the post was written, but it seems pretty one way to me, especially the long wait for "possible" promotion. What if that never comes?

I've always liked the idea of doing something you love and would do for free, but being paid for it. This sounds like dangling a carrot with no promise of ever getting that carrot.

 

[DaveM]

I'd only be willing to take it if I was looking for a supervisory position with another company, so that I could put it on the resume.

This. If you could do say 6-12 months then change companies into a full supervisory role on much higher rates then it may well be worth it.

Otherwise its a chump promotion

 

[Ed Barton]

I would have to change my roster for this position which would actually mean a decrease in pay even with the increased rate I would get on those 30 something times per year that I'll be acting in a supervisory role. This decrease is due to a less favourable roster in terms of penalty rates (i.e. no sundays). In fact to make up for the drop in pay I would have to pick up an extra shift and work 6 hours extra per fortnight.

More info/clarification required.

Is it a change in position to become 'relief supervisor' at that pay rate with lower penalties, or do you just get paid as a supervisor for the 30 odd times you have to 'act up' and get your normal conditions the rest of the time?

An extra 3 hours per week doesn't seem like a lot to get the experience/put on resume to be able to get the 'permanent supervisor' position. How transportable is the extra experience to get a supervisor position in another company?

So would you take on more responsibilities, work 6 more hours, work a shift with more late night finishes (midnight instead of 6pm), all for the same money to become a relief supervisor?

Depends how whether I was a morning or night person and how that fitted in with my life. Having Sundays off might, or might not compensate for having to work an extra 3 hours a week for the same money.

I'm currently on 70K per year or thereabouts. The new position pays the same if I pick up an extra shift. The one reason to take the position is that it then qualifies me to one day apply for a full supervisory position. That pays around 92k - 115k per year. That might take anywhere from 3 - 10 years to become a full supervisor...

How confident are you that you can get a permanent supervisor position, within or outside your current employer and within what time frame?

You're currently on around $35ph, and will sacrifice 3 hours (assuming you don't pick up that extra work to maintain the same salary). That's ~$5k pa. If it takes you 3 years to make permanent super then it's 'cost' you $15k to jump $22k to $45k extra pa. If it takes you ten years it 'cost' you ~$150k. Big difference!

Can you go back to your current position if you don't like the relief position?

The alternative is that I just accept my 70k per year salary and focus on making money in other ways. I can start up my own business on the side and get some good income that way potentially. Or I can just focus on property to make the bigger $$$ and forget about trying to get ahead in my day to day job as the pay off for the effort and potential of a very long wait for the pay off may not be worth it...

Could still focus on making money other ways if you took the relief super position?

So what do you think? Should I bother?

I'd take the cash rather than the car and come back the next night to face new contenders.

 

[Rolf Latham]

Distraction

Work out what your end game is and follow that?

Ta

Rolf