Brazen's job dilemma

[Brazen]

I do enjoy my job writing about exciting new ways defence companies think up to kill people, and I'm just off on a rather nice trip to Paris to do more of the same. However, my company sucks. It has no respect for journalists, thinks the sales team are the only ones who make the company money, and we've had a pay freeze for four years. They let great, experienced writers go and think they're interchangeable with graduates. I'm seriously broke.

So after getting to second interview stage for several jobs, I've finally been offered one at a living wage. It's writing about chemical industry regulation, so a bit niche and hard-going. There will be several trips to Asia a year. It's based from home which, living in a country with no air-con and expensive utilities could be a strain. Plus I'll be obese from constant trips to the fridge and talking to myself within a few weeks.

My current company's made me a counter-offer with the equivalent money, considering what I'll be saving on travel, and more responsibility. Perhaps even influence to change what sucks. My line manager has gone all-out to secure me this, it's quite unprecedented and amounts to a 23% increase.

But a night out with colleagues on Friday brought to the surface the things I hate about this job, and ended with my friend in tears because the managing editor we report to (not my line manager) is an incompetent twonk who wouldn't know a good article if it bit him.

My current situation: offer letter from new job, contract to follow when I start. Nothing in writing form current job, but I only set the ball rolling on Thursday. Verbal go-ahead from me for both, nothing signed.

My question, to quote The Clash, should I stay or should I go?

I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago, and that time I stayed.

[Brezel]

Both alternatives sound good. Do what you feel is right for yourself. What does your intuition say?

[CountDeMoney]

Can the "chemical industry regulation" angle open up wider career possibilities down the line?  Into other industries, energy sectors, the environment, that sort of stuff?

The thing is:  what's the angle of the present employer?  Despite the counter-offer and the greater scope of responsibilities, are you going to be considered a mercenary?  Not that I believe in any of that loyalty bullshit anymore--fuck being loyal to an employer, that shit went out the window with pensions, and there's no such thing as being loyal to employees anymore.  But how are they going to treat you now?

I dunno, girl...working from home is a complete drag, despite the sorties to Asia.  And what you're doing now is pretty fucking cool.

Get something in writing from the incompetent wonks before you do anything.  A counter-offer in conversation is just bullshit.

[Josquius]

I say go, sounds like you really don't like your current job, more money wouldn't change that.
Plus its something else for the CV. Opens up a wider range of future opportunities. And trips to Asia...are we talking muslims, curry, sushi or kung fu here?

They let great, experienced writers go and think they're interchangeable with graduates. I'm seriously broke.

Sounds good to me. I wish companies in more industries would do that. Seems quite the opposite.

[Caliga]

You said in your second sentence that the company sucks.  If you stay, the company is still going to suck.  I say go.  Also, as I advised you earlier, I think it almost never makes sense to accept a counter-offer.  They'll always think of you as 'disloyal'.

[katmai]

HR hath spoken!

[Legbiter]

Take the second job, the company's not going to change, plus you get a bigger paycheck. You'll need to be proactive in not becoming a fat recluse but that can be managed.

[Grey Fox]

Move on.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm in agreement with Cal. Superficially the counteroffer from your current job sounds like the best option because you won't have to work out of your home and you'll continue to do work that you like. [It sounded like you were saying you enjoyed trips like the one to Paris over the prospect of traveling to Asia, but not sure if that was your intent and you're actually interested in traveling Asia.] However, I've always heard from everyone in existence you never take a counteroffer for exactly the reasons Cal illustrates. Mainly, if your current company really does value new graduates equivalent to experienced writers I don't see the company ever being a good place for you. They may have scrounged up money to pay you off right now, but in a few years the resentment and unhappiness will be back on your end or you'll find conditions at work have degraded for you.

So it's really the new journalism job to me or going back to IT. I'd advise against staying in journalism because if the UK is anything like the US I literally do not think anyone is going to be making a living off journalism in 10-15 years here aside from name writers from the most popular, national newspapers (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post etc.) Just back in the 90s every little podunk town of 50,000+ sported at least two newspapers that had entire staffs of journalists all making a moderate middle class $40,000-50,000/year and most of that is already gone here.

Warren Buffet has been buying up hundreds of these small-city daily newspapers because he views them as undervalued, the ones he buys up have been making him money. They typically redo their website, get a cheap paywall slapped on, and start generating revenue because local news is never going to be covered by big national papers so they do have a strong competitive position. Unfortunately those changes have increased revenue for the ownership of the newspaper, but I've seen no evidence it's resulted in things going back to what they were for the local journalists. Instead it seems most of them are a combination of very low paid part time employees/contractors/freelancers etc who write for 5-8 different publications and probably work a part time job outside the field as well to get by.

I guess for me you have to strike a balance between "doing what you love" and making a living that lets you "live like you want." I don't think it's any secret I don't enjoy working as a Federal bureaucrat but it's afforded me opportunities to do things I do like on a regular basis. I don't necessarily think everyone gets to make a living wage doing what they love. That being said, if you think you can make the journalism thing work for you in that regard it may be worth trying. I don't know.

I actually know someone who is a writer for National Geographic and she loves her job and from all I can see it's a great place to work. But it's run as a non-profit and receives millions a year in donations, so that definitely changes the business model I think.

[Tamas]

Take the new job, learn chemistry regulations, switch to a industry auditor job, profit.

[Brazen]

Thanks everyone, I think I'm pretty much certain I'm going to resign tomorrow. It gives them an extra week's notice which should more than make up for being out of the office most of this week ("Off to Paris, see ya. But not for much longer.")

Oh and re: counter offers and loyalty, I already stayed on at this place for three years longer than I would have because of a counter offer they made me before, and it's still the only pay rise I've had here.

OvB, thanks for taking the time for such a detailed analysis. I think B2B journalism has considerably more legs than local journalism, and the stuff I've got experience in has given me lots of transferable skills. I've had interviews in corporate comms and writing for technical professional bodies, for example.

[CountDeMoney]

So it's really the new journalism job to me or going back to IT. I'd advise against staying in journalism because if the UK is anything like the US I literally do not think anyone is going to be making a living off journalism in 10-15 years here aside from name writers from the most popular, national newspapers (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post etc.) Just back in the 90s every little podunk town of 50,000+ sported at least two newspapers that had entire staffs of journalists all making a moderate middle class $40,000-50,000/year and most of that is already gone here.

The Chicago Sun-Times on Thursday fired all 28 full-time photographers on staff, telling reporters they would be responsible for taking their own "in the field" pictures and sourcing photos from witnesses.

News of the move was reported by rival paper the Chicago Tribune, which noted that reporters would be receiving "mandatory training" for "iPhone photography basics" so they could capture their own photos and videos for stories.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Interestingly even the best newspapers are cutting corners. I pay like $22/mo for the Wall Street Journal digital, and I believe it is by far the most profitable newspaper in the U.S. (with >2m paid subscriptions and like .5m of those being digital) and I'd be shocked if they had any traditional copy editing going on at all. I'd say 80% of the articles I read in the WSJ, while well written, contain at least one just boneheaded grammar/typographical error. I understand shit happens, but I also thought professional newspapers had people that pored over articles to fine those little minor mistakes, because I know back in the 80s or early 90s even the local newspapers in whatever town I was in wouldn't have had as many typos as I see now in the American paper with the highest circulation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

OvB, thanks for taking the time for such a detailed analysis. I think B2B journalism has considerably more legs than local journalism, and the stuff I've got experience in has given me lots of transferable skills. I've had interviews in corporate comms and writing for technical professional bodies, for example.

Yeah, we have tons of subscriptions here to industry magazines that I have no idea how much the bureau pays for but there's never been talk of not having them--in fact I think most are probably free and the journals make their money off advertising. I'm not sure how often they're actually read though. I get issues of Government Executive dropped on my desk all the time and I only read maybe an article every month or so.

[CountDeMoney]

Interestingly even the best newspapers are cutting corners. I pay like $22/mo for the Wall Street Journal digital, and I believe it is by far the most profitable newspaper in the U.S. (with >2m paid subscriptions and like .5m of those being digital) and I'd be shocked if they had any traditional copy editing going on at all. I'd say 80% of the articles I read in the WSJ, while well written, contain at least one just boneheaded grammar/typographical error. I understand shit happens, but I also thought professional newspapers had people that pored over articles to fine those little minor mistakes, because I know back in the 80s or early 90s even the local newspapers in whatever town I was in wouldn't have had as many typos as I see now in the American paper with the highest circulation.

Hell, my eyes bleed when I read the Baltimore Sun online now--not just because it's the Baltimore Sun, but because the writers post their work directly to the website; there's simply no staff review anymore.
The days of editorial staff review--whether phoning the story in over the line in the traditional style, or forwarding the copy to editing via email--are pretty much over.

Personally, I feel the death of print journalism is going to have more far-reaching implications than simply being a dead-end industry; democratic discourse is going to suffer.  Some of you haters of the Lamestream Media may disagree, and even cheer the death of traditional journalism, but the death of the Fourth Estate is going to be a costly one for our society in the long run.