Need some career advice...

[aliciagirl]

I'm looking into different employment opportunities when I graduate in May, and I've come across a dilemma. Most companies are either massively short-staffed right now or they only have a few spots open. What this basically means for me is:

- Get a HUGE sign-on bonus + extra vacation to sign on for a company that really needs pharmacists
OR
- Miss out on the extra incentives (but still have a great salary, don't get me wrong) to work in a pharmacy that isn't short staffed.

In the end, I think I'd rather not have all the extras and get more weekends and holidays off and not be generally overworked. But then when I think about it, the sign on bonus is basically like paying me "over time" for all the extra work I will end up doing over the course of the year and I could really use that extra money to pay off student loans, etc.

I feel like with the company that is already well-staffed, they actually want me. They think I am a good match for them and they are trying to find a position for me. Whereas the other companies just want -someone- because they are 30-40 pharmacists short in the area and are having a hard time recruiting people.

If you were in this position, what would you choose? Any words of advice?

 

[Loves Vintage]

I don''t really have advice yet, but I do have a few questions first.

Are the commutes the same for each?

Why is the short-staffed company so short-staffed?

What makes you think the other company wants you and wants to find a position for you?

I think I would tend to prefer the sign-on bonus company because: (a) you are young and can handle the extra hours now, so you might as well; (b) I think I''d find it more fulfilling because I think I''d feel like I was contributing more, right away; and (c) I might feel better choosing to work for the company that is more in need of my services (but, that also might depend on why they are so short-staffed.)

In any event, early congratulations on graduating!

 

[Dreamgirl]

Gosh, tough choice. Do they both pay the same in the long run? Id go with the job that pays the most (but that's just me) or at least the one that I would feel most comfortable working in. I guess it depends on the companies, their environments, other employees working at those places, job locations as well. I think that would be the things I would ultimately base my decision on.

I see what you are saying though about the company that already has so many employees working for them and they still want you. What is your gut feeling on it?

 

[aliciagirl]

Loves Vintage - I''m not sure about commutes. This is just general company A over company B. Each of those have pharmacies on every corner on every street, so I''m not sure what store I would actually be working in.

I''m also not sure why they are so short staffed. Part of it, I think, is Cleveland. It''s not necessarily a "go to" city for most graduates. Of course every company says it''s because of "growth" but honestly, I''m not sure.

The other company told me flat out during the first interview that they don''t have many positions open in the area but that they always can make room for a good pharmacist. She is giving me an offer tomorrow. She was really impressed with me after my interview and set up a second one that day.

The other company offered me a position as an intern without even interviewing me. I basically said, "I''m looking for Cleveland, do you have any intern openings there." And he asked if I was staying in Cleveland, and I replied yes. And he said that they need around 30-40 pharmacists this year in Cleveland and could find me a position as an intern now and then as a pharmacist when I graduate. Which is fantastic. Except he didn''t know me or anything about me.

Dreamgirl - It is tough. I just don''t know. It''s like, is $40,000 worth signing over the next 4-5 years of my life to be overworked and understaffed? I don''t know. I''m not sure that it is. The base salary for both will likely be very similar. I''m leaning more towards the no frills company, but I''m just not sure.

 

[Dreamgirl]

Date: 9/16/2008 3:22:30 PM
Author: aliciagirl
Dreamgirl - It is tough. I just don't know. It's like, is $40,000 worth signing over the next 4-5 years of my life to be overworked and understaffed? I don't know. I'm not sure that it is. The base salary for both will likely be very similar. I'm leaning more towards the no frills company, but I'm just not sure.

I think you just answered yourself here.

If the pay is likely the same or close to the same and you dont want to be overworked and understaffed, Id go with the other job hands down. Its obvious already that you would be more comfortable in their setting vs. the overworked job as well as the woman setting up the second interview that very day! And you already feel good that they are so interested in you with so many employees to begin with. Sounds like in the long run, you wont be stressed out (or at least not as much) if you chose this job over the other.

I just really think that looking at the companies and how they operate in a whole is a HUGE help in deciding and it seems like you already know your choice. Good luck to you!

 

[elrohwen]

It sounds to me like you just aren''t into working weekends and overtime for a few years, and that''s ok! I''m the same way. However, I have friends who were perfectly happy to graduate and get jobs that worked them 60-80 hours per week because they got big bonuses every year. I, on the other hand, took a 40 hour a week job that is turning into much more (what with traveling every week, often not getting home until 10pm on Friday, etc) and I hate it. My schedule has ramped up a lot since January and all I can think about is how stressed out/overworked I am and how little I''m compensated for it. I''m just not the type who can give that much of myself to a job, no matter what the money and it sounds like you''re feeling the same.

So if you''re like me and you know you won''t be comfortable with working that many hours, I''d sign on to the place that''s well staffed. It''s not fun to be burnt out after only a few years and desperately searching for a new job. Trust me, I''m there

Also, why is the one company so understaffed? Maybe it says something about the way they run their business? It can be frustrating to work for a company that doesn''t seem to be trying very hard to make your work-life better. And maybe they''re understaffed because they have a high turnover rate.

 

[Sabine]

I would work at the company that is not short staffed.

I worked as a cashier at a pharmacy when in college, and trust me, when the pharmacy dept. was short staffed, the pharmacists were miserable.

I also have a friend who just graduated last May and took a job and he was dealing with the same dilemma. He had done rotations at some short staffed places, and also said it was pretty miserable (even just dealing with the customers who are annoyed that they have to wait, etc.)

 

[dreamer_dachsie]

My initial thought was that if it would only be for a year or even two, I could suck it up for the extra money. You are young, and working hard for extra rewards at that time in your life could be a worth it, KWIM? But you mentioned it required signing a 4-5 year contract, which I assume if you broke would mean paying back some/all of the bonus? In that case, I''d take the lighter workload at the company that isn''t understaffed. One reason for being understaffed can be treating your employees poorly. Who wants that?

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I''m assuming you''re talking about retail, not clinical or institutional? I worked as a CPhT for 5+ years for 2 different companies. I strongly advise you to look into the company culture when reviewing these offers. One thing to remember as well is most pharmacies are short staffed. That''s one of the reasons why new graduates make bank right out of school. However, any company worth its weight has a deep substitute pool that they use to cover these shortages. These pharmDs are per diem, so they make a lot doing the sub gig.

By far, out of the two companies I worked for, Target was the best. They treated their PharmDs really well and we techs we''re treated too badly either.

 

[aliciagirl]

Date: 9/16/2008 5:07:18 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
I''m assuming you''re talking about retail, not clinical or institutional? I worked as a CPhT for 5+ years for 2 different companies. I strongly advise you to look into the company culture when reviewing these offers. One thing to remember as well is most pharmacies are short staffed. That''s one of the reasons why new graduates make bank right out of school. However, any company worth its weight has a deep substitute pool that they use to cover these shortages. These pharmDs are per diem, so they make a lot doing the sub gig.


By far, out of the two companies I worked for, Target was the best. They treated their PharmDs really well and we techs we''re treated too badly either.

Oh man, I would LOVE to work for Target. They interviewed us hard at our career fair and none of us have heard anything so they take their hiring very seriously.

Yeah, I''m definitely talking about retail. I have no desire to do a residency, so everything else is sort of out. A lot of pharmacies are short staffed, but when a company needs 40 pharmacists in one small area, it''s kind of a red flag that they are VERY short staffed. I''ve already ruled out several just because I feel that their company''s ideas of what is good and right don''t exactly line up with mine. It''s really hard to know a lot about the environment without getting in there and seeing the flow of work and the computer system and everything.... sigh, it''s tough.