Applying for a lower paid job

[page3]

I’m currently going through redundancy. I’ve been with the current employer 10 years so the payout is reasonable.

I have seen a particularly interesting job advertised. It has crossover to what I’ve been doing but would take it in a new direction. It’s possibly quite prestigious and certainly an important role.

However the salary is considerably lower, and that’s coming from industry which I was always led to believe was lower paid.

It’s classed as public sector, so I’m sure the perks are good, although it has formal pay scales which I believe are pretty rigid.

Clearly I have a long way to go before getting anywhere near being offered the role.

Would it be wise to go for it? Would I forever be limiting my salary and prospects due to a glass ceiling?

Has anyone here made such move?

[xjay1337]

Depends on the role and future earning potential.

I went from £45k to £35k for a "change in role" (also due to redundancy) - it was a different type of solution , and it was very difficult financially , while it could have been a good challenge it would have been 2 or 3 years before I'd have even been back up to my old pay, money isn't everything but it soon becomes everything you worry about at night when you can't make ends meet.

The other solution I tried also didn't actually end up being of much interest to me (not fun) so a boring job and low pay was a way to mentally screw myself over for many months.

I changed roles again, for a higher paid position, doing what I previously did and I'm much happier now (Been here for over 3 years).


You need to do what you feel is right for you though , if you can comfortably afford the paycut and the long term job prospects are good then go for it!

If you're "on the breadline" so to speak then I'd say you'd probably be better off looking for a higher paid position to begin with.

[A500leroy]

We are getting to the stage where ANY job is worth going for, come next year i think many millions will be signing on, if you have a chance of getting it, go for it.

[Countdown]

page3 said:

I’m currently going through redundancy. I’ve been with the current employer 10 years so the payout is reasonable.

I have seen a particularly interesting job advertised. It has crossover to what I’ve been doing but would take it in a new direction. It’s possibly quite prestigious and certainly an important role.

However the salary is considerably lower, and that’s coming from industry which I was always led to believe was lower paid.

It’s classed as public sector, so I’m sure the perks are good, although it has formal pay scales which I believe are pretty rigid.

Clearly I have a long way to go before getting anywhere near being offered the role.

Would it be wise to go for it? Would I forever be limiting my salary and prospects due to a glass ceiling?

Has anyone here made such move?

I made the move the other way (Public to Private) a long time ago, so my experiences might be somewhat out of date.

- Pay wasn't great
- Job satisfaction was far better
- You get to work with a lot of people who do their job not because its well-paid but because they "care". For me that was Teachers/Nurses/Policemen/ and Housing staff
- There isn't a glass ceiling (although in certain departments promotion is limited due to people above you not moving)
- You can usually move sideways and up if "up" is not an option
- Job security is relatively good.

In short - if the job attracts you, go for it. Your salary isn't permanently set in stone and you could always leave.

[page3]

Interesting experiences, thanks.

I’m used to (small-medium) industry, if you want a rise you knock on your manager’s door and have a chat.

This has pay grades, and levels within the grade. The top three levels are discretionary. If I went in at one of the discretionary levels (and I’d have to otherwise the pay cut would just be ridiculous) I don’t see where the pay progression would be other than the standard annual rise.

It’s difficult to ask, because I’d assume it’d be seen as quite a negative attitude. Better to see if I have any chance of the role first, although the preparation is quite significant.

Despite all this I’m quite keen on going for it.

[Bluesgirl]

I wouldn't worry about asking the question tbh, it'll almost certainly come up if & when you get to the interview stage. At that point, you'll have a clearer idea about how good a fit you are for the job and will hopefully be able to talk it up.

[Jasandjules]

Given the current state of the job market I would say that any job is better than no job soooo a reduction is salary is perfectly understandable.

[xx99xx]

Public sector = rigid pay scales and rises (if any). But it can also be more secure and flexible. It also means pay is 'fairer' as you'll know that people doing a similar job to you will be on a similar salary (although this can vary between local authorities). Most offer performance related pay which is often either a small % increase in salary (1-2%) or a non consolidated (small) lump sum each year. That's on top of the (usually) below inflation rise in base salary bands.

The non financial benefits of public sector are quite valuable though so it might just depend on your priorities. Also bear in mind a lot of public sector organisations are under pressure to cut headcount so once you're in, you can access internal only opportunities.

Edited by xx99xx on Sunday 13th September 19:41

[page3]

It’s quite possibly a 20% pay cut, however that doesn’t account for pension, holidays etc which are generous.

The job really appeals and I think I have something to offer (coming from industry). I’m going for it and we’ll see if it was meant to be.

[Countdown]

page3 said:

This has pay grades, and levels within the grade. The top three levels are discretionary. If I went in at one of the discretionary levels (and I’d have to otherwise the pay cut would just be ridiculous) I don’t see where the pay progression would be other than the standard annual rise.

It’s difficult to ask, because I’d assume it’d be seen as quite a negative attitude. Better to see if I have any chance of the role first, although the preparation is quite significant.

Despite all this I’m quite keen on going for it.

Most Public Sector organisations will employ you at the bottom of the scale unless you have "significant relevant experience" which means that you can demonstrate youve been working above the level they expect. Even if they do say it's a hard and fast rule they do have some flexibility. It basically depends on how much they want you over and above the other applicants. the best thing to do is knock their socks off at the interview and only mention the pay when they make the offer.

In terms of pay increases - it used to be the case that Public Sector got the annual pay increase plus an incremental increase which moved you up the pay band. Not sure if the latter still happens as the Tories wanted to get rid of increments.

[GT03ROB]

page3 said:

I’m currently going through redundancy.

I have seen a particularly interesting job advertised.

However the salary is considerably lower

You are looking at it the wrong way.... the salary is actually considerably higher than being unemployed which is virtually where you are now.

Get a flow of money coming in that has some security then you can worry about the money being higher.

[page3]

GT03ROB said:

You are looking at it the wrong way.... the salary is actually considerably higher than being unemployed which is virtually where you are now.

Get a flow of money coming in that has some security then you can worry about the money being higher.

I appreciate what you're saying, however I don't want to panic rush in to something as I I'm the sort of person who needs to fully commit to where I work, not just see it as a stop-gap. I have enough redundancy funds and savings to tide me over until the middle of next year if necessary. Not ideal, but at least it gives me a bit of flexibility.

btw, I've been looking for less than a week and have already had one interview, with two more lined up. Agencies do appear to be calling.

[wiggy001]

page3 said:

GT03ROB said:

You are looking at it the wrong way.... the salary is actually considerably higher than being unemployed which is virtually where you are now.

Get a flow of money coming in that has some security then you can worry about the money being higher.

I appreciate what you're saying, however I don't want to panic rush in to something as I I'm the sort of person who needs to fully commit to where I work, not just see it as a stop-gap. I have enough redundancy funds and savings to tide me over until the middle of next year if necessary. Not ideal, but at least it gives me a bit of flexibility.

btw, I've been looking for less than a week and have already had one interview, with two more lined up. Agencies do appear to be calling.

If you're willing to burn through your savings and redundancy then it would make more sense to me to take a lower paid job you are interested in and burn through the money at a much lower rate.

You are still allowed to look for and apply for other jobs whilst employed.

[page3]

wiggy001 said:

If you're willing to burn through your savings and redundancy then it would make more sense to me to take a lower paid job you are interested in and burn through the money at a much lower rate.

You are still allowed to look for and apply for other jobs whilst employed.

True, but it’s more difficult to focus on job hunting when I’m trying to do a good job in a new role.

Anyway, getting this job won’t be easy and I’m spending quite a few days tailoring my cv and writing the application. Still worth going for as ultimately it does sound interesting and I think I could do a good job.

[xjay1337]

page3 said:

It’s quite possibly a 20% pay cut, however that doesn’t account for pension, holidays etc which are generous.

The job really appeals and I think I have something to offer (coming from industry). I’m going for it and we’ll see if it was meant to be.

Can you afford to live on the 20% pay cut though? That's the question.

[GT03ROB]

page3 said:

GT03ROB said:

You are looking at it the wrong way.... the salary is actually considerably higher than being unemployed which is virtually where you are now.

Get a flow of money coming in that has some security then you can worry about the money being higher.

I appreciate what you're saying, however I don't want to panic rush in to something as I I'm the sort of person who needs to fully commit to where I work, not just see it as a stop-gap. I have enough redundancy funds and savings to tide me over until the middle of next year if necessary. Not ideal, but at least it gives me a bit of flexibility.

btw, I've been looking for less than a week and have already had one interview, with two more lined up. Agencies do appear to be calling.

good to hear!

[smiles1]

xx99xx said:

The non financial benefits of public sector are quite valuable though so it might just depend on your priorities.

Edited by xx99xx on Sunday 13th September 19:41

Other than job security, what are the other non financial benefits?

[xx99xx]

smiles1 said:

Other than job security, what are the other non financial benefits?

- flexitime (start/finish when you like)
- Flexi leave (additional days off from working extra hours)
- banked leave (save more than the standard carry over from one year to the next to use a few years later)
- decent basic annual leave (30 days in most cases)
- good employer pension contribution
- flexible working location (ok, everyone has that now)
- good sickness benefit (6 months full pay then 6 months half)
- good maternity benefit (6 months full)
- no pressure to take HSW risks
- just working contracted hours is fine
- discounts at loads of national retailers
- commitment to learning and development (in house training, external training or sponsoring further education)
- reimbursement of professional membership fees
- access to lots of 'internal only' civil service secondments

Have I missed anything?!

[vaud]

xx99xx said:

- flexitime (start/finish when you like)
- Flexi leave (additional days off from working extra hours)
- banked leave (save more than the standard carry over from one year to the next to use a few years later)
- decent basic annual leave (30 days in most cases)
- good employer pension contribution
- flexible working location (ok, everyone has that now)
- good sickness benefit (6 months full pay then 6 months half)
- good maternity benefit (6 months full)
- no pressure to take HSW risks
- just working contracted hours is fine
- discounts at loads of national retailers
- commitment to learning and development (in house training, external training or sponsoring further education)
- reimbursement of professional membership fees
- access to lots of 'internal only' civil service secondments

Have I missed anything?!

Aside from that, was has a public sector contract ever done for us?

• you missed "nearly un-fireable"

[xx99xx]

vaud said:

• you missed "nearly un-fireable"

Not these days. Same probation period as most places. Also social media naivety/misuse has seen quite a few people off that I'm aware of. Some had 20+ years service. But yes, public sector is generally more tolerant of mistakes and unmeasurable performance.