This or that position?

I have 2 positions I can choose from and seeing if other techies here can help me decide. They both offer roughly the same pay and benefits except mentioned below. I am coming from a SMB JOAT career which I do enjoy but looking for more stability in my career (tired of fixing then getting let go). I really like Linux but have no devops experience and not sure I want any. I also really like VMware but I can see it being phased out with cloud which I have some experience with but not that excited for it. Here are the positions:

Job 1:
Established (100 employees) private healthcare software company that was recently acquired by a fortune 200
Using old technology but want to move to newer tech, no direction decided, likely cloud
No devops but want to implement it
Although a substantial IT group this is basically a JOAT architecture role
Lots of fires to put out currently
40 minute morning commute, 60 minute evening commute
very little telecommuting

Job 2:
Established private company (500 employees) that works with governments
Current technology, they mainly need to fill a windows hole
Devops is implemented and have experienced staff
Seems like systems are running well
20 minute morning commute, 40 minute evening commute
can work from home 3 days a week with a potential of 5 days a week at times

The way I look at it is job 1 offers more of a challenge and the recent acquisition is interesting, job 2 is more of I know what I'm getting into and better work/life balance. As someone who is mid career coming from a startup that offered no challenges and who doesn't know if they want to deal with devops which position would you lean towards?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ashenwelt

Job 2 would be my choice in your shoes. WFH and established. Nice. Although I personally am leary of a company that was just aquired because staffing changes usually happen... And I don't want to be changed out of a job. Just my two cents worth.

E Double U

Since they pay is the same, I would choose job 2 simply for the working remotely because it is great for my husband/father role. I also like the shorter commute. I also like being in an environment where things run well so I can really plan improvements which I feel is difficult to do when running from one fire to the next. Job 2 also has an established DevOps so you could tell them you are interested in learning and offer to volunteer your services.

yoba222

Job 2. Even with zero working from home, that commute gives you back 160+ hours of your life not spent sitting in traffic each year.

SaltyHashes

Work/life balance takes the cake. Position #2, no contest.

E Double U

yoba222 wrote: »

Job 2. Even with zero working from home, that commute gives you back 160+ hours of your life not spent sitting in traffic each year.

Well, if the commute is via public transportation like mine then you can get a lot done in 160+ hours. That's how I've been able to knock out 6 certs in 2 years

EANx

Job 2, for reasons already mentioned, the commute and the fast that employer 1 has been acquired and the year for potential changes hasn't shaken out yet.

Danielm7

I'm on the job #2 bandwagon. I'd also like to point out that with job #1, having recently been acquired by a much larger company, there is a strong chance that job would go away once the parent corp gets around to putting their own IT group in charge of the business. Plus as already stated, shorter commute, 3+ days a week WFH and experience / future pointing tech, #2 all the way.

JoJoCal19

Job 2 would be the way I would go. WFH is the number one reason. Aside from the short commute when you have to go in, WFH saves even more time and also a ton of money in gas (in my example working remote is a $3000+ annual "pay raise" alone). The other main reason is as Ashenwelt pointed out, newly acquired companies usually end up with staff cuts, and it can take time, months, even a couple of years for cuts to shake out as redundancies are discovered, or systems/processes are transitioned.

scaredoftests

I would pick Job #2

NetworkingStudent

Go with #2. WFH option and you said the company is already established.

Number 1 could be a problem because you said no direction for the tech and a lot of fires to put out.

DatabaseHead

techfiend wrote: »

Job 1:
Established (100 employees) private healthcare software company that was recently acquired by a fortune 200
Using old technology but want to move to newer tech, no direction decided, likely cloud
No devops but want to implement it
Although a substantial IT group this is basically a JOAT architecture role
Lots of fires to put out currently
40 minute morning commute, 60 minute evening commute
very little telecommuting

Job 2:
Established private company (500 employees) that works with governments
Current technology, they mainly need to fill a windows hole
Devops is implemented and have experienced staff
Seems like systems are running well
20 minute morning commute, 40 minute evening commute
can work from home 3 days a week with a potential of 5 days a week at times

The way I look at it is job 1 offers more of a challenge and the recent acquisition is interesting, job 2 is more of I know what I'm getting into and better work/life balance. As someone who is mid career coming from a startup that offered no challenges and who doesn't know if they want to deal with devops which position would you lean towards?

The top line in 1 is scary. I worked in healthy care IT on several work efforts and seen layoffs when Merger and Acquisitions occur. The compliance piece is nauseauting and no telecommute makes all the sense in the world, it's what I experienced working in big pharma and health care......

The shorter commute is huge for me, day in and day out..... It makes a difference.

For my situation number 2 is a no brainer, but it's up to YOU.

paul78

At the risk of sounding like the perpetual contrarian, I think that if I was in your shoes, I would be drawn to job #1 for many reasons.

Since you are in your mid-career, I presume you have been IT for about 20 years or so. So if you are happy with where you are, job #2 may be a better fit. But if you think that you may need to evolve in the latter part of your career, job #1 on the surface appears to have more upside potential.
You mentioned that you have mostly been at SMB's and you are tired of layoffs. That seems like a good reason to not go to another SMB.
Congrats on having 2 options - it sounds like you may not have any trouble getting offers. So perhaps even if job #1 doesn't work out, you could always find another position. Plus, it won't hurt to have a Fortune 200 on your resume if you have primarily been working at SMBs.
The notion of stability can be a tough one. A Fortune 200 is probably financially stronger than another SMB. If the Fortune 200 is public, check their financials. Although, public companies are driven by different fiscal goals and job stability is never a guarantee these days. Also, given that this is a recent acquisition, depending on how the company will get integrated could significantly change the culture and/or strategy. I personally would check on how the company will be integrated into the acquiring company.
If you want stability, a larger company like #1 could offer better internal movement opportunities.
Personally, I don't enjoy companies that primarily do business with the government. I've only ever had that experience once but the bureaucracy was mind-numbing.
Lastly, as a JOAT architect in a company without a technology strategy, this sounds like a great opportunity for this role to steer the tech strategy and add some real value. It's probably a lot more interesting and the potential upside to grow and make a positive impact is higher. This would ultimately translate to more stability.

Ultimately, there really is no right or wrong answer because you can't predict the future and until you immerse yourself, you won't really know about all the other factors such as management philosophy, leadership style, peer culture, stability, etc. etc.

Good luck!

NetworkNewb

E Double U wrote: »

Since they pay is the same, I would choose job 2 simply for the working remotely because is great for my husband/father role. I also like the shorter commute.

This! I hate longer commutes to no end... Probably more than most people. Some people don't seem to mind them on here. Maybe cause we have kids we feel this way and value this option over other things? /shrug

But also alot would depend on how I like the people and how I felt about the company when I was interviewing with them.

Ashenwelt

paul78 wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like the perpetual contrarian

Isn't the reason to use a forum to get differing opinions and ideas to help influence your own? Nice break down of reasoning.

TechGromit

Ashenwelt wrote: »

Job 2 would be my choice in your shoes. WFH and established. Nice. Although I personally am leary of a company that was just aquired because staffing changes usually happen... And I don't want to be changed out of a job. Just my two cents worth.

I agree. Some of the locations my company took over in a merger went from 20 IT employees down to 8, because they were able to leverage corperate handling certain job functions. The smaller organization did a lot of in-house development and projects, all those jobs got axed, corporate handled all those functions. There may be other opportunities within the larger organization you wouldn't normally get if your job gets eliminated, but count on relocating to take advantage of them.

techfiend

Thanks for the opinions all. I ultimately declined job 1 because of the uncertainty and Job 2 ended up falling through at the last minute because of a bad reference. All I can do is keep on looking.

chmod

techfiend said:

Thanks for the opinions all. I ultimately declined job 1 because of the uncertainty and Job 2 ended up falling through at the last minute because of a bad reference. All I can do is keep on looking.

A bad reference someone gave you of company #2?