Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tefkat89 t1_iycgx9z wrote

Reply to comment by Tefkat89 in Two Job Offers, Which offer is financialy better? by PopeWallace

If job 1 includes super in the 75k you make 1-2k (67.5k) more a year on job 1 bvut work 2.5 more hours a week. so i think your hourly might be lower.

Job 2 you make 66k plus 10.5% to your retirmeent which would make your package 72k, less hours, not including weekened rates and wfh options.

​

Job 2 is streets ahead

3

MarcusP2 t1_iycijmc wrote

A '40 hour week' for a salaried job includes lunch breaks, it's actually typically 37.5. They are the same.

A 75k package that includes regular weekend work is rubbish.

2

Lets_Go_Blue__Jays t1_iyd4tnu wrote

I once had a "40 hour a week" salaried job (managed car rental locations) the 40 hours only applied to my staff and I was expected to work 60+ to "minimize employee expenses" I got paid a cut of the profit which is how they made it seem beneficial (as lower employee cost = bigger profit) but was 100% predatorial in regards to having most managers be young and not know any better.

3

MarcusP2 t1_iyd4yxo wrote

Very typical in retail work when you become a 'management trainee'...... Your hourly rate becomes terrible.

1

Lets_Go_Blue__Jays t1_iyd5myz wrote

Funnily enough, my former employer had everyone start as a management trainee. Even the CEO and VPs we're all management trainees at one point. That's how they sold the dream (every major city had at least one guy making over 1mil/year and district managers making 150+)

1

Tefkat89 t1_iycirvr wrote

Lunch is not paid in Australia and doesn't make up your hours of work.

1

MarcusP2 t1_iycjszi wrote

Mate I live in Australia, I know this.

What I mean is, to get to 37.5 hours a week you will probably be rostered 9-5 with a half an hour lunch break.

If you're a salaried employee you'll probably be expected to keep those same or similar hours.

1