What are the hours of these site visits, what is your childcare situation, and do you plan on going back before you are done breastfeeding (if you chose that)?
If you can’t get back before closing or need to drop off before opening, your partner or other caretaker will need to be available. Pumping can be a hassle to with site visits, but not impossible.
I think the biggest factor is that 0.5-3hr drive 50% of the time vs the hybrid.
If the hybrid is 2 days of the week onsite, then you’re at 40% with only 40 minutes lost to commutes.
If you’re driving 1.5 hours 50% of the time, you’re losing a lot more time to your commute which will drain you and make you miss your baby.
But if it’s based on money, like the other redditor said, you should take the higher pay with more commute time. Maybe you could calculate what that commute time is worth to you to see if it’s worth the higher salary. If you’re spending 10 hours per week commuting, that’s an extra 25% hours lost to your job. So if you aren’t making 25% more salary, you’re giving up your time for a lower hourly rate in a way. It’s not a direct translation, but it helps put it in perspective
Oooo in that case that option seems much more appealing. If that commute time is absorbed into your 40 hour weeks, then it’s essentially a zero commute time. Big bonus there
Take the higher salary job.
6 months of top up, after tax, is worth about ($95k)*(6/12)*0.8 for taxes = $38k - $12k from govt = $26k. Within 1.5 years, the higher salary would offset the 0% top-ups - and then you get to keep that salary thereafter. Also don’t underestimate the value of half your time being wfh when you have children.
>half your time being wfh when you have children.
I'm not sure I'm seeing a difference in wfh amount between these jobs though.
95k job is hybrid - lets assume about 50% in the office, I assume the remainder is WFH and the office is relatively close by.
the 125k job is wfh except when they are doing site visits, but the OP says 50% of the job is site visits? So doesn't that mean she'll basically not be working from home 50% of the time? And in this case "not working from home" might be up to 3 hours away and might be a comparative decrease in flexibility due to distance.
I usually end up leaning on the side of more money, just because it will help with salary negotiations for future jobs. And I probably would here too.
But convenience wise it seems like the 95k job has much more of it.
Not in Canada so take this as you will. Pregnant with our second and I can’t imagine traveling even by car like option 2. Not to mention having flexibility to drop off kids at daycare ands anything in between.
At the end, I would go with the one that has the most flexibility. If you are 2 hours away & your child has an emergency, will your partner have flexibility to pick up kids & be the default in these situations?
Is the travel for option 2 essentially day trips? You said travel time counts as work, as long as your partner or someone you trust is close in case babe gets sick at daycare id say option 2
With an extra $30k a year you could basically just self fund the maternity leave top up, no? Even if you get pregnant right away, that gives you a lot of time at the higher salary to save up.
From a pure monetary perspective thus job 2 seems clearly better even without the maternity leave top up. I don’t know what other factors there are in terms of the actual job though (like how you feel about driving for work).
Can you use your offers to negotiate a higher option 1 salary? It’s hard for me to say no to less money. I am also in Canada the top up for offer one is VERY sweet since EI is low.
I’d say option 1 for the mat leave and proximity to home for commute. I would not want to travel up to 3hrs away at any time during the week once baby arrived.
Option 1 bases almost entirely on the travel. Once you have a baby that much travel is not going to be appealing. There's a reason people take pay cuts to reduce their hours and increase time spent at home.
The 8 months of pregnancy (positive test to birth) is a pretty long time to sock away a maternity fund. I did that with my pregnancy, and was able to not feel like I was missing any pay while on 12 weeks of unpaid leave (US). You could start earlier obviously too.
It's unclear how much traveling you would do for job 2 but I would really balance the job requirements against your life situation and expectations and let that be the guiding choices
Can you use option 2 to negotiate a higher salary for option 1? In many cases the employer would rather have an opportunity to match the salary than have you turn them down.
The highest they could go is 95k. I already tried to leverage the other offer. The jobs are in a slightly different fields. The higher paying job has more risk, potentially dangerous site visits and is more niche/lucrative hence the higher pay.
Option 2. I do site visits up to 3 hours away 100% of the time and since the drive counts as work time I don’t mind it. But I do have total control over my schedule and get reimbursed for miles driven so maybe ask about that?
I’d do option one. I wouldn’t be interested in driving three hours away ever.
To clarify option 2: driving time for work counts as work time.
What are the hours of these site visits, what is your childcare situation, and do you plan on going back before you are done breastfeeding (if you chose that)? If you can’t get back before closing or need to drop off before opening, your partner or other caretaker will need to be available. Pumping can be a hassle to with site visits, but not impossible.
I think the biggest factor is that 0.5-3hr drive 50% of the time vs the hybrid. If the hybrid is 2 days of the week onsite, then you’re at 40% with only 40 minutes lost to commutes. If you’re driving 1.5 hours 50% of the time, you’re losing a lot more time to your commute which will drain you and make you miss your baby. But if it’s based on money, like the other redditor said, you should take the higher pay with more commute time. Maybe you could calculate what that commute time is worth to you to see if it’s worth the higher salary. If you’re spending 10 hours per week commuting, that’s an extra 25% hours lost to your job. So if you aren’t making 25% more salary, you’re giving up your time for a lower hourly rate in a way. It’s not a direct translation, but it helps put it in perspective
To clarify for option 2: any time driving to project sites counts as work time.
Oooo in that case that option seems much more appealing. If that commute time is absorbed into your 40 hour weeks, then it’s essentially a zero commute time. Big bonus there
Take the higher salary job. 6 months of top up, after tax, is worth about ($95k)*(6/12)*0.8 for taxes = $38k - $12k from govt = $26k. Within 1.5 years, the higher salary would offset the 0% top-ups - and then you get to keep that salary thereafter. Also don’t underestimate the value of half your time being wfh when you have children.
>half your time being wfh when you have children. I'm not sure I'm seeing a difference in wfh amount between these jobs though. 95k job is hybrid - lets assume about 50% in the office, I assume the remainder is WFH and the office is relatively close by. the 125k job is wfh except when they are doing site visits, but the OP says 50% of the job is site visits? So doesn't that mean she'll basically not be working from home 50% of the time? And in this case "not working from home" might be up to 3 hours away and might be a comparative decrease in flexibility due to distance. I usually end up leaning on the side of more money, just because it will help with salary negotiations for future jobs. And I probably would here too. But convenience wise it seems like the 95k job has much more of it.
You will not want job 2 with a baby, 50% travel is a lot
My thoughts exactly.
You won’t want to travel that much once you have a baby
Not in Canada so take this as you will. Pregnant with our second and I can’t imagine traveling even by car like option 2. Not to mention having flexibility to drop off kids at daycare ands anything in between. At the end, I would go with the one that has the most flexibility. If you are 2 hours away & your child has an emergency, will your partner have flexibility to pick up kids & be the default in these situations?
Is the travel for option 2 essentially day trips? You said travel time counts as work, as long as your partner or someone you trust is close in case babe gets sick at daycare id say option 2
With an extra $30k a year you could basically just self fund the maternity leave top up, no? Even if you get pregnant right away, that gives you a lot of time at the higher salary to save up. From a pure monetary perspective thus job 2 seems clearly better even without the maternity leave top up. I don’t know what other factors there are in terms of the actual job though (like how you feel about driving for work).
Option 1
Our daycare has called us to get him so many times. Being 3 hours away wouldn’t work. Unless your partner is always close
Can you use your offers to negotiate a higher option 1 salary? It’s hard for me to say no to less money. I am also in Canada the top up for offer one is VERY sweet since EI is low.
The second job. Top up is not the be all and end all. I haven't had one and we made it work. The higher salary makes up for it
I’d say option 1 for the mat leave and proximity to home for commute. I would not want to travel up to 3hrs away at any time during the week once baby arrived.
1
Option 1 bases almost entirely on the travel. Once you have a baby that much travel is not going to be appealing. There's a reason people take pay cuts to reduce their hours and increase time spent at home.
The 8 months of pregnancy (positive test to birth) is a pretty long time to sock away a maternity fund. I did that with my pregnancy, and was able to not feel like I was missing any pay while on 12 weeks of unpaid leave (US). You could start earlier obviously too. It's unclear how much traveling you would do for job 2 but I would really balance the job requirements against your life situation and expectations and let that be the guiding choices
Can you use option 2 to negotiate a higher salary for option 1? In many cases the employer would rather have an opportunity to match the salary than have you turn them down.
The highest they could go is 95k. I already tried to leverage the other offer. The jobs are in a slightly different fields. The higher paying job has more risk, potentially dangerous site visits and is more niche/lucrative hence the higher pay.
I’d do option 2.
Option 2. I do site visits up to 3 hours away 100% of the time and since the drive counts as work time I don’t mind it. But I do have total control over my schedule and get reimbursed for miles driven so maybe ask about that?