Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse
Yeah, but for E&P that assumes there's an unlimited supply of professionals in the SE. Which there isn't. And that SE employers can afford to ignore potential staff in the North and West ends, which they can't but are when they move to the sticks.
I'm facing this dilemna right now - I have a well paying accounting finance Controller job in an "inner SE" industrial park open. Downtown people don't want to touch it. Location has proven to be extremely limiting in terms of it's appeal to potential candidates.
You want to spark off a big CP debate - how about the concept that "downtown" jobs pay more than "suburban office" type jobs (and not just in E&P). Some of it is industry related for sure (E&P trumps all) but in O&G services at least it's not uncommon to see they guy downtown getting paid more than the guy in the suburban office park (at similar experience and qualification levels).
EPC is different - they are cheap mofos and could care less if they put staff in a Brazilian Favela. Haven't they offshored stuff to India yet?
|
Wow. I don't know where to start with this. EPC usually pays more than producers...in salary, at least from the engineering side of it. The benefit with producers are the bonuses and benefits and the longer term commitments(better job security). EPC houses often hire per project so there are many contract positions and much less long term commitments.
I have never heard anything of downtown jobs paying more than suburban offices. I work EPC and as far as i know salary between the two is indifferent regardless of location. I don't even know how you came to that generalization. We struggle to bring guys in all the time, not because of location, not because of low salaries, but because the good people in this industry are usually very well taken care of....again, regardless of location. Often we put out an offer and the offered employee uses that to get raise at current position and stays.