Getting back in the biz

Yeah, that's probably right. For me at age 37 when I left, there was too much time left, and the reality that eventually I was going to have to do something else. But at 50+, it is a different story. (That guy who did the "finish line" thread about leaving the OCR hit on an interesting concept.)

However, this thread is about someone that I'm guessing is late 20s, early 30s, who is already out and weighing whether to get back in. You're taking the discussing a bit far afield of that initial premise.

 

That first thought is a very important thing for all of us to remember. Business is not about love ... the business of business is making money.

The second thought bears a bit of clarity. I don't think anyone declared journalism unique in this particular regard. I certainly didn't, anyway. What *is* unique is the type of person generally attracted to this line of work ... particularly passionate, artistic, earnest ... and sometimes we all need a reality check. The scales of love will never be balanced in this or any other career. I do think people in other industries understand this a little better than newspaper folk, though.

Great discussion all around.

 

Exactly. Certain careers -- fashion and PR come to mind -- have more people willing to do the job than is necessary, either because they are careers in which people are passionate or because they are seen as somehow glamorous. This obviously holds wages down for the vast majority. And, newspapers are an even tougher career, because the industry had been shrinking.

Poor Chicken Little analogy aside, the reason I piped up was because 14 people weren't telling him it wasn't a good idea. Everyone was telling him what he wanted to hear, and to just "go for it". That's not advice. It's not thoughtful. It's just a reflexive response.

That's all well and good, but for every Kurt Warner or John Starks, there are hundreds/thousands who stick around too long, never make it, and are unprepared for their future.

Rhody should be realistic. Does he have the talent to stand out in this competitive field?

And, he needs to be honest too. Look, I'm not tying to be the bearer of bad news, but put yourself in a hiring managers shoes. The 18 months Rhody spent out of the biz caddying are going to look like shit on his resume. He'll be going up against folks without a hole in their work experience, and no one is going to care if his previous employer screwed him, or that four people in a row failed at replacing him.

He got fired, and didn't find another job in the industry for 18 months. Even if he gets this job, it will be very hard for him to advance.

 

Yes. And your claim of a shitty $10 an hour job is even more of a reflexive response. Do you think we forget what you say from one post to the next?

 

The last job with the same company paid $10.50. He's horrified by what this job might pay, and fears it won't be enough to make him give up a seasonal job, and unemployment.

So, what are we talking about? $11.00? $12.00. Does it really make a difference? $10.00 is a nice round number, and if he works 60 hours for a 40 hour job, then it will be less than $10.00 an hour.

 

I'd give you an oop response to this, but you and I both know the gist of it, so I'll honor you by passing on it.

 

I advised Rhody31 to apply, but I do wholeheartedly agree that any decision to return to newspaper work should be highly dependent on the situation the applicant finds himself/herself in. The newspaper job I took after being out of the business for two years paid OK by current standards (although a lot less than my closing salary at the old paper). I was 51, had managed to put away some savings over the years, and had a lot of equity in the home and a relatively good-sized retirement portfolio, so there was a bit of a financial cushion. I still could freelance on the side, too. And the new job was offering the chance to do some things I'd never done that might be valuable skills down the road, such as supervising news-side reporters and managing the paper's website. But someone in their 20s or 30s is almost certain to face a different set of circumstances.

With all the talk about pay, I decided to run my starting salary for my first job in 1981 ($10,400 a year) through an online inflation calculator. That was at a 35K-circulation paper. It's worth about $27,000 now. One reason I mention this is that the paper I left in '08 (major metro in a high-cost-of-living area) has made it clear that desk applicants with substantial experience will be paid no more than $38K. Enough desperate applicants are out there that the paper hasn't had trouble filling these openings.

 

I was out of the biz for two years, and each of four job offers was for $38K.
No wiggle room, either. What a coincidence, huh? Or was it ... COLLUSION!

Finally got a good deal, and I got back in. It's OK for now. But what a grind.

 

No one has said any differently. This thread is littered with caveats, including several that Rhody himself put out at the very beginning. Why you seem to think "go for it and see what happens" is an ironclad "take the job at all costs," and that Rhody will unquestioningly do whatever we say, is beyond me.

I was a hiring manager for a short time, and I really thought gaps in work history, especially during times like these, were mostly inconsequential. He has a documented history of doing several jobs within the field. My first thought would probably be, "I'm busy and need someone who can do the job with minimal supervision yet will still accept the pay I can offer." If he fits the bill, great. If not, well, he never would've known if he didn't apply in the first place, which, again, is all anyone here is saying.

So what? It'll be even harder to get where he said he wants to go if he does nothing. Plus, if you have talent, you can still advance in the business. Sara Ganim's employment outlook was probably just as grim at one point, but she went into it anyway and ended up hitting a home run.

 

If the hiring manager has any savvy about this business, he'll know that there are plenty of people who have lost jobs in this industry and have struggled to find other work. He'll also k ow that this industry has some bad employers and, hopefully, Rhody has some good references who will be able to rebut anything his ex-employer says.

So that 18-month gap isn't as severe as one might think.

 

An 18-month gap isn't unusual in the industry, or the economy.

But, he'll be going up against people without it.

And, the Sara Ganim analogy is silly. She'd been published in the Sun Sentinel while in high school. She interned at the AP and worked for the Centre Daily Times before she even graduated from Penn State. She was already working at a decent sized daily when she earned a Pulitzer for an incredible job of reporting. She had no 18-month gap on her resume.

Her work on the Sandusky case put her career in overdrive, and led her to CNN, but she was on her way to a successful career.