I was recently emailed a job posting by a colleague who works for a state agency. She is the person who will be either the direct supervisor or a close senior coworker of whoever gets this position, so I was flattered she thought of me. It's worth consideration, but there are many pros and cons. I was hoping you guys could give me your unbiased opinion; my brain is really crowded by "life" stuff right now and I'm having a hard time being objective.
Pay: The starting rate is about 2.5% higher than my current salary; it's possible that after union dues come out, I'd barely notice a difference. I'd be in a union, however, with scheduled step raises. At my current position, since I had a large raise last year, I'm unlikely to get another one unless my boss retires someday and I'm offered her position. I'll probably just be getting small COLs until then. State job would have benefits, including access to a deferred comp plan. I currently only have a Roth IRA for retirement (though we put extra in H's deferred comp to compensate).
Work: It is an environmental science position that I'm pretty well qualified for and interested in. It would mean leaving behind the outreach and education components of my current job, which I do truly enjoy, but also picking up types of work I also enjoy that I'm not doing right now. As a state job, however, I'm also expecting a fair amount of paperwork and frustrating bureaucracy.
Security: The traditional wisdom is that state jobs are pretty secure. Our state's economy is pretty bad, however. I feel like funding for my current position is quite secure right now, but it is officially "soft money" and a new presidential administration, especially if it's Trump, could really have a negative impact on our funding sources. I have some control over my own destiny with the ability to apply for grants and develop new programs.
Flexibility: Here's one of the most major issues. In my current position, all time is flex time. If I want to take my dog to the vet, schedule a contractor, etc. I can work from home or make up hours on the weekend and nobody needs to give approval as long as the work gets done. A state job means zero flexibility of that sort, but an easier time leaving work at work at the end of the day.
The elephant in the room: We're headed into month 5 of TTC, and I don't especially want to put it on hold (though of course I'll be a big girl if I need to). My current job is not subject to FMLA, but our board has adopted a policy that protects my position for 12 weeks. At the state, if I got pregnant before FMLA kicked in I'd probably be looking at only 6 weeks of leave and a loss of seniority within the union system, if not outright dismissal. The supervisor is a reasonable person, but they have to follow certain policies and there's not much wiggle room. It's hard to remove TTC from my considerations, especially since I know that flexibility would be SO nice with a baby. I could probably even do a 4-day work week, which could save on childcare and sanity. Not an option at the state.
I know the conventional response would be "just apply," but given the climate of my field in my state, there is a 0% chance that my current employer won't find out I applied, so I want to weight this very carefully. They've invested a lot in me and are about to invest a lot more by sending me to my training in Nebraska. I'm leaning towards not applying, but I know I tend to be lazy about job switches so outside opinions would be VERY appreciated! I probably won't check this again until this afternoon after work, given the subject matter, but thanks in advance for any advice.
Re: Would You Apply?
I was going to give a vote for "apply" until I read about your childcare and TTC considerations. Then, immediately my vote turned to "don't apply."
That flex schedule and possible 4 day work week will be HUGE childcare savings and more importantly, time as a family being able to be spent.
You're going to have a lot more scheduling constraints with kids - doctors and such, but also wanting to participate in things like "Mommy and Me Day" at their pre-school, or whatever it is.
For me, I would see this as a debate between an actual monetary paycheck (and all the benefits too) versus a paycheck of the heart. There will always be money and job growth potential, but there won't always be more time with your kids and family.
I have never, ever heard of a parent who chose more time at home regretting it. But, I have heard many people say they wished they had more time at home and with family, but instead opted to or were forced to have to work more.
Normally I'd lean toward the government job, but you make a good point that those just aren't necessarily the job security and spectacular benefits that they used to be.
Comparing your pros and cons, it seems like you are better off where you currently are.
This is a bit of personal opinion, but I always weigh in heavily for jobs that have more schedule flexibility.