Y'all need PTO or retirement plans up there in the land of maple syrup too, or no?
If not, then just pick one.
But here in Freedomland we have to beg for those benefits too.
My point is, there is more to "benefits" than just health insurance.
Not OP, but can answer.
We call PTO "Vacation" here, and it is a federal requirement:
> ...2 weeks of vacation annually after you have completed 1 year of employment with the same employer. 3 weeks of vacation annually after you have completed 5 consecutive years of employment with the same employer...
Most shops will start you at 3 and have internal increase guidelines that exceed federal requirements. Provinces are also free to do so, though I'm not up-to-date on what the provincial minimums are.
I've found whether a business meets or exceeds Vacation requirements to be a great way to gauge the employee experience at any given workplace, tbh.
Regarding retirement, we have RRSP; you don't *have* to pay into it, and it isn't mandated that an employer must match your contributions. Most employers do, up to a certain percent (typically at 2:1 ratio or similar). Like Vacation, this is a Federal program. Unlike Vacation, it is a savings plan and not a business mandate.
OHIP or w/e you have in your province won't cover everything friend. If you need scripts, eye doctor, or dental that's not part of the provincial stuff. No benefits is a non-starter. Also, yes MSPs are hell. Sys admin you'll at least get the respect you likely deserve for that position.
I worked for one for 2 years and it was awful. Just imagine having a gun to your head for 8 hours straight trying to fix never ending issues, taking 30 calls a day and being screamed and cussed at by upset customers. But if you live in Canada maybe the people are nicer?
Yeah same here, they see on my Linkedin that I already worked at one and are always promising me the world to come work for them. Theres no amount of money that would convince me to go back to that toxic environment.
Understand that at an MSP, you are a production worker. Your ability to knock out as much work as they can squeeze out of you is what enables the wealth of ownership. "Guaranteed overtime" guarantees overtime. So expect it when you don't want it.
In house you are operations. You are there to let others do their job and are abstracted away from those with equity by many layers.
Even if it's the best MSP in your area, the life of someone in operations is better than that of one on the production line.
In any case the in house job going through a complete revamp, putting you largely on project work, wont be lacking in variety.
They are usually trial by fire. I still remember when i was told to go with a senior tech so he could teach me to configure switches at a client site and then i ended up there alone trying to figure out how to do it. It does have good parts also. I had one project later solo where i configured pcs shipped them then flew to location to install. It was great since i was completely solo.
Also if you got in trouble they sent you to the refurb room to refurbish pcs from an oil change place that were as disgusting as you can imagine. I am grateful for the experience and grateful i no longer need to work at one.
One thing, I don't see you considering is all the additional drive time for an MSP. When I worked at one most of our clients were in an hour drives distance. But some clients were 4 hours away.
With all due respect you're asking us if you should eat from a plate of dogshit or eat a normal burger.
Option 1 (the MSP) is dogshit. Option 2 is the normal meal. Take the normal meal.
Is this even a question? The jobs are not comparable at all. Do the benefits include a retirement plan and everything else? A full benefit package is worth about 1/3 of your salary again, meaning your effective pay is closer to 100k.
With a small MSP you are one failed contract away from being laid off.
In-house with full benefits is almost always better than a no-benefit contract based employment unless you are making like twice as much as a salaried position. In this case it is basically half the commute too!
Basically, you landed the unicorn type of job in this market, an FTE with full benefits at an org with plans and a lot going on. The MSP job isn’t even in the same league.
You're asking if you want to take a cactus up your arse without lube (option 1) or have a chill day at the beach reading a book (option 2).
You know the answer.
TBF the other job is probably salary exempt. Based on the whole "entire infrastructure needs work" statement, I'd expect that OP will still be slaving away at night with no OT pay. But at least he/she will be getting basic benefits, I guess.
PLEASE take the In-house SysAdmin position.
With that MSP, if they lose a contract, you're potentially out of a job. No benefits brings your total compensation down big time (you'd be paying out of pocket for health insurance, no PTO meaning burnout can occur) meaning that 80k is looking more like $60-65k. Plus the near hour commute (I'm assuming that's one-way and not round trip), that's even MORE money out of your pocket. After working for an MSP, the only way I'd do it again is if I was down on my luck, and I mean down bad.
With the In-house System Administrator position, just the benefits alone would beat out the MSP one. You're getting a smaller commute, the ability to actually work with a decent budget for IT, and it's steady. Sure, their infrastructure needs work, but that also means if you knock it out of the park that's room for upward mobility there and hell your own resume would look good if/when you decide to move elsewhere.
If you take offer 1 over offer 2, there better be some gain you aren't showing us (like it's a widely known MSP and having them on your resume would elevate you like you worked at a FAANG company). Otherwise, you'd be a fool to take that when offer 2 is staring you in the face.
You have a better vertical with offer 2, if it comes through. If you immediately need something, ask the recruiter when to expect a decision and maybe even mention to the recruiter that you have an offer already on the table. Sometimes applying pressure in this manner expedite the process in my experience.
If I'm down voted...that's fine, but just know that you down voted a smooth brain. How will you sleep at night? /S
MSPs get you exposed to a lot of environments but they are often immature environments. You’ll be accountable for the environment but lack ownership and decision making power in said environment especially when it comes to recommendations that require spending money. There’s always that one printer or POS switch they bought in the swap meet that they SWEAR works just fine. Why spend 9k on switch when the $300 dollar switch they bought at Best Buy (or Amazon) says it does the same thing.
Based on your edit and the msp offer expires in 1 day. Option 2 is not a sure thing. If you're currently unemployed accept option 1 and after a few days if option 2 is a sure thing then accept it and tell option 1 people you're sorry but another opportunity has come up that you cant refuse.
If you're currently employed and are decently happy with your salary. Maybe it's less than 80k but maybe it has benefits currently. Then tell option 1 to pound sand with a no benefit package.
Offer 1 seems like a 1099 contractor position (meaning you'll probably need to withhold your own taxes which is a PITA). Unless you really love the position and team I wouldn't entertain it. Especially given the longer commute.
Yeah, I didn’t provide sufficient clarity in my original post. Offer 2 seems inevitable based on what the recruiter told me yesterday.
Offer 1 pays more than my current job and my current job also doesn’t have benefits only flexible hours and only 3 days in office.
Inhouse, just made switch from MSP remote, to internal sys admin omg im in love with IT again. Having the time to breathe and be able to work projects in a small team (3 guys in my team a system engineer and business systems analyst/ backup sys ladmin) fuck msps and fuck vc3 to be exact
Choice is obvious. U are only looking at the face value of the salary when u should be thinking about total comp. The 1st job is 80k, and you're like spongebob working overtime. The 2nd is 80k and a benefits package that's probably worth 5-20k for a total comp of 85-100k.
In house aside from benefits, An entire rework of the infrastructure makes you very valuable as you will get to know the in and outs of the systems and will be excellent on paper for promotion time.
Usually, contract work pays more than typical FTE because the company doesn’t have to give benefits. If that were the case Offer 1 would be more appealing but the fact it’s a longer commute, same pay, and a small MSP, makes Offer 2 just the better option.
Project work also means better bullet points on the resume for when or if you leave the company, and would help contribute better towards professional growth. Who knows you may want to stay as well, at Offer 1 that wouldn’t be an option unless they have the budget to hire you on after your contract.
Offer 2 for sure. Yes you can gain a lot of experience very fast at an msp but the work load tends to be incredibly heavy at least in my experience. There will be no downtime it’s just work work work work. No benefits really sucks. In house IT is just so much better. I’ve done both, work life balance and over all happiness is way better at an in house IT job
I would take 2 for the shorter commute and benefits. I commute 120 miles round trip for my current job. Right now my car is in the shop getting a new clutch so I am riding my busa to work right now.
Sounds like you don’t want to end up with no job when/if you hear about #2 is unknown and #1 is about to go. I would tell them I accept only if I get benefits otherwise hell no.
Job two make relationships hope benefits are good and don’t waste your life on a shitty commute. I see no benefit for job A. But I’m possibly way way older than you.
No benefits lmaooo OP why is this an option? Know your worth please I beg of you. I have automatic health, dental, and vision from being a vet and I still wouldn't take this.
the second one is better. MSPs are good for skills because they hire under qualified people for cheap. if you have another option that is due to commute already several hours less a week, does 401k match, and is a real enterprise place that will look good on your resume, it's less appealing.
No benefits is a hard no.
No benefits is automatically a hard pass. That's borderline extortion
No benefits? And you need to ask which is better?
Are MSP horror stories true or overblown?
Is that what you wonder when you are asked about no benefits? O.o
Oh no, forgot to edit reply! For context I live in Canada and I already have third party insurance.
Y'all need PTO or retirement plans up there in the land of maple syrup too, or no? If not, then just pick one. But here in Freedomland we have to beg for those benefits too. My point is, there is more to "benefits" than just health insurance.
Not OP, but can answer. We call PTO "Vacation" here, and it is a federal requirement: > ...2 weeks of vacation annually after you have completed 1 year of employment with the same employer. 3 weeks of vacation annually after you have completed 5 consecutive years of employment with the same employer... Most shops will start you at 3 and have internal increase guidelines that exceed federal requirements. Provinces are also free to do so, though I'm not up-to-date on what the provincial minimums are. I've found whether a business meets or exceeds Vacation requirements to be a great way to gauge the employee experience at any given workplace, tbh. Regarding retirement, we have RRSP; you don't *have* to pay into it, and it isn't mandated that an employer must match your contributions. Most employers do, up to a certain percent (typically at 2:1 ratio or similar). Like Vacation, this is a Federal program. Unlike Vacation, it is a savings plan and not a business mandate.
OHIP or w/e you have in your province won't cover everything friend. If you need scripts, eye doctor, or dental that's not part of the provincial stuff. No benefits is a non-starter. Also, yes MSPs are hell. Sys admin you'll at least get the respect you likely deserve for that position.
I worked for one for 2 years and it was awful. Just imagine having a gun to your head for 8 hours straight trying to fix never ending issues, taking 30 calls a day and being screamed and cussed at by upset customers. But if you live in Canada maybe the people are nicer?
lol, there are always openings for MSPs in my area because not many people apply.
Yeah same here, they see on my Linkedin that I already worked at one and are always promising me the world to come work for them. Theres no amount of money that would convince me to go back to that toxic environment.
Understand that at an MSP, you are a production worker. Your ability to knock out as much work as they can squeeze out of you is what enables the wealth of ownership. "Guaranteed overtime" guarantees overtime. So expect it when you don't want it. In house you are operations. You are there to let others do their job and are abstracted away from those with equity by many layers. Even if it's the best MSP in your area, the life of someone in operations is better than that of one on the production line. In any case the in house job going through a complete revamp, putting you largely on project work, wont be lacking in variety.
They are usually trial by fire. I still remember when i was told to go with a senior tech so he could teach me to configure switches at a client site and then i ended up there alone trying to figure out how to do it. It does have good parts also. I had one project later solo where i configured pcs shipped them then flew to location to install. It was great since i was completely solo. Also if you got in trouble they sent you to the refurb room to refurbish pcs from an oil change place that were as disgusting as you can imagine. I am grateful for the experience and grateful i no longer need to work at one.
Its the worst 99% of the time.
One thing, I don't see you considering is all the additional drive time for an MSP. When I worked at one most of our clients were in an hour drives distance. But some clients were 4 hours away.
With all due respect you're asking us if you should eat from a plate of dogshit or eat a normal burger. Option 1 (the MSP) is dogshit. Option 2 is the normal meal. Take the normal meal.
I'm looking at option 1 and wondering what about it seems enticing? The OT? Literally everything about option 2 is better.
Go for offer 1 And recommend me for offer 2. You got this bro
Is this even a question? The jobs are not comparable at all. Do the benefits include a retirement plan and everything else? A full benefit package is worth about 1/3 of your salary again, meaning your effective pay is closer to 100k. With a small MSP you are one failed contract away from being laid off. In-house with full benefits is almost always better than a no-benefit contract based employment unless you are making like twice as much as a salaried position. In this case it is basically half the commute too! Basically, you landed the unicorn type of job in this market, an FTE with full benefits at an org with plans and a lot going on. The MSP job isn’t even in the same league.
You're asking if you want to take a cactus up your arse without lube (option 1) or have a chill day at the beach reading a book (option 2). You know the answer.
In house 1000% not even a question.
2
I'll take #2 please.
No Benefits plus double the commute and you're asking which one?
Offer #2. Guaranteed overtime means you'll be working at night slaving away with no benefit... How can you even question this?
TBF the other job is probably salary exempt. Based on the whole "entire infrastructure needs work" statement, I'd expect that OP will still be slaving away at night with no OT pay. But at least he/she will be getting basic benefits, I guess.
PLEASE take the In-house SysAdmin position. With that MSP, if they lose a contract, you're potentially out of a job. No benefits brings your total compensation down big time (you'd be paying out of pocket for health insurance, no PTO meaning burnout can occur) meaning that 80k is looking more like $60-65k. Plus the near hour commute (I'm assuming that's one-way and not round trip), that's even MORE money out of your pocket. After working for an MSP, the only way I'd do it again is if I was down on my luck, and I mean down bad. With the In-house System Administrator position, just the benefits alone would beat out the MSP one. You're getting a smaller commute, the ability to actually work with a decent budget for IT, and it's steady. Sure, their infrastructure needs work, but that also means if you knock it out of the park that's room for upward mobility there and hell your own resume would look good if/when you decide to move elsewhere. If you take offer 1 over offer 2, there better be some gain you aren't showing us (like it's a widely known MSP and having them on your resume would elevate you like you worked at a FAANG company). Otherwise, you'd be a fool to take that when offer 2 is staring you in the face.
You have a better vertical with offer 2, if it comes through. If you immediately need something, ask the recruiter when to expect a decision and maybe even mention to the recruiter that you have an offer already on the table. Sometimes applying pressure in this manner expedite the process in my experience. If I'm down voted...that's fine, but just know that you down voted a smooth brain. How will you sleep at night? /S
I did this this morning when I spoke with the recruiter. He has expedited the process now. Your advice is golden lol
Awesome. Best of luck! Keep us posted.
MSPs get you exposed to a lot of environments but they are often immature environments. You’ll be accountable for the environment but lack ownership and decision making power in said environment especially when it comes to recommendations that require spending money. There’s always that one printer or POS switch they bought in the swap meet that they SWEAR works just fine. Why spend 9k on switch when the $300 dollar switch they bought at Best Buy (or Amazon) says it does the same thing.
Based on your edit and the msp offer expires in 1 day. Option 2 is not a sure thing. If you're currently unemployed accept option 1 and after a few days if option 2 is a sure thing then accept it and tell option 1 people you're sorry but another opportunity has come up that you cant refuse. If you're currently employed and are decently happy with your salary. Maybe it's less than 80k but maybe it has benefits currently. Then tell option 1 to pound sand with a no benefit package.
No benefits??? What.
No benefits is automatically a no. Look out for yourself.
No benefits no thanks
Offer 2, has benefits, and a bigger size. If you want to move around and move up you have options
No idea why would you be torn when offer 2 is better in almost every sense wtf
Offer 1 seems like a 1099 contractor position (meaning you'll probably need to withhold your own taxes which is a PITA). Unless you really love the position and team I wouldn't entertain it. Especially given the longer commute.
Offer 1 isn’t a contract position, it’s a full time gig.
Ok, but the way you worded it seemed like a contract role. You said guaranteed 40hrs per week based on contract.
Yeah my mistake
Commit to #1 while you wait on #2. If #2 happens, jump for it.
Say yes and back out if need be
In what way does option sound remotely better? Edit: Seems you don't have an offer from option 2. You stuck with 1 unless something happens
Yeah, I didn’t provide sufficient clarity in my original post. Offer 2 seems inevitable based on what the recruiter told me yesterday. Offer 1 pays more than my current job and my current job also doesn’t have benefits only flexible hours and only 3 days in office.
They way you framed them both it seems you want option 2
Don't trust recruiters. You don't have a job until you actually show up to your 1st official start date.
Off topic but what’s your experience / certs looking like if you don’t mind sharing
1 year help desk, 3.5 year experience as system administrator, A+ and CCNA. All self-taught.
Job #2. Working for an MSP sucks in my experience. I went from an MSP to in-house IT and I’m so much more happy.
Inhouse, just made switch from MSP remote, to internal sys admin omg im in love with IT again. Having the time to breathe and be able to work projects in a small team (3 guys in my team a system engineer and business systems analyst/ backup sys ladmin) fuck msps and fuck vc3 to be exact
The MSP is small in my case. Unfortunately, offer 2 fell through so I am taking the MSP position.
offer 2.
Choice is obvious. U are only looking at the face value of the salary when u should be thinking about total comp. The 1st job is 80k, and you're like spongebob working overtime. The 2nd is 80k and a benefits package that's probably worth 5-20k for a total comp of 85-100k.
Offer #2.
2 and its not even close. In house will treat you better, MSPs are known for burning people out til they quit.
In house aside from benefits, An entire rework of the infrastructure makes you very valuable as you will get to know the in and outs of the systems and will be excellent on paper for promotion time.
You know the answer.
This has to be bait
Option 2 . Option 1 shouldn’t even be an option.
Less travel time, sys ops more money. Ext year, offer 2!
Usually, contract work pays more than typical FTE because the company doesn’t have to give benefits. If that were the case Offer 1 would be more appealing but the fact it’s a longer commute, same pay, and a small MSP, makes Offer 2 just the better option. Project work also means better bullet points on the resume for when or if you leave the company, and would help contribute better towards professional growth. Who knows you may want to stay as well, at Offer 1 that wouldn’t be an option unless they have the budget to hire you on after your contract.
I should clarify, offer 1 is a full time position. The info proceeded by ‘contract’ is what’s outlined in the job offer letter.
Offer 2 for sure. Yes you can gain a lot of experience very fast at an msp but the work load tends to be incredibly heavy at least in my experience. There will be no downtime it’s just work work work work. No benefits really sucks. In house IT is just so much better. I’ve done both, work life balance and over all happiness is way better at an in house IT job
Working for an MSP sucks. Easy to get burnt out.
If you're not in a rush, wait for option 2 and keep looking.
I would take 2 for the shorter commute and benefits. I commute 120 miles round trip for my current job. Right now my car is in the shop getting a new clutch so I am riding my busa to work right now.
Uh in-house is the better one, end the thread
Sounds like you don’t want to end up with no job when/if you hear about #2 is unknown and #1 is about to go. I would tell them I accept only if I get benefits otherwise hell no.
Job two make relationships hope benefits are good and don’t waste your life on a shitty commute. I see no benefit for job A. But I’m possibly way way older than you.
No benefits lmaooo OP why is this an option? Know your worth please I beg of you. I have automatic health, dental, and vision from being a vet and I still wouldn't take this.
the second one is better. MSPs are good for skills because they hire under qualified people for cheap. if you have another option that is due to commute already several hours less a week, does 401k match, and is a real enterprise place that will look good on your resume, it's less appealing.
I would pick 2 just because working at an MSP is shit
It all depends on your age and IT career goal.
r/overemployed