135K 2 Year Contract or 97K Current Perm Role?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

135K 2 Year Contract or 97K Perm???


  • Total voters
    29

FuturePharmD7

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
35
Reaction score
3
I was presented a 2 year contract role at a big pharmaceutical company in Chicago, which would mean I would leave a permanent role. The salary is significantly more like (35K) as it’s a contract, but no benefits like insurance, PTO, paid holidays or 401K.

I have so far worked at smaller clinical research companies for the past 4 years. It would be great to get into a big sponsor through this route and it’s a 2 year contract, but I still have some reservations. I know it’s hard to get a job in the Chicago area with limited companies and there’s the potential for an early lay-off or not finding a job after 2 years. I’ve never done a contract role because of the instability and I’ve heard mixed things about contractors.

I make 97K currently in a permanent role with 4 weeks vacation, paid holidays and 401K.

This opportunity is 135K each year for 2 years with no benefits or time off.

I’m debating if I should accept the offer. Do you have any advice or thoughts?
 
I have typically gone for the higher pay when I was younger....the extra savings allows you to pay off mortgage, invest etc etc

However you need to calculate actual salary difference based on 401k match, PTO, etc doesn't seem the actual difference is going to be 35k based on ur post. Maybe a 10-20k difference when you account for benefits. You will pay 20-30% tax on that, so probably 7-12k extra per year from contract.

I don't think it's worth it unless the contract could open up better roles in the future and leads to enhancing your resume.

Also factor in if you are single, can easily move etc vs having kids etc and needing the stability.

I think these are all the factors in
making the decision. Wish u the best.

Sometimes the best moves are the moves we don't make...
 
I was presented a 2 year contract role at a big pharmaceutical company in Chicago, which would mean I would leave a permanent role. The salary is significantly more like (35K) as it’s a contract, but no benefits like insurance, PTO, paid holidays or 401K.

I have so far worked at smaller clinical research companies for the past 4 years. It would be great to get into a big sponsor through this route and it’s a 2 year contract, but I still have some reservations. I know it’s hard to get a job in the Chicago area with limited companies and there’s the potential for an early lay-off or not finding a job after 2 years. I’ve never done a contract role because of the instability and I’ve heard mixed things about contractors.

I make 97K currently in a permanent role with 4 weeks vacation, paid holidays and 401K.

This opportunity is 135K each year for 2 years with no benefits or time off.

I’m debating if I should accept the offer. Do you have any advice or thoughts?
It’s not really a higher salary when you don’t have all those benefits, especially the 401k. I don’t understand how educated people can’t do the math and figure this out.
 
The pay is practically the same when you factor in benefits. It would be high risk low reward to go for a negligible pay increase for just two years. You may not be able to find a job after that.

BTW there is no such thing as a permanent job in pharmacy unless you work for the government.
 
It’s not really a higher salary when you don’t have all those benefits, especially the 401k. I don’t understand how educated people can’t do the math and figure this out.

This thread and the one where the new grad thought he was offered $38/hr by CVS make you wonder...
 
To clarify, I’m not a pharmacist but I work in Pharma industry in clinical trials.

I subtracted the benefits and then the 2 year contract is more like 130K vs the current perm position of 97K. Then tax at 25% and you subtract 7.5K from the 30K additional income, so it’s more like 22.5K more each year.

I don’t have kids, not married, live with family, and have no loans and no mortgage.

You all think the benefits are worth 20-30K??? You do know I make 97K as the paid time off/paid holidays is not supplemental income. I do miss out on 3% 401K match from the $19,500.

Also, I subtracted 3 weeks of pay from the offer because of the typical 10 days PTO (and and 5 days of holidays. Then I subtracted 5K for own insurance costs so that led to 130K.

It’s between getting into a big company with more future opportunities, hopefully becoming permanent after 2 years and making 130K in the next 2 years or staying at my current job of 97K with the benefits and it’s permanent but limited growth opportunities.
 
To clarify, I’m not a pharmacist but I work in Pharma industry in clinical trials.

I subtracted the benefits and then the 2 year contract is more like 130K vs the current perm position of 97K. Then tax at 25% and you subtract 7.5K from the 30K additional income, so it’s more like 22.5K more each year.

I don’t have kids, not married, live with family, and have no loans and no mortgage.

You all think the benefits are worth 20-30K??? You do know I make 97K as the paid time off/paid holidays is not supplemental income. I do miss out on 3% 401K match from the $19,500.

Also, I subtracted 3 weeks of pay from the offer because of the typical 10 days PTO (and and 5 days of holidays. Then I subtracted 5K for own insurance costs so that led to 130K.

It’s between getting into a big company with more future opportunities, hopefully becoming permanent after 2 years and making 130K in the next 2 years or staying at my current job of 97K with the benefits and it’s permanent but limited growth opportunities.

Yes benefits and job security are easily worth 20-30k. Vacation, sick time, 401k, health/dental/vision insurance, medical leave, jury duty/bereavement leave, life/disability insurance etc.

I don't follow anything else that you wrote. Your poll asked 97k permanent vs 135k no benefits for 2 years. If the offer is not 135k or 130k then what is it? Just post the offer without subtracting anything so we can compare apples to apples.

You've obviously made up your mind already so I'm not sure what you're looking for. None of us are going to recommend the 2 year job.
 
To clarify it’s 141K offer. I was subtracting all the estimated 5K insurance costs to get 136K and I subtracted estimated 8K for 10 days paid time off and 5 paid holidays to get 128K and comparing that to 97K.

if this is easier: current salary 97K ($47/hr), 20 paid vacation days included, 5 paid sick days, 6 paid holidays, no growth/limited growth

new offer: $68/hour, 2 weeks unpaid off, holidays not paid, future growth opportunities
 
Last edited:
To clarify it’s 141K offer. I was subtracting all the estimated 5K insurance costs to get 136K and I subtracted estimated 8K for 10 days paid time off and 5 paid holidays to get 128K and comparing that to 97K.

if this is easier: current salary 97K ($47/hr), 20 paid vacation days included, 5 paid sick days, 6 paid holidays, no growth/limited growth

new offer: $68/hour, 2 weeks unpaid off, holidays not paid, future growth opportunities

You keep confusing yourself because you aren’t presenting everything. This is seriously a no brainer.

You keep the current position. Includes 31 days PAID pto , 3% match that compounds.
 
You don't take PTO?

How much would you pay for health insurance as an individual instead of paying for employer-sponsored insurance?
 
To clarify it’s 141K offer. I was subtracting all the estimated 5K insurance costs to get 136K and I subtracted estimated 8K for 10 days paid time off and 5 paid holidays to get 128K and comparing that to 97K.

if this is easier: current salary 97K ($47/hr), 20 paid vacation days included, 5 paid sick days, 6 paid holidays, no growth/limited growth

new offer: $68/hour, 2 weeks unpaid off, holidays not paid, future growth opportunities

First you said 135k then 130k then 141k, what is it? Stop subtracting and adding. This isn't hard, just tell us what it is. Based on your most recent response, my opinion is - you kidding me?? You get 20 paid vacation days! It would take like 15 years to get that many as a pharmacist.
 
Is that so? I figured contracts had clauses for early termination.
Contract in this context certainly implies guarantee, if you can be dropped then you have no guarantee and a more accurate connotation would be saying “they tell me i’ll likely make “x” if i manage to stay around for two years.
 
It is 68/hour for a 2 year contract.

Own Insurance costs through the staffing agency are 7K.

68 x 40 hours x 49 weeks (instead of 52 as company is closed 2 weeks plus 5 unpaid holidays) = 133K

133K- 7K for insurance costs = 126K

though I’m young and use optometry once a year/dental twice a year/never the doc so I might skip “mandated” insurance and pay the $700 fine though IL may not have one.

Keep in mind I’m a workaholic, barely like taking PTO Though I use it, and I really want to get into a big Pharma sponsor. Direct would be ideal but contracts are much easier at big Pharma and then make connections and permanent after 2 years or go back to a former company.

An additional 30K isn’t what I’m after - I’m trying to get a big company on my CV so then I will have a stronger CV as currently no one has heard of the companies on my CV so it’s hard to get interviews in clinical trial management. I don’t care about the money - I’m thinking about future growth.

I have a lot of thinking to do as I understand it’s a big risk doing a contract with a potential layoff and not accepting the offer would not look good with the company potentially black listing me for future perm roles.
 
Don't cheap out on insurance. One emergency room visit could devastate you financially.
 
Anyone else have insight on this? It looks like it’s tied in the poll. Basically it comes down to stability vs growth opportunities down the road in the end. Tough decision.

I’m going to ask if they will make me permanent on a 100K salary as I’m leaning now towards not doing the $68/hour or 133K contract for 2 years.
 
Is that so? I figured contracts had clauses for early termination.
It's still at will employment. They can get rid of you anytime. In fact if they wanted to get rid of you, they would just call the recruiting agency and tell them to not send the guy anymore.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else have insight on this? It looks like it’s tied in the poll. Basically it comes down to stability vs growth opportunities down the road in the end. Tough decision.

I’m going to ask if they will make me permanent on a 100K salary as I’m leaning now towards not doing the $68/hour or 133K contract for 2 years.
I would do it if you have a spouse with health insurance. If not, dont risk it.
 
Anyone else have insight on this? It looks like it’s tied in the poll. Basically it comes down to stability vs growth opportunities down the road in the end. Tough decision.

I’m going to ask if they will make me permanent on a 100K salary as I’m leaning now towards not doing the $68/hour or 133K contract for 2 years.
How old are you?
It's still at will employment. They can get rid of you anytime. In fact if they wanted to get rid of you, they would just call the recruiting agency and tell them to to send the guy anymore.
Yup. This just happened at a facility where I work. Poor guy had a wife and kids. Managers lied to him and told him he would remain till the end of the contract and possibly continue lol. Guy was clueless. He kept making all these errors and still believed they’d keep him. He was even in the managers office a couple times because of the errors and still couldn’t believe they would just fire him. After the first of the year he didn’t come back. Pretty sure the managers here called his temp company to tell him not to come in anymore. I told him he should be looking for full time work. He then asks me if I’ve seen any full time work for pharmacists lol. Hope he learns he might have to do something else. At least he doesn’t have to drive an hour and a half one way to work.
 
How old are you?

Yup. This just happened at a facility where I work. Poor guy had a wife and kids. Managers lied to him and told him he would remain till the end of the contract and possibly continue lol. Guy was clueless. He kept making all these errors and still believed they’d keep him. He was even in the managers office a couple times because of the errors and still couldn’t believe they would just fire him. After the first of the year he didn’t come back. Pretty sure the managers here called his temp company to tell him not to come in anymore. I told him he should be looking for full time work. He then asks me if I’ve seen any full time work for pharmacists lol. Hope he learns he might have to do something else. At least he doesn’t have to drive an hour and a half one way to work.
Though, errors or no errors. When the company doesn’t need you or has no work, they send you home. Welcome to the new Gig economy.
 
To be clear, I’m not a pharmacist and this is not a pharmacist position. This is within clinical trials in the Pharma industry.

I’m 30, not married and live with family so I don’t have any bills or dependents like kids.
 
My bias is that you are selling yourself short. I started in the industry with working for contract research organizations (I was not on contract but my companies were). I did this for 4 years, and then I switched to biotechs with >2500 employees. I was always a permanent employee, as that was my preference. I've never had any trouble getting interviews at companies between 30,000-100,000 employees, even when I was working for the CROs. I believe if they want to hire you as a contract person, some established pharma or biotech company will likely hire you as an employee. That said, this specific company that is offering you the position may not. Over the past 4 years, we have brought many people on as independent contractors, partly because it comes from a totally different budget and allows us to scale up and down quickly. Also, it tends to be cheaper for us once you factor in the benefits. For the good contractors, we convert them to permanent anyway.

Since Illinois is a different market, you need to be sure that the specifics of your market don't limit your options in ways that I am not considering. Ultimately, you have to weigh your desire to work for this company now on their terms versus perceived job security and benefits with a traditional W2 job. Personally, I refuse to work on contracts in the current market (too hot) unless it's ridiculously in my favor and exactly what I want. Who knows in the future though? Markets change all the time.

On a side note, please give serious consideration before you forego health insurance. If you really can't afford it or don't want to afford it, get Catastropic Medical Insurance. Medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy. I know of people who ended up having major medical events (ie, cancer, myocardical infarctions) who were young and relatively healthy.

Good Luck.

BTW, you may additionally want to target a pharm-centric forum to find more people in your situation.
 
Last edited:
Are there clinical trial/pharm industry forums? Please specify which one...

also I work for a clinical trial vendor, not CRO or sponsor.
 
Last edited:
On a side note, please give serious consideration before you forego health insurance. If you really can't afford it or don't want to afford it, get Catastropic Medical Insurance. Medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy. I know of people who ended up having major medical events (ie, cancer, myocardical infarctions) who were young and relatively healthy.

Good Luck.

BTW, you may additionally want to target a pharm-centric forum to find more people in your situation.

This is good advice. Never go without health insurance.
 
Seems to me like you are already leaning towards the contract position.
I could be wrong but most (if not all) pharmacists value job stability/security, especially in this market right now... so our decision-making is going to be a little different from yours considering you are not a pharmacist and you are more interested in growth opportunities.

If I were in your position, I would still weigh the risks of taking a temporary contract position vs a stable position you already have. Two years and a couple thousand bucks will fly by fast so you should prepare to plan ahead. What will you do if you aren't offered a position with that contract company after your 2 years are up? Can you go back to the job you already had? Do you have to relocate again?
 
To clarify, I’m not a pharmacist but I work in Pharma industry in clinical trials.

I subtracted the benefits and then the 2 year contract is more like 130K vs the current perm position of 97K. Then tax at 25% and you subtract 7.5K from the 30K additional income, so it’s more like 22.5K more each year.

I don’t have kids, not married, live with family, and have no loans and no mortgage.

You all think the benefits are worth 20-30K??? You do know I make 97K as the paid time off/paid holidays is not supplemental income. I do miss out on 3% 401K match from the $19,500.

Also, I subtracted 3 weeks of pay from the offer because of the typical 10 days PTO (and and 5 days of holidays. Then I subtracted 5K for own insurance costs so that led to 130K.

It’s between getting into a big company with more future opportunities, hopefully becoming permanent after 2 years and making 130K in the next 2 years or staying at my current job of 97K with the benefits and it’s permanent but limited growth opportunities.

Just curious but what is your title/role exactly? Why is your name is "FuturePharmD" ? I don't want to jump to any conclusions but you are 30 years old, have 0 loans/mortgage, make 97K/year+benefits, and you live with family??? Does your family live with you (meaning you own the home) or are you freeloading? Because if you are freeloading, then now I understand why you can afford to take the risk of becoming unemployed if they don't offer you a position after your contract ends
 
Contract in this context certainly implies guarantee, if you can be dropped then you have no guarantee and a more accurate connotation would be saying “they tell me i’ll likely make “x” if i manage to stay around for two years.

"Contract" means the employer and employee are contracted with a third party staffing company, and the job assignment is 2-years. Terms of early termination is in the said "contract" too, along with other agreements such as benefits, holidays, etc. You get it?
 
"Contract" means the employer and employee are contracted with a third party staffing company, and the job assignment is 2-years. Terms of early termination is in the said "contract" too, along with other agreements such as benefits, holidays, etc. You get it?

LoL you mean it's not like in the NBA where the money is guaranteed?
 
nothing is permanent in pharmacy anymore....you take what you can at the best rate and keep moving......its only a job now, not a career.
 
Benefits in pharma can be from 25-40k difference if they convert you to permanent - pto, paid holidays, long term disability, life insurance, health/dental/vision, 401k, personal development, etc. This is a fairly typical benefits package.

That said, the most important question to ask is if the sponsor side is where you want to be. If yes, then the answer is a no brainer. Two years contract experience is more than enough to kickstart a career within pharma, regardless whether that company offers you a permanent position after the contract. In fact, contract positions are probably the major route of entry into pharma industry. Unless they did a fellowship, most I know in the industry including myself started through a contract role. Not everyone was offered a permanent position with contracting company, but I have yet to see someone unable to find a job in pharma after getting even a 1 year contract under their belt. At worst case, they're able to find another contract with a different pharma company. Seasoned clinical trial managers in particular are in such demand that many turn down permanent offers so they can take the highest contract bidder every 1.5 years or so - I've seen contract rates of 150+/hr for well respected CTMs. These people get paid well, are in demand for their skillset, arent interested in climbing the corporate ladder, are sometimes 100% remote so dont even need PTO, and they periodically travel domestically or internationally on the company dime to site visits and investigator meetings (which are usually hosted in vacation locations) - it's no wonder that clinical operations is an area where some companies struggle to entice enough contractors to accept permanent offers, or retain the ones that do.

A successfully completed clinical trial is the one of the most tangible signs of value to a company. Just observe how a press release of positive topline data from a trial can immediately impact the stock price. It's definitely an area companies devote significant budget to, and worth the 2 year contract experience imo.

In today's competitive world, job stability is mostly an illusion unless it's the govt. Gone are the days where you can count on being with the same organization (or pharmacy) 10-20 years later with a fattening pension plan. I guess the better question to ask yourself is would you prefer 1 "stable" job or gain the experience and skillset to secure many jobs? Equating job stability with job security is an outdated concept that people in other industries have already had to adjust to, but traditional pharmacists have been somewhat shielded from this reality until more recently.
 
Last edited:
"Contract" means the employer and employee are contracted with a third party staffing company, and the job assignment is 2-years. Terms of early termination is in the said "contract" too, along with other agreements such as benefits, holidays, etc. You get it?

Like i said , nothing is permanent in pharmacy these days, nothing solid or guaranteed. Early termination is highly possible. in fact, quite likely these days.
 
Benefits in pharma can be from 25-40k difference if they convert you to permanent - pto, paid holidays, long term disability, life insurance, health/dental/vision, 401k, personal development, etc. This is a fairly typical benefits package.

That said, the most important question to ask is if the sponsor side is where you want to be. If yes, then the answer is a no brainer. Two years contract experience is more than enough to kickstart a career within pharma, regardless whether that company offers you a permanent position after the contract. In fact, contract positions are probably the major route of entry into pharma industry. Unless they did a fellowship, most I know in the industry including myself started through a contract role. Not everyone was offered a permanent position with contracting company, but I have yet to see someone unable to find a job in pharma after getting even a 1 year contract under their belt. At worst case, they're able to find another contract with a different pharma company. Seasoned clinical trial managers in particular are in such demand that many turn down permanent offers so they can take the highest contract bidder every 1.5 years or so - I've seen contract rates of 150+/hr for well respected CTMs. These people get paid well, are in demand for their skillset, arent interested in climbing the corporate ladder, are sometimes 100% remote so dont even need PTO, and they periodically travel domestically or internationally on the company dime to site visits and investigator meetings (which are usually hosted in vacation locations) - it's no wonder that clinical operations is an area where some companies struggle to entice enough contractors to accept permanent offers, or retain the ones that do.

A successfully completed clinical trial is the one of the most tangible signs of value to a company. Just observe how a press release of positive topline data from a trial can immediately impact the stock price. It's definitely an area companies devote significant budget to, and worth the 2 year contract experience imo.

In today's competitive world, job stability is mostly an illusion unless it's the govt. Gone are the days where you can count on being with the same organization (or pharmacy) 10-20 years later with a fattening pension plan. I guess the better question to ask yourself is would you prefer 1 "stable" job or gain the experience and skillset to secure many jobs? Equating job stability with job security is an outdated concept that people in other industries have already had to adjust to, but traditional pharmacists have been somewhat shielded from this reality until more recently.

Great post. Just curious, are there any short-term contract positions that a new pharmacy school graduate might qualify for? Others have mentioned contract positions in drug info and medical affairs in the past. Would you also say that these are the employment areas that new grads have the best chances of getting hired into?
 
I was presented a 2 year contract role at a big pharmaceutical company in Chicago, which would mean I would leave a permanent role. The salary is significantly more like (35K) as it’s a contract, but no benefits like insurance, PTO, paid holidays or 401K.

I have so far worked at smaller clinical research companies for the past 4 years. It would be great to get into a big sponsor through this route and it’s a 2 year contract, but I still have some reservations. I know it’s hard to get a job in the Chicago area with limited companies and there’s the potential for an early lay-off or not finding a job after 2 years. I’ve never done a contract role because of the instability and I’ve heard mixed things about contractors.

I make 97K currently in a permanent role with 4 weeks vacation, paid holidays and 401K.

This opportunity is 135K each year for 2 years with no benefits or time off.

I’m debating if I should accept the offer. Do you have any advice or thoughts?
By contract do you mean you would be an independent contractor getting a 1099 instead of w2? If so you have to factor in the extra taxes you will pay.
 
Great post. Just curious, are there any short-term contract positions that a new pharmacy school graduate might qualify for? Others have mentioned contract positions in drug info and medical affairs in the past. Would you also say that these are the employment areas that new grads have the best chances of getting hired into?

Of course. Even in recent years, I've seen my workplaces hire a PharmD with 1 year of retail experience, a PharmD who was so fresh they hadn't even taken the MPJE yet, and a BS Pharm who had been at a retail chain for 10 years, an RN with only 1 year clinical experience plus 8 months industry experience, a fresh biomedical science master's degree grad without any work experience. All in drug safety or med info. All started as contractors and all became permanent either with the same company or another. Dont get me wrong- there are also plenty of seasoned veterans and all those people i mentioned above would consider themselves at least a little lucky - but it's very doable even without a fellowship. For perspective, my current company has several PharmDs scattered throughout different depts but not 1 has done a fellowship. Also - in 15 years of industry experience, I have yet to see a SINGLE individual that started as a contractor who could not eventually find a permanent position if they really wanted one. As for the "short-term" part - it all depends on timing. People do go on maternity leave or short-term disability, or sometimes there's a short-term project that needs more help. It's actually hard to find candidates willing to contract for only 3-6 months.

I feel like there are 3 general types of PharmDs entering pharma. The first are the ones who did everything right as well as being strong communicators. They went by the book and did a fellowship and so forth. The second are street (socially?) smart with good interpersonal communication skills but struggled through pharmacy school. They may have had to repeat a year but learned a valuable lesson in persistence along the way. They almost always start out in retail but eventually decide to get out - the persistence and "can do" attitude comes in handy once again. The third are the rest - PharmDs who didnt really struggle through school but didnt do (or failed to match) a residency. They might be bright with great work ethic and anywhere from moderate to good communication skills - but not enough to stand out in a residency or fellowship interview process. Or they might have just not felt like doing post grad work. The first type probably makes up the fewest in proportion. All 3 types equally end up having successful and satisfying careers in the industry. Being that the OP isn't a pharmacist, I realize this is getting sidetracked but I guess since this forum is intended to be for pharmacists....
 
Last edited:
Of course. Even in recent years, I've seen my workplaces hire a PharmD with 1 year of retail experience, a PharmD who was so fresh they hadn't even taken the MPJE yet, and a BS Pharm who had been at a retail chain for 10 years, an RN with only 1 year clinical experience plus 8 months industry experience, a fresh biomedical science master's degree grad without any work experience. All in drug safety or med info. All started as contractors and all became permanent either with the same company or another. Dont get me wrong- there are also plenty of seasoned veterans and all those people i mentioned above would consider themselves at least a little lucky - but it's very doable even without a fellowship. For perspective, my current company has several PharmDs scattered throughout different depts but not 1 has done a fellowship. Also - in 15 years of industry experience, I have yet to see a SINGLE individual that started as a contractor who could not eventually find a permanent position if they really wanted one. As for the "short-term" part - it all depends on timing. People do go on maternity leave or short-term disability, or sometimes there's a short-term project that needs more help. It's actually hard to find candidates willing to contract for only 3-6 months.

I feel like there are 3 general types of PharmDs entering pharma. The first are the ones who did everything right as well as being strong communicators. They went by the book and did a fellowship and so forth. The second are street (socially?) smart with good interpersonal communication skills but struggled through pharmacy school. They may have had to repeat a year but learned a valuable lesson in persistence along the way. They almost always start out in retail but eventually decide to get out - the persistence and "can do" attitude comes in handy once again. The third are the rest - PharmDs who didnt really struggle through school but didnt do (or failed to match) a residency. They might be bright with great work ethic and anywhere from moderate to good communication skills - but not enough to stand out in a residency or fellowship interview process. Or they might have just not felt like doing post grad work. The first type probably makes up the fewest in proportion. All 3 types equally end up having successful and satisfying careers in the industry. Being that the OP isn't a pharmacist, I realize this is getting sidetracked but I guess since this forum is intended to be for pharmacists....

what is the entry-level position of this career route
 
what is the entry-level position of this career route

There isnt a universal job title for such entry-level positions - and I suspect this is the biggest obstacle to pharmacists considering a career change. Often times you might see the job description titled as some kind of associate, analyst, specialist, or scientist but there are other titles that companies come up with. The number of years of experience required is more telling. If it's under 3 years then it could be considered entry level - but even those arent hard requirements usually. Sometimes it means they're willing to look at less (or zero), some will count your previous work experience as something depending on how well you do at communicating transferable skills. And sometimes they actually want more than what's written.
 
Last edited:
Love what @wazoodog wrote!! Love the mindset, advice and tips for getting into the Pharma industry!

I worked in clinical operations project management, but now am moving into clinical systems management working cross-functionally with various departments.

Also to clarify I’m not a pharmacist but science background/project manager experience in clinical trials (vendor side) and the goal is to eventually work as a CTM or director of clinical operations/project management on sponsor side.

This gateway into the sponsor side is a good opportunity albeit the risks for future long term career goals.
 
I was presented a 2 year contract role at a big pharmaceutical company in Chicago, which would mean I would leave a permanent role. The salary is significantly more like (35K) as it’s a contract, but no benefits like insurance, PTO, paid holidays or 401K.

I have so far worked at smaller clinical research companies for the past 4 years. It would be great to get into a big sponsor through this route and it’s a 2 year contract, but I still have some reservations. I know it’s hard to get a job in the Chicago area with limited companies and there’s the potential for an early lay-off or not finding a job after 2 years. I’ve never done a contract role because of the instability and I’ve heard mixed things about contractors.

I make 97K currently in a permanent role with 4 weeks vacation, paid holidays and 401K.

This opportunity is 135K each year for 2 years with no benefits or time off.

I’m debating if I should accept the offer. Do you have any advice or thoughts?

Benefits is typically 30% so $97 k is $126 k. I would also confirm who will be paying for the employer's portion of your social security tax and medicare tax (total 7.65% tax).
 
First you said 135k then 130k then 141k, what is it? Stop subtracting and adding. This isn't hard, just tell us what it is. Based on your most recent response, my opinion is - you kidding me?? You get 20 paid vacation days! It would take like 15 years to get that many as a pharmacist.

i dunno been managing with WM 3 years now and have 202 hours PTO.....starts Feb 1st.....thats a lot of days....lol they dont give that out anymore.
 
Follow your passion! I wouldn’t focus more on the money, but rather more on the job. If you love what you’re doing, you’re likely to thrive. Wazoodog is right, one year of experience is all you need to get your foot in the door for many other research job opportunities.
 
Benefits is typically 30% so $97 k is $126 k. I would also confirm who will be paying for the employer's portion of your social security tax and medicare tax (total 7.65% tax).
its usually the employer. Contract jobs are mostly w2. Few are 1099. if its 1099, they just give you cash and you pay the taxes yourself.
 
This gateway into the sponsor side is a good opportunity albeit the risks for future long term career goals.

The way I see it, taking the 135k opportunity is a fairly low risk with high reward. The reason why I throw in "fairly" is because of the small percentage horror story scenarios that exist with just about every job. In this case, the unluckiest scenario could be you accept the offer, give your notice at current job, and then through unforeseen circumstances the opportunity gets cut a few months in or completely. Throughout my career, I have seen this happen to only 1 person and heard of this happening to 1 other person (due to an acquisition). Neither had much trouble finding another opportunity, but they already had some experience. I suppose if you're still pretty green, then this may be a tough situation but at the end of the day - if you got the resilience and drive I highly doubt it's something that will set you back in the long run. And like I said, this is an extreme scenario that is plausible but I haven't seen happen to an entry-level position.

My lesson after working as a chain pharmacist and then in pharma/biotech - don't trust your job security to an employer. Trust yourself, your specialized expertise, the network you build, and your experience to be your job security. This becomes especially true as you start to get older. Young grads will always have the edge of being fresh, hungry, often more willing to do more for less, and inevitably better with new technology and ways of working. OTOH, being able to run a 2-year clinical trial with thousands of subjects across 50 sites around the globe all while managing site investigators, trial coordinators, 8+ vendors, negotiating budgets, all the functional departments involved AND reach your endpoints is a highly marketable skill only years and years of experience can buy. When you get to the point of accumulating that skill set, it won't matter if you get laid off at 50 years old - because there'll be plenty of other companies competing with each other to recruit your services for top dollar. Clinical development is like a long apprenticeship, and those who have reached the guru levels are relatively hard to find commodities. There's a huge difference between no experience and 6 months of experience, 5 years vs 10 years experience, and even between 15 years and 25 years experience in this industry. I'm at 15 years and still can't fathom the level of knowledge and experience that my colleagues with 35+ years experience have - some of these people are well past retirement age and companies value their expertise so much they convince them to stay on with very high pay and very accommodating work-life balance.

I was lucky to enter the workforce when I did, when demand for retail pharmacists was pretty high. I took a significant pay cut to leave behind a situation many here would say I'd be ridiculous to drop for a 1 year contract in pharma with less pay, no paid PTO or holidays, no 401k and no assurance of a job after. It was the best move I made in my career. Not because pharmacy isn't a good profession (it is), and I'm not an idealist who thinks you have to love what you do. But I do think it's important to think about whether the work you do is something you're proud to be excellent in. Every job will have its annoying parts, but only some will inspire you to become excellent at - it's different for everybody but it's the best form of job security. In the first few years of my career, I was of the mindset that a permanent job with comfortable working conditions/benefits with a stable employer was the epitome. Guess what - even the most stable employer can get bought out or go broke 10 years from now, management can change, benefits can change, and while money is important salaries can fluctuate and there are definitely many things it can't make up for (especially after taxes). If I stayed in my first pharmacist job, I don't think I would have developed a significantly better skill set to set me apart from the "15 years ago" version of myself. Which means between now and retirement, I'd be really stressed were I to be laid off and competing with younger candidates. This is the reality of falling into the comfort zone of trusting your employer to provide job security. The first time I experienced a layoff due to a merger (entire department got the notice in a conference room), an older colleague told me that this might be my first layoff, but it probably won't be the last. Hearing that was not only relieving, but got me to shift mindset. I saw that a lot of my colleagues weren't worried at all since they knew they had a skill set that only years of experience could buy. So if you're pretty young and the opportunity is something that might inspire you to continuously grow in excellence for years to come, then I'd say it's fairly low risk and high reward when looking at the long career ahead of you. And like some here have said, even permanent positions aren't really permanent. It means benefits, but it also means having to explain to your next interviewer why you're no longer there - whereas a contractor has the liberty of saying the contract was complete and leave it at that. To those saying this is high risk, I would say it's easy to confuse comfort zone with low risk. Yes, getting taken out of your comfort zone feels uncomfortable but staying in your comfort zone (especially in the early years of your career) is far more risky for future job security.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it, taking the 135k opportunity is a fairly low risk with high reward. The reason why I throw in "fairly" is because of the small percentage horror story scenarios that exist with just about every job. In this case, the unluckiest scenario could be you accept the offer, give your notice at current job, and then through unforeseen circumstances the opportunity gets cut a few months in or completely. Throughout my career, I have seen this happen to only 1 person and heard of this happening to 1 other person (due to an acquisition). Neither had much trouble finding another opportunity, but they already had some experience. I suppose if you're still pretty green, then this may be a tough situation but at the end of the day - if you got the resilience and drive I highly doubt it's something that will set you back in the long run. And like I said, this is an extreme scenario that is plausible but I haven't seen happen to an entry-level position.

My lesson after working as a chain pharmacist and then in pharma/biotech - don't trust your job security to an employer. Trust yourself, your specialized expertise, the network you build, and your experience to be your job security. This becomes especially true as you start to get older. Young grads will always have the edge of being fresh, hungry, often more willing to do more for less, and inevitably better with new technology and ways of working. OTOH, being able to run a 2-year clinical trial with thousands of subjects across 50 sites around the globe all while managing site investigators, trial coordinators, 8+ vendors, negotiating budgets, all the functional departments involved AND reach your endpoints is a highly marketable skill only years and years of experience can buy. When you get to the point of accumulating that skill set, it won't matter if you get laid off at 50 years old - because there'll be plenty of other companies competing with each other to recruit your services for top dollar. Clinical development is like a long apprenticeship, and those who have reached the guru levels are relatively hard to find commodities. There's a huge difference between no experience and 6 months of experience, 5 years vs 10 years experience, and even between 15 years and 25 years experience in this industry. I'm at 15 years and still can't fathom the level of knowledge and experience that my colleagues with 35+ years experience have - some of these people are well past retirement age and companies value their expertise so much they convince them to stay on with very high pay and very accommodating work-life balance.

I was lucky to enter the workforce when I did, when demand for retail pharmacists was pretty high. I took a significant pay cut to leave behind a situation many here would say I'd be ridiculous to drop for a 1 year contract in pharma with less pay, no paid PTO or holidays, no 401k and no assurance of a job after. It was the best move I made in my career. Not because pharmacy isn't a good profession (it is), and I'm not an idealist who thinks you have to love what you do. But I do think it's important to think about whether the work you do is something you're proud to be excellent in. Every job will have its annoying parts, but only some will inspire you to become excellent at - it's different for everybody but it's the best form of job security. In the first few years of my career, I was of the mindset that a permanent job with comfortable working conditions/benefits with a stable employer was the epitome. Guess what - even the most stable employer can get bought out or go broke 10 years from now, management can change, benefits can change, and while money is important salaries can fluctuate and there are definitely many things it can't make up for (especially after taxes). If I stayed in my first pharmacist job, I don't think I would have developed a significantly better skill set to set me apart from the "15 years ago" version of myself. Which means between now and retirement, I'd be really stressed were I to be laid off and competing with younger candidates. This is the reality of falling into the comfort zone of trusting your employer to provide job security. The first time I experienced a layoff due to a merger (entire department got the notice in a conference room), an older colleague told me that this might be my first layoff, but it probably won't be the last. Hearing that was not only relieving, but got me to shift mindset. I saw that a lot of my colleagues weren't worried at all since they knew they had a skill set that only years of experience could buy. So if you're pretty young and the opportunity is something that might inspire you to continuously grow in excellence for years to come, then I'd say it's fairly low risk and high reward when looking at the long career ahead of you. And like some here have said, even a permanent positions aren't really permanent. It means benefits, but it also means having to explain to your next interviewer why you're no longer there - where as a contractor can say just say the contract was complete and leave it at that.

This is a W2 (The staffing agency pays that 7% tax)- 2 year contract - you mentioned my worst fear/worst case scenario if the company ends the contract abruptly within a few months and kills the position for whatever reason. Then I will be out of a job but I have 4 years of project manager - vendor side - clinical operations experience. I would try my best to move into another role contract or perm at the sponsor company OR go back to a previous company I’ve worked at if they had openings and would take me back.

I’m taking that small risk knowing there’s more opportunities on the sponsor and CRO side than my current company at the vendor level.

I am looking at this move as something beneficial to the next 30 years of my life instead of being comfortable in my current cushy job for the next few years.
 
Top