Slashdot Mirror
Corporate Work in the US vs. Canada?
No One You Know asks: "I've been working as a sysadmin for an insurance company in the US for the past six years, and have decided to move to Canada. I've had it with corporate America, but I'm trying to keep an open mind while job hunting. How does Canadian corporate life compare to that of the US?"
... Tim Hortons
Cananda is not the 51st state and moving there isn't like moving to North Dakota.
If you are unhappy with corporate life in the US, get out of corporate life, not the US. Insurance is one of those industries dominated very large companies. Lots of rules, regulations and PHB. Go find a (stable, profitable, non-high tech) company with 80 - 200 employees. It is a whole 'nother world working for a small to midsized company.
Generally, variability within different U.S. companies (corporate culture and procedures) is greater than that between the U.S. and Canada (or the U.K., or Australia), so it depends on where you wind up.
First few weeks are difficult, but people have a lot of patience if you are seriously interested in learning thier language.
In a few years you will find that you have not only become bi-ligual, but bi-cultural, you will be able to switch between different ways of thinking, frankly it really broadens then mind.
Then, who knows, next stop Europe! If nothing else it is a great thing on your CV!
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
It works like this: you get paid less and taxed more.
In exchange it costs slightly less to live and hostpitals won't turn you away.
I never worry about my office building/city/town getting targeted by terrorists. That's not to say it won't ever happen, but when was the last time you heard anyone say, "Let's get those damn Canadians"?
Anyway, these two fellows from very different social backgrounds, one essentially being the boss' boss of the other, seemed to feel pretty comfortable kicking back a few bottles of Blue (Labbatt's Blue, the Canadian equivalent of... well, they drink the stuff as often as we drink coke or pepsi down here). Mind you, I often went out with both our CEO and with the people who worked for me, but that was the nature of my job. You'd rarely see my company's CEO out at lunch with our software developers, and if you did, they weren't exactly comfortably chit-chatting and kicking back beers, it always seemed much more strained.
It was always a pleasure to do work with our Canadian customers, and we always had a good time up there. Of course, I have to note that these guys were all making about a third what they'd have been making in the Boston area, when you account for currency differences and so on (then again, the cost of living is certainly lower up there, though it's not THAT much lower). Also, I suspect that big corporate environments in Canada are more uptight than what I saw, and I doubt that a large insurance company in Canada would be so much more laid back than a large insurance company in the US. But maybe I'm wrong.
I guess any is better than none.
~S
"does Canada value freedom and speech in all the same ways as the USA does"
Uh, we have a constitution as well. And we have the same rights as you do. But we didn't get it before 1980-something.
Before that, we had the BNA Act (British North American Act); it didn't really formally promise or guarantee anything, but being a rational, respectful people, we pretty much just agreed to get along and give others the same rights we would like ourself.
Now, maybe it's time to pick up a book, and learn about the country that does the most trade with the US, provides the most oil and gas to the US, speaks the same language with basically the same accent, and in general has been Americas closest ally (current situation aside). Canadians know alot about America and Americans, and show a fair bit of interest about what goes on there.
Would be nice to see that feeling reciprocated one day.
This may or may not be useful for you, but I worked for ~three years for a mid-sized Canadian corporation with offices located in the US.
The honeymoon: After getting dot-bombed twice, I was brought in for an interview via a personal referral, and it seemed like a good fit. I told them I was a little jittery about the technology economy, and to describe how they were doing. The response was something along the lines of "We've been making a small but dependable profit every year for the past thirty-plus years." I started work the next week. While primarily Canadian-run, the inclusion of British and Australians in the management mix gave a bit more of a truly international feel to the organization. The place was eerily quiet and very businesslike, which was a welcome change from the Brownian-motion style US/.com management of the previous few years.
The serious relationship: They kept me busy on a number of good technology projects, but the risk-averse environment began to grate on me. The Canadian management was interested in the *idea* of new clients, but was so entrenched in the repeat-business-by-reputation model that they consistently failed to track new opportunities. Even really good and profitable ventures with low risk that landed in their laps tended to be neglected. For example, I spent quite a bit of effort on a business plan for expansion of an existing line of work, only to have it neglected rather than rejected outright. Still, there were interesting work opportunities, and we plodded along with them. I resisted slowing my personal pace of business and technical exploration, but eventually reached something of a tolerable balance.
The divorce: The US operation began to lose money, and a new manager was brought in to build business. Instead, the uber-conservative atmosphere stymied new ventures at a higher level than had affected me directly. Low/med risk down here in the US was perceived as high-risk north of the border. The new manager (a low-wattage guy who was long on vision and short on follow-thru) then just resorted to layoffs. Now, a decent US-ian approach might have been to face up to the numbers, lay off a bunch of people with a semi-reasonable severance, and be done with it. Instead, in the Canadian corporate atmosphere I knew, having to do a layoff was a point of shame (which it should be, since any layoff is a tacit admission of management failure). But instead of getting it over with, they drew it out, firing an average of 1% a week for a year, on a seemingly random basis. The last straw for me was an ill-timed complaint that I made about not receiving my allotted training budget for the past two years. I was shooed out the door, only to be brought back as a consultant within a week. I finished my work shortly thereafter, and bowed out as gracefully as I could.
Would I work for a Canadian company again? Maybe, but probably not. These few years seemed to combine all the worst features of risk-verse Canadians, tall-poppy-averse Australians, form-over-substance-obsessed British, and blinded-by-your-own-BS-management Americans. But it was tolerable, we made a little money, and the company is still in business and probably will be for some time to come. Based on my experience, I would say a medium-sized Canadian corporation might be nice place to park yourself if you want a quiet, staid environment for a few years. But be careful that you don't take root and slow down to a point that you can't re-enter the US or other fast-paced market in the future.
Jon
I think not...(*poof*)
does Canada value freedom and speech in all the same ways as the USA does?
I really feel I need to adress this misconception.
I was raised in the US, and moved to Europe in my teens. Before that, I pretty much had the same question.
What I soon learned: In the USA, these concepts are extremely hyped. Not that they're not important, but americans tend to think that these concepts somehow are unique to the USA, or unique in importance to Americans.
It's just not true. The whole western world has pretty much the same attitude on these issues.
(And this is one of the reasons of US-EU friction:Europeans, not hyping this stuff so much, are more aware that the difference is relatively small, I feel. So when Americans say stuff like this, they percieve it as an american "We're the only ones who truly understand freedom" attitude.)
The question is how you define 'freedom'? The right to bear arms? Some think this is an important freedom. Most people in the western world, do not. On the other hand, the USA has less freedoms in other ways. Scandinavians are proud that they have the freedom to enter the property of others. (not squatting in someone's front yard, of course, but say, taking a stroll in someone's forest)
You can't burn the flag in Italy. But some Americans want that too.
The political difference on the issue of fundamental freedoms varies no more between the US and other western democracies than it does within the US.
There is a major difference is that the USA has the approach of not changing laws, especially not the consititution, to ban things. Instead, things get handled through lawsuits. So in the USA, you may often have the 'freedom' to do something in the sense that it's not prohibited by law, but on the other hand, you'll get sued into oblivion.
>Tell me who got the better treatment.
Off-topic and feeding the trolls, but I don't care. I'm sick of this argument.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
Geez. We learned this stuff in preschool.
And yes, I am an American. And I'm staying here to vote against the people who think like you.