...I am tired of looking for work

Right on! I had 20 years with Wyeth and my experience with them mirrors yours. It was a great time to be in the industry and they treated us like gold. Upper management believed in the value of their employees and the relationships that they developed with their customers.
I loved what I did. I choose not to go into management because over the years it became increasingly clear what a bs job it was, especially when the hiring trends turned to the "barbie and kens" which meant more babysitting as a manager. Remember, we were hired to sell and we were trusted to do this on our own on a daily basis! The reps that are in pharma now will never experience the great careers that we have had, the industry is not the same.

I have started another career now, not making what I once did, but grateful for a paycheck and a chance to be productive before I retire ( another 3 years).

Good luck to all - everyone will land on their feet - you have to believe.

 

Like the other posters, I take offense to your mean and ignorant comment. We can't have all chiefs and no Indians -- who'll do the work?! Look, there's a place for everyone and I was lucky enough to find out early in my career that I was not happy as a manager. So yes, I took one of the "lowly" positions you speak of ("lowly" in your eyes only) and stayed there. As someone else pointed out, the early years were good. I remember when my expertise and experience were valued ... when my role in the "process" was held in just as high regard as anyone else's. I was good at what I did and took pride in my accomplishments. I too, go far enough back to remember when we got the free honeymoon week...and some other nice perks as well. This is not to say I didn't work my tail off, I did. But I did it because I believed that I was working towards a goal, I was working for the common good. I truly liked my colleagues and my team and wanted to do my part so we could all succeed. How idealistic! Around the time of the consent decree Good ol' Fred H would send countless emails telling us to "hang in there, we're almost in the turn-around. I'm proud of you. We're all in this together and those who stay will be rewarded in the end." I guess I misunderstood what "end" he was talking about...some of us took it in the end, alright. I lost many of my original colleagues in the multiple layoffs that soon followed. Some reward.
Now, I still work hard (it's part of my makeup and it's hard to stop even when it's not appreciated) but now I do it only for MYSELF. (And obviously for the paycheck.)

But anyway, back to the point, Mr Hiring RM, go ahead and toss those "lowly lifers" aside...the people who stayed in their positions so long because they liked what they were doing. And they were good at it too. And as a result of their long tenure, they knew almost everything there was to know, and because of that, things ran smoothly, and few (if any) errors occurred. Sure, after so many years, their salary increased (as it should) but it was worth it for the countless ways they saved money for the company by not making mistakes, or finding ways to improve process.

Yes, go ahead and replace them with some newbie who will only stay in the "lowly" position long enough to get a toehold on the next rung (and maybe leave a mess behind in their wake). And that's to be expected--everyone needs to start somewhere and some people want to climb--good for them. But don't put down those who aren't out to be the next CEO. It's NOT lazy to stay in a position where you are content and the money is enough for your family to happily get by on. No, it's not laziness or a lack of ambition. My ambition lies foremost with having a happy home life; career/money is secondary. I'm not dissing those who chase the almighty dollar--I see what having a lot of money can do (good AND bad!) Unlike you, though, I'm open-minded enough to know that there's room for both kinds of people and one is not better than the other.

So try running a company without the "lowly lifers." Bring in all the newer (cheaper) blood. You'll have a company of back-stabbing cannibals climbing all over each other's backs in the frenzy to the top (the "top" that might not even exist in future) and nobody to do the work at the so-called "bottom." Oh wait, I think I'm describing the "New Merck!"

Happy trails!

 

Like the other posters, I take offense to your mean and ignorant comment. We can't have all chiefs and no Indians -- who'll do the work?! Look, there's a place for everyone and I was lucky enough to find out early in my career that I was not happy as a manager. So yes, I took one of the "lowly" positions you speak of ("lowly" in your eyes only) and stayed there. As someone else pointed out, the early years were good. I remember when my expertise and experience were valued ... when my role in the "process" was held in just as high regard as anyone else's. I was good at what I did and took pride in my accomplishments. I too, go far enough back to remember when we got the free honeymoon week...and some other nice perks as well. This is not to say I didn't work my tail off, I did. But I did it because I believed that I was working towards a goal, I was working for the common good. I truly liked my colleagues and my team and wanted to do my part so we could all succeed. How idealistic! Around the time of the consent decree Good ol' Fred H would send countless emails telling us to "hang in there, we're almost in the turn-around. I'm proud of you. We're all in this together and those who stay will be rewarded in the end." I guess I misunderstood what "end" he was talking about...some of us took it in the end, alright. I lost many of my original colleagues in the multiple layoffs that soon followed. Some reward.
Now, I still work hard (it's part of my makeup and it's hard to stop even when it's not appreciated) but now I do it only for MYSELF. (And obviously for the paycheck.)

But anyway, back to the point, Mr Hiring RM, go ahead and toss those "lowly lifers" aside...the people who stayed in their positions so long because they liked what they were doing. And they were good at it too. And as a result of their long tenure, they knew almost everything there was to know, and because of that, things ran smoothly, and few (if any) errors occurred. Sure, after so many years, their salary increased (as it should) but it was worth it for the countless ways they saved money for the company by not making mistakes, or finding ways to improve process.

Yes, go ahead and replace them with some newbie who will only stay in the "lowly" position long enough to get a toehold on the next rung (and maybe leave a mess behind in their wake). And that's to be expected--everyone needs to start somewhere and some people want to climb--good for them. But don't put down those who aren't out to be the next CEO. It's NOT lazy to stay in a position where you are content and the money is enough for your family to happily get by on. No, it's not laziness or a lack of ambition. My ambition lies foremost with having a happy home life; career/money is secondary. I'm not dissing those who chase the almighty dollar--I see what having a lot of money can do (good AND bad!) Unlike you, though, I'm open-minded enough to know that there's room for both kinds of people and one is not better than the other.

So try running a company without the "lowly lifers." Bring in all the newer (cheaper) blood. You'll have a company of back-stabbing cannibals climbing all over each other's backs in the frenzy to the top (the "top" that might not even exist in future) and nobody to do the work at the so-called "bottom." Oh wait, I think I'm describing the "New Merck!"

Happy trails!

 

Not climbing the corporate ladder is a smart move for reasons your small mind would never understand.