I guess your living costs would be lower, but it seems like you'd need specialist knowledge to actually make it work. What do you guys think?

by ItalianManion

20 comments

  1. It’s effectively minimum wage; I suppose if food and lodgings were included it might be ok for a specific type of person?

  2. It’s pretty much the standard wage for conservation work unfortunately. It’s a hideously underpaid industry considering the specialist skills/knowledge required.

    Edit: it does include accommodation though, which is a benefit in kind, so technically better compensated than a lot of other roles!

  3. Wow. I didn’t see the wage figures when I skimmed it but I was thinking “would it be worth it for 70-80k?” which is what I figured it would be a year. But 26k is way too low in my opinion.

  5. Can’t legally be much lower than £26k to put it this way

  6. That’s less than I get paid working retail. And you would need to travel to mainland to get supplies etc.

  8. This is par for the course for conservation/ecology/heritage roles.

    A combo of the organisations employing not having the clout and funding, and a cynical understanding that there will _always_ be keen young beans ready to take jobs like this.

  9. 26k for 6 months without paying for living space isn’t awful.

    But these kinds of jobs are taken by those who aren’t purely motivated by money.

  10. Lol, no.  They won’t be short of applicants. 

    God it was hell competing with PhD people, people who have worked in a different industry for 25 years and want a change and can afford to work for fuck all and six months. 

    My partner has incredibly specialised knowledge relating to genetics, diseases and cancer and she’s paid less than me and I put water in a bottle for a living. 

  11. That’s about standard for conservation work. Unfortunately no one makes money off saving and protecting animals so the pay is always minor. That and there are loads and loads of ultra passionate wonderful people who want to do this work which also depressed the wages (I reckon hundreds will apply). 

  12. It’s an experience. For some – this would be paradise.

  13. Welcome to the world of being a Ranger. Salaries vary from minimum wage working at charities who prey on those that are passionate and enthusiastic. Where people trade a wage in favour of doing something they love in a fantastic location. To some government organisations where wages are closer to £35k a year for seasonal positions. But roles are often less glamorous or exciting.

    These jobs are extremely competitive now. Often expecting candidates to have years of voluntary experience and a relevant degree.

    It comes with housing which is obviously a big bonus. But it’s still a lifestyle choice as you’d have to find work over the off season. I’ve been there and done that. Short term contracts on low wages becomes unsustainable pretty quickly unless you are willing to make significant sacrifices. Which some people are.

  14. Well, that just happens to be exactly what I’m looking for. I’m outlining a new writing project and five months of peace is just what I want.

  15. Sectors like this which serve the public good, but are not profitable, tend to be horribly underpaid.

    Hopefully folks are able to live cheaply on a remote posting though as there will be little to spend money on.

  16. It’s a desirable job that doesn’t require a degree, they’re going to have hundreds of worthy applicants so they can pay whatever they like.

  17. Also that’s not far off the UK average to live on a Scottish island to yourself.

  18. It includes accommodation and suggests is just March to Sept, it doesn’t say it’s per annum salary? Suddenly sounds pretty good so maybe it is a per annum salary.

  20. It’s only too low if they don’t get applicants, it’s pitched at this level because they know they will get hundreds of applicants even at this. Lots of people would be willing to live on a Scottish island rent free for a summer, even if just for the experience.

Comments are closed.