|
I have a real problem with contract to hire jobs to begin with, but the exchange I had with a recruiter today just took it up a notch.  I have this contract to hire position. Thanks, but I am only looking for direct hire positions. "This is only a 2-3 month contract, and they informed us they 100% need to hire someone on full time, but they are exercising a “try before you buy” model. Are you sure you don’t want to hear more?" "As a senior level engineer, I am not willing to take all of the risk in a 'try before you buy' hiring process. I view these positions as an indication of a poorly managed company that does not value experience, expertise, and employee retention. Please share this sentiment with them if you like." "Can you send me your updated resume for future positions then?"I stopped short of telling her that since she is like the 5th person to contact me about this job that clearly this 'try before you buy' thing is really working out for them.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
mewse posted:I was trying to run a backup on a server and ended up discovering a badmail folder with 700,000 tiny files in it Exchange trigger warning right there
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
I discovered why there were so many badmail messages, redirected the software to a valid mailbox, and it sent us 1400 new emails in less than a day
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:I have a real problem with contract to hire jobs to begin with, but the exchange I had with a recruiter today just took it up a notch. I'll spare you my full diatribe on it but contract to hire has some value - at least in at-will states like VA. Here you can be fired at any time regardless of your contract or perm-ness so the "security" of a perm job is largely just perceived. Ever look at the fine print when you sign an offer letter? It likely says that the first 90 days or so is a probationary period. The "try before you buy" cuts both ways and gives you a nice eject button if you get in there and it's not all you hoped and dreamed. If you get 3 months in and decide it's hell, you call me and I can try and find you a new home before the contract period is up. With perm, I can touch you because ethics. Saying that it's "try before you buy" is a horrible way to describe contract to hire too, so the recruiter is probably not the brightest bulb. A lot of companies just use it to avoid paying up front perm fees, or because the manager can't get that fee approved but happens to have a consulting budget he can use for contractors. Bottom line is in most cases, the contract to hire is just another way to onboard a fulltime employee. If your recruiter is any good, they will explain all this and cite some examples of other people they have placed there, and then your icing on the cake should be your own talk during the interview with the manager. Anyway, everyone's situation is different so I'm not trying to tell you to take it but just throwing some CtH info out there in case it helps anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:I'll spare you my full diatribe on it but contract to hire has some value - at least in at-will states like VA. Here you can be fired at any time regardless of your contract or perm-ness so the "security" of a perm job is largely just perceived. Ever look at the fine print when you sign an offer letter? It likely says that the first 90 days or so is a probationary period. The "try before you buy" cuts both ways and gives you a nice eject button if you get in there and it's not all you hoped and dreamed. If you get 3 months in and decide it's hell, you call me and I can try and find you a new home before the contract period is up. With perm, I can touch you because ethics. If the employer can get rid of them during a probationary period anyway and the employee can leave at any time, what's the point of contract to hire? If it's just the recruiter's way to earn some money (by charging the employee's wages plus 50% or whatever), that can be paid out for an employee they refer anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If the employer can get rid of them during a probationary period anyway and the employee can leave at any time, what's the point of contract to hire? If it's just the recruiter's way to earn some money (by charging the employee's wages plus 50% or whatever), that can be paid out for an employee they refer anyway. It lets the employer save on the costs associated with having a W-2 employee while they figure out whether they want to keep them or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
psydude posted:It lets the employer save on the costs associated with having a W-2 employee while they figure out whether they want to keep them or not. Are there really any savings? I can't imagine the contractor/recruiter's mark-up are lower than the cost of fringe benefits for an employee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Are there really any savings? I can't imagine the contractor/recruiter's mark-up are lower than the cost of fringe benefits for an employee. Direct labor contracts are typically priced 20-25% over the employee's salary. W-2 employees generally cost their employers around 2-2.5 times their actual salary when payroll taxes, benefits, and general support costs are factored in. In the IT world, where salaries routinely surpass $100,000, the cost savings can add up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Are there really any savings? I can't imagine the contractor/recruiter's mark-up are lower than the cost of fringe benefits for an employee. I would assume the added hassle of unemployment are an issue if the company is small.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If the employer can get rid of them during a probationary period anyway and the employee can leave at any time, what's the point of contract to hire? If it's just the recruiter's way to earn some money (by charging the employee's wages plus 50% or whatever), that can be paid out for an employee they refer anyway. In a lot of larger companies, hiring managers might have to get HR approval or deal with red tape or 800 other reasons that make it hard to get a stamp of approval on a ~$20K fee. Conversely, consulting budgets are often under their direct control, and then they can hire with no fee after 6 months or whatever. And I get paid either way, although truth be told I'd rather have contract revenue because it's recurring monthly (and generally more over time) as opposed to the one shot perm deals but really I don't care. I care about finding good situations for my people, keeping them happy and having them and our clients send us more business/referrals. In regards to what we pay you and our markup, your pay is driven by our conversation and my understanding of your situation. If you say you need $45/hr, I'm going to get that for you or I'm going to have a drat good reason why I can't and I'll explain it to you and see if it still makes sense. What I bill the client is generally not as exorbitant as you might think, but I am providing a service for them and it costs money to payroll you, keep our lights on, pay me and my team (instead of paying their own internal recruiter), etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
psydude posted:Direct labor contracts are typically priced 20-25% over the employee's salary. W-2 employees generally cost their employers around 2-2.5 times their actual salary when payroll taxes, benefits, and general support costs are factored in. In the IT world, where salaries routinely surpass $100,000, the cost savings can add up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:W-2 employees do cost a bit more, but the numbers are nowhere near that drastic. The average distribution of compensation is around 69% to salary and 31% to vacation, health insurance, and other benefits. Payroll taxes, 401k contributions, health insurance, and general administrative support overhead cost quite a bit. It obviously varies between organizations and the area in which you live, but 2x is the number that was quoted to me by an internal accountant at one of my previous jobs. psydude fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Am I the only one that has no problem with contract to hire or hasnt had a bad experience? A few jobs ago I did a contract to hire and the employer was very up front in the fact that they do it to make sure that the new employee is a good fit culture wise and knows how to do their job. I think it can work well for employers and employees. It's hard to get a good feel for a company through interviewing alone. If you can work there a few months get a feel for the place and then decide to stay all the better. Saves you from feeling stuck in a job you may not like and saves the employer from having lovely employees. Now all that said if they tried to drag it out or extend the contract portion I would absolutely be pissed and just find something else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
BaseballPCHiker posted:Am I the only one that has no problem with contract to hire or hasnt had a bad experience? A few jobs ago I did a contract to hire and the employer was very up front in the fact that they do it to make sure that the new employee is a good fit culture wise and knows how to do their job. I think it can work well for employers and employees. It's hard to get a good feel for a company through interviewing alone. If you can work there a few months get a feel for the place and then decide to stay all the better. Saves you from feeling stuck in a job you may not like and saves the employer from having lovely employees. I could imagine it being a little off-putting to people who have to worry about families and mortgages and stuff. The idea that you COULD be back in the same position that you're already in 3 months from now (if you're already unemployed) or possibly without a job at all in 3 months (if you do already have a job and are switching).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
psydude posted:401k contributions, health insurance, and general administrative overhead cost quite a bit.  ("General administrative overhead" also applies to 1099 employees -- you still need to sit them at a desk, and you still need someone to manage their work.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Respectfully, I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air. These are Department of Labor statistics. Fair point. Still, when you look at their data by region, benefit and tax costs can reach around 50% of an employee's salary (such as in the mid-Atlantic region). Obviously not as much as I had originally stated, but it still makes it cheaper to go with a contractor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
chocolateTHUNDER posted:I could imagine it being a little off-putting to people who have to worry about families and mortgages and stuff. The idea that you COULD be back in the same position that you're already in 3 months from now (if you're already unemployed) or possibly without a job at all in 3 months (if you do already have a job and are switching). Well, that's often true no matter how you're hired, people just get antsy when it's stated so baldly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:In a lot of larger companies, hiring managers might have to get HR approval or deal with red tape or 800 other reasons that make it hard to get a stamp of approval on a ~$20K fee. Conversely, consulting budgets are often under their direct control, and then they can hire with no fee after 6 months or whatever. At our company, adding to the yearly personnel budget requires us to show need and then requires *months* to get approval from upper management if it's not added to the yearly budget when those are figured out. Getting additional permanent employees is drawn out and sometimes painful process requiring reams of meaningless metrics and justifications. Contractors however, fall under capital expenditures and don't require the same kinds of approval as adding FT employees. It's much easier to say "We need a contractor for X, and this is why" and get it approved within a week or two. Once a contractor is in the door, it is *much* easier to get approval to convert it to FT. However, don't lie on the resume if you go FT. We had a guy who fit our group, had the skills, and got along great with the team. We were able to convert him to FT and after a couple of weeks of becoming an employee, HR discovered he lied on his resume regarding his education. I don't understand why he did it since it wouldn't have mattered (hell, we have only 2 guys out of 10 with degrees and theirs were from tech diploma mills). But he lied and upper management said "get rid of him".
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
^^^ That's a much better explanation of what I was trying to say re: conversion ^^^NippleFloss posted:Well, that's often true no matter how you're hired, people just get antsy when it's stated so baldly. Totally agree with this. It's pretty much implied that if you go anywhere and don't perform well your job is in jeopardy. That's an inherent risk any time you make a change. Conversely, if you kick rear end you're generally going to be just fine, direct hire or contract to hire...
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
For me it is a matter of perspective. I know that the FTE jobs I've had in the past included a probationary period, and I was actually let go from my last job literally on day 90. I am unwilling to trust that a company will actually hire me after the contract period, and I would keep looking for a job during that time to ensure that I had something lined up. While there is always risk associated with hiring someone, I just feel more comfortable with FTE at this point in life. Once I am actually married and on my spouse's health insurance, it will matter less, but it is still a concern about how the company views employees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:For me it is a matter of perspective. I know that the FTE jobs I've had in the past included a probationary period, and I was actually let go from my last job literally on day 90. I am unwilling to trust that a company will actually hire me after the contract period, and I would keep looking for a job during that time to ensure that I had something lined up. It's important to remember that unless you're one of the lucky few with union protections a company can generally fire you at any time for any reason and as an employee the distinction between being a w-2 employee of a contracting company and a direct hire is essentially meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
maybe companies should try making their hiring process not a loving disaster instead of horseshit rent to hire
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Right, but if you're cut from a contract-position you can't claim unemployment. There more risk put upon the employee than the employer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Perspective is for sure a big part of it for me as well. If someone wanted to bring me on contract to hire I would believe they either don't have confidence in hiring me or they don't respect the position I am coming in for. Both wouldn't work for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
flosofl posted:At our company, adding to the yearly personnel budget requires us to show need and then requires *months* to get approval from upper management if it's not added to the yearly budget when those are figured out. Getting additional permanent employees is drawn out and sometimes painful process requiring reams of meaningless metrics and justifications. This was the same way it was when I was a contractor. It wasn't a big deal to me (I like changing jobs), but I spent 2 stints at a large bank, the first of which was a 6 mo contract they extended to the maximum 18 months while they tried to get upper management approval to convert me, the second was 6 mo they extended to 18 months again, with 6 months off in the middle. They finally made a FTE offer a month after I left for the second time, nearly 4 years after I had my first interview. I declined (mostly because I found a job much closer to home, and being on the market again showed me what kind of salaries I could get on the open market -- they offered more than the position I took, but a 30 minute commute wasn't worth it to me for $10k). Everybody there hated it. Corporate pitched it as "it's easier than hiring/firing FTEs, and think of it like an extended interview!" Which is great, in theory. But 4 years for approval for a candidate you know you want is awful. go3 posted:maybe companies should try making their hiring process not a loving disaster instead of horseshit rent to hire Learn to enjoy getting new sets of challenges and technologies. It gives you a good skill mix, a good feel for what kind of companies are good/bad very early off, good interviewing skills, exposes you to a broad range of business demands, etc. The job market isn't a problem if you're good, and I never had any downtime at all between jobs unless I wanted a break. I'd go back to doing contracting in a flash if health insurance as a contractor weren't so expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Right, but if you're cut from a contract-position you can't claim unemployment. Fyi if a Canadian is reading this, if you're cut from a contract position you're still eligible for EI beneifts, the criteria doesn't care about if it's a contract or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Right, but if you're cut from a contract-position you can't claim unemployment. In a contract to hire scenario, this isn't normally true. A 1099 (or independent) contractor might not be eligible, but in most CtH, you would be a W2 employee of my agency and therefore eligible for unemployment if we have to terminate the contract.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Fyi if a Canadian is reading this, if you're cut from a contract position you're still eligible for EI beneifts, the criteria doesn't care about if it's a contract or not. FYI, if an American is reading this, there are 99% odds that your "contract to hire" position is a W2 contract, in which case you're still eligible for unemployment in almost every state, since the staffing firm pays into it. You only don't get unemployment if you're 1099. And you obviously don't get unemployment when the contract expires. Sickening posted:Perspective is for sure a big part of it for me as well. If someone wanted to bring me on contract to hire I would believe they either don't have confidence in hiring me or they don't respect the position I am coming in for. Both wouldn't work for me. Really not trying to pick on you specifically, but contracting isn't anything to do with you. It's to do with the business needs of that company. You need a job, recruiter finds you, recruiter fills that job. I've never felt disrespected or devalued in any way from being a contractor. I know not every work environment is the same, and there a probably places where people look down on contractors, but a job is a job, and it's really not anything personal. Your self esteem shouldn't be contingent on whether you're a capex or opex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:In a contract to hire scenario, this isn't normally true. A 1099 (or independent) contractor might not be eligible, but in most CtH, you would be a W2 employee of my agency and therefore eligible for unemployment if we have to terminate the contract. Correct. People need to understand that contract does not automatically mean 1099. You are generally a W-2 employee of the contracting company itself, and can negotiate things like PTO, health insurance, retirement plan benefits and the rest with that company. I worked as a "contractor" for three years and when I got an FTE offer from the prime it was 30% less than what I was making and offered no overtime. Being a direct hire ain't always a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:Totally agree with this. It's pretty much implied that if you go anywhere and don't perform well your job is in jeopardy. That's an inherent risk any time you make a change. Conversely, if you kick rear end you're generally going to be just fine, direct hire or contract to hire... I tend to look at it from the perspective of what a company is likely planning to do. If I see a CtH position that pertains to a specific project, that tells me that the company is probably not looking to expand their team on a permanent basis and only wants some extra help on the one project. Conversely, if I see a posting for a permanent position, that tells me the company wants to grow their team in the long term and the position itself is probably not going to evaporate in a few months. Obviously the probabilities in either case are not anywhere near 100%, I'm just generally not as interested in taking what I consider to be the longer odds when I'm looking for a stable position. In fairness, I have no statistics or data to back up what is entirely a gut-based opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
I spend half my life trying to remove sys-admins from my life. Happy to help. e: To be constructive, you can earn a LOT of cash if you specialise and become a consultant. And I don't mean a linux admin. spud fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:I tend to look at it from the perspective of what a company is likely planning to do. If I see a CtH position that pertains to a specific project, that tells me that the company is probably not looking to expand their team on a permanent basis and only wants some extra help on the one project. This sort of position won't generally be listed as a CtH though, it will be a straight termed contract with possible extensions. I get plenty of calls from recruiters for fixed length contracts for project based work, and none of them are advertised as CtH.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:I tend to look at it from the perspective of what a company is likely planning to do. If I see a CtH position that pertains to a specific project, that tells me that the company is probably not looking to expand their team on a permanent basis and only wants some extra help on the one project. Conversely, if I see a posting for a permanent position, that tells me the company wants to grow their team in the long term and the position itself is probably not going to evaporate in a few months. Obviously the probabilities in either case are not anywhere near 100%, I'm just generally not as interested in taking what I consider to be the longer odds when I'm looking for a stable position. And this is where your recruiter is supposed to step in and help out. If I talk about something as a contract to hire, it means they have a permanent role they are trying to fill. If it's project based work or even if it's contract with a possibility of hire or "right to hire" then that needs to be laid out in advance. A good way to tell a company's intent is to ask the recruiter what the conversion salary will be and really just to flat out express your concerns. At least in my market (which is admittedly not huge - ~1M ppl) my reputation is important to me and I wouldn't ever knowingly put someone into a CtH position without feeling confident that it will convert if they perform reasonably. I totally get being skeptical when a dumbass calls you talking about "try before you buy" however. Even if I have a specific position in mind for you, my first order of business is to ask what YOU are looking for and establish rapport. Then we will decide together what makes sense, rather than me just pushing something on you. It's like that Chris Rock skit about how it's always implied that men are offering "some dick" to girls, no matter what the conversation is about and that recruiter went right for it: "Hi mayodreams, want some dick?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90qpDg5y7Lo
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
I'm really bad at negotiating my job because I love where I work and am really happy with my boss. I just simply don't make enough money to support my family. I just got a job offer for 30% more than my current salary. Place seems legit but I have no idea what management is like. How do I approach my boss and ask for a raise? In two years I've already jumped up 20% in pay, with 8% of that coming in three months ago. I've also been looking for this new job without any notification to my employer so it's going to hit him as a surprise, and a disappointment because he's always shown his appreciation for my work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
spud posted:e: To be constructive, you can earn a LOT of cash if you specialise and become a consultant. And I don't mean a linux admin. You can also make a lot of cash consulting as a Linux person. Just as an admin. You've gotta have some abilities beyond that. Che Delilas posted:I tend to look at it from the perspective of what a company is likely planning to do. If I see a CtH position that pertains to a specific project, that tells me that the company is probably not looking to expand their team on a permanent basis and only wants some extra help on the one project. Conversely, if I see a posting for a permanent position, that tells me the company wants to grow their team in the long term and the position itself is probably not going to evaporate in a few months. Obviously the probabilities in either case are not anywhere near 100%, I'm just generally not as interested in taking what I consider to be the longer odds when I'm looking for a stable position. My experience has been that any contract where the client has the right to hire is going to end up with them trying to snap up anybody really good who comes through, even if that's not the explicit intent. It can take months of interviewing to find a good candidate when you need one, and the opportunity to get a proven member who you already know is good is often worth the short term added expense even if you can't fit them in somewhere (and you probably can). If they have additional need for project contractors, that need may be regular enough that they could just grab a good person and keep them on project work as needed and normal work while not (as an FTE).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:And this is where your recruiter is supposed to step in and help out. If I talk about something as a contract to hire, it means they have a permanent role they are trying to fill. If it's project based work or even if it's contract with a possibility of hire or "right to hire" then that needs to be laid out in advance. A good way to tell a company's intent is to ask the recruiter what the conversion salary will be and really just to flat out express your concerns. At least in my market (which is admittedly not huge - ~1M ppl) my reputation is important to me and I wouldn't ever knowingly put someone into a CtH position without feeling confident that it will convert if they perform reasonably. Yeah, I think you've established repeatedly that you're a recruiter who gives a poo poo about both parties he's working with, and I haven't actually worked with one of those (every job I've had so far in my career I've applied to directly). Thanks for the tip I bolded, though, I'll have to remember that. I assume you mean that if they don't have an answer or don't come up with one quickly, they're probably full of poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I'm really bad at negotiating my job because I love where I work and am really happy with my boss. I just simply don't make enough money to support my family. I have
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
evol262 posted:You can also make a lot of cash consulting as a Linux person. Just as an admin. You've gotta have some abilities beyond that. Would still try and remove you from the equation ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:Yeah, I think you've established repeatedly that you're a recruiter who gives a poo poo about both parties he's working with, and I haven't actually worked with one of those (every job I've had so far in my career I've applied to directly). Thanks for the tip I bolded, though, I'll have to remember that. I assume you mean that if they don't have an answer or don't come up with one quickly, they're probably full of poo poo? I tend to be a bit heavy-handed with it here because so many people have had bad experiences and to point out the things to look for when dealing with agencies, which most of you will have to at some point. I didn't mean to imply that it should be a test question, but I suppose it could be. If a recruiter is calling you with a CtH in mind, the conversion salary is part of that initial conversation. When submitting you to a CtH, the last line of my write up for you will always be something like "Che Delilas is available with 2 weeks' notice and seeks a salary upon conversion of $100K" so it's right there and the client doesn't get sticker shock at conversion time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:I tend to be a bit heavy-handed with it here because so many people have had bad experiences and to point out the things to look for when dealing with agencies, which most of you will have to at some point. No I wasn't criticizing your tone, I was establishing my perspective (as someone who hasn't worked with a recruiter who seems to give a poo poo the way you do). And test question or not, it's not something I would have thought to ask about since so far I've done all my job searching directly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 18:32
|
|