Contract to hire?

[mikester]

Anyone done this? I have a position I am mildly keen on but it is 'contract to hire'.

Crap.

I'm a little wary of it and had I known it was contract to hire prior to the phone interview I would not have even interviewed for it. I'm just starting my job hunt and looking for perm positions, when I get desperate then the contract to hire will look better.

My current employer is studying out sourcing my position - I appreciate their honesty but they aren't offering much useful compensation with regards to retention until they decide and then execute. They have a history of low balling this sort of thing...

So I put a couple of feelers out there and ended up with this phone interview, it sounds promising. Commute isn't too bad (not good but not bad) and there isn't any on-call (haven't had that in a while). It seems like a lot of IT positions these days are all 'contract to hire' - what's the brain trust say?

[cl8ton]

Contract to hire just means they are going to sample the goods and if it doesn’t work out, no legal
issues ensue when you exit.

If you get in there and kick azz, they want to hire you, but now you have a bargaining chip to negotiate
your new position, if you choose to do so.

I have done this a few times and it has always turned out to be protecting the employer at all costs
with the Contract to Hire.

FYI, I have always chosen to be on the contractor side of things (Computer Programmer) maybe it’s just me?

[mikester]

Originally Posted by cl8ton

Contract to hire just means they are going to sample the goods and if it doesn’t work out, no legal
issues ensue when you exit.

If you get in there and kick azz, they want to hire you, but now you have a bargaining chip to negotiate
your new position, if you choose to do so.

I have done this a few times and it has always turned out to be protecting the employer at all costs
with the Contract to Hire.

FYI, I have always chosen to be on the contractor side of things (Computer Programmer) maybe it’s just me?

That's the thing, I don't like taking ALL the risk. Generally speaking I do well, I don't expect I won't be hired but I don't like the process for 'contract to hire' - it makes me uncomfortable - it may be that it's just because I've never done it before.

First red flag is the guy who was doing the 'phone interview' was in the situation - contract to hire and not hired yet. Been there 4 months. Said I could expect 3 months then a hiring decision. HE'S BEEN THERE 4 MONTHS!!!

At this point, with this economy and the stuff I'm working on and the obligations I have at home - trying something new and uncertain does not seem wise. Sure, it could be good but I know with a few more check boxes checked off I could turn 'good' to 'great' and I need a W2 job to concentrate on that (or maybe I'm crazy).

[phoenix_iii]

Work is work. The economy is down right now, if you stand out, they will hire you.

[island911]

good advice above.

I've always had the opposite problem. -clients wanting to hire me fulltime rather than contract. (my preference)

Contract gigs are seen as lower risk to the employer. so you generally have an easier time getting mo Money.

[rnln]

If you can do the work well, 50/50 chance. If you can't do the work well, don't expect they keep you. It's like a test/probation time. Most of my positions in the past are contract to hire, if not contract.

[BLEW911]

contract to hire = no benefits, correct?

Don

[Seahawk]

I do a lot of contract hire, or 1099 consulting, in addition to my company gig.

PM me if you need any tax advice on contract hire.

[MRM]

Or contract for hire means we need a body for six months but we don't want the permanent headcount when we cut the position. You just don't know.

The best thing to do is be very candid with them about your concerns. If they are worth working for they will appreciate your concerns. If not, you are better off knowing they plan to jerk you around before you place your career in their hands.

As things get serious with them, tell them that longevity and permanance of the position are important to you, that you can't take all the risk, including the risk that they are well meaning but that at the end of the contract someone higher than them decides to cut your position despite perfect performance, and that you can't place your career and family's wellbeing in such a precarious position without some assurances. And that if you receive meaningful assurances you'll be the best and most loyal employee they ever had.

One final thought. When you're looking for work, it's always flattering to have anyone say they like you and want you to work for them. In a workplace where employers are telling employees they are not wanted, anyone telling you the oposite is so flattering that it can cloud your judgment. There is a saying, I think it comes from Korea or someplace in the east, that you should make every decision twice - once when you're drunk, and once when you're sober. The "drunk" decision comes when you first have the idea and it seems like a great idea, like all new ideas and oportunities do, so you get drunk on the idea and push ahread blindly. After you get past the drunk on a new idea stage, think it over coldly and soberly: Is this the kind of job you want, is this the next step in my career that I want to take, how does this oportunity compare to others?

This is a bad market, but it will be better a year from now (it will get worse until then) so you want to walk the fine line between not passing up something that turns out to be a good place to sit out the rest of the storm, and a dead end position that keeps you from pursuing the position you really want.

[willtel]

I've done it plenty of times, other than the fact that the positions are a little less stable there is nothing to it. I actually prefer contracting to being a permanent employee, you usually have less responsibility and get paid better. You don't get paid holidays or vacation but the increased pay makes up for it.

The last contracting company I worked for offered better benefits than the parent company did. You also have to remember that it is in the interest of the contracting company to keep you working, for every hour you work they get paid and they want to maintain that relationship.

[widebody911]

I've also seen "contract to hire" used to entice someone to take a lower rate, when there was never any intention to hire anyone perm.

[rcooled]

It's a two-way street. You get to "test drive" the job as they're seeing if you're a good fit. I've gone into contract jobs a number of times (although not in this economy) and was nearly always offered a direct position. Sometimes I accepted....sometimes I declined. A friend of mine just recently took a contract-to-direct position and was offered (and accepted) the option to go direct after about 5 months. It was for the same salary + benefits. Some companies will try to offer less salary when bringing you on direct, citing cost of benefits, etc. With a little negotiation, you should be able to make the switch for the same $$ + benefits.

[VincentVega]

One of my first jobs was contract to hire, it worked great. After a few weeks, maybe a month or so they offered to hire me permanently. At least in my case the employer just wanted to confirm I was what they wanted.

In this market I wouldnt rule out the job just because of this.

[mikester]

In my opinion - the interview process should be generally sufficient enough for them to make a hiring decision.

Right now I have a job, I know that I will likely have it indefinitely but the conditions are becoming risky. To mitigate that risk I have looked at other positions.

In a contract to hire scenario - I take the risk that they will decide that they do not want to hire me in the end and they simply cut me loose. How is this really different from a direct hire situation - I'm typically an 'at will' employee - if they don't like me they just have to do their due diligence and cut me loose that way. They don't need much in the way of ANY reason to let me go - they just have to say 'it's not working out.'

Still, with direct hire there is a commitment on their end that is not there with a contract to hire situation. I've never done it, I've done 1099 work in the past as a contractor and still do it today but I also maintain my day job. I don't do test drives, while I can see their benefit - I've had jobs that I interviewed for and thought would be great but in the end they sucked. A test drive would have been good but still not the way I want to d it. I've learned through those 'test drives' that the right questions in an interview are essential to getting the lay of the land prior to accepting the job.

Since I would probably be an individual contractor - that means no benefits which since I am the bread winner is not okay. I could (and have in the past) purchased short term medical policies but that's just short term.

I am contemplating if I should move on to the next step of going to the real interview or not. Right now, I think it may be best if I tell them my concerns and allow them to respond. It sounds like a decent gig but the contract to hire really threw me plus they could not give me any ball park numbers on compensation. They just said 'competitive'.

So - I'm contemplating saying 'I'm really concerned about the contract to hire aspect of this position.' I have not done that in past and I want to know what the strategy is surrounding how the contract would play out and what performance guidelines I would need to meet to ensure that upon completion of the contract time line that I am actually hired.'

Something to that effect at least.

[masraum]

Contract is prevalent these days in our line of work. The benefit is that you should make pretty big money.

I worked contract for almost a year and then got hired on perm. I didn't care because my wife could provide insurance for both of us and the kids are too old for us to cover. I made 2 years of salary in 8 months (working some OT, but still). I've heard of folks being contract for years and never getting hired. I've known a ton of folks that did contract and/or contract to hire without problems. If you're good enough and have the skills (I think you fit both criteria) then you'll never need a job. I'm horrible at it, but interpersonal networking is the key.

If you have kids, especially younger ones, then the lack of benefits can be unnerving.

[paddock jones]

The interview process is not sufficient for IT anymore. Resumes are 'fluffed' and tough technical questions don't give insight into the candidates resoucefullness.

Go to the interview and see how competitive you are in this current environment.

[mikester]

Originally Posted by paddock jones

The interview process is not sufficient for IT anymore. Resumes are 'fluffed' and tough technical questions don't give insight into the candidates resoucefullness.

Go to the interview and see how competitive you are in this current environment.

I disagree completely. If you are not getting good candidates through a thorough interview process then your process isn't very good.

Interviewing should include a number of facets to it including the following:

Organizational Knowledge - the interviewee should have researched the company he/she is applying for. If not - Fail. I like to see if the interviewee has any knowledge of the public company's stance in the market via financial knowledge like yearly profits or information readily available from investor and analyst updates.

Experience - The only way to gauge a fluffed resume is to have people who are knowledgeable on the technical aspects of a position in the interview process.

In one interviewing experience I was asked to explain a firewall configuration line for line - it was a simple configuration but it was still over 100 lines. That was a bit over the top but the feedback I received was that I was the only person to complete the task (I did put a few 'I don't knows' in there). In other interviews I have had sessions with those who would be my peers, subordinates and leads with technical question and answer sessions - these are extremely important because they do help filter out those who are fluffers (not you marcus) to those who really do know their stuff.

Certifications are also a reasonable way to gauge a candidate - I have found a lot of folks who think 'certifications are bunk' but I disagree. while I have met a fair share of lower level candidates with certifications who really don't 'get it' but remembered the material (memorized) when you get into the mid-level and higher certs it is harder to get them and still not 'get it'. I have found that a lot of managers who were down on certifications were folks who couldn't get the certs themselves.

Management interviews - interviews not with just the manager who will be over you but with the higher level managers (boss's boss) and the cross functional managers you will also work with. At my current employer which up until recently was the best job I ever had and I hate the thought of leaving the process included interviews with not just my immediate manager but a few above him and a few across the spectrum of the cross functional teams I would be working to support.

If your interviewing process is not getting you candidates worthy of your positions then either your process is fatally flawed, you're job listing is overly broad or your just not offering enough money get the people you need.

As a job hunter, if you're not asking the right questions yourself then you won't be able to make an educated decision on if you want to work there or not. One of my favorite questions is to ask those who would be my subordinates or peers if they are typically behind on projects often or if they are able to keep up with the production support tasks and project tasks.

I ALWAYS ask for a tour of the facilities that I will be supporting if it is possible - if they aren't local then I ask more detailed questions about the hardware. Things like age, recent upgrades and updates, software versions and if down time for these tasks is prohibitively hard to come by. If the hardware is old, software is out of date and down time is unheard of those are HUGE red flags to how the business allows its IT organization to function.

With regards to the IT organization as a whole - does it report to Finance or does it report to Operations? IT organizations that report to Finance tend to be driven more by cost/savings than the driving factors of the business's operational enablement. Organizations run by the Operations side tend to have more money and a better collaborative relationships with the business.

This is one of the reasons I am so down on the idea of 'contract to hire'. It seems to me like it is a short cut to get a 'body' rather than a qualified person in the position.

[paddock jones]

'Contract to hire' is a way things are at the moment, and for good reason.
It's good that you are not desperate and it's always nice to be able to turn a job down and know your stock.

[masraum]

Interesting info Mike. Thanks, I'll use some of that.

[mikester]

Yeah, it's a product of working for too many companies over the last decade. I WANT A LONG TERM POSITION! Frick...