|
The short answer is often "no" because "full time employment"
is just a euphemism for 2+ year contracts at low rates.
The long answer is...
a) Would you compete for rates that are low-low?
b) Would you travel when there is no per diem money?
c) Would you work overtime when there is no overtime money?
d) Would you consider job descriptions that demand degrees from delivery boys...
IQs equal to Einstein's...
and 25 years of paid experience in each of the most recent 25 technologies
that haven't even been invented until a couple of years ago?
e) Would you consider giving
free interviews, when the process is incredibly slow and expensive?
f) Would you compete for out of town locations,
when — if you're successful — the job security is zero?
The myth of high salary:
You're saying my salary will be $100,000.
However, your $100,000 is not the money I'll be able to withdraw from my account.
Therefore your $100,000 is fiction!
Salaries should be quoted in net,
unless you want to trick a newbie into thinking
they'll be earning more by adding 40 percent for Federal, State, Social Security and Medicare contributions
— thus quoting gross.
You're saying or implying my income will be high, but
you know very well that,
for up to 4,400 hours of work per year
— i.e. (100,000 - 30,000 taxes and other mandatory contributions)/4,400 hours = $15.91/hr
— my income will be LOW!
And this low income figure will be even lower, e.g. approx. $8.00/hr,
because I'll have zero additional income and many additional expenses
— just to keep my job!
The myth of full-time employment:
You're saying it'll be a "permanent, full-time" position
when you know very well what you're selling is a contract.
You know very well that "full time" and "permanent" are euphemisms for two-plus year
contracts at low rates that get even lower, if we take into account large, hidden
losses, e.g. zero per diem money, zero overtime money, and the boom
and bust economy, and the many recessions that have cost us millions of lost jobs.
The myth of permanency:
You're saying it'll be a "permanent" position. You're also
implying there is nothing more desirable than "permanent" employment.
However, as you already know, in today's economy there is no permanency!
At large and medium-sized companies,
and in today's economy, reorganizations and layoffs are so common,
they're not even in the news any more. "Permanent" jobs, especially "permanent"
jobs in software engineering, are either eliminated or sent overseas.
The day you're hired is the day your boss starts making plans to send your job
to India, China, or Russia where wages and salaries are lower.
At small companies there is no permanency; period.
As Small Business Week concluded recently, "There is no permanency at small firms (under
50 employees) and very small firms (under 20 employees). Small firms shed jobs at a faster
rate than large companies, and are far more likely to go out of business altogether.
Employment at small companies is comparatively unstable, and therefore provides an unreliable
foundation for permanent employment."
Exceptions: Of course, there are exceptions. Sometimes you come across
"permanent" jobs that have lasted longer than two years. But they're not the rule;
only some of the exceptions to this rule.
The myth of the 40-hour workweek:
You're saying my workweek will be 40 hours per week.
However, in "permanent full-time" positions we engineers work a lot of overtime,
and don't even get paid for our overtime work!
Unpaid overtime work:
In 1926, Henry Ford adopted a 40-hour workweek. By the 1960s, the benefits of the 40-hour week
were accepted by Corporate America. In 1962 the Chamber of Commerce published a pamphlet praising
the productivity gains of reduced hours. However, Silicon Valley didn't get the pamphlet.
As of 2010, my engineer friends in "full time" positions are working between
60 and 88 hours per week, and don't even get paid for their overtime!
The myth of the quick and painless hiring process:
"Perm" is better for YOU, if you're a recruiter, because you earn a quick fee of $20,000 to
25,000. Sounds good so far, but how about me? If I say, "Yes, I want to compete for "perm" jobs,
then I'm going to have to face large, hidden losses, like, unpaid long distance trips to client
sites. Unpaid, all-day-long face-to-face interviews with prospective employers. And slow-slow hiring
processes. And then, if hired, low per hour rates, zero per diem monies, and zero overtime monies.
Are you saying, "Dear Candidate, I'll help you get a 'perm' position quickly"? No, that wouldn't be the
right thing to say because, as you already know, "perm" employment is the slowest way to get back to
work — if you're out of work.
While you're waiting for your 5th or 6th interview, or standing in line at a distant airport, waiting
for your next flight — because you had to fly out of town for an all day, face-to-face meeting as part
of the (usually) slow-slow selection process that many "perm" employers require these days —
this long wait will give you neither additional experience, nor temporary income, or eliminate the
dreaded "gaps" in your resume, or lead to any high-rate contracting positions, or
increase your value to future employers.
The myth of big benefits:
Are you selling me any "benefits"? Are the benefits really "great"? Paid health insurance is $300/mo,
or ($300/200 hrs =)$1.50/hr. Annual vacation is ($30/hr * 1 wk/52 wks =) $0.58/hr. Therefore,
benefits are ($1.50 + 0.58 =) $2.08/hr. Why would anyone take a large (e.g. a $30.00/hr) rate cut,
as a "perm" employee in return for small benefits like paid health insurance and annual vacation
valued at $2.08/hr? Please do the math and realize the real good opportunities (for me) are contracts with
high rates, not "perm" positions with "great" benefits!
The reality of large, hidden losses:
Are you selling any "benefits"? In my experience, the lack of per diem and the lack of overtime
money represent far greater losses in my pocket book than any benefits that any of your customers are
able to provide to me. Their additional benefits (e.g. maternity benefits) usually don't benefit me either,
because I can't use them.
Why would you consider taking a "perm" position?
If you ask me questions like this one, you have fears!
Perhaps you FEAR that you won't be able to sell your customer on the idea that I CAN stay with them in
the next 2+ years. Of course I CAN, but your question also indicates to me you haven't read my resume.
Had you read my resume, you would've noticed that most of my jobs have lasted longer than 2 years.
Read my resume. Eliminate your fears. If you're full of fears, you shouldn't be representing me!
If you ask me questions like this, I think to myself,
"You're the recruiter, I'm not! I shouldn't spend my time to recruit you! I cannot afford to
spend 15 to 30 minutes of my time over the telephone to recruit you!"
If you ask me questions like this, I think to myself,
"You picked my resume, I didn't. Be grateful to Lady Luck that, by finding my resume, you've found a
good match, AND received a quick and painless YES from me. Why are you looking a gift horse in
the mouth? Why are you questioning me? Why are you making an effort to fail, instead of succeed?
Why are you making an effort to get a 'no' from me, instead of a 'yes'?"
"Perm" positions are better for you!
As you know, when you're a recruiter,
"perm" positions help YOU more than they help me,
because those who recruit for "perm" positions earn large fees of $20,000 to $25,000, almost overnight!
Therefore, instead of questioning me, you should be grateful that I'm interested in helping 'you' to
earn a quick fee of $25,000!
Exception:
One exception is an existing client. In other words, if I receive a good offer from a client that I have
completed a successful contract with, then I'll consider the offer carefully.
|