|
The short answer is, most of the time my answer is... "No, I don't think so."
The long answer is,
according to a myth, if a contract job leads to "full-time" or "permanent" employment, we contractors
should be grateful, because there is nothing more desirable than "full-time" or "permanent" employment.
The truth is, in today's economy there's no permanency.
In today's economy, reorganizations and layoffs are so common,
they're not even in the news any more. "Perm" jobs, especially "perm" jobs in software engineering,
are either being eliminated, or sent to India, China, or Russia where wages and salaries are lower!
According to another myth, "permanent" employees work "full time", and we contractors don't.
The truth is, with overtime, we contractors work up to 68 hours per week.
And, if you add to that, the number of hours we have to spend to constantly market ourselves,
then you might find we work up to 80 hours per week. Now, is this 80-hour per week work load
considered to be "part-time" or "full-time" work?
You're saying it's a "contract-to-hire" position, but you
know very well what you're
selling is a 'contract'. You know very well that
"full time", "contract-to-hire", "permanent", and "perm"
are but euphemisms for 2+ year contracts at low
rates. And these low rates get even lower, if
you take into account
large hidden losses, like, zero per diem money,
and zero overtime money.
You're saying it's a "contract-to-hire" position that leads to "permanent" position, but
in today's economy there's no permanency.
In today's economy, reorganizations and layoffs
are so common, they're not even in the news any more.
"Perm" jobs, especially "perm" jobs in
software engineering, are either being eliminated,
or sent to India, China, or Russia where wages
and salaries are lower.
Of course, there are exceptions. Sometimes
one comes across "permanent" jobs that have lasted
longer than two years, but they're not the rule,
only some of the exceptions to this rule.
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."
"Permanent" employment is unattractive to me because we, engineers,
are expected to work a lot of overtime, but engineers in "permanent"
positions do not get paid for 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 2006, my engineer
friends in "permanent" positions are working between 60 and 88 hours per week!
If you ask questions like, "Why would you
consider taking a "contract-to-hire" position?" then your question
indicates to me you
have fears. Perhaps you 'fear' 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 have not read my
resume. Had you read my resume, you
would have seen all of my jobs have lasted longer
than 2 years. Read my resume. Eliminate your fears.
If you're full of fears, you should not be representing me.
If you ask questions like,
"Why would you consider taking a "contract-to-hire"
position?" I think to myself, "You're the recruiter, I'm
not. I shouldn't spend any of 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 questions like, "Why would you consider
taking a "contract-to-hire" position?" I think to myself,
"You picked my resume. I didn't. Why aren't you
grateful to Lady Luck that you've found a good match AND
gotten a quick and painless 'yes' from me?
Why are you trying to look a gift horse in the mouth? Why
do you question me? Are you making an effort to fail,
instead of succeed?
Are you making an effort to get a 'no' from me, instead
of a 'yes'?"
When you ask me questions like, "Why would you consider
taking a "contract-to-hire" position?" I think to myself,
"Instead of questioning me, you should be grateful that I am
interested in helping 'you' to earn a
quick fee of $25,000. 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."
Tell me the truth; are you 'really' helping your
customers? My clients tell me they prefer
'contractors', because we, contractors, do a better job,
and we get the job done faster. "Perm" employees
are more interested in their careers.
Therefore, why aren't you 'really' helping your
customers by bringing in
contractors, instead of "perm" employees? As
you know, contractors are
specialists who do the job better and faster.
Tell me the truth; do you really want to make
your customers happy?
I find when one works at an hourly rate,
both sides tend to be happier that way.
This means I always get an hour's pay for an hour's
work. My end client wants me to work all weekend? Fine,
I get a nice check when I'm done, and my end client gets
a release out the door. I want some time off?
Fine, my end client is usually cool with it, because
they do not have to pay me.
Are you selling any "benefits"? Are the benefits
really "great"?
Paid health insurance is $300/mo, or $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 (i.e. up to $30.00/hr) rate cut, as a
"permanent" employee, in return for small
benefits like paid
health insurance and annual vacation, valued
at $2.08/hr?
Do the math, and you will realize the real
good opportunities
(for me) are contracts with high rates,
not "permanent jobs" with "great" benefits!
"Permanent" 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,
slow-slow hiring processes, and, if hired, low per
hour rates, zero per diem monies, and zero overtime
monies.
Are you selling me 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
any of your customers are able to provide to me.
Their alleged benefits (e.g. maternity benefits) are
questionable, too, because oftentimes I cannot
use them.
Are you saying, "Dear Candidate, I'll help you
get a job quickly"? No, that would not be the
right thing to say, because, as you 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 provides you with
no additional experience, no temporary income,
will not eliminate
the dreaded "gaps" in your resume, will not lead to
any high-rate contracting positions, and will NOT
increase your value to future employers.
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 will give it careful
consideration.
|