U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2019, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,560 posts, read 17,544,804 times
Reputation: 27613

Advertisements

I've been casually looking for stuff in larger metros in the South. I applied for a couple positions in Charlotte, and just got a message back from a recruiter who was reaching out to me on a role she thought I might be interested.

Apparently it was an "indefinite contract" where the guy in the role has been there for three years and they expect at least two more years of work.

I told the recruiter that I am a direct employee and will not accept contract work - she emailed me back saying that the bulk of IT opportunities in Charlotte are contract to hire.

I don't really believe that, but what are your thoughts? Even senior level IT roles are often contract with no benefits. How would you say the FTE/contract mix is in IT in your local area?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2019, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,586 posts, read 3,010,942 times
Reputation: 12813
CTH is the rule in a lot of fields, and I understand it's become universal in IT and development.

The H rarely comes into play. It's the moldy carrot out there on a long stick.

Hard to see it as anything but one more distancing of companies actually taking any responsibility for their workforces, or regarding employees as anything but replaceable modules. At least long-term contracts usually include benefits, but I'd be worried about putting my health coverage on such a shaky pedestal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 01:11 PM
 
Location: NYC
12,900 posts, read 8,735,729 times
Reputation: 14151
That's the cause and effect to all the regulations. Companies get burnt by hiring people who aren't exploitable or not good enough. It becomes an expensive mistake when they have to pay someone a high salary and high cost of benefits. They rather just contract and see how usable somebody and put that carrot on the stick to set high expectations and then low ball them on a FT salary later on.

This is the beginning of the end of full-time IT employment. Majority of IT jobs today are temp, contract, or consulting only.

Companies only hire someone if they pull more weight than others and positions that are hard to fill and produces income.

Even if I was offered a FT salary I still turn it down vs my contract pay. I don't need a low salary and be forced to work 60 hours a week without overtime pay just to get benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
2,277 posts, read 1,153,510 times
Reputation: 5379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
I've been casually looking for stuff in larger metros in the South. I applied for a couple positions in Charlotte, and just got a message back from a recruiter who was reaching out to me on a role she thought I might be interested.

Apparently it was an "indefinite contract" where the guy in the role has been there for three years and they expect at least two more years of work.

Five years on contract?!?!


It's reasonable to do six months. But five years? They'd need to really amp up the base rate to compensate me for all the benefits I'd be missing out on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 01:59 PM
 
2,032 posts, read 859,539 times
Reputation: 5027
I worked as a contractor after I retired and found it to be great. I was given an online knowledge test by the agency, then was interviewed by my future supervisor who was a company employee, then signed all the paperwork in a diner with my contact from the agency. I was paid weekly by direct deposit on a 1099, so I had to make quarterly tax payments to the IRS.

Most of the people who worked with me were contractors, only a few were company employees. If you are good at your job and quick to learn, being a contractor is great. No office politics or BS, no age discrimination, or worrying about reviews or promotions or downsizing or looking for work after the contract is done. If you are a good worker the agency will be happy to continue to place you. You are paid for what you do and for what you are worth. Most agencies make benefits at group rates (health insurance, life insurance, IRA) available to their contractors. I had my retirement benefits so I didn't need them.

I can understand why companies prefer to hire contractors. If they don't catch on quickly or don't perform they can and will be fired within a few weeks, they have no rights in regard to continued employment, they get paid for the hours they work, no sick pay or vacation days. And they bring with them the knowledge gained in other environments.

People who prefer to be contractors do it for good pay, the variety, and the fast pace. And if you want to take a couple of weeks or months off without pay you can delay the start of your next contract. My experience was that most contractors preferred it to working directly for a company. The company is paying a premium for contractors so they generally treat them well. You are a professional, not just another employee dependent on a company for your livlihood.

Last edited by bobspez; 06-18-2019 at 02:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,586 posts, read 3,010,942 times
Reputation: 12813
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r View Post
That's the cause and effect to all the regulations. Companies get burnt by hiring people who aren't exploitable or not good enough. It becomes an expensive mistake when they have to pay someone a high salary and high cost of benefits. They rather just contract and see how usable somebody and put that carrot on the stick to set high expectations and then low ball them on a FT salary later on.
That's the nominal point of CTH, but most jobs need no more than 3 months and some demanding ones perhaps six months to prove out. A huge percentage of workforce on year-after-year contract is just BS. A company has to pay contract-admin costs, often a higher hourly rate, and usually benefits for longer-term contracts anyway... and nearly all the US is at-will, meaning it's no harder to fire a permanent employee than a contract one. (There might be slightly more insulation from blowback with contract people, but not if there's discrimination or other workplace issues.)

It's just one more way corporations have been allowed to gain more power over employment conditions, at the expense of far more workers than their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Fuquay Varina
4,554 posts, read 6,642,062 times
Reputation: 11272
I work for a very large govt contractor and we have only had CTh for at least the past 10 years. If someone isn't working out, it's much easier to make a call and say we don't need employee A anymore. Thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Florida
22,270 posts, read 9,466,208 times
Reputation: 18188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
That's the nominal point of CTH, but most jobs need no more than 3 months and some demanding ones perhaps six months to prove out. A huge percentage of workforce on year-after-year contract is just BS. A company has to pay contract-admin costs, often a higher hourly rate, and usually benefits for longer-term contracts anyway... and nearly all the US is at-will, meaning it's no harder to fire a permanent employee than a contract one. (There might be slightly more insulation from blowback with contract people, but not if there's discrimination or other workplace issues.)

It's just one more way corporations have been allowed to gain more power over employment conditions, at the expense of far more workers than their own.
If there is 'full' employment, shouldn't the companies be paying high wages, giving good benefits and hiring to keep good employees?

I've worked as a contractor in the past, but that was after the recession when corporations could totally abuse people as they were laying people off. In fact, many companies were only hiring contractors for everything.

So I thought full employment is what changed the market and creates better jobs. If there is a shortage of skilled employees, why wouldn't they want to keep them when they have them? Contractors have no loyalty, nor should they.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,586 posts, read 3,010,942 times
Reputation: 12813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
If there is 'full' employment, shouldn't the companies be paying high wages, giving good benefits and hiring to keep good employees?
You're just piling on to what I and others have been saying for the last year: for such a boom-boom economy and supposed warm-body (if not walking-dead) employment, there sure as hell are a lot of down indicators. The sluggish rate of increase in real wages, the persistence of things like contract hiring and widespread reportst that no, not everyone who wants a job can find one... just tips of the iceberg.

But things are just effin' gangbusters when you sit and read your broker reports from inside your gated community.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,201 posts, read 8,513,923 times
Reputation: 35600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
That's the nominal point of CTH, but most jobs need no more than 3 months and some demanding ones perhaps six months to prove out. A huge percentage of workforce on year-after-year contract is just BS. A company has to pay contract-admin costs, often a higher hourly rate, and usually benefits for longer-term contracts anyway... and nearly all the US is at-will, meaning it's no harder to fire a permanent employee than a contract one. (There might be slightly more insulation from blowback with contract people, but not if there's discrimination or other workplace issues.)

It's just one more way corporations have been allowed to gain more power over employment conditions, at the expense of far more workers than their own.
I've heard that many times the cost for CTHs come out of a different budget or line item so it's really just moving money around differently to look like money is being saved when it's not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top