Why Contract to Hire Hurts Hiring
-
My latest article on the StorageCraft Blog: Better IT Hiring by Avoiding Contract to Hire.
In this article I look into by C2H hurts companies and does not fit any hiring personality making it bad for everyone involved. Important insight into why employees don't want this approach, ever, and why companies should not be using it. Look for C2H as a red flag in knowing that a company is not going to be a good place to work.
-
This has been an article that I have been planning to write for years, but I was finally inspired by Kaiser Permanente attempting to convince me that they were a "highly competitive" environment while pressuring me to interview for a contract to hire position - the two can't go together. KP announced themselves as a "bottom of the barrel" shop simply by using the technique.
-
I worked two jobs where I was a contractor. One was just over a year and the other was about 4 months. I felt alienated and contract employees had different badges than employees. It was frustrating to say the least when employees in the same department were paid more than contractors, not to mention the benefits they got.
-
All the recruiters with exception of a few lately have been hammering me with C2H positions paying sub par wages while expecting to have a do - it - all master tech.
I blame ignorance in knowing what is really needed for positions in IT.
-
@IRJ said:
I worked two jobs where I was a contractor. One was just over a year and the other was about 4 months. I felt alienated and contract employees had different badges than employees. It was frustrating to say the least when employees in the same department were paid more than contractors, not to mention the benefits they got.
Very important to note, Contract is fine and very important. It is specifically Contract to Hire that doesn't work. It is using "perm employee" as a dangling carrot that undermines the system.
Pure contracts can be great. I was a pure contractor for fifteen years. I preferred it, lots of people do.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
I blame ignorance in knowing what is really needed for positions in IT.
Send the this article
-
@IRJ said:
I worked two jobs where I was a contractor. One was just over a year and the other was about 4 months. I felt alienated and contract employees had different badges than employees. It was frustrating to say the least when employees in the same department were paid more than contractors, not to mention the benefits they got.
I've worked positions as a contract where it was the opposite. Contractors were paid more, treated better and less likely to be laid off than employees. HR even told me outright that you only converted from contractor to employee there (this was a Fortune 100!!) if you were too good to fire but not good enough to be a contractor. Employment was openly a lower form of employment than contracting there.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I worked two jobs where I was a contractor. One was just over a year and the other was about 4 months. I felt alienated and contract employees had different badges than employees. It was frustrating to say the least when employees in the same department were paid more than contractors, not to mention the benefits they got.
Very important to note, Contract is fine and very important. It is specifically Contract to Hire that doesn't work. It is using "perm employee" as a dangling carrot that undermines the system.
Pure contracts can be great. I was a pure contractor for fifteen years. I preferred it, lots of people do.
In my situation, contractors and employees were identical in job function and duties. They each got their own desks in the same area. Some contractors remained contractors for 4-6 years doing the same function without increased pay and benefits.
-
@IRJ said:
In my situation, contractors and employees were identical in job function and duties. They each got their own desks in the same area. Some contractors remained contractors for 4-6 years doing the same function without increased pay and benefits.
Same for me. Same jobs, side by side. Contractors averaged more time with the company (8+ year overage time, employees more like 3+ years.) Contractors did not get pay increases directly, but they didn't get the pay cuts or layoffs that the employees got either.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
In my situation, contractors and employees were identical in job function and duties. They each got their own desks in the same area. Some contractors remained contractors for 4-6 years doing the same function without increased pay and benefits.
Same for me. Same jobs, side by side. Contractors averaged more time with the company (8+ year overage time, employees more like 3+ years.) Contractors did not get pay increases directly, but they didn't get the pay cuts or layoffs that the employees got either.
That makes more sense since benefits actually cost the company quite a bit of money
-
@IRJ said:
That makes more sense since benefits actually cost the company quite a bit of money
I always got benefits as a contractor. Now with how healthcare is, there is no way to avoid that with contractors anywhere anymore.
-
Good insights, thanks.
-
Good article, I enjoyed it.
