October 8, 2015 at 10:19 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Contract to Hire
October 9, 2015 at 1:07 am
I think "did contract work" will get old fast if it becomes common. If you after a few month after a job change choose to leave or get fired and it happens multiple times, the phrase used won't really matter if "did contract work" gets established as a known concept. That being said however, people should not be afraid of change. It's a part of our work and while a job change also brings risk it can bring reward, perhaps you found what you were looking for.
October 9, 2015 at 1:35 am
Contract hire for bump up resource may be low risk but contract hire to fill an area where there is a lack of expertise is a bit trickier.
You can easily spot a different contractor in the first instance because you have the expertise, it is just spread too thinly to resource the project. Your existing team will soon notice if the contractor is up to the job.
In the latter case you don't have a yardstick to measure your contractor. This can be compounded because the project estimates will also have been made by people who lack expertise
October 9, 2015 at 2:33 am
A few years ago the New Zealand government made a law change so that permanent employees can be let go within the first 90 days without either side being able to invoke any industrial grievance process. In other words, like Contract to Hire, try each other out for up to 90 days and if things don't work out, part ways.
In general, I think this is a good thing. Many NZ employers are notoriously risk-averse, so the law was aimed at letting them give a change to people they might not necessarily risk hiring (e.g. new migrants without a local work history). Having changed jobs since that law was passed, it does feel a bit insecure until the 90 days are up.
October 9, 2015 at 9:09 am
There has been more than one occasion in the past where I would hire on full-time at a company and then conclude within the first 90 days that the job wasn't a keeper. An employer is sometimes (well, more like often times) too eager to hire, because they are desperate to fill a position, which results in poorly chosen candidates. Also, potential employees are sometimes led down the primrose path when the employer (or recruiter) describes the job. Yes, tech recruiters; they're often times the instigator of many problems. We've all been there.
Contract to Hire is a solution that matches the reality of today's professional job market.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
October 9, 2015 at 2:20 pm
From a employee perspective, I'm totally fine with contract-to-hire as long as they are not abusing it to only use it as a 90 day contract with the hopes of conversion. Outside of that, I think it's up to me as the interviewee to gauge if I'm a good fit for the requirements of the opportunity. If I feel I am, and I like to think I'm a good judge of that for the most part, then I know I will convert at the end of the trial period.
And hey, if it doesn't work out then it doesn't work out. On to the next opportunity.
October 21, 2015 at 7:42 am
UGH, we are just getting into hiring for IT again.
November 4, 2015 at 7:29 am
Fail fast. Fail often.
If there isn't a match (that is either of the parties is not content) then it is more productive for all if it is ended mutually and maturely. If it becomes common practice then it will lose its stigma except for those potential employees who never make it past the trial period and those potential employers who hardly ever take anyone on.
I am happy for this to become common practice as long as:
b) It is not used to disguise freelancing nor disguise engagement of freelancers. That is a different kind of relationship.
If this becomes a standard practice then the danger is that if you have previously hired someone who you wouldn't choose again then it is less likely that they will move on. I understand that it may be easier to "get rid" of staff in USA but within the EU it is far from easy (both a good and bad thing).
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 4, 2015 at 7:43 am
Gary Varga (11/4/2015)
Fail fast. Fail often....
Indeed. If you read an autobiography or listen to an interview given by any successful person in any realm (business, politics, science, technology, writing, sports, relationships ...), that mantra ("Fail fast. Fail often.") is commonly repeated, just phrased in their own unique way. None of these people have a perfect and linear career path. They all failed at multiple points in their life, and each failure was a turning point for something new and better.
I think the "fail fast" aspect is crucial to understand. What that means is: don't allow yourself to spin your wheels or tread water for too long. If you find yourself in a position where you are failing, then every day you should endeavor to learn something new about why you're failing and how to move past it.
Treading water indefinitely in the same spot doesn't make you a strong person, it just makes you a stupid person.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply