7 ms·

Employment is dead, contract is the way of the future. Do you really want to buy into a feudalistic legacy organizational model knowing that the odds of rising

by VLM 10y ago

Employment is dead, contract is the way of the future. Do you really want to buy into a feudalistic legacy organizational model knowing that the odds of rising up in the pyramid are approximately zero? And they're going to downsize with no loyalty if needed to bump the stock price later on. Like a decapitated chicken the company will strut around a bit randomly canceling or creating projects so you have no control over your future other than maybe running away to another feudal manor and some have non-competes to try and enforce that kind of slavery. So they're worth nothing to you as an employer unless you want to LARP that you're a feudal peasant in 1300 and you're worth nothing to them as they'll fire you or steal from you in a blink of an eye if they can make a nickel off it. Meanwhile a competitor smart enough to hire you as a consultant will crush them in the market purely for organizational superiority reasons. Companies that hire contractors are inherently more modern and superior and more likely to succeed. The future, being unevenly distributed, some folks still think employment is alive, but one effect of post-industrialism or service economy or infinite benefit prices is employment is good and dead. In a dying business model, the employer needs employees a lot more than employees need the employer.

fs111 10y ago
> Employment is dead, contract is the way of the future. I am pretty happy with my employment. Paid vacation, paid sick days, reasonable hours and all that good stuff.
- lsaferite 10y ago
  Ok. Now imagine you are getting twice as much after taxes for the same work but without benefits. Would you still be as happy? Hell, even 50% more. And you are spreading the work across multiple clients so any one client 'firing' you is suddenly not a huge thing since your income is distributed across multiple clients. Sure, you don't get paid benefits, but you get higher income and the ability to work for multiple clients. Not every person can do that and even among those that can, not every one has the motivation to do it.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > Now imagine you are getting twice as much after taxes for the same work That would have been wonderful!
  - Dayshine 10y ago
    >so any one client 'firing' you is suddenly not a huge thing With 3 months notice and strong union protection (public sector) it already isn't. I'd much rather work for a single excellent organisation where I know I'm doing good than many who can't hold on to good staff and need contractors.
    - lsaferite 10y ago
      I'd love those protections personally, but I have no such luck.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Always Be Interviewing.
      - nso 10y ago
        It's minimum requirement for a hire contract in Norway. 3 months mutual notification, and only in a few cases can you be fired on spot without compensation (theft and such). You can contractually increase the notification time from the baseline, but not decrease. Makes for happy and productive workers, and also benefits companies who don't have to worry about loosing their best worker without notice.
        lsaferite 10y ago
        I think I read Norway just moved into #1 happiest country in the world...
        tigershark 10y ago
        3 months notice period seems a very bad deal to me. If you want to change job you simply cannot because no one would wait for 3 months, unless you are at executive level.
- zeveb 10y ago
  Honestly, I like unlimited unpaid days off: they give me the freedom to choose when to work, and when not to, with no hard feelings.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    It's surprising how few companies will bend on this. In my experience it seemed like they were more concerned about the possibility of other employees getting notions. It's a big reason to move somewhere that mandates vacation time (though again, I'd rather just take as much time as I want unpaid).
lallysingh 10y ago
Employment is lower risk. It's tougher to fire employees than contractors, so there's lower firing risk for employees. It also reduces your work overhead for stuff that HR can take care of for you (health insurance, life insurance, etc). As well as sick days. And at some places, this lets you focus on larger problems that you'd never get solved working from contract to contract.
- trapperkeeper79 10y ago
  I've seen good people get fired for what seem like purely political reason (in California). They got a month of severance but come on. My father worked for a handful of companies his entire career and had true loyalty for them. The company, in turn, took care of him his whole life. This does not exist anymore in the private sector. If your org seems to have it, I'm sorry to tell you that it might change one day (and very abruptly). I've seen this happen to places that were considered unassailable.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  This is right. Lower risk, lower reward. You'll make some money, but won't share in most of the upside. Up to you to decide which path you want to take. Depends what you want from life.
- sklivvz1971 10y ago
  In my experience employment is not lower risk at all, in terms of continuity of employment. Companies will fire you even in countries where your rights are strongly protected, the only difference being you get paid for the nuisance. This is not really a differentiator: let's say that incentivised employees get a month of salary for each year of service, then you can factor that in your daily rate as a contractor. The big advantage is when you have strong rights and we're talking about long term illness. For example in Italy you can't be fired if you are truly sick for months: your employment will be retained, however you might not get paid, or not get paid fully. Other advantages might be related to discrimination: for a young white male it might be easier to get a developer job, or for a seasoned white male might be easier to get a lead/manager role. It's the same with employment, but as a contractor, passing job interviews becomes a significant part of your job, as well as cultivating relationships.
VLM 10y ago
Most of the arguments against contracting, so far as of this timestamp, seem to boil down to anecdotal "I've got mine so who cares about everyone else" with a side dish of if I can imagine how in a utopia idealized employment could be for everyone, and if that imaginary "could be" employment is superior to how contracting actually is in reality, then its proven with no need to implement it for any individual or entire culture that employment is better, because being better in theory trumps how it is in reality. Is there any stronger argument in opposition than "I got mine..." or "In a utopia..." ?
- bussierem 10y ago
  In all fairness, as of the timestamp of my comment, all of the pro-contract-work arguments I've seen include things like "and it's so easy when you have good relationships with long-time clients" and other such things. Which is really the same argument as the anti-contract "I'm in a stable awesome job with great benefits, so of course this is better.". I have yet to see anyone comparing using the WORST case of EITHER of these scenarios - and I think I would argue that comparing worst cases, contract work fails harder, since the availability of non-contract employment (at least in the tech industry) is certainly easier to find than trying to self-market for high-ish prices as a contract worker with no prior experience to show for it and no current clients, especially since there seem to be SO many pitfalls for new contract workers to fall into that could hopelessly screw them over, at least in the short term. Edit: To clarify my point: Worst case non-contract: Shitty job, terrible company/management, average to below-average salary, and terrible (if any) benefits and healthcare. Worst case contract: No clients to speak of, unable to get your business off the ground, still struggling with self marketing, and when you do find work (few and far between), you are underpaid because of a combination of unrealized self-worth and bullying clients who refuse to pay that amount. In the case of "worst case", at least the non-contract worker is getting PAID.
  - VLM 10y ago
    That's a pretty well thought out argument. I'd propose that above the very bottom of the barrel, contract work is slightly better because it is like speed dating and the odds of meeting the right client for you are higher than could be experienced in slower paced long term employment.
RUG3Y 10y ago
Apparently lots of downvotes here but most companies will screw you over as soon as it's convenient for them to do so.

by VLM 10y ago

fs111 10y ago

> Employment is dead, contract is the way of the future. I am pretty happy with my employment. Paid vacation, paid sick days, reasonable hours and all that good stuff.

lsaferite 10y ago
Ok. Now imagine you are getting twice as much after taxes for the same work but without benefits. Would you still be as happy? Hell, even 50% more. And you are spreading the work across multiple clients so any one client 'firing' you is suddenly not a huge thing since your income is distributed across multiple clients. Sure, you don't get paid benefits, but you get higher income and the ability to work for multiple clients. Not every person can do that and even among those that can, not every one has the motivation to do it.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > Now imagine you are getting twice as much after taxes for the same work That would have been wonderful!
- Dayshine 10y ago
  >so any one client 'firing' you is suddenly not a huge thing With 3 months notice and strong union protection (public sector) it already isn't. I'd much rather work for a single excellent organisation where I know I'm doing good than many who can't hold on to good staff and need contractors.
  - lsaferite 10y ago
    I'd love those protections personally, but I have no such luck.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Always Be Interviewing.
    - nso 10y ago
      It's minimum requirement for a hire contract in Norway. 3 months mutual notification, and only in a few cases can you be fired on spot without compensation (theft and such). You can contractually increase the notification time from the baseline, but not decrease. Makes for happy and productive workers, and also benefits companies who don't have to worry about loosing their best worker without notice.
      - lsaferite 10y ago
        I think I read Norway just moved into #1 happiest country in the world...
      - tigershark 10y ago
        3 months notice period seems a very bad deal to me. If you want to change job you simply cannot because no one would wait for 3 months, unless you are at executive level.
zeveb 10y ago
Honestly, I like unlimited unpaid days off: they give me the freedom to choose when to work, and when not to, with no hard feelings.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  It's surprising how few companies will bend on this. In my experience it seemed like they were more concerned about the possibility of other employees getting notions. It's a big reason to move somewhere that mandates vacation time (though again, I'd rather just take as much time as I want unpaid).

lallysingh 10y ago

Employment is lower risk. It's tougher to fire employees than contractors, so there's lower firing risk for employees. It also reduces your work overhead for stuff that HR can take care of for you (health insurance, life insurance, etc). As well as sick days. And at some places, this lets you focus on larger problems that you'd never get solved working from contract to contract.

trapperkeeper79 10y ago
I've seen good people get fired for what seem like purely political reason (in California). They got a month of severance but come on. My father worked for a handful of companies his entire career and had true loyalty for them. The company, in turn, took care of him his whole life. This does not exist anymore in the private sector. If your org seems to have it, I'm sorry to tell you that it might change one day (and very abruptly). I've seen this happen to places that were considered unassailable.
charlesdm 10y ago
This is right. Lower risk, lower reward. You'll make some money, but won't share in most of the upside. Up to you to decide which path you want to take. Depends what you want from life.
sklivvz1971 10y ago
In my experience employment is not lower risk at all, in terms of continuity of employment. Companies will fire you even in countries where your rights are strongly protected, the only difference being you get paid for the nuisance. This is not really a differentiator: let's say that incentivised employees get a month of salary for each year of service, then you can factor that in your daily rate as a contractor. The big advantage is when you have strong rights and we're talking about long term illness. For example in Italy you can't be fired if you are truly sick for months: your employment will be retained, however you might not get paid, or not get paid fully. Other advantages might be related to discrimination: for a young white male it might be easier to get a developer job, or for a seasoned white male might be easier to get a lead/manager role. It's the same with employment, but as a contractor, passing job interviews becomes a significant part of your job, as well as cultivating relationships.

VLM 10y ago

Most of the arguments against contracting, so far as of this timestamp, seem to boil down to anecdotal "I've got mine so who cares about everyone else" with a side dish of if I can imagine how in a utopia idealized employment could be for everyone, and if that imaginary "could be" employment is superior to how contracting actually is in reality, then its proven with no need to implement it for any individual or entire culture that employment is better, because being better in theory trumps how it is in reality. Is there any stronger argument in opposition than "I got mine..." or "In a utopia..." ?

bussierem 10y ago
In all fairness, as of the timestamp of my comment, all of the pro-contract-work arguments I've seen include things like "and it's so easy when you have good relationships with long-time clients" and other such things. Which is really the same argument as the anti-contract "I'm in a stable awesome job with great benefits, so of course this is better.". I have yet to see anyone comparing using the WORST case of EITHER of these scenarios - and I think I would argue that comparing worst cases, contract work fails harder, since the availability of non-contract employment (at least in the tech industry) is certainly easier to find than trying to self-market for high-ish prices as a contract worker with no prior experience to show for it and no current clients, especially since there seem to be SO many pitfalls for new contract workers to fall into that could hopelessly screw them over, at least in the short term. Edit: To clarify my point: Worst case non-contract: Shitty job, terrible company/management, average to below-average salary, and terrible (if any) benefits and healthcare. Worst case contract: No clients to speak of, unable to get your business off the ground, still struggling with self marketing, and when you do find work (few and far between), you are underpaid because of a combination of unrealized self-worth and bullying clients who refuse to pay that amount. In the case of "worst case", at least the non-contract worker is getting PAID.
- VLM 10y ago
  That's a pretty well thought out argument. I'd propose that above the very bottom of the barrel, contract work is slightly better because it is like speed dating and the odds of meeting the right client for you are higher than could be experienced in slower paced long term employment.

RUG3Y 10y ago

Apparently lots of downvotes here but most companies will screw you over as soon as it's convenient for them to do so.