5 ms·
I've hired a decent number of engineers for a few different companies, so I'll take a stab at this based on what I've seen. - Fixed costs for hiring for PT and
by remyp 7y ago
I've hired a decent number of engineers for a few different companies, so I'll take a stab at this based on what I've seen.
- Fixed costs for hiring for PT and FT are the same, but the company gets more output for FT, so they focus on that
- Similarly, external recruiters who take a % of salary get paid much less for the same amount of work, so you're not worth it to them
- Fragile processes require lots of interaction. Having someone unavailable slows down the team
- PT employees are perceived as less committed. Enough ink has been spilled about companies wanting dedicated people, so I'll leave that one alone
- soganess 7y agoThis is in line with what I hear but there are a whole host of lowered costs as well that are often overlooked in these types of breakdowns. Most notably, equipment costs, benefits, and space reuse. Especially for places that are not fully established I would have thought such trade-offs would be very enticing.
- doingmyting 7y agoI'd argue that places that aren't fully established that would hire engineers aren't your target market. You won't work as hard in any big company as you do in a startup. And when their fragile infrastructure inevitably dies suddenly and you're off that day, it's little consolation that they saved a few bucks on an extra few sqft of space or a laptop, as they now have angry customers and potential loss of business and brand equity. I'd more aim for bigger companies if I was in your position but even then it's tough as no one, including myself, wants to work with a part-timer in tech. There are always issues with infra or customers or people in general and having a co-worker that is not always there during the week would be a nightmare.