4 ms·

I think this is a stronger argument that we should have more entry-level contractor gigs available with a route toward full-time employment. Because they're eas

I think this is a stronger argument that we should have more entry-level contractor gigs available with a route toward full-time employment. Because they're easier to fire, contractor positions allow more risk-taking in the hiring process and this increases candidate diversity - true background diversity, not what you see with category-based quota systems. A company will be more likely to hire a person without a pedigree into a contractor role, and once hired they have an opportunity to showcase their aptitude. Interviews are expensive in terms of employee time. Paying a candidate for their time as well wouldn't be the most expensive part of the process, but in general increasing the cost of an interview will serve to decrease the breadth of the process. Companies will probably start to become sensitive to people they perceive as profiting from the interview process and restrict access accordingly. I think this would be ultimately detrimental to the goal of scouting new talent.

joecot 5y ago
Different strokes for different folks, but I immediately dismiss any job posting that mentions contract to hire. Even if it's a 2 week trial. I have a mortgage to pay and regular expenses, and given I've had secure full-time development work for over a decade, I would never jump from a secure job to a contract position where a company does not have to offer benefits or even the courtesy of actually firing me so I can collect unemployment. If a company wants me to have wizard of oz style interviews, sure, I'll jump those hoops until I have an offer from a company I like. But I'm not going to sit in financial limbo while a company decides if I'm worth keeping or not. Of course for someone just starting in the industry, or comfortable with contract work, this might be fine. But I imagine many SWEs have no interest in contract to hire for similar reasons.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  Well, sure. I wouldn't take contract work either at this point in my career. But on the other hand I don't really have to do technical interviews at all anymore. After a point everything is reputation and networking. Contract work is important for people just breaking into the field.

joecot 5y ago

Different strokes for different folks, but I immediately dismiss any job posting that mentions contract to hire. Even if it's a 2 week trial. I have a mortgage to pay and regular expenses, and given I've had secure full-time development work for over a decade, I would never jump from a secure job to a contract position where a company does not have to offer benefits or even the courtesy of actually firing me so I can collect unemployment. If a company wants me to have wizard of oz style interviews, sure, I'll jump those hoops until I have an offer from a company I like. But I'm not going to sit in financial limbo while a company decides if I'm worth keeping or not. Of course for someone just starting in the industry, or comfortable with contract work, this might be fine. But I imagine many SWEs have no interest in contract to hire for similar reasons.

throwaway09223 5y ago
Well, sure. I wouldn't take contract work either at this point in my career. But on the other hand I don't really have to do technical interviews at all anymore. After a point everything is reputation and networking. Contract work is important for people just breaking into the field.