3 ms·

> The difficulty here is that no one who is even mediocre would ever do a "contract to hire". this is absolutely not true. good people will simply demand a hi

> The difficulty here is that no one who is even mediocre would ever do a "contract to hire". this is absolutely not true. good people will simply demand a high hourly billing rate during the contract phase to compensate for the opportunity cost, which you have to be prepared to pay. sure if you're dicking around with $20/hr "contracts" everyone decent will tell you to kick rocks. have you ever worked with people who are used to getting paid $100+/hr? i.e. top people? it doesn't sound like it.

chollida1 13y ago
I think we're going to have to disagree here. > have you ever worked with people who are used to getting paid $100+/hr? i.e. top people? it doesn't sound like it. I saw this and wondered if you were trolling. It's certainly a rude and undeserved comment, but I'll be charitable and bite:) My main point is that "good" developers, always have options. My assumptions: 1) the developer wants full time work, otherwise they would just do contracting and not contract for hire. 2) jobs are plentiful for good developers. Why would the developer assume all the risk with contract for hire, unless they had no other options? Why not just take the full time job instead? Basically my point boils down to two points... 1) How would a company convince me to do contract for hire work when I can work somewhere else without that risk? What's my upside to doing this? 2) As long as most companies don't' do contract for hire, a company is putting themselves in a position that excludes most talented developers. ie if you aren't facebook, twitter, dropbox, etc. my contention is that the top developers will laugh at your contract to hire request.
- phlo 13y ago
  Done right, contract-to-hire seems like a great solution to me. It's actually a chance for the employer and employee to get to know each other and make sure their mutual expectations match. Assuming the position were to be salaried at $104k, a sensible agreement might be: - The employee is hired temporarily for a period of one to three months. - Their wage is paid weekly, at a rate of $2k per week (i.e. 1/52 of their expected salary) - The contract may be cancelled by either party with seven days' notice. - At its end, the contract automatically converts to a permanent position. If a signing bonus is called for, it should be due early during the probationary period. A separate bonus for the transition from temporary to permanent employment may not be a great idea as it may incentivize the employer to terminate the agreement.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    That's the issue. A job explicitly labeled "contract to hire" is never done right. No good developer is going to do contract to hire at 1/52 of the salary, because they already either make an equivalent salary or far more as a contractor. The company isn't going to pay an actual contracting rate, because they are either cheap or can't afford it. Contract to hire is almost exclusively done in places where it's hard for a developer to find a good job and it's used to take advantage of this situation.
    - beachstartup 13y ago
      > A job explicitly labeled "contract to hire" is never done right i don't understand how you and the other guy can make these blanket black and white statements like this. have you guys ever had to hire people based on advertised solicitation only? contract to hire is mainly done in situations where a new employee can not be vouched for by an existing one, or a large number of new employees must be brought on at once. the reason why it's so rare among elite silicon valley firms is because everyone knows each other and recruiting is usually a personal process between existing employees and prospective ones. THIS IS NOT HOW IT IS EVERYWHERE. outside of the echo chamber it's very common and good people can be hired this way.
      - rdouble 13y ago
        I'm not sure what I said contradicts what you're saying. I've been involved with hiring over 100 people in Boston, San Francisco and NYC. Everyone does not really know everyone but that's a different story. Contract to hire is very popular in the part of the Midwest where I'm originally from because of no particular reason other than the hiring firm can and the person being hired doesn't have many options. At one place I worked in Boston everyone was theoretically "contract to hire" but it was atypical as the rate paid was so high that nobody ever took the full time job.
        beachstartup 13y ago
        i see you deleted your anecdote, which to me basically exemplifies my theory that the opposing opinion on this matter is simply just a way of validating ego. "I would never do that, so therefore, no other good developer would either. Ever."
- beachstartup 13y ago
  what i'm saying is my actual real life experience contradicts pretty much everything you're stating. your position is falsifiable by a single example. it's not reality. it's just your opinion. you're saying "that's impossible", when it clearly is NOT impossible.
  - chollida1 13y ago
    Ok, I'll try to restate my opinion as clearly as I can as it looks like we're talking past each other:) A developer has a job, they are looking for a new job. They have a full time offer and a contract for hire offer. All other things being equal..... Why would the developer ever consider taking a contract for hire offer when they have other alternatives? This just seems like they are taking all the risk here. If they take a full time offer and find out the culture isn't a good fit then they can leave, just like in contract for hire. What is the upside to the developer here over taking a full time position?

chollida1 13y ago

I think we're going to have to disagree here. > have you ever worked with people who are used to getting paid $100+/hr? i.e. top people? it doesn't sound like it. I saw this and wondered if you were trolling. It's certainly a rude and undeserved comment, but I'll be charitable and bite:) My main point is that "good" developers, always have options. My assumptions: 1) the developer wants full time work, otherwise they would just do contracting and not contract for hire. 2) jobs are plentiful for good developers. Why would the developer assume all the risk with contract for hire, unless they had no other options? Why not just take the full time job instead? Basically my point boils down to two points... 1) How would a company convince me to do contract for hire work when I can work somewhere else without that risk? What's my upside to doing this? 2) As long as most companies don't' do contract for hire, a company is putting themselves in a position that excludes most talented developers. ie if you aren't facebook, twitter, dropbox, etc. my contention is that the top developers will laugh at your contract to hire request.

phlo 13y ago
Done right, contract-to-hire seems like a great solution to me. It's actually a chance for the employer and employee to get to know each other and make sure their mutual expectations match. Assuming the position were to be salaried at $104k, a sensible agreement might be: - The employee is hired temporarily for a period of one to three months. - Their wage is paid weekly, at a rate of $2k per week (i.e. 1/52 of their expected salary) - The contract may be cancelled by either party with seven days' notice. - At its end, the contract automatically converts to a permanent position. If a signing bonus is called for, it should be due early during the probationary period. A separate bonus for the transition from temporary to permanent employment may not be a great idea as it may incentivize the employer to terminate the agreement.
- rdouble 13y ago
  That's the issue. A job explicitly labeled "contract to hire" is never done right. No good developer is going to do contract to hire at 1/52 of the salary, because they already either make an equivalent salary or far more as a contractor. The company isn't going to pay an actual contracting rate, because they are either cheap or can't afford it. Contract to hire is almost exclusively done in places where it's hard for a developer to find a good job and it's used to take advantage of this situation.
  - beachstartup 13y ago
    > A job explicitly labeled "contract to hire" is never done right i don't understand how you and the other guy can make these blanket black and white statements like this. have you guys ever had to hire people based on advertised solicitation only? contract to hire is mainly done in situations where a new employee can not be vouched for by an existing one, or a large number of new employees must be brought on at once. the reason why it's so rare among elite silicon valley firms is because everyone knows each other and recruiting is usually a personal process between existing employees and prospective ones. THIS IS NOT HOW IT IS EVERYWHERE. outside of the echo chamber it's very common and good people can be hired this way.
    - rdouble 13y ago
      I'm not sure what I said contradicts what you're saying. I've been involved with hiring over 100 people in Boston, San Francisco and NYC. Everyone does not really know everyone but that's a different story. Contract to hire is very popular in the part of the Midwest where I'm originally from because of no particular reason other than the hiring firm can and the person being hired doesn't have many options. At one place I worked in Boston everyone was theoretically "contract to hire" but it was atypical as the rate paid was so high that nobody ever took the full time job.
      - beachstartup 13y ago
        i see you deleted your anecdote, which to me basically exemplifies my theory that the opposing opinion on this matter is simply just a way of validating ego. "I would never do that, so therefore, no other good developer would either. Ever."
beachstartup 13y ago
what i'm saying is my actual real life experience contradicts pretty much everything you're stating. your position is falsifiable by a single example. it's not reality. it's just your opinion. you're saying "that's impossible", when it clearly is NOT impossible.
- chollida1 13y ago
  Ok, I'll try to restate my opinion as clearly as I can as it looks like we're talking past each other:) A developer has a job, they are looking for a new job. They have a full time offer and a contract for hire offer. All other things being equal..... Why would the developer ever consider taking a contract for hire offer when they have other alternatives? This just seems like they are taking all the risk here. If they take a full time offer and find out the culture isn't a good fit then they can leave, just like in contract for hire. What is the upside to the developer here over taking a full time position?