4 ms·

>Nice idea. Though I hope you don't expect to be given high priority stuff or be paid a full senior dev's wage during this short contract before which I don't k

>Nice idea. Though I hope you don't expect to be given high priority stuff or be paid a full senior dev's wage during this short contract before which I don't know your abilities as I've not had some other chance to assess them. The nature of the work isn't that important. However, asking someone to take a low-ball contract is a great way to filter talent. People who are good, or busy, will completely turn you down. People who are desperate or suck will gladly take the money. This contract test should be last one you do. It should be either the full day on-site or the short contract. You also need to pay market rate if you hope to hire market rate talent.

dspillett 13y ago
>People who are good, or busy, will completely turn you down. >People who are desperate or suck will gladly take the money. I don't see that as a universal truth at all. Many decent people are out of work for various reasons (start-up just gone under, contract ended and haven't found the next one yet, just back in the market after illness or similar, new to the area, or like the post that started this discussion: they just don't interview well despite their technical skills+experience) and some of them are desperate for new work. Not everyone, even amongst the best people, are sat on enough of a nest egg that they can turn work down willy-nilly. People who are busy won't be applying in the first place, or will take the technical interview option (which is presumably less difficult to schedule the time for) if offered instead. > You also need to pay market rate if you hope to hire market rate talent. For the job yes, of course. For the interview, which this short contract is taking the place of? I don't think so. You can't be too cheap of course, as that will make people doubt the salary range being quoted for the real job/contract. Of course if a company were to try use this as a way to get quick short-term resource in cheaply, with little or no intention to take people on for longer contracts, their reputation for it would circulate PDQ and people would stop applying at all (unless really desperate).

dspillett 13y ago

>People who are good, or busy, will completely turn you down. >People who are desperate or suck will gladly take the money. I don't see that as a universal truth at all. Many decent people are out of work for various reasons (start-up just gone under, contract ended and haven't found the next one yet, just back in the market after illness or similar, new to the area, or like the post that started this discussion: they just don't interview well despite their technical skills+experience) and some of them are desperate for new work. Not everyone, even amongst the best people, are sat on enough of a nest egg that they can turn work down willy-nilly. People who are busy won't be applying in the first place, or will take the technical interview option (which is presumably less difficult to schedule the time for) if offered instead. > You also need to pay market rate if you hope to hire market rate talent. For the job yes, of course. For the interview, which this short contract is taking the place of? I don't think so. You can't be too cheap of course, as that will make people doubt the salary range being quoted for the real job/contract. Of course if a company were to try use this as a way to get quick short-term resource in cheaply, with little or no intention to take people on for longer contracts, their reputation for it would circulate PDQ and people would stop applying at all (unless really desperate).