9 ms·

FWIW in Steve's companies people are paid market rate for this month. Consulting at $250 an hour is really only realistic if you are already working as a consul

FWIW in Steve's companies people are paid market rate for this month. Consulting at $250 an hour is really only realistic if you are already working as a consulting $250/hr for a 1 month contract is market rate. As an applicant I am taking on a huge amount of risk unless I personally know and trust the employer and team (in which case such a contract is rarely necessary). I can do a week, maybe even two, without having to leave my existing job. More than that and I'm wearing the risk. Why would I want to do that?

malandrew 13y ago
A consultant with a reputation and track record of delivering projects on a one month deadline and who came through a referral that vouched for their work product gets $250 an hour. A person being hired as an employee where we probably know nothing about their work quality unless an existing employee has worked with them prior at another job is not a consultant. Both sides are taking risk. The company is paying the person with a lot less indication that it is going to work out than they would with a consultant with a reputation. With a consultant with a reputation, they know exactly what deliverable they are paying for and there is a contract that gives guarantees and protection to the company if the consultant fails to deliver. I think it would be fair to pay $250/hr to someone for that month on the condition that they have pay back a penalty if they fail to perform adequately for the job to be hired. Such a scenario balances risk and makes sense when consulting is the name of the game. If you were to make that offer to a candidate there interested in a job, not consulting, but a job, I don't think most would do it because they mentally aren't there interviewing with you with a consultant attitude. Consultants take contracts for jobs they know they can deliver on. Except for the most exceptional candidates (i.e. that that have the capacity and know-how to be one man consultancy shops capable of doing the type of work you need them to do), most interviewees are probably applying to work at your company because it is a step up from the type of work they have previously performed. Basically, selection bias dictates that there is typically more risk for the employer when hiring an employee than when hiring a consultant, which is why you don't pay people like consultants. At the end of the day the two situations are apples and oranges and you pay apples and oranges rates for each scenario, respectively. That all being said, the amount of time the interviews are done today is two weeks. Given the amount of job security software engineers have today, this isn't that big a deal. You'd be surprised how many engineers are in a position to do something like this. For those that absolutely can't afford to do that, we try accommodate.
- sheepmullet 13y ago
  A person being hired as an employee where we probably know nothing about their work quality unless an existing employee has worked with them prior at another job is not a consultant. I understand they are not an actual consultant and won't likely perform as one. I'm saying that because you want them to take on much of the risk of being a consultant you should pay them accordingly. Anything less is shifting the majority of the risk to the employee which is IMO incredibly immoral. At least with a 1-2 week trial it is possible to keep your existing job which greatly reduces the risk.

malandrew 13y ago

A consultant with a reputation and track record of delivering projects on a one month deadline and who came through a referral that vouched for their work product gets $250 an hour. A person being hired as an employee where we probably know nothing about their work quality unless an existing employee has worked with them prior at another job is not a consultant. Both sides are taking risk. The company is paying the person with a lot less indication that it is going to work out than they would with a consultant with a reputation. With a consultant with a reputation, they know exactly what deliverable they are paying for and there is a contract that gives guarantees and protection to the company if the consultant fails to deliver. I think it would be fair to pay $250/hr to someone for that month on the condition that they have pay back a penalty if they fail to perform adequately for the job to be hired. Such a scenario balances risk and makes sense when consulting is the name of the game. If you were to make that offer to a candidate there interested in a job, not consulting, but a job, I don't think most would do it because they mentally aren't there interviewing with you with a consultant attitude. Consultants take contracts for jobs they know they can deliver on. Except for the most exceptional candidates (i.e. that that have the capacity and know-how to be one man consultancy shops capable of doing the type of work you need them to do), most interviewees are probably applying to work at your company because it is a step up from the type of work they have previously performed. Basically, selection bias dictates that there is typically more risk for the employer when hiring an employee than when hiring a consultant, which is why you don't pay people like consultants. At the end of the day the two situations are apples and oranges and you pay apples and oranges rates for each scenario, respectively. That all being said, the amount of time the interviews are done today is two weeks. Given the amount of job security software engineers have today, this isn't that big a deal. You'd be surprised how many engineers are in a position to do something like this. For those that absolutely can't afford to do that, we try accommodate.

sheepmullet 13y ago
A person being hired as an employee where we probably know nothing about their work quality unless an existing employee has worked with them prior at another job is not a consultant. I understand they are not an actual consultant and won't likely perform as one. I'm saying that because you want them to take on much of the risk of being a consultant you should pay them accordingly. Anything less is shifting the majority of the risk to the employee which is IMO incredibly immoral. At least with a 1-2 week trial it is possible to keep your existing job which greatly reduces the risk.