The difficulty here is that no one who is even mediocre would ever do a "contract to hire".
If they are good they have options and there just isn't any upside to doing a contract for hire when you can take another full time job.
Contract for hire is a big red flag!
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
"I would never do that, so therefore, no other good developer would either. Ever."
I guess I don't get what you're saying. Who does contract to hire where it's good a good deal for someone other than the employer?
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.
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?
I would, but at a real consulting rate (over $150 per hour) and not at a salary rate, since it comes with none of the benefits of being salaried.
That kind of arrangement is going to lead to adverse selection in the end. At typical tech salaries, you'd be asking me to take a 50% pay cut for (not much) additional job security. The main upshot of being FT (aside from benefits but those don't merit a 50% pay cut) is that it takes ~30-60 days to fire someone without severance. For contractors, they don't have to do that PIP bullshit. But I prefer to plan my career based on upside, not job security/what happens if I'm fired.
The rate at which I'd take a contract-to-hire gig is one at which I wouldn't happily convert to full-time, unless there were a huge promotion in the mix. The people who would convert without a big promotion are the ones you don't want, because they plan on coasting.
I was toward the top end of what I could make being traditionally employed locally (Helena, Montana). The remote contract-to-hire opportunity put me on par with folks living in cities, save places like NY and SF, or those working for huge companies.
Definitely a good deal for some of us that don't have professional networks that would support consulting. And whatever you might think, I'm not a coaster or I wouldn't have been offered full-time employment.