I got a call from a recruiter/staffing company about my resume. They have a client company who is looking to fill a position that it seems like would fit me very nicely. My current job, in the same field as the prosepective one, is nice and stable and pays a livable wage. However, there is NO opportunity for any kind of advancement, and very little chance of ever getting a pay raise more than the obligatory 1 or 2 percent.
So I talk to the recruiter, and things seem to progress fairly well as he gives me lots of details. He clued me in to the client company. I researched the client company a bit and it seems to be a large expanding company with a solid business model.
The thing that kind of worries me (and my girlfriend, in particular) is that this position is offered as a “right-to-hire” deal between the recruiter and the client. Meaning, essentially, that for the first 6 months or so I would work as a contractor for the staffing company and if I perform acceptably the client could then hire me permanently. I was told (and will be sure to clarify if I pursue further) that the position I would be filling is a position that is being vacated by an employee who is moving to another department in the organization. This individual, since he’s staying with the company, would then train his replacement (the person recruited by the agency). Seems to me if this is true, then it would be a good bet that the company would exercise their “right to hire” this replacement permanently, assuming they could do the job.
I could see how for the unemployed this might be an easy decision, since there isn’t much to lose (and at least 6 months of good paychecks to gain). However, I risk leaving my current stable yet dead-end job to pursue a position that could either be very lucrative and rewarding, or leave me on the street in 6 months. It seems to me that the “right-to-hire” deals are something of a common arrangement, though? Who has experience, good or bad, with such employment tactics? Would it be worth it?
I’ve encountered this before. I agree that it does seem to be popular in the IT world (I’m a technical writer myself), although I really can’t comment on the situation outside of IT. So my remarks will deal with what I’ve encountered in IT.
Normally (at least in my part of the world), any new employee hired by a company is subject to a three-month probationary period. The employment laws state this, and everybody understands it.
But what if an employer wants a probationary period longer than that stated in the laws? Then you get the situation that you describe here–six (or nine, or whatever) months of contract work, with possible permanent status after that.
This may or may not be the case in your situation; that they’re just looking for a longer probationary period than that allowed by law. But I’d suggest that if you like the job and the money they’re offering, then go for it. It does seem risky, but if it is an attempt to stretch out the probationary period, then it is no more risky than doing a good job and being on your best behaviour for the regular period of time.
Just one warning–in my experience, you do have to watch for when such things as company benefits kick in. I remember a colleague who was hired for a “contract leading to perm” job, just as you described. The contract was six months, and she passed this extended probationary period without a problem. Her status then changed to that of full-time employee, at which time she found out that the company had a policy where three months had to pass from the start date of a full-time employee before any kind of benefits were allowed. Since she was a brand-new, full-time employee (in spite of the fact that she had been working there as a contractor for six months already), she had to wait a further three months for benefits to kick in. She liked her job, but I can tell you that she was not happy about this.
Do some research, ask some questions, and negotiate your way around this and other similar conditions, if you have to. Good luck!
This is fairly standard from what I’ve seen in IT recruiting. The fact that they are offering a “right-to-hire” is a bonus to you, as I’ve seen agencies that charge a hefty fine to the hiring company if they “steal” the help.
I say take they contract and live frugally for the next 6 months. Try to get enough of a nestegg to outlast the dip if you don’t get hired on.
On the plus side, you will be an independent contractor for 6 months. There is many tax benefits to this. Just make sure the money is great… when I was contracting, my hourly rate was double what I’m making now.
Another point in favor of taking the position is if the permanent hire does fall through, rather than 100% being out on the street, it’s plausible that, since you have a track record with the agency, they could at least find you another contract gig.
Not quite. Some agencies put you on their payroll for the six months. The client company pays the agency, and the agency pays you. They pay their share of the relevant taxes, take withholding out, and treat you as one of their employees.
If you do take this position, find out if the agency offers health insurance to its employees. It’s usually around fifty bucks a week, doesn’t cover much, but it’ll help if there is lagtime between date of hire and the date bennies kick in. That way, you don’t have any hassle of being uninsured for an extended period of time.