Hacker News Reader

Comment by pkteison | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand contract to hire. I get it from the employer perspective, but why do employees agree to it?

If I was willing to work contracts (e.g. had a wife I could get health insurance and maybe some income-in-case-of-layoff security from), why wouldn't I just always only contract so that I could make more and get paid for my overtime?

If I wasn't willing to work contracts, wouldn't requiring me to contract up front take me out of the running?

Or does this whole thing assume people will just go without health care for a while? I could understand that if there weren't other choices, but given that other full time employment is readily available, who does this?

View on HN

The article suggests that people who can't afford to take time off from their regular job instead contract on a project that can be done nights and weekends. He's not suggesting you quit your current job before the new job makes you a firm offer.

He doesn't delve into the ambiguous IP ownership of the resulting contract at work - I know that if I did that, my current employer would likely own the rights to anything I did for the prospective employer. But I suppose the prospective employer can get around that by simply throwing out anything the contractor does for them. It's a pretty big cost, to eat 3 weeks or so of wages of a highly-paid contractor, but it's probably cheaper than an IP lawsuit or a bad hire.

From the prospective employee's perspective, it also just doesn't scale. Most people I know are talking to multiple companies at the same time, often being in the middle of interviews at 4 or 5 companies. This just wouldn't work if each one required a consulting period, especially if you still have your primary job taking up your time.

Because it gives you a chance to see if you like working for/with this company/person. Typically in an interview you don't meet with or talk to everyone you will be working with. You might find out 2 weeks in that the guy sitting next to you is someone you just can't work with long term. Better to do that knowing that you can leave anytime and continue the search than have to start all over from square one.

By doing a contract basis for a bit it lets both sides 'test the waters'.

With that said, it's not for everyone. I myself prefer it.

Go on Cobra for a while, then take the full time role before cobra expires.

A bit off topic, but it seems like the US health care system is reducing labour market flexibility here.

Cobra does not apply to companies with less than 20 employees. If you like working for small companies it's very hard to switch safely, you need to interview and get hired with no gap in employment. The state of healthcare tied to companies is terrible.

>why do employees agree to it?

A lot of people take what they can get.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com