Hacker News Reader

Comment by softwarefounder | Hacker News Reader

Be transparent with the company.

Tell them what you expected vs. what you got and work it out.

Is there an alternative mechanism (outside an employment agreement) through which options can be granted?

From another Hacker News: discussion on the topic: "The rule of thumb when I started contracting was that your hourly rate was your annual salary divided by 1000"

So if the offer was $100,000, your hourly rate as a contractor is now $100/hr

That would be over double the offer amount!! I don't think that would fly.

I have done some contracting before and my rate is far higher than my employment rate, but it's always been for smaller contracts... not for something that is effectively a full time position.

I am not an accountant or anything but I think a rule of thumb is employment costs 50% more than the employees salary. Don't feel too bad asking significantly more, after all you are not getting any equity which sounds like your main motivation.

That sort of rule of thumb is going to be most accurate for average salaries, because large amounts of the non-salary costs are relatively fixed (e.g. health insurance costs the same amount whether you earn $50K or $200K annually). As salary goes up, so does its share of total compensation.

Full time positions are dealt with using payrolling companies or SPVs as daughter companies under the mothership, not by independent contractors (with all of the associated risks) and a reduced rate.

You are making a lot of excuses for this company in this thread.

Make sure you factor in extra taxes, in addition to the premium for being a contractor (that on its own should be at least 20%)

And the risk of being canned overnight, of receiving no severance pay, on being unable to collect on your bills in case things end up going South, not being paid when you get ill and so on. 50% is more like it.

Contractors charge more than employees for a reason.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com