Permanent vs Contracting - Confused!

[Sockpuppet]

Agree with Scrag.



For me contracting is more than just the money. Its the challenge of new projects moving after six month getting called in when its gone to rat tulip. If contracting appeals do it, if it doesn't don't.

[ddaft]

I was a Director at a Tier 1 US Bank but jacked it in to go back contracting to regain my sanity. These days the perms have no more safety than contractors except the contractors are the only ones you ever see smiling!

To give you an idea on payrises/bonuses, in my last perm role I had a team of 10 developers but was only able to give 2 of them a bonus (both <5k) and one a payrise last year. This was in the front office working for a trading desk that had a good year. Last year was probably better than this year so I really am expecting zeroes across the board for most. Also most banks have a bonus cutoff of around september time to be even eligible for a pro-rata bonus so worth confirming with them if that applies at this bank.

[Undecided]

I was a Director at a Tier 1 US Bank but jacked it in to go back contracting to regain my sanity. These days the perms have no more safety than contractors except the contractors are the only ones you ever see smiling!

To give you an idea on payrises/bonuses, in my last perm role I had a team of 10 developers but was only able to give 2 of them a bonus (both <5k) and one a payrise last year. This was in the front office working for a trading desk that had a good year. Last year was probably better than this year so I really am expecting zeroes across the board for most. Also most banks have a bonus cutoff of around september time to be even eligible for a pro-rata bonus so worth confirming with them if that applies at this bank.

Thanks for the insight.
No verbal promises of a bonus at the potential new employer, though they say that I am eligible.
How many years would you say does it take to progress from AVP to the Director cadre?

The only incentive I see in the perm role is my shot at becoming a Director/MD/Regional COO. I have never heard of a PM becoming a CEO at a bank!

[ddaft]

The promo process at my last place was as follows if it helps:

VP eligibility - minimum 7 years professional work experience (not necessarily banking)

Once eligible staff would have to get their line manager to put them up in the yearly promo process. Each manager would put no more than 2 up at once generally. A panel of directors would discuss/argue potential candidates over a month or so and put into 3 buckets - no, pipeline for next year and yes. If marked as No you would probably be out of the game for a couple of years. Pipeline would generally get it the following year.

Director eligibility - minimum 10 years experience, minimum 3 years VP

Similar process but with more senior MD panel and would generally need backing from desk heads etc to seal the deal.

I would say you would be probably be looking at at least 6 or 7 years to make Director but would depend on how good you are and how much influence your manager has on their peers etc.

Im not sure which german bank you are looking at but if its DB then their structure is slightly different than the US banks with a fairly fat VP layer and few Directors so could take a lot longer there. Some of the VPs I know there have been at that level for 10 years+.

Hope that helps.

[nomadd]

Some of the VPs I know there have been at that level for 10 years+.

My current manager (nice bloke, BTW) works his ass off all week; I'd say 60hrs+ inc. calls at the weekend. Mega stressed-out individual. Has been stuck at VP level for 11 years now and counting. No sign off a directorship on the horizon.

He asked me 12 months ago would "I ever consider permanent?" I said "no."

[anothercodemonkey]

I think that you need to consider what your own goals are in the short term.
If you are saving to buy a house then contracting can help you get that big deposit more quickly. However if you want to have some kids then you probably don't want the volatility that goes with contracting. Also you've probably seen <snip>
Helpful when trying to decide on a purely financial level.

As for the promotions thing I'd ask yourself why you want to try climbing the career ladder. At the last place I worked there were loads of people at AVP/Associate level trying for VP. I think it can be quite a slog to try and claw your way up. This often involves doing a lot of boring, stressful crap jobs to prove yourself. I imagine you are pretty ambitious and driven but you should think about why you want to be promoted.

[nomadd]

However if you want to have some kids then you probably don't want the volatility that goes with contracting.

But as has been debated many times on these boards, permie seems to offer no more job security these days.

I work for an IB who has just let 20% of it's workforce go; I'd say most of those were permie. My contract was renewed, for the forth time. Speaking to a contracting mate this morning who works for JP: all the permie middle-managers he works with - who've spent years brown-nosing to get those positions - have been told to expect redundancy very soon. Meanwhile, my mates contract has just been renewed. Go figure.

Sure, you may be easier to fire as a contractor, but perversely that means more often than not that companies prefer to retain you. The longer they keep permies, the more difficult - and expensive - it is to get rid of them.

These days, IMHO, permie is just as volatile as contracting for top jobs.

[northernladuk]

But as has been debated many times on these boards, permie seems to offer no more job security these days.

I work for an IB who has just let 20% of it's workforce go; I'd say most of those were permie. My contract was renewed, for the forth time. Speaking to a contracting mate this morning who works for JP: all the permie middle-managers he works with - who've spent years brown-nosing to get those positions - have been told to expect redundancy very soon. Meanwhile, my mates contract has just been renewed. Go figure.

Sure, you may be easier to fire as a contractor, but perversely that means more often than not that companies prefer to retain you. The longer they keep permies, the more difficult - and expensive - it is to get rid of them.

These days, IMHO, permie is just as volatile as contracting for top jobs.

This is not true at all. I looks more like you are attempting make an argument rather than looking at the facts. You mention 20% of the workforce is being let go, mto any people who have a couple of years minimum under their belt compare to you as an individual getting an extention. That is hardly a reasoned and balanced argument.

You say it youself the middle managed who have spent YEARS trying to brown nose. Compare that the many countractors who do 3 6 or 9 months. Your argument just doesn't stack up I am afraid. Agreed it isn't as secure as it used to be and isnt' a job for life like permie land used to be many years ago but I think we all assume that.

Either way permie is without a doubt MUCH less volatile than contracting, just not as safe as it used to be. If you want job security permis is a much better choice.

[nomadd]

That is hardly a reasoned and balanced argument.

And your opening of "This is not true" followed by no supporting evidence is?

I looks more like you are attempting make an argument rather than looking at the facts. You mention 20% of the workforce is being let go, to many people who have a couple of years minimum under their belt compare to you as an individual getting an extention.

That should be "It looks", "compared" and "extension". ...And I've cleaned up the other numerous typo's, punctuation and spacing issues elsewhere in your post. In future, when you accuse someone of not being able to make a "reasoned and balanced argument", at least try to make one in return. Oh, and for the record, I'd personally "attempt" Everest, but never an "argument" on the Internet.

But back to the facts...

Well, I quoted facts. I mean, you have checked the press in the last year or so and seen how many people - many of them with 10-20 years experience in the same company - have been "let go", haven't you? Yours is hardly a "reasoned and balanced argument" when you've unilaterally decided that those let go are "people who have a couple of years...", is it? The people in question in my post are, in fact, middle managers with 10 years+ experience under their belts. That, and permiedom, hasn't helped "secure" them at all. And add in the fact that most of them live locally to the permie job, and that there are few other job prospects in the immediate area, then they look even less secure, don't they?

You say it youself the middle managed who have spent YEARS trying to brown nose. Compare that the many countractors who do 3 6 or 9 months. Your argument just doesn't stack up I am afraid.

The argument, I "myself", made stacks up perfectly, I'm afraid. ...And you've just simply just re-iterated it: People who have spent years building a career in a company and it ultimately counting for nothing. ...Whilst contractors with just 3, 6 or 9 months in the same company find themselves getting renewal after renewal... And it's not as if that's unheard of...

If you want job security permis is a MUCH better choice.

Not necessarily. And that's the case I'm presenting here. This blanket statement of "permie is a better choice and is more secure [esp. if you want to have kids, as the prior posted added]" is simply nonsense. My own 23 years of contracting "security" certainly begs to differ.

The long hours, poor pay and exploitation that most permie roles seem to offer these days doesn't look very secure from where I'm sitting. Sure, as a contractor you may have to "move on" more frequently, but you've trained yourself for that, so it's rarely an issue. And most contractors keep a healthy "warchest", so those periods between moves are much less stressful. A smart contractor, IMHO, is MUCH more secure than 99% of the permies I've ever met.

The issue of security is simply a question of how smart you are and how well you plan ahead. And most contractors are much smarter at that than most permies. Security isn't simply a question of "I can keep my desk, chair and job in this office longer than the other guy." That mentality doesn't pay the bills. Fortunately, most contractors don't think that way. That's what leaves them more secure, even though they may be sat in the same chair, at the same desk, in the same office, a little less longer than the permie guy.

And the pathetic "bonuses" that the permies have received at my last three clients for an insane number of additional hours of unpaid work - followed by the subsequent bitching, and bitching, and bitching... about it that I've had to endure every lunchtime - doesn't seem to have made them feel any more secure as regards their place in the world. Still, for those who think a "bum on a seat in the same job for a long time" is equal to "security", then I'll simply agree to differ.

EDIT: I've tried to edit to keep up with the edits you keep making to your post. And no, putting things in CAPS doesn't strengthen your case.

[Ruprect]

And your opening of "This is not true" followed by no supporting evidence is?



That should be "It looks", "compared" and "extension". ...And I've cleaned up the other numerous typo's, punctuation and spacing issues elsewhere in your post. In future, when you accuse someone of not being able to make a "reasoned and balanced argument", at least try to make one in return. Oh, and for the record, I'd personally "attempt" Everest, but never an "argument" on the Internet.

But back to the facts...

Well, I quoted facts. I mean, you have checked the press in the last year or so and seen how many people - many of them with 10-20 years experience in the same company - have been "let go", haven't you? Yours is hardly a "reasoned and balanced argument" when you've unilaterally decided that those let go are "people who have a couple of years...", is it? The people in question in my post are, in fact, middle managers with 10 years+ experience under their belts. That, and permiedom, hasn't helped "secure" them at all. And add in the fact that most of them live locally to the permie job, and that there are few other job prospects in the immediate area, then they look even less secure, don't they?



The argument, I "myself", made stacks up perfectly, I'm afraid. ...And you've just simply just re-iterated it: People who have spent years building a career in a company and it ultimately counting for nothing. ...Whilst contractors with just 3, 6 or 9 months in the same company find themselves getting renewal after renewal... And it's not as if that's unheard of...



Not necessarily. And that's the case I'm presenting here. This blanket statement of "permie is a better choice and is more secure [esp. if you want to have kids, as the prior posted added]" is simply nonsense. My own 23 years of contracting "security" certainly begs to differ.

The long hours, poor pay and exploitation that most permie roles seem to offer these days doesn't look very secure from where I'm sitting. Sure, as a contractor you may have to "move on" more frequently, but you've trained yourself for that, so it's rarely an issue. And most contractors keep a healthy "warchest", so those periods between moves are much less stressful. A smart contractor, IMHO, is MUCH more secure than 99% of the permies I've ever met.

The issue of security is simply a question of how smart you are and how well you plan ahead. And most contractors are much smarter at that than most permies. Security isn't simply a question of "I can keep my desk, chair and job in this office longer than the other guy." That mentality doesn't pay the bills. Fortunately, most contractors don't think that way. That's what leaves them more secure, even though they may be sat in the same chair, at the same desk, in the same office, a little less longer than the permie guy.

And the pathetic "bonuses" that the permies have received at my last three clients for an insane number of additional hours of unpaid work - followed by the subsequent bitching, and bitching, and bitching... about it that I've had to endure every lunchtime - doesn't seem to have made them feel any more secure as regards their place in the world. Still, for those who think a "bum on a seat in the same job for a long time" is equal to "security", then I'll simply agree to differ.

EDIT: I've tried to edit to keep up with the edits you keep making to your post.

The IB who is my current client have just let go of all the contractors in my area except me. AND they've got rid of 90 odd permies too (so far). Now look at it this way - one contractor, 13 years experience in various IBs, changing roles every few years, keeping skills fresh, with significant warchest. one permie, 13 years experience in the same role, skills going stale, attitude embittered and resentful. Who has more chance of getting a new job (paying as well)? Who is more "secure"?