Local candidates only and evidence of 'long' assignments on cv.

[AnthonyQuinn]

Makes perfect sense

Having been both a contractor and a hiring manager, I know that this ridiculous looking requirement actually makes sense. When hiring contractors one nowadays finds such rotten eggs that it might be important to see if any client had retained the individual for a reasonable length of time. Say > 1 year. I would be on my guard if someone I am hiring has only ever done 3 month long stints. Just another sanity check.

[eek]

Having been both a contractor and a hiring manager, I know that this ridiculous looking requirement actually makes sense. When hiring contractors one nowadays finds such rotten eggs that it might be important to see if any client had retained the individual for a reasonable length of time. Say > 1 year. I would be on my guard if someone I am hiring has only ever done 3 month long stints. Just another sanity check.

+1. You want to see that people actually like working with that person. The only way to prove that is to see decent lengths of time at 1 client.

[rd409]

Having been both a contractor and a hiring manager, I know that this ridiculous looking requirement actually makes sense. When hiring contractors one nowadays finds such rotten eggs that it might be important to see if any client had retained the individual for a reasonable length of time. Say > 1 year. I would be on my guard if someone I am hiring has only ever done 3 month long stints. Just another sanity check.

That is such an invalid statement. Just because one client has managed to keep a contractor for a longer duration doesn't make him/her a good candidate. I personally know at least 3 individuals who are tulip at what they do, but still somehow manage to stay for years in contract with a client. I say a person who judges a contractor by the duration and not quality of work, definitely needs a sanity check.

[rd409]

+1. You want to see that people actually like working with that person. The only way to prove that is to see decent lengths of time at 1 client.

Agreed with the highlighted. But how can you say that the only way to prove that is length of the contract? Someone could have spend years sitting in the server room on his own for years. Doesn't make him sociable though.

[malvolio]

I mainly do service improvement or specific programme/project deliveries. 3-6 months is it, if I haven't done it by then I never will. If I get extended a few times, it's because the job's not been done right first time...

I also do Interim Management. The clue is the word "interim"...

Heigh ho.

[TheFaQQer]

I'm permie now, so this doesn't bother me any more

FTFY

[TheFaQQer]

Having been both a contractor and a hiring manager, I know that this ridiculous looking requirement actually makes sense. When hiring contractors one nowadays finds such rotten eggs that it might be important to see if any client had retained the individual for a reasonable length of time. Say > 1 year. I would be on my guard if someone I am hiring has only ever done 3 month long stints. Just another sanity check.

I did a project a few years back, where I spent 9 months clearing up the crap that the previous contractor had swept under the carpet during his two and a half year tenure there.

By your metric, that would make him a significantly better bet than I am (plus the fact that he is cheaper because he has to be).

[BolshieBastard]

I'm local to anywhere in the world if the rate's good enough. Tell me where you want me to be and I'll be there, Monday morning 0900h local time.

As for long contracts, why do they want a contractor? FFS, I get the job done, whether it takes a day or a year or more. Why not 'evidence of having done something useful'?

Yeah I know what you're saying, at the end of the day there maybe no suitable local candidates. It's obviously an excuse for a crappy day rate

The rate was £300 a day so no, it wasnt poor.

I cant get my head round this 'evidence of long contracts' when the contract offered is 3 months, either. In fact, I find it weird that they want a contractor if they want this evidence.

I know some people stay years at the same place but to me, that would flag them up as permietractors rather than contractors.

[BolshieBastard]

That is such an invalid statement. Just because one client has managed to keep a contractor for a longer duration doesn't make him/her a good candidate. I personally know at least 3 individuals who are tulip at what they do, but still somehow manage to stay for years in contract with a client. I say a person who judges a contractor by the duration and not quality of work, definitely needs a sanity check.

Totally correct. I know similar people as well. Its like discounting people because they have gaps of 3 months or more too.

I think the majority of contractors will have a mix of some short and some long contracts on their cv (my longest continuous contract was about 3.5 years). I mean in reality, how many projects last more than 12 months?

I know some blue chip clients have a maximum 51 weeks or less, on site rule meaning you have to leave before you've done a year.

[bless 'em all]

I know some people stay years at the same place but to me, that would flag them up as permietractors rather than contractors.

I can show that the same client has brought me back in on three occasions over the past 7 years, each time to complete a specific task relating to a specific project - sometimes those projects have been back-to-back, sometimes not. That's should be a good sign for any potential client shouldn't it?