Contracting, Fatherhood and the Wife/Inlaws?

[Scotchpie]

I've been married five years and contracting for 18 months. Three weeks ago our first child was born and though my wife has never complained about me being a contractor she was starting to make hints about finding a permanent job.

I agreed with her and began writing a list on what we needed to cut back on when I start on a permie salary and stuck it on the fridge.

1. Cancel Sky and get a freeview box (she didn't like that)

2. Stop ordering those expensive japanese food items (she's Japanese) and make do with Asda's oriental shelf (she definitely didn't like that)

3. Stop buying baby clothes and baby items every time we go out and instead start start stock-piling clothes that are a size too big so they will last him longer ...

etc, etc, etc.

Needless to say I am still contracting with my wife's blessing and full support.

[NetwkSupport]

my fiancees last employer tried to shaft her big time.

she was training her up as a beautician about 15 hrs a week and said if she left within 18 months for any reason - i.e. pregnancy/illness/whatever she had to pay back all training time @ £20 per hour. it would have cost thousands

im sure she wouldnt have bothered raising a court claim if my mrs did leave but she just quit anyway after that.

[NotAllThere]

...she was training her up as a beautician about 15 hrs a week and said if she left within 18 months for any reason - i.e. pregnancy/illness/whatever she had to pay back all training time @ £20 per hour. it would have cost thousands...

It would be interesting what a court would have said about that.

I think there is a difference between on the job training to enhance existing skills and training required to do a job.

If you're taken on as c++ programmer, without experience, and get trained up, then quit, it seems fair enough to me that you should be obliged to refund some of the training. OTOH, you can't FORCE someone to work. The refund should be tapered anyway, because for a while the employer is getting the benefit of their investment.

What employers should do is give you a lower salary while you are in training, to offset the loss they'd suffer if you leave once qualified / suitable experienced.

[expat]

Making people pay back notional training costs for in-house experience is an old EDS handcuff trick. They used to combine it with discussing your salary with anyone being a sacking offence. Result: a whisper of your pay and they have you for tens of thousands.

Solution: barge pole. not.

[Sysman]

Re: pensions: the problem is, you are at the mercy of the company's decision.

I had two as a permie. The first provider seemed to always be bottom of the performance tables (i.e. it made 1% when everyone else was making 10%) in the mid 90's.

The second was Equitable Life.

With the company pension I had as a permie in the 80s they turned it into "contracted out" status. To do that meant that it had to be at least as good as the govt. scheme. The devil was in the detail though, as that "at least as good as" bit disappeared if you left the company. Consequently I expected about tuppence a week from it when I reached 65. By now it's probably disappeared in "admin charges".

I remember at on one contract, they tried to make me go permie and I had a chat with HR. HR woman showed me the benefits list.

I got out my pen and went through it and crossed off every point:

"doesn't apply to me"
"don't need it"
"already have it"

I think it ended up being only the subsidised canteen that was of any benefit.

Long before it got near to HR, the plea to me was "But think of how much a company car is worth".

Not much given I already had a better motor than they were going to offer.

[NotAllThere]

Free fuel was quite good. Especially as it covered overseas driving. On the Autobahn, no worries about fuel consumption...

[Cyberman]

Re: pensions: the problem is, you are at the mercy of the company's decision.

I had two as a permie. The first provider seemed to always be bottom of the performance tables (i.e. it made 1% when everyone else was making 10%) in the mid 90's.

Those were not salary-linked schemes and actually sound like private schemes. You do not have to worry about the performance of salary-linked schemes because they are guaranteed and linked to the average of your last 3 years salaries. You normally get a 60th of that average for every year worked, so if you work for 40 years that is two-thirds of the average as a pension. You also get a nice tax-free lump sum on retirement.

If a scheme is underperforming the company will put in more funds to bolster it. That is why, due to Broon's 1997 raid that many companies have closed salary-linked schemes to new entrants. Needless to say, all public sector pensions are still salary-linked.

[Sysman]

Free fuel was quite good. Especially as it covered overseas driving. On the Autobahn, no worries about fuel consumption...

Free fuel was indeed quite good, especially when you had twin tanks so that you could reach an Autobahn on domestically bought fuel

But for the permie roles subsequently on offer, I wouldn't have wanted to do long distances on the Autobahn in the motors on offer.

[jmo21]

I've been married five years and contracting for 18 months. Three weeks ago our first child was born and though my wife has never complained about me being a contractor she was starting to make hints about finding a permanent job.

I agreed with her and began writing a list on what we needed to cut back on when I start on a permie salary and stuck it on the fridge.

1. Cancel Sky and get a freeview box (she didn't like that)

2. Stop ordering those expensive japanese food items (she's Japanese) and make do with Asda's oriental shelf (she definitely didn't like that)

3. Stop buying baby clothes and baby items every time we go out and instead start start stock-piling clothes that are a size too big so they will last him longer ...

etc, etc, etc.

Needless to say I am still contracting with my wife's blessing and full support.

you're in Scotland aren't you Scotch Pie?

are your initials GT?