The Semi-Logic behind Nervous Hiring

[Ivor Bigun]

It seems to me that only half of the benefits of a contractor lie in their skill sets.

Yep, I think thats why they get employed

The other half is that they are more condiitioned to deal with instability than permanent workers. There seems to be value in having a person who would be willing to only work a few months - that style of living short term requires a lot of fortitude.

Depends which way you see it. If a contractor only likes restless change, then its a big negative for most of permiedom.

I guess to me it might make more sense that when the economy gets better an employer would want to invest in permanent workers because they feel confident enough in the market to project a long term need. Then you're investing in people who can help build valuable things like product memory. But if times suck and employers look nervously from quarter to quarter, wouldn't they feel more comfortable investing in people who have learned to expect little security? Does anyone want to help sort out my thinking? Anyone want to comment?

Look, it works like this.
- At the start of a downturn, contractors are culled (its a buffer for permies).
- A little later, very good contractors are cherry picked and offered permie jobs.
- As the downturn gathers pace, contractor benchtime gets worse, even for very good contractors. Its not helped by the steady flow of redundant (crappy) permies trying their hand at becoming newbie contractors on fixed term contracts.

[bobspud]

It really depends on the company involved.

I have heard the arguments against taking contractors coz they will just fek orf as soon as the market turns, but then so will most of the permies that have just been clocking on waiting for their time to come...

In this market with relatively few opportunities you need to make sure you win them. You get to do that by hiring the the best bods that make themselves available to you.

If a company is bright they will take the guys that would have cost them more than 120K as freelance, and pay them a good wage on the basis that they can do two or three guys work or are used to just getting on with it instead of moaning about getting trained etc.

In the last few years I have waisted more and more time, trying to explain to clients that
they are overstepping my mark with regards to IR35 or general working practices. Seems to me that it gets worse every year.

Personally I'm not sure its going to be worth trying to ride this market out as a freelancer for much longer as the rates are getting beyond a joke. I'm also willing to bet that we are going to get shafted harder than ever when the good times come back and the government need to patch up the mess they have been left with...

[Ivor Bigun]

IF recruiters = "AGENTS" THEN
   ADD salt TO everything.

"How can you tell when an agent is lying?"
"Their lips move."

Agents just come out with stuff. The next one you speak to will say different stuff. They are the most unreliable source of market intelligence.

These ones just happen to have permie roles on their books that they can't fill today.

Don't disagree here. But I do think "lying" and "salesmanship" can be one and the same.
If an agent calls you about a perm role, thats got to be good. If you don't want to be perm then don't waste his time - or yours.

Consider this, if the agent had contracts to fill, why would he tell you otherwise?

[lightng]

IF recruiters = "AGENTS" THEN
   ADD salt TO everything.

"How can you tell when an agent is lying?"
"Their lips move."

Agents just come out with stuff. The next one you speak to will say different stuff. They are the most unreliable source of market intelligence.

These ones just happen to have permie roles on their books that they can't fill today.

You make a good point.

[BrowneIssue]

A couple of recruiters have told me...

Anyone want to comment?

IF recruiters = "AGENTS" THEN
   ADD salt TO everything.

"How can you tell when an agent is lying?"
"Their lips move."

Agents just come out with stuff. The next one you speak to will say different stuff. They are the most unreliable source of market intelligence.

These ones just happen to have permie roles on their books that they can't fill today.

[lightng]

Strange, I was thinking about this on the train this morning.

I may be way of mark but my theory is...

Times are tight so companies invest less new projects. There is less work out there and the mix of work is a greater proportion of BAU rather than new project work. BAU work is essential to the business and so is likely to continue into the foreseeable future therefore in the long-run its cheaper to employ permies than a string of contractors.

[blue_grover]

A couple of recruiters have told me the contracting market has quickly dried up and that most of the market appears to be in perm jobs. Apparently the reason relates to employers being nervous in the current economic climate. I'm sort of scratching my head about it all.

It seems to me that only half of the benefits of a contractor lie in their skill sets. The other half is that they are more condiitioned to deal with instability than permanent workers. There seems to be value in having a person who would be willing to only work a few months - that style of living short term requires a lot of fortitude. I guess to me it might make more sense that when the economy gets better an employer would want to invest in permanent workers because they feel confident enough in the market to project a long term need. Then you're investing in people who can help build valuable things like product memory. But if times suck and employers look nervously from quarter to quarter, wouldn't they feel more comfortable investing in people who have learned to expect little security? Does anyone want to help sort out my thinking? Anyone want to comment?