Reply to: What's the biggest factor in whether you enjoy a contract?

[curtis]

For me the biggest factor is the place/people. I could have a good job but if the people are terrible then it can make the job horrible and vice versa.

My current job I knew the job was not great before I took it as its not ideally what I want to do but i was out of work so though why not but as well as the job not being great the place is not great either, in jobs like this I just think of the money and look forward to that last day when its over. Its not really bad if it was I would not be here now, its just not very good, most days its a mini mental challenge to get me here and through the day and when I am having a really bad day I bring up the calendar to see how many days/weeks I have left to make me feel better!!

[Aman]

Money aside, a large element of team work, customer and people contact in the job secures my enjoyment or at least satisfaction in a project. Well, at least it can make a bad situation bearable.

The contracts I have thoroughly disliked were because there were too few opportunities for human interaction or I've had to work on my own for days, maybe weeks on end. The types of contract where one shares a deafeningly silent room with 15 people for 6m and it's frowned upon when anyone opens their mouth.

I've actually enjoyed some pretty rubbishy jobs because I was meeting people and was working withinn a team. That includes the contract where I was assaulted, threatened with assault twice, threatened with a baseball bat, stuck with a syringe.

Some inherently uninteresting projects, though well paid, have been rendered interesting by the poeple

(Note to agents: the profile on my CV doesn't include the words "team player" for the fun of it.)


Being well paid and being part of a team aren't mutually exclusive. Being poor and enjoying the work won't do long term.

It's just part of the mix I look for.

A staff restaurant helps too and a decent lunch break. It's not like I'm in a hurry to get home at night to see Blue Peter. A proper lunch to break the day up energises the afternoon and eveing. I don't want to spend my evenings preparing packed lunches for work, then having to gulp down what's taken me an hour to make in 3 seconds.

[doodab]

Those £50 per day extra comes to £200 per week and alomost add up to a grand for a month and could easy be £10K a year. This give you a couple of weeks extra holiday end of it all with your wife and kids...

Assuming 200 days billed it's £10k a year before tax. So perhaps £7k.

So the question becomes; is the extra money (or an extra 2 weeks off) worth an extra 400 hours of commuting and being more tired, stressed and unhappy for the 10.5 months of the year you are working?

I think it largely depends if you can earn enough to achieve your desired standard of living without making those additional sacrifices. At the moment, I would like to have the choice

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

But it's 2 hours per day. 10 hours a week. 40 hours a month. That could be 450-500 hours a year. Which is about the same as 30 days-worth of time (based on 16 hours a day).

So your method has him sitting on the train for 2 hours a day, so that he can barely see his family in the evenings, in order to spend on average 2 weeks less a year with them... and your way assumes he'll take 2 weeks more off simply because he earns more - as if he can book holiday like a permie.

What I tried to show was how much those extra £50 actually could be long term. It's impossible to put down one single item as the biggest factor except from money, I think most contractors would go for a really boring contract in a bad location if the money is really really good. For me everything has to be consider before taking a contract - money, commute, location and type of work.

[d000hg]

Those £50 per day extra comes to £200 per week and alomost add up to a grand for a month and could easy be £10K a year. This give you a couple of weeks extra holiday end of it all with your wife and kids...

But it's 2 hours per day. 10 hours a week. 40 hours a month. That could be 450-500 hours a year. Which is about the same as 30 days-worth of time (based on 16 hours a day).

So your method has him sitting on the train for 2 hours a day, so that he can barely see his family in the evenings, in order to spend on average 2 weeks less a year with them... and your way assumes he'll take 2 weeks more off simply because he earns more - as if he can book holiday like a permie.

[d000hg]

There is a lot of touchy-feely bollocks going on here today. A contractor should vote for the money every time. Second would be commute.

I doubt you're very good at what you do, if money is all that drives you.

[scooterscot]

The dinner bell.

[MonzaMike]

Depends what Money you're on

Current gig is a great commute and nice people.

Problem is that the rate is not good and I'm frankly not sure that it covers my outgoings.

Point is that i'm pondering going elsewhere for more cash, but probably worse on the other criteria (e.g. especially commute)

If you're putting money in the warchest each week then Money doesn't seem a priority, but if the debt's aren't getting any smaller then it's a different set of priorities.

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

2 hours a day on the train so I can have my soul destroyed, all for an extra £50? Bollocks to that.

Those £50 per day extra comes to £200 per week and alomost add up to a grand for a month and could easy be £10K a year. This give you a couple of weeks extra holiday end of it all with your wife and kids...

[doodab]

2 hours a day on the train so I can have my soul destroyed, all for an extra £50? Bollocks to that.

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

There is a lot of touchy-feely bollocks going on here today. A contractor should vote for the money every time. Second would be commute.

Thats the best post in this thread.

[swamp]

There is a lot of touchy-feely bollocks going on here today. A contractor should vote for the money every time. Second would be commute.

[doodab]

I like a greenfield project that is sufficiently different from what I have done before to be technically challenging and require me to learn something. Ideally I like to be working by myself or as part of a small team of good (technically & socially) people, and be judged on results.

Getting paid well and working from home to get it done = perfect contract.

[norrahe]

I have to agree that it is other people who make contracts hard work

changing specs
late delivered dependancies
poorly implemented systems
bad documentation
terrible legacy coding

of course as a contractor you need to be sensitive to not accidental pissing off the wrong person when you raise these concerns

True, not good when you first start a gig and point out that you need x and y sorted for your project, and that it should have be done as part of a n other project which influences yours.
Cue permie PM having a hissy fit as you've sauntered in a pointed out to all and sundry that there's a huge flaw in his project.

Not good!

There are a lot of factors, I'm happy to be trusted to get on with my job, but it is good if the work is interesting as well and that the people who should be supporting said work are competent which isn't often the case.

But we're not all going to get that perfect contract, so the money helps........... sometimes.

[Spacecadet]

A one man project that is carried out by only you, no other damn nusiances involved.

I have to agree that it is other people who make contracts hard work

changing specs
late delivered dependancies
poorly implemented systems
bad documentation
terrible legacy coding

of course as a contractor you need to be sensitive to not accidently pissing off the wrong person when you raise these concerns