Ok. Now imagine you are getting twice as much after taxes for the same work but without benefits. Would you still be as happy? Hell, even 50% more. And you are spreading the work across multiple clients so any one client 'firing' you is suddenly not a huge thing since your income is distributed across multiple clients. Sure, you don't get paid benefits, but you get higher income and the ability to work for multiple clients. Not every person can do that and even among those that can, not every one has the motivation to do it.

>so any one client 'firing' you is suddenly not a huge thing

With 3 months notice and strong union protection (public sector) it already isn't.

I'd much rather work for a single excellent organisation where I know I'm doing good than many who can't hold on to good staff and need contractors.

I'd love those protections personally, but I have no such luck.

It's minimum requirement for a hire contract in Norway. 3 months mutual notification, and only in a few cases can you be fired on spot without compensation (theft and such). You can contractually increase the notification time from the baseline, but not decrease.

Makes for happy and productive workers, and also benefits companies who don't have to worry about loosing their best worker without notice.

3 months notice period seems a very bad deal to me. If you want to change job you simply cannot because no one would wait for 3 months, unless you are at executive level.

If everyone is the same situation then that delay becomes just a normal aspect of the hiring process. I'd be more concerned about the types of abuses that the delay could allow in countries with a less mature employment culture: backing off at the last minute and wasting 3 months of that company's time, bullying a leaver for all of 3 months to discourage other people, etc.

>backing off at the last minute and wasting 3 months of that company's time

Means you're unlikely to get another job in the industry.

>bullying a leaver for all of 3 months to discourage other people

Would result in an easy case for constructive dismissal.

Yes, they would wait. Everybody else in the setting does.

And then there probably is a way to shorten the notice period when both sides agree (I extrapolate to Norway how in my country it works).

I was shocked to see that a month of notice is common here (Ireland). It actually was an issue when I wanted to attend a conference for my new employer (gave notice around 11 PM exactly 30 days before I had to fly).

I get that it's apparently an employee protection but it does seem kind of ludicrous. What happens if you rage quit? Win the lottery?

>What happens if you rage quit? Win the lottery?

Well, I'm a professional, so I finish my job...

I shouldn't be changing job more than once every 2 years, so 3 months is nothing. The notice period is often reduced for the first 6 months, or you can ask for that before signing your contract.

In reality a company has no real desire to keep a disgruntled employee longer than they have to, so you can burn bridges and leave earlier if force the issue. It's a pretty unprofessional thing to do though.

Well sure, I think the difference is between what's courteous and what's contractually stipulated. It's rude to give short or no notice regardless, but it's not always a contractual obligation.

you can always negotiate to get out earlier if you want to. That's the way it works in Germany and Belgium, probably in most other European countries as well.

I think I read Norway just moved into #1 happiest country in the world...

Always Be Interviewing.

> Now imagine you are getting twice as much after taxes for the same work but without benefits.

No, I wouldn't. I value stability and simplicity in my life, and I will gladly eschew higher pay for a more traditional lifestyle. I'm a conservative suburbanite with no ambition, and I'm proud of it.

On top of that, non-employer insurance is terrible. In some states, you actually cannot get a PPO unless you're on an employer's policy (I refuse to get an HMO for moral reasons), and large megacorps (we're talking Disney-sized corporations here) will package their own insurance and offer benefits that go above and beyond what you can get anywhere else.

> and the ability to work for multiple clients

That's a negative for me. I'm a strict 9-5er. I just want to show up at the office every weekday, put in my eight hours, then go home and relax. I actively do not want to run my own business or do anything that resembles negotiating with anyone. I'm not an entrepreneur or a risk-taker of any kind.

I'd argue that being an employee is less stable than you think it is in general, at least in the tech sector.

I had my own private PPO for a decade (geez!) at least, and the policy provisions were better than most employer policies I saw offered to me. Well, at least until the ACA came around and shook everything up a little.

I'm happy you're a happy 9-5er with zero business desire and that you are 100% risk averse. You are not the target of my comment.

"(I refuse to get an HMO for moral reasons)"

Can you elaborate on this?

HMOs mandate that Primary Care Physicians act as gatekeepers, and their job is to control how and when you seek the services of other doctors.

Medical gatekeeping is a violation of the fundamental human right to body autonomy.

Well that all sounds nice and dandy, but imagine you don't find new clients or they don't pay your invoices or you get seriously sick or something in your private life needs all your attention.

Employment isn't so bad in those cases.

Yes, you have to get new clients, that is always a risk. Proper structuring of payment schedules and IP transfer helps with invoice payment. Also, having long-term relationships with clients also helps there. I would hope you carry some sort of insurance in the case of life taking a sudden left-turn, but perhaps you don't. Ideally you financially plan enough to cover something like that.

I've been a contractor as several points in my life and loved it mostly. It is sometimes stressful making sure everything is on track, but the freedom of not depending on any one client and the difference in income that allowed me to work less If I wanted was great.

I currently work as an employee and also like the benefits it provides and the people I work with. But, I also know that ultimately companies now days have very little loyalty so my mind never lets me think of being an employee as some absolute guarantee of stability.

Time I need to spend managing clients is time I don't spend on self improvement or development. I'd prefer to specialize and be a better software developer than a decent software developer and mediocre client wrangler.

> I currently work as an employee and also like the benefits it provides and the people I work with.

So you broadly claim that "employment is dead" using big words like "feudal system" and how you can make so much more money contracting etc. etc. and then it turns out you are an employee after all? Seriously?

I never made any such claim nor would I agree with such a claim. Perhaps you should pay a bit more attention before getting outraged?

Check the usernames; unless Isaferite is the same person as VLM, Isaferite didn't make the comments you're quoting.

true, but isaferite was agreeing with OP, so I stick to my words.

Nope. Never said anything about agreeing with that comment. I was strictly commenting on the "I am pretty happy with my employment. Paid vacation, paid sick days, reasonable hours and all that good stuff."

So, please don't put words in my mouth.

That's my struggle with this - it feels like living in constant fear of something going awry and a bout of extreme anxiety every 6-12 months.

I'll take my impostor syndrome and constant medium-high anxiety thank you very much.

"so any one client 'firing' you is suddenly not a huge thing since your income is distributed across multiple clients"

For whom you have to spend roughly 1/3 of your time on collection because companies don't get rich writing a lot of checks. If it fits your psyche, great. Not everyone is like you.

As I said in another comment, part of that is covered by proper payment structuring and IP transfer provisions while the rest is covered by having long-term clients that you have a good relationship with.

This never happens, as there is a minimum time to create a "minimum viable work unit" and often you're paid to deliver as soon as possible, not a year later. I've never seen a contract with enough slack to make overlapping work reasonable. It is not physically possible. Might only work if you're selling templates or are a Mechanical Turk.

Generally higher income is not much higher either way, at least around here. Nobody wants to hire contractors for more than they have to pay full time employees.

You still get to pay your health insurance (typically covered by employer automatically here) and taxes.

Well, from personal, non-template, work I can say that I was frequently running work from 2-4 clients easily enough. If a client was more demanding of time then I was more demanding on cost.

If contract work is getting paid the same as FTE, then something is messed up. I literally charged double what I make right now as an FTE.

And yeah, I even called out the missing benefits, but that's something you pay for out of the income differential.

I've been a contract worker several times in my life. I'm currently a FTE and like the people I work for. Going contract is certainly not for everyone and is perhaps a panic inducing decision depending on your current situation.

> Now imagine you are getting twice as much after taxes for the same work

That would have been wonderful!

Honestly, I like unlimited unpaid days off: they give me the freedom to choose when to work, and when not to, with no hard feelings.

It's surprising how few companies will bend on this. In my experience it seemed like they were more concerned about the possibility of other employees getting notions. It's a big reason to move somewhere that mandates vacation time (though again, I'd rather just take as much time as I want unpaid).