I have been in a position (for which I'm super grateful) in which young startups didn't have the funds to pay me my full-time rate, and so instead chose to pay me a weekly rate to work one week out of the month. I like to believe that I provided substantial value in that configuration - usually landing to review code, mentor newer programmers, and help chart direction for the subsequent three weeks (during which I'd be absent).
In this case, I was being paid quite a bit more than the full-timers, not less.
In time, they grew to be able to afford a more complete full-time cadre, and they people I worked with weren't so junior anymore.
I did this... I think half a dozen times. It was a great work config for everybody. If you can afford to travel to the work and you can really bring the fight for 5-8 straight days, I highly suggest it.
That's a very solid case for contractors and almost nobody will have a meaningful problem with it. I've done similar things in the CAD / data management space.
A person with outside perspective, rare skills, experience, and most importantly, is the outside voice able to bring real options to the table along with production proven, time tested ways and means, is worth every penny.
The full time peeps should be taking you out for a lunch or two to network and gain some easy, high value mentoring, contacts...
I would in a second, and have had others invite me for this kind of thing. Some have remained in touch for years, and as they grew, have helped me as I did them.
If we had more of that going on, it would benefit nearly everyone.
But we don't.
The majority case boils down to head count quotas, and cost of labor factors. Often, these are both under specified, leaving managers to find contractors to fill gaps. The larger companies do this and it's chronic.
Such a contractor would likely meet the new "ABC" standard in the linked article, though. Those aren't the positions that are in danger of being eliminated, it's the "grunt contractor" folks who are contractors only because the employer wants to keep a buffer of positions that are active but can be terminated easily.
Either to cover a need for a project that won't last long term or to fill the demand for more fingers on keyboards right now.
Is that not how the US uses them? Then again UK programmers seem to earn much less than US programmers. Outside London it's like £50k for a senior dev ($70k?).
You can go check on any job site, indeed, cwjobs, whatever. CWJobs claim the average is up to £62k for London now, and that's of all dev jobs, not just senior ones:
https://www.cwjobs.co.uk/salary-checker/average-csharp-devel...
Not so sure I disagree with CA overall.
I think that, taken literally, I'd be 0/3 in the ABC system.
- Those who aren't good enough to get a full time job.
- Those who are too good to settle for a full time job.
The two groups are treated quite differently.
The former are typically a group of second-class employees companies use as a way to "trial" someone before hiring them for real, or simply to skirt the requirements of employing someone full-time. They also tend to work for some shell company you've never heard of, at least on paper.
The latter tend to be older folks, and often experts in various fields. They also have little trouble finding another "gig" almost immediately after their current one dries up. These people are usually self-employed.
Factor in overtime, or the lack thereof, and you can make more or have far more work/life balance than FTs. That weekend app release? There's an extra $500-$1k that the FTs aren't getting. Company doesn't allow contractors to work over 40 hours for budgeting purposes? Leave at 5 everyday without anyone complaining.
They submitted a total cost of employee as part of their employment request to HR. Their bog standard expenditure for an employee sitting right next to me was 50k/yr higher than I was making (my 1099 rate was the official standard for the position and not negotiated). $15/hr less (given unofficial hour cap), but with good insurance (group rates are also lower for the same insurance compared to individual), bonuses, vacation, 401k, etc.
Most companies simply refuse to pay out the same for a contractor as they would for an employee.
A large programmer union could do wonders for the industry.
But, the FT senior developer spends a quarter of his/her time in meetings, is expected to be a "team player" in regards to internal politics, and can't do any side projects without running it by the business.
Both sides working 45 figure is kind of a fairy tale too. Having been on both sides, usually either FT or contractors are working all the extra hours. If it's open-ended contracts, then the FT are working many extra, unpaid hours and the contractors get a work/life balance (worth multiple $10k, IMHO). If it's short term contract, the contractors work 50+ hours a week, within the project window, make out like bandits, and go on to the next gig.
It's all preference. Neither side is objectively better.
This hasn't been my experience. Those games can just as easily involve whether or not to renew someone's contract, or whether to terminate it early.
You're missing the most important word there. I'm honestly not sure which one is intended.
So in the end it worked out about the same.
If the law requires contractors to get the same benefits, etc., the result will be the contractors will get paid less. The ones I knew wanted the higher pay / no benefits circumstance, and they'd lose that option.
There was a very interesting NY Times article last fall about that issue. They contrasted janitors at Apple, who work for a contractor and have no prospects for advancement in Apple, and Xerox's janitors in the 1980s who were employees, and one of whom is now Xerox's CTO:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-risi...
To veer off on a tangent, I suspect it's connected with a new elitism in the U.S. What used to be the celebrated 'Land of Opportunity' where anyone could live the "American Dream' through hard work, regardless of where they started (even if very poor immigrants), is now a place where the children of the wealthy go to college, those of the working class are encouraged to go to trade school, and immigrants are more commonly discouraged.
The 'youths' want to go to college, and in a free country and a free market, it's believed that they know and decide their own best interests.
Businesses in fact highly value college education; they pay people with college degrees much more than people without them. The incomes of people without degrees has been stagnant for decades, and there's concern among economists that their job prospects will become more difficult due to automation. If it had reached a point of diminishing returns (really, small marginal benefit), then the wage differential would be small.
As I pointed out above, it's really economic discrimination: Education depends, more than anything, on family wealth. So the outcome of what the parent advocates is that the wealthy classes go to college and the lower classes don't get that opportunity. Usually it's wealthy people with college degrees that say college isn't needed; but tell them that their kids shouldn't go to college and you'll get a much different response.
> The percentage of Americans with college degrees has never been higher.
That's great. We want people to be better educated, more productive, and live better lives. That's the 'American Dream'. We don't want the economy stuck in the 1980s, but to move forward.
It also makes the economy more productive. For example, Silicon Valley can't get enough talented developers, yet the United States (and world) is filled with kids with no access to education, many of whom probably could fill that talent gap. We need more education. High skill, high-paying jobs will go where there are more highly educated workers; if the U.S. cuts college education, it will go elsewhere. New businesses and industries that we haven't yet imagined will arise when they have that resource of educated people.
Education also makes people healthier, better citizens, better parents, etc. HN celebrates knowledge; it's hard to suddenly discount it in this case.
> It's a disaster.
By what measure? The only disaster is that education is too expensive and not available to people without money.
Given all the emphasis in hiring on avoiding “bad” hires at all costs ...
Make that no benefits. In my 35 years in the tech industry I've never seen a contractor that got benefits, since it's the primary reason contractors exist.
Yes, e.g., firms whose main line of business is contracting out employees who are programmers hire programmers as subcontractors in addition to regular employees to round out special skills needed in contracts.
...but many of us pass on full-time offers nearly constantly. It's not like contractors are just waiting for the day when they are "selected."
For coders, is this because they’re objectively somehow worse programmers? Given all the emphasis in hiring on avoiding “bad” hires at all costs, it seems like there’s a conflict between paying for people who are “worse” than a FTE but still accepting their contributions. I realize it’s a strategy that gives the companies more leeway to expand and retract their workforce, but then stigma that is attached throughout the industry around contract workers shouldn’t exist, right?