IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
I prefer being a contractor actually. My wife has good benefits that I take and I make a ton more money than I would as a staff member at most places. And more importantly, I got sick and tired of corporate politics and BS time wasters (team building, "optional" social events, etc). I also like actually getting paid for every hour I work, which never happened when I was a salaried staff member.
OP, you should always have 6 months to a year of expenses saved and ready to be used in the event of an emergency, including time between contracts if you don't get hired. Also, budget for time off.
I'm not sure I understand that logic. If you have a position open and someone who has been a contractor is the best fit, you should hire that person. I've heard some think contractors are "hired guns" and are afraid they'll move on faster for more money, but I think that is an unfair way to paint people and sounds to me more like the interviewers are lazy and don't want to properly vet candidates and be accountable if the guy leaves.
OP, you should always have 6 months to a year of expenses saved and ready to be used in the event of an emergency, including time between contracts if you don't get hired. Also, budget for time off.
radhak said:Actually, holding a contract position is supposed to be a 'con' when applying for regular employment. (I know because we toss out more contractor resumes who want to become employees, than others who were always on employee rolls).
I'm not sure I understand that logic. If you have a position open and someone who has been a contractor is the best fit, you should hire that person. I've heard some think contractors are "hired guns" and are afraid they'll move on faster for more money, but I think that is an unfair way to paint people and sounds to me more like the interviewers are lazy and don't want to properly vet candidates and be accountable if the guy leaves.
Last edited:
