I'm interviewing for a long-term contract-to-hire position in an industry im interested in, and a job title I've been targeting. Does anyone have any insight into the chances of actually being hired on at the end and if having a contract like that is a good or bad thing interviewing for positions in the future? Should I be looking for more pay than a normal full time position?
Hopeful I can use it to transition from a field engineer to a design engineer long term.
Never taken one because I'm not giving up benefits on the CHANCE I may get hired.
I've always taken the view that your chances are very low to actually get hired, otherwise, why not just hire full-time to start. I'd only take one if I was currently out of work and needed to keep the paychecks flowing.
But that's just me.
We do this. The first three months are with a temp agency, then we hire on full time. We never bring someone on as a temp unless we're willing to take them on permanently, but it gives us an easy out if things don't work out for either party. Firing someone is a lot harder than not renewing a temp contract. On the flip side, it's still a lot of work to find someone, so the company is already invested and wants it to turn into a permanent position. It's pretty uncommon for us not to extend the offer - I think the last time that happened was a decade ago after certain personality traits came to light during the trial period. We have also had the occasional person decline the permanent offer after they've learned more about the realities of the job.
Making notes, no offers to z31maniac... ;)
I worked with traveling nurses, in some cases they made more per hour then a doctor. Benefits where they could travel all over the world (some did). While they didn't get benefits (they paid for their own insurance), because there is a shortage they were easily able to find a job once they wanted to settle down. This is probably not helpful at all to you. 
from my initial discussions, it looks like the benefits and taxes are paid by a contracting company, and I would end up being paid maybe 10% more than my current role, which would likely mostly be eaten up by the insurance premiums, since my current company pays for 100% of insurance. it ended up being for a company I'm pretty familiar with in my industry, plus I'd get 2 wfh days compared to 0. So if I'm offered the job I would probably take it, unless someone has something super damning.
my thought re job security, is that since I'm in an at-will state, there's honestly not that big of a change in that regard
My experience being hired on from a contract-to-hire engineering position, early in my career, matches Keith's description of it being a hiring risk mitigation tool with the genuine intent being to hire. I seem to recall it being 6 months. It's possible the process could have become more as Z31 describes over the years, but to what end? On a purely financial basis, I believe that it can actually be more expensive for companies to hire this way, since they're paying a commission to the contract company on top of what the employee costs. So there would be little advantage to going into such an agreement with the intent of *not* hiring the person.
This Friday will be my twentieth work anniversary and I worked the first three months as a contract-to-hire.
In my case, everything was well defined up front...work three months and I'd either be hired on full time or I'd be out the door.
So, I'd be OK with it so long as the conversion was clearly laid out...when, title, job description, manager, compensation, benefits, etc..
In reply to Keith Tanner :
3 months is way different than 12 months.
You guys couldn't afford me. 
My first professional job was contract to hire through a contract company.
It was OK. The nice part was you got to get your foot in at a big company pretty easily without having to go through the traditional hoops, and when it came time to hire you were first in line and had already made some professional contacts. If I had elected to stay in that path, the transition was tee'd up. The expectation was you do 18 months to 36 months as a contractor and then move to a direct employee.
The downside was you were looked down upon because you had a contractor badge (was a union shop and contractors were not union), the pay was capped - basically the contract company gets X amount of dollars per ass per hour, they pay your ass Y dollars per hour, its in the contract company's best interest to keep the delta between X and Y as big as they can for as long as they can. You actually provide more value to the contract company the less you know and the less you earn.
I have not worked as an independent 1099 contractor. That would certainly have its benefits of being able to negotiate your own terms - I worked with one dude who wore jeans and a sweatshirt in a business casual office because he was a contractor and he had negotiated his dress code as part of his contract - but you are also on your own for any feast or any famine.
In reply to 93gsxturbo :
I've done that before, when I was laid off in 2015. Took a job as a contractor in a union shop that is...........absolutely terrible experience. Made me want to keep a bottle of Jameson in the car.
Lots of contract jobs, but all short term contract. Several "full time" jobs, that I knew I wouldn't retire from.
Never worked the exact thing as contract to hire.
I have no benefit package, when on a contract , so having to pay for unemployable peoples health insurance, as well as my own, basically screwed my life.
But I love the contract world. Most don't.
For you, as someone mentioned, take a serious look at the what benefits are there, during that time, but I would imagine you'd know pretty soon, if it was going to full time or not.
As far as not having job security, from what I've seen, 90% of the folks that do, don't have as much as they think.
From the little you described, I thing you'll do well.
z31maniac said:In reply to 93gsxturbo :
I've done that before, when I was laid off in 2015. Took a job as a contractor in a union shop that is...........absolutely terrible experience. Made me want to keep a bottle of Jameson in the car.
As a short term contractor, coming into VERY heavy union shop, I've gotten some very hard looks at a few coming in. I'm quite proud that, before the end of the outage, most have figured out that I'm there to HELP them, not take their work, and I've made some good friends.
A long term contractor, would prolly be a bad thing, there. 
In reply to 03Panther :
I was told I'd have 18 months there, they slashed the facilities budget 5 months later and I was without a job again.
Got info on the benefits, insurance is provided through the staffing company, $70 per paycheck so not awful. 6-9 month contract, but they're looking to hire people on full-time before that. seems like not a bad move if it works out
Lots of companies do this. It shields them from risks. The company I work for no does this. My manager, the director of our department, and quite a few on my team, and myself started as contract. After a year we were hired. It'll be 20 years ago in a few months.
In reply to DrBoost :
good to hear that the "to-hire" part isn't just a mirage, then
In reply to z31maniac :
I've know contractors asked to go somewhere for 2 weeks, and stayed 5 years. I was on a 6 month contract, likely to extend. I was there one week! Plant hired an ex employee back, and didn't need to pay the contract company the big bucks for a traveler. (I don't get the big bucks... the companies keep most of it!)
But the "full time" jobs seem to go the same way!
contract to hire is a very popular way to leverage professional recruiters. Alot of recruiters charge their fee's over that 3 month period (usually that is the minimum for C2H roles) and for alot of organizations that don't want to filter through hundreds of resumes and negotiate, etc. using a recruiter is a great service.
You'll need to log in to post.
