Luke S Crawford wrote:
> There is an alternative. It's contract to hire. If you are worth
> me wasting a few hours talking to you, you are worth me paying you for
> a day or two of work. (and, after that, if you seem okay, a week or a
> month worth of work. If it turns out you aren't any good, I thank you
> for your time, pay you, and explain that I don't have any more work for
> you.)
>
> Personally, I think it's more respectful of the job seekers time, too.
> I mean, really, you expect me to sit in a room and get grilled for two to
> six hours, without pay?
I understand the want to use contract to hire, but I completely do not
like it from the hiree side. This is pretty much completely about
healthcare insurance for me.
I am diabetic. To go two to three months without healthcare is
completely unacceptable. I would have to get considerably more money
during the contract portion, to even consider it.
If I were a "normal" healthy person, I would have absolutely no problem
with contract to hire.
--
END OF LINE
--MCP
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
