Luke S Crawford wrote: > Robert Hajime Lanning <lann...@lanning.cc> writes: > >> 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. >> > > You have a point, you are going to have a hard time hiring someone > out of a safe, cushy job into a "maybe I'll hire you" contract position > in any case, nevermind someone who can't go a few months without health > insurance, though, CORBA and similar help a lot with the latter. > > (as an employer, in my case, I don't have to worry about that... > nobody who can get a safe, high paying job is going to work for me at > the wages I can afford to pay.) > > But yeah, it's generally assumed that if you don't go through > a body shop (which captures most of the risk premium of contracting) > one gets paid a pretty good premium for working contract rather than > full time. > > There are alternatives on the employer-side which we use which aren't really much onerous for the employer than straight contract. It's called defined-term employment. Basically, you can give the employee full employee status including benefits with a defined term for review (e.g. 6 months). Contract laws very from state to state. In NY state, for instance, they are cracking down hard on employers who are using contract basis as a way to avoid paying the extra taxes associated with full time employment (those health care benefits are taxable, after all).
But, this is not a replacement for an interview, it's a supplement, like employer insurance. _______________________________________________ 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/
