On 10-06-17 10:39 AM, Josh Smift wrote: > I don't know much about this: Is contract-for-hire legally very different > from (a) working somewhere with a probationary period, with an explicit > review at the end of it; (b) at-will employment in general, in states > where that's the norm? >
My experience with probationary period is that it is at the same monthly salary as normal employment, and the new employee has to do something major for not being fully employed. Contract-for-hire is a regular contract, paid by the hour at a contractor rate (a lot more than the employee rate). The employer has a lot less problem not to employ people who aren't cutting it. It means that somebody who is in a cushy job today will take a bit more of a risk, although the risk is mitigated by the higher pay, it gives them more time to find another job if they don't fit this one (because they received substantially more money during the length of the contract). Personally if I were to hire somebody, I'd be worried about hiring somebody who isn't ready to bet on their own abilities to work. I really like the idea of contract-for-hire, both parties take a risk, both take time to know each other, the culture etc... before making a comitment. -- Yves. http://www.SollerS.ca/ xmpp:y...@zioup.com _______________________________________________ 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/
