A question on slashdot that looks very familiar for some reason... ;-P
I think that some places are trying to focus on contractors for technical work because of the ease of being able to "release" them from work. Does that mean people should get upset because people could drop you? I think that it shifts the onus on the tech worker to make sure that they have relevant skills. You can't wait for your boss to send you on training if you only know HTML and now they want a J2EE app built. You have to keep your ears to the ground and make sure you diversify your skill set somewhat. When you stop learning expect to find yourself locked into one type of job with perhaps a shrinking market.
Just about everyone I know is working on contract. It's very prevalent in the high tech field. I think that if no one does anything to stop it, that a lot of work will become contract. Here is why. It's very hard to get rid of someone once you hire them on as permanent. This holds true especially in unionized positions. Therefore, unless you are sure they will have something to do in a year, it's hard to justify giving them a permanent position. The thing with high tech, is that most of the time the people doing the hiring have no idea if the project they are hiring for will still exist next year, or if there will even be something for this person to work on once the current project finishes. With that kind of uncertainty, I wouldn't want to hire someone permanently either.
ReplyDeleteI agree. If you have a tech worker with nothing to do, you "create" a project to keep them busy. If there isn't a business need for this project, that's just a waste of resources.
ReplyDeleteOne of the arguments *for* permanent employees is long-term cost. Contractors cost more, but are less risky. If government offices used contractors exclusively, they would spend a lot more money, which is why they always have a few permanent people on staff.
ReplyDeleteAnother argument is that contractors have a very loose sense of ownership with a project. If you have a few permanent people working with the contractors, those people will know they'll have to live with all of the decisions that are made, so they'll get their two cents in.
Also, in the government it seems like management positions are almost never contracted out ... probably for the same reason as point number 2 above.
As a general rule, if you're a contractor you should be getting paid much more than a permanent employee of the same skill level. They have benefits you do not, so you have to take that into account. You're also in a riskier position given that you can be fired pretty much at any time, so you should be paid a premium for taking this risk. Contractors that move around every few months sometimes have long periods without work, so they need to be paid more when they are working.
People that hire contractors know this, so they will pay them more. You'll probably want to make sure you get what you deserve if you're going to be in a risky contracting position. That said, it doesn't seem like being a contractor for *some* government agencies is all that risky ... but you never know.
Just rereading your post because you haven't posted anything in a while. Here's a thought. Why would your boss ask you to do a J2EE app when he hired you to do HTML? This is the problem with tech work. Nobody knows what technology they are going to be using for the next project. This year's project may be in HTML, but who knows. Next year's project may use PHP with MySQL. A good developer may be able to pick up and learn a new language/technology pretty fast, but without knowing the intricacies of the language/technology, the developer would probably do a mediocre job at best. It's amazing the number of 1 week courses they offer that make people think they know how to use something. Maybe this is why contracting is so rampant. If the person doesn't know the new language of the day, you can just get rid of them and hire someone who does.
ReplyDeleteVB is the new COBOL.