The problem is, most companies in the US want to hire you on as a Contractor and not a full time employee for those three months. I can't speak for everyone (but most folks, I assume), but I need medical and dental. I can't go three months for the chance of maybe getting it. I can't do it personally and i can't do that sort of thing to my family. there are other options in other countries (depending on the country). I'm a centrist by nature, but this makes a "three month interview" untenable, IMO.
Sorry what I meant was US companies could treat the first 3 months of any full-time/W-2 employee as probationary because they can fire anyone for any reason other than protected characteristics. It doesn't even need to be an official company policy documented anywhere.`
They could in theory, but nobody wants to. I used to see probationary periods, but I haven't seen a company use that for salaried staff for a long time. HR and Legal have put an end to that kind of thing.
So Jim is right, in practice the only way HR is going to let you have a probationary period is to use contractors, and that limits your hiring pool significantly.
Every decent sized contracting firm I've ever worked with offered benefits. It's more expensive, but you just price that into your rate. So I don't understand what the concern is. Is it the risk that after 3 months you won't be brought on full time?
Upheaval is the issue. First, most contracting firms have pretty crappy medical plans. Secondly, there's generally a wait period before full benefits kick in. Thirdly, you wind up switching your medical plan multiple times in a short period.
That's fine if you're single, but if you've got kids that might mean switching doctors multiple times, which is a gigantic huge deal. Also, you have multiple periods of time where you don't really know your benefits which is terrifying. And if the company does drop you after three months for whatever reason, now you're doing it again.
And keep in mind it's definitely a seller's market if you're a good dev. It's incredibly unlikely that the 3-month contract is the only offer on the table. So all things being equal, who would take it?
Your description sounds like this should only be a problem for families with serious medical issues, which would be the minority. I do have a kid. If your kid is relatively healthy then pediatricians are basically replaceable widgets. If it's important to you, just pay the cash rate for your favorite pediatrician during that 3 month period. If you're really hung up on it, you can just choose the COBRA option and keep your old insurance during your trial period. It's very expensive, but again, you just calculate that into your contracting rate.
>And keep in mind it's definitely a seller's market if you're a good dev. It's incredibly unlikely that the 3-month contract is the only offer on the table. So all things being equal, who would take it?
I don't feel any additional security whatsoever being a least tenured employee vs contractor. Maybe there's some statistical benefit, but it seems pretty small. So for me, it's practically zero cost to do the contract-to-hire thing. Any financial costs are just built into my rate. I'd rather spend my hiring currency on other stuff like working remote full time and extra vacation days.
It probably makes a difference that I spent a big chunk of my career as a self employed consultant. I do remember feeling some anxiety when I first transitioned from a regular employee to consulting. But I quickly learned my anxiety was unfounded.
I do a lot of consulting as well and am comfortable with it. But most people with families want more stability. I don't know why you're pretending to be surprised by this.
Your personal preferences aren't really the topic at hand.
It's not about my personal preferences. If you're concerned about an instability period on your healthcare you can literally keep you old healthcare for up to 18 months with COBRA. Adding the contract-to-hire period doesn't really impact instability, at least as far as healthcare is concerned.
I fear we've gone down a wrong turn. You may be 100% correct that fears about instability are irrational and not well-grounded, which is the point you've argued for several posts.
But nobody is arguing with you. Nobody is making the contrasting argument. That simply isn't the conversation anybody is having. It's an interesting conversation, it just doesn't happen to be this conversation.
I asked what the concern was and you responded primarily in the area of health care/insurance. So that's what I addressed. What else is the conversation about if not that?
