Contract or permanent, that is the question?
Whether ’tis nobler in the industry to suffer
the slings and arrows of outraged employees
Or take arms against a drying sea of Contracts
I apologise Mr Shakespeare but your soliloquy does help present a conundrum I have wrestled with lately.
Contract or permanent, that is the question? And I think the answer lies in time.
Often employees are subject to a three month trial. I’m not sure of the legal validity but it is common to hear this. So, if someone has lasted just three months in a company as an employee you may be entitled to ask why? On the other hand Contract work, being more ephemeral means three month assignments are more commonplace so the same suspicion may not arise.
However extend that duration to one year and there is real dilemma.
Consider first that this was a permanent position. A year as an employee initially suggests that the role was sufficiently carried out. The ‘three month trial period’ was easily surpassed so any failings would show well within this time but why just a year in a ‘permanent’ post? Questions of unfulfilled ambition and restlessness start to emerge and no one wants to waste money recruiting this attitude. Is there natural negativity here?
However, look at the exact same individual taking the exact same job on a Contract basis. This time any trail period was over in the first week and Contracts are usually job based so a whole year assignment suggests a successful conclusion. Here there is only a feeling of positivity.
So unless that employer is offering more than a year of work go Contract. And who can guarantee more than a year these days?
So permanent positions…
…by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end