Contract to Perm, but applied directly to the company and not through an agency

Thacker

Hey guys.

So I interviewed late last week with a company for a position. The interview went very well and this was definitely a place I would like to work.

With that said, I was called today and offered a position but only as a contract to perm through an agency that this company likes to deal with. I was told the reason they wanted to do it this way was because they needed someone immediately but their hiring process was usually a much longer endeavor and they figured this would be a good way to "interview" on the job as well as let me vet them as a potential employer. The contract is W2 and the pay rate is higher than I was going to ask. My question to you guys is, does this seem sketchy in any way? I was told if everything worked out I could be brought on permanent as soon as 4 weeks, but no guarantees.

Thoughts?

N2IT

Yes it seems sketchy, but not a deal breaker.

I would still go forward with the job but keep a watchful eye for other positions that may be FTE. If they pull the bait and switch like this at the very end they are capable of other unprofessional hiring practices.

cyberguypr

I don't know if it's sketchy or not but since I don't do contract work at all I would thank them for their time and move on. If you are OK with doing contract work, why not?

InfoTech92

I've definitely seen this before. Contract to perm actually seems a little bit normal in my area. The good thing is, it's W2. If it was 1099 or something, I'd say "eh". I hate the 1099 stuff.

Do you already have a job? If not, maybe take it if you're desperate. If you aren't desperate, don't take it.

rsutton

Not sure why that seems sketchy, I just offered someone a 30 day contract to hire position this morning and the candidate was fine with it. Why do you think it's sketchy?

Eston21

Depending on the size of the company and the way HR is set up, it is not an uncommon situations. My company's HR takes months to fill a slot, but if they contract it out less then 2 weeks.

Thacker

rsutton wrote: »

Not sure why that seems sketchy, I just offered someone a 30 day contract to hire position this morning and the candidate was fine with it. Why do you think it's sketchy?

Well, there was another guy in the building interviewing for the same position at the same time I was. He was offered the same thing, as this email is made out to him but sent to me(I spoke with him after by phone to confirm). So basically, they are bringing in two contractors at the same rate which tells me they either have a big project that needs extra labor... or it's a "competition" between me and him to see which will be the better fit.

Also, if they liked me... and wanted to hire me... why would they interview me directly.. and THEN send me off to a recruiting agency to offload the liability?

mrhaun03

Seems normal to me. I applied for a position before directly through the company. They had a contracting agency call me back to setup the interview, etc because they had an agreement together.

Thacker

mrhaun03 wrote: »

Seems normal to me. I applied for a position before directly through the company. They had a contracting agency call me back to setup the interview, etc because they had an agreement together.

Did you go perm at the end of your contract?

N2IT

Thacker that is entirely possible.

My questions is in the job req was this offered as a FTE position or did it not say? I was under the impression you were interviewing for a FTE position and this was clearly noted in the job req, and then to your surprise a contract agency called?

Was this how it went down?

If so, that is completely unethical LOL. People who disagree follow suit as well.

ajs1976

I did something similar a while ago. company was hiring a number of SEs and used contract to hire to get them in the positions faster. Once a group of 8 or 10 were in place and had been there for at least a month, they switched us to perm. they did it because they figured it would take months for HR to get people hired.

Now, the difference in my situation was that I knew this going into the interviews. they didn't switch it at the last minute.

Thacker

N2IT wrote: »

Thacker that is entirely possible.

My questions is in the job req was this offered as a FTE position or did it not say? I was under the impression you were interviewing for a FTE position and this was clearly noted in the job req, and then to your surprise a contract agency called?

Was this how it went down?

If so, that is completely unethical LOL. People who disagree follow suit as well.

It was a FTE position. I was contacted by the company directly, and interviewed directly with the company. Now the company has called me, and said because "their hiring process is usually much longer" they wanted to shorten it by bringing me on as a contractor instead. They have passed my information along to an agency which is handling the employment screening and I will be a W2 with the recruiting agency instead of a direct hire.

mrhaun03

I didn't accept because the company came in lower than expected.

BradleyHU

yeah, that does seem a lil sketchy....


whats their contract rate? and what will be the pay upon conversion to FTE(factoring in med, denta, vision, and other bennies)? Also, how long is this C2H for before you become FTE?

pramin

Thacker wrote: »

Thoughts?

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain based on your other post.

Thacker

pramin wrote: »

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain based on your other post.

I'm accepting it. I just wanted to know if I should continue looking elsewhere in the meantime as this seemed sketchy, or if this was normal.

Thacker

BradleyHU wrote: »

yeah, that does seem a lil sketchy....


whats their contract rate? and what will be the pay upon conversion to FTE(factoring in med, denta, vision, and other bennies)? Also, how long is this C2H for before you become FTE?

The rate is 45/hr W2, they did not mention any sort of transition pay once it went fulltime. They do offer unlimited PTO to their fulltime employees. They did not state the contract length, I was just told that full time could happen as "soon as 4 weeks".

pramin

Thacker wrote: »

I'm accepting it. I just wanted to know if I should continue looking elsewhere in the meantime as this seemed sketchy, or if this was normal.

It never hurts to keep on looking after accepting and starting a new position. You might even get a better opportunity now that you are employed.

Chitownjedi

I've done two Contracts to Hire's

The first Was 3 Months, I chose to wait as the company was in bad shape and wanted another month to make my decision. I eventually made my decision during month 4 to convert, Month 6 we were outsourced.

Second they wanted me to do Contract to hire, because they wanted to make sure it was a good fit (Which is what I wanted as well.) Went through entire paper work process, then a week before I started they changed their mind and asked me to come in as FTE from the start. I had to resubmit all paperwork, do another drug test, background, and get blood drawn (it was a hospital)

Turns out the place was a mess, and if I was Contract to Hire, I wouldn't have converted... ended up leaving after 2 months. Place almost drove me into a hosptial of a different kind.

Long story short... contract to hire is not out of the ordinary. At least not in my experience.

Blackout

Cisco Does this all the time in TAC. They call it a try before you buy. You essentially get 6 months to prove you can do the job. The majority of them will go blue, but there are teams that drop contractors after the 6 months. Its a risk, but honestly everything in life is.

SephStorm

SecureWorks does this no issue.

N2IT

My hang up on this situation is that it was advertised as an FTE position from the start, then in the middle of the process it changed right to hire. That too me is unethical but not surprising.