Permanent or Contract?

We are asked this question by both our clients and candidates. Given the historic percentage of workers who consider themselves contractors or temporary workers ( just around 3%), more often than not people are just more comfortable with having a permanent role. Most of this is completely psychological. The feeling is that they have more stability, benefits and vacation time that is incorporated into any compensation package. I would argue though that a compensation package for a contractor will be higher than that of a permanent alternative. Take for instance a $100K salary - it roughly works out to be $50 per hour. But that contractor can make anywhere from $60 - $85 an hour depending on the project. If the candidate is comfortable with purchasing their own benefits (or through their contract company), they will be in a better position financially.

Granted, you may be perceived as a short term solution, but what better way to garner the trust of a firm than by having a working interview? At Marchon, we don't try to push our consultants one way or another, but it is absolutely essential that we provide a COMPLETE picture of the alternatives in order for our candidates to make an educated decision.

For our clients, we offer varying solutions to provide these resources. And it comes down to preference, but I would offer that there is a convergence of the price between using a perm solution as opposed to contract. We, as an industry, should be providing that information to the client. It may happen after 6 months, at which time, the client should receive the candidate for free (if that were an option for both parties).

The work is the same on our side as far as preparing a candidate for their role. We want them to be comfortable in the setting, feel good about the culture and understand their place in the success of the firm. In this way, we can represent our candidates and clients affectively.