HN Explorer

Ask HN: Trying to land a 100% remote job, how risky are contract-to-hire gigs?

14 points by wu-ikkyu ↗ HN
I'd like to migrate to a 100% remote work lifestyle and have a potential lead: a 3 month contract to hire at $25/hr (a net loss compared to my current job) and $75-85k + "partial benefits" (a net gain) if hired.

It's a web dev role with a stack I am very familiar with, so I'm not concerned about performing poorly.

For those HNers who are familiar with remote/contract to hire jobs, does this seem like a risk worth taking to try to break into the 100% remote work life style?

I'm concerned about leaving my current position and then not getting hired at the end of the contract for reasons outside of my control (i.e. budget constraints on the employer side).

A little background: I currently work a stable job as a senior developer with a company I've been with since I graduated from college 3 years ago. I work from home once a week.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

10 comments

[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 31.8 ms ] thread
vxxzy
I'd like to help. I've been 100% remote for 7 years. Email me (it's in my profile).
wu-ikkyu
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but when I click on your username I don't see an email address listed.
Mz
This is a common problem on HN. There is a specific spot for the email address that is visible to the member him/herself and many people think it is publicly visible, but it is not. If it has not been added to the freeform "about" area where you can tell the world about yourself, no, it isn't visible to anyone else.

This is likely what is going on here.

vxxzy
100% correct. Thank you
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
siquick
For your own sake, you need to work with the employer to define the parameters which would trigger you getting hired.
redmaple
$75-85k salary means your hourly rate should be $60-70/hr unless they provide written guarantee of job after contract.
wayn3
from my experience, contracts work like this:

- some person in the organization - usually some PM or VP or some other management type - politics for getting budget. some finance person approves budget. the person who requested the budget "hires" you.

employment works like this:

- the same person politics for headcount, reads resumes, employs some kind of interview process, gets HR involved. HR has quite an opinion on who can be hired and who can not, and they are not at all about ability.

If you move from a contract to employment, you still go through HR. HR won't even touch your contract situation. Doesn't matter to them.

That being said, if anything, you should earn MORE on a contract than on fulltime employment. Employment is cheaper than contracts.

If 85k would be your target salary, they should be paying you an easy 60/hour on a contract.

If I was you, I'd understand this as 3 months of cheap labor into "sorry bro, HR nixed the headcount, good luck".

You NEVER budge on compensation. Maybe if Elon interviewed you for neuralink and gave you 3% of the company. Because you know its going to be worth a trillion dollars some day. That'd be the only reason I'd ever leave some cash on the table.

Don't let these clowns fool you into believing that you should earn less working remotely. You should be making more, if anything. When you work remotely, they save office space and office space is expensive. If you save them office space, that should go in your pocket. It never will, but thats how you should think about it.

edit: promises are worse than worthless. youll only get exactly whats in your contract, and nothing more.

bigjimmyk3
As an employer, I like contract-to-hire because it gives me a chance to learn more about the employee -- and vice versa. Most of these have worked out quite well, a few have ended in... spectacular fashion. Point is, I have always felt that contract to hire (when I don't already know the person) reduces the risk of a "bad match" on both sides.