Permanent V Contractor debate

[kabb59]

Hi,

I have been working for a very large company for 4 years and want to go f/t because of job security. There is a general recruitment freeze on because they have a few hundred people on the bench, however none of those people have my skills and I was wondering from a financial point of view where it becomes more cost effective for a company to make me permanant rather payout more to me as a contractor.

 

[BusinessDeli]

All depends on the requirements of the business. There's a few things that jump out at me, firstly there is no such thing as job security. Secondly if you're been contracting at this company for 4 years then in effect you already are a full time employee with all the rights thereof.
Your first port of call is your manager to ask the simple question - 'what are the chances of...'

 

[GraemeL]

I have been working for a very large company for 4 years

I was wondering from a financial point of view where it becomes more cost effective for a company to make me permanent rather payout more to me as a contractor.

This really needs 'legal' advice from an HR expert. My understanding is that if you have worked as contractor for the same company for 4 years and this is your only 'customer', then you will have built up employee rights. So I don't think the question is a simple as it might appear.

"Definition
Temporary employees cannot work for a company indefinitely: A temporary worker on assignment with the same company for two or more years can become a common-law employee. A common-law employee is eligible for the same benefits as those received by permanent employees, including job protection.

Contracts
Companies can prevent a temporary worker from becoming a common-law employee by negotiating a contract with the worker at the time of hire. For the contract to be effective, it must clearly state an end date to a particular assignment. Limit the term of the contract to 12 or 18 months to prevent confusion."

G

 

[kabb59]

Thanks for your prompt replies.