Perm role went to external candidate over contract/agency
Discussion
I had been doing a job as agency/contractor (inside IR35) for over a year, and a permanent role came up. For context the industry is engineering.
I looked at the salary range and it made sense to apply as there was little difference overall between perm salary and agency/contract rate, once bonus, paid holiday and company pension contributions were factored in, plus the chance to develop and still have a job in a year's time.
I'd been doing the exact job at the company for over a year and got on well with everyone.
Being a contract/agency worker I had to apply once the internal candidates were ruled out and it was opened up externally.
However I didn't get it in the end and it went to someone external (not agency but from a completely different company) who had a similar level of experience but crucially had never worked in the company doing the exact role as I had been for the past year.
I took it to be a sign that the hiring manager has zero faith in me, and didn't see a future for me there. Part of their reason was that they didn't want to replace me with a contract/agency person - so why interview in the first place?
They said "don't get disheartened and we don't want to lose you" as there will likely be more permanent roles due to retirements etc. so keep trying - despite what they said it is the actions that count. However they were happy to keep me as just a contract/agency worker, and I have a contract for another 12 months. I don't really see any other way to interpret this.
There may be more permanent roles coming up but if the new roles are of a higher grade, internal candidates will get the first pick and I don't want to join at a lower level than the new recruit as I'd have more experience than them.
Of course when there is time to tighten the company's belt, I will be liable to go ahead of the new recruit.
I am now thinking to just leave as soon as I find something better or at least as good because I can't see how this can be redeemed.
Any thoughts?
I looked at the salary range and it made sense to apply as there was little difference overall between perm salary and agency/contract rate, once bonus, paid holiday and company pension contributions were factored in, plus the chance to develop and still have a job in a year's time.
I'd been doing the exact job at the company for over a year and got on well with everyone.
Being a contract/agency worker I had to apply once the internal candidates were ruled out and it was opened up externally.
However I didn't get it in the end and it went to someone external (not agency but from a completely different company) who had a similar level of experience but crucially had never worked in the company doing the exact role as I had been for the past year.
I took it to be a sign that the hiring manager has zero faith in me, and didn't see a future for me there. Part of their reason was that they didn't want to replace me with a contract/agency person - so why interview in the first place?
They said "don't get disheartened and we don't want to lose you" as there will likely be more permanent roles due to retirements etc. so keep trying - despite what they said it is the actions that count. However they were happy to keep me as just a contract/agency worker, and I have a contract for another 12 months. I don't really see any other way to interpret this.
There may be more permanent roles coming up but if the new roles are of a higher grade, internal candidates will get the first pick and I don't want to join at a lower level than the new recruit as I'd have more experience than them.
Of course when there is time to tighten the company's belt, I will be liable to go ahead of the new recruit.
I am now thinking to just leave as soon as I find something better or at least as good because I can't see how this can be redeemed.
Any thoughts?
Edited by mh9000 on Monday 15th April 21:47
Edited by mh9000 on Tuesday 16th April 15:06
Playing devil’s advocate - just because you’ve been doing the role for 12 months doesn’t necessarily mean the other guy isn’t “better” than you. Or it may be that he has other skills or experience that the Company are looking for.
Given that you’re currently contracting there it’s clear that they’re happy with your overall work, otherwise they would have got rid of you by now. And if you’re generally happy I wouldn’t consider moving on unless it’s for something bigger and better. As the poster above said, no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Given that you’re currently contracting there it’s clear that they’re happy with your overall work, otherwise they would have got rid of you by now. And if you’re generally happy I wouldn’t consider moving on unless it’s for something bigger and better. As the poster above said, no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
bunchofkeys said:
Countdown said:
Good point but, if that’s the case, why interview the OP in the first place?
Maybe to use the OP as a benchmark? Also, if there has been no other decent candidates, the OP may have been offered the job.
I think the OP is over thinking this and seeing it as a personal snub when my view is completely the opposite.
Look at it from the company's perspective.
1. They could have given it to you, then bring in another agency guy. The result should therefore be 1x experienced guy plus another unknown quantity.
2. They bring in an outstanding candidate from a rival company, who is very likely to hit the ground running. The result is that they now have 2x very good workers in place, with you having a good length left on the contract.
Headcount and work delivery wise, option 2 would be more attractive. It won't be your preferred option though, obviously.
Get your head down, continue doing what you're doing and don't become bitter about it. Your application would have shown them that you are looking for such a role and have ambitions to progress, and that can only be a good thing.
1. They could have given it to you, then bring in another agency guy. The result should therefore be 1x experienced guy plus another unknown quantity.
2. They bring in an outstanding candidate from a rival company, who is very likely to hit the ground running. The result is that they now have 2x very good workers in place, with you having a good length left on the contract.
Headcount and work delivery wise, option 2 would be more attractive. It won't be your preferred option though, obviously.
Get your head down, continue doing what you're doing and don't become bitter about it. Your application would have shown them that you are looking for such a role and have ambitions to progress, and that can only be a good thing.
garyhun said:
ozzuk said:
My take, if they truly valued you they would have given you the job.
Speculation at best.There's only one loyalty here that counts for anything, and that's to yourself. Regardless of reasons, if the right offer came up elsewhere then he should be offski. He's the only one who owns his career and has its best interests in mind. If this co decided cutbacks were necessary, they wouldn't hesitate to swing the ax.
slow_poke said:
garyhun said:
ozzuk said:
My take, if they truly valued you they would have given you the job.
Speculation at best.There's only one loyalty here that counts for anything, and that's to yourself. Regardless of reasons, if the right offer came up elsewhere then he should be offski. He's the only one who owns his career and has its best interests in mind. If this co decided cutbacks were necessary, they wouldn't hesitate to swing the ax.
Anyway, I’ll leave it there as we have no idea as to the real reasoning behind it.
The same thing happened to me twice in a few months in the last perm job I had. Two perm jobs applied for, turned down for both to remain in an utterly menial job that a trained monkey could do, not at all relevant to my skillset.
I felt under valued and left, guy who was hiring was sacked a few months later.
tells you all you need to know, sometimes your face just doesn't fit, and if that guy is a cretin, as he was in this case, you will never fit in.
I felt under valued and left, guy who was hiring was sacked a few months later.
tells you all you need to know, sometimes your face just doesn't fit, and if that guy is a cretin, as he was in this case, you will never fit in.
Countdown said:
Good point but, if that’s the case, why interview the OP in the first place?
Possibly an HR thing where they want candidates to make it appear 'open' to all.Had this a while back. Company headhunts an individual. HR get wind and force the hiring manager to open up a req so that they can tick a box. Manager then has to waste time interviewing people he knows are never going to get the job as he's already found the right person.
Utter s
te.StuTheGrouch said:
Look at it from the company's perspective.
1. They could have given it to you, then bring in another agency guy. The result should therefore be 1x experienced guy plus another unknown quantity.
2. They bring in an outstanding candidate from a rival company, who is very likely to hit the ground running. The result is that they now have 2x very good workers in place, with you having a good length left on the contract.
Headcount and work delivery wise, option 2 would be more attractive. It won't be your preferred option though, obviously.
Get your head down, continue doing what you're doing and don't become bitter about it. Your application would have shown them that you are looking for such a role and have ambitions to progress, and that can only be a good thing.
Agreed.1. They could have given it to you, then bring in another agency guy. The result should therefore be 1x experienced guy plus another unknown quantity.
2. They bring in an outstanding candidate from a rival company, who is very likely to hit the ground running. The result is that they now have 2x very good workers in place, with you having a good length left on the contract.
Headcount and work delivery wise, option 2 would be more attractive. It won't be your preferred option though, obviously.
Get your head down, continue doing what you're doing and don't become bitter about it. Your application would have shown them that you are looking for such a role and have ambitions to progress, and that can only be a good thing.
Nobody likes feeling like they have been rejected, you need to give yourslef some space to calm down and to think clearly and objectively about the situation, trying to look at it from all sides. Once you feel in a position to take onboard constructive feedback and/or criticism, it may also be worth asking for some time with the hiring manager to discuss their reason for not taking you on. Getting this feedback could be really healthy for you and give you a new perspective that will stand you in good stead in the future.
Good luck with it all and try and keep positive.
essayer said:
Many agency contracts have clauses that the company has to pay the agency a significant fee if they directly hire the contractor. It’s possible that this was a factor in the decision.
Absolutely, it could have bene that the hiring manager wanted to take on the OP FT but the agency fee was higher than they were able to get sign off for. Well, for a start you're not really a contractor, you're a disguised employee. If you're not financially better off than an employee then you're not charging enough so put your rate up & cover the additional benefits the employees are getting. Then when the next job comes up they'll save money by employing you.
If your main concern is having a job at that particular company in a year's time then maybe you're not cut out to be a contractor.
If your main concern is having a job at that particular company in a year's time then maybe you're not cut out to be a contractor.
Mr Pointy said:
Well, for a start you're not really a contractor, you're a disguised employee. If you're not financially better off than an employee then you're not charging enough so put your rate up & cover the additional benefits the employees are getting. Then when the next job comes up they'll save money by employing you.
If your main concern is having a job at that particular company in a year's time then maybe you're not cut out to be a contractor.
I see your point, so instead of contractor it’s agency worker or temp whatever you want to call it. The point remains though, in fact even more so if it’s this type of arrangement. This is engineering and seems that, unlike IT/Software industry, a lot of the places have been using “contractors” like this, they’ll pay you 30 per hour for what should be perm role around 40k with pension, bonuses, paid holiday etc like this example.If your main concern is having a job at that particular company in a year's time then maybe you're not cut out to be a contractor.
I did actually try and argue that they should be paying more if that’s the perm rate but was basically told that’s it, and you’d get laughed at for asking for an extra 20% to bring it in line with what it costs to their business to employ a perm person.
This has happened last year and I haven’t had any real feedback other than what they said about being able to easily do the work.
Edited by mh9000 on Tuesday 16th April 14:14
Edited by mh9000 on Thursday 18th April 14:07
KrazyIvan said:
I suspect the other candidate was just as good and by hiring him they get to have both of you working for them. If another role opens up apply and see what happens, I really would read roo much into it.
This would be my guess. And the massive fee to the agency.
He might be able to bring other skills the OP doesn't know about.
As said before, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff