CONTRACT OR STAFF? 1

[compo]

That is the question?

…..these days if you are staff it appears you may be stitched up the back and if offered you may be better of being a direct contractor. Obviously this depends a lot on the commitment of your employer in promoting personal development, promotion and appropriate re-numeration, and the contract offer.

I would be interested to get feedback on the perceived benefits that anyone has from being a salaried employee and typical employer commitments to staff, and the staff commitment to the employer…

 

[Montemayor]

compo:

In these developing times, I can identify with your dilemma; there was a time when plant personnel were expected and respected for developing into the future, key personnel that would dictate the future of a processing unit. Todays economy has taken us to a different and challenging position.

Out-sourcing has forced experienced individuals (like myself) into competing with you on a one-on-one basis at the plant level. This is not only unfair, it isn't constructive. Today's methods aren't constructive in developing a future corp of experienced and elite engineers. We, as a technical society, have for all practical reasons eliminated the positive and creative practice of "mentor engineering". This is a negative contribution to the prospect of having a future corp of problem-solving engineers.

I don't pretend to know how to resolve this negative situation and how to design a social solution. What I do know from practical, common-sense experience after 45 years of practicing engineering around the globe is: As an exceptionally trained and disciplined individual who has competed at the highest limits, you will always be in demand for your intellectual and probleml-solving skills. There may be times when you might have more challenges at the contractual level, or then the opportunites may arise at the company-employee level. Who's to tell? What is really important, as far as I'm concerned, is that you are a disciplined, trained, intelligent, and ambitious individual who will take our societies into a future where we can count on persons like you as exemplatory, logical leaders.

Percieved benefits? I believe if you have prepared and disciplined yourself to be the best engineer that you can be, you stand to benefit from the knowledge that you did your BEST! The economic benfits always come as a natural result of your applied dedication to your job. My experience is such that I've never had to worry about such mundane issues. What I have spent time waiting for is CHALLENGES. As a degreed ChE you are a priviledged individual who only has to concern himself with challenges and projects that test your capabilities and skills. This is a situation that the majority of humans on this planet cannot imagine. You are a minority, priviledged individual.

 

[katmar]

In today's "hire-and-fire" economy I do not believe it makes much difference to your overall remuneration or your job security whether you are staff or contract. However, there is still a difference in that companies are more willing to invest more on training of staff that on training contractors. If you are on staff you should make the very best of these opportunities - if you are contract you should be prepared to invest some time and money in training yourself.

Also, as staff you are more likely to see a wider spectrum of the business than would a contractor. As a young (staff) engineer I was sent to work in plant troubleshooting, production, marketing support, lab development, design and projects depending on where the company needed resources. Contractors tend to be brought in for a specific task and then released. I am now very glad of the wide experience I gained for two reasons - I got a good general understanding of engineering and business, but more importantly it showed me what sort of work I just did not enjoy (or have the aptitude for!).

It also depends on the job function you decide to follow. In the design and project world there are a lot more contractors, while in production management and marketing more people are on staff. Of course this is a generalization and there will be exceptions.

If you were to go down the same career path that I have followed, i.e. the technical route of design and projects then in an ideal world I would recommend that you start out working for 10 - 12 years as staff, get as much training and experience as you can and then switch to contract once you have built up a support network.

Good luck
Katmar

 

[jsummerfield]

Whether for a two-parent family or overweight aging boomer, group health and medical benefits are valuable. Also, supplemental insurance such as disability enjoys better rates when obtained by payroll deduction.

An advantage of contract work is being paid for each hour worked. Another advantage is that you do not have to put up with the politics.

I prefer staff.

John

 

[sshep]

I think that chemical engineers are in a lot better position than other engineering disciplines with respect to the value of having them on staff. Contract chemical engineers are good enough for standalone project work, but learning the details of a large operating plant while making an immediate contribution is not generally something that can be done in a few weeks. As proof my home operating site has been bought and sold several times yet most of the chemical engineering staff has always been kept on.

My company takes good care of it's staff engineers and uses contract engineers for project work only. When capital is tight contract engineers are cut loose without much notice or regret. If you can land both a secure and lucrative contract job then consider yourself lucky, otherwise I consider a staff job in a company with lots of operating units and sites to be a very nice situation. That's my experience anyway- sshep