[FireBeyond]

I take issue with these because they're really just doing an endrun around labor law:

- you're going to be treated like an employee, because that's the plan, and I'd wager many Contract-to-Hire setups would fail the government's "20 Factor Test"[1]: Level of instruction, degree of integration, demands for full-time work...

- I've yet to see a non-VP+ level contract with severability clauses that require contractual compensation, i.e. most contracts are "severable without notice", no different to "At Will"

Indeed, the practical side effect of this is "We're going to hire you and we get to avoid paying you benefits for an extended period of time (the contract duration)."

[1] https://www.oregon.gov/oda/shared/Documents/Publications/Nat...

[georgel]

There is the case where you are employed by a firm as a W-2, and you are a "contractor" in the eyes of the company you are doing the work for. And more often than not, after 6-18 months the company offers to buy out the contract to from your employer, converting you to full time.

[aguaviva]

They don't have to pay you benefits of course, but you can always market yourself at a rate that more than compensates for that. So it's not an automatic financial shafting for the contractor (unless they don't take this into account).