TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Contracting to start with From:Karen Kay <karenk -at- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:30:47 -0800
Sherri Hall said:
> Marc said:
> > IMHO you should either hire based upon samples, or conditionally hire for
> >60-90 days and reevaluate. The second choice amounts to entering into a
> >short term contract.
> I like the contract idea, in theory. However, in reality, our company is
> so understaffed and finding qualified candidates is so tough to begin with
> (St. Louis isn't know for being a mecca for tech writers) that once we
> hire someone, we're stuck with them.
I have some questions about this. I'm not in St. Louis, I'm in Silicon
Valley. I interviewed for a job earlier this week, but because of my
lack of experience (I've only been working as a tech writer for a
year; I was a college professor for 8 years), the company doesn't want
to hire me. We are, however, going to be talking about a contract.
My question is, what can I do to maximize my chances of being hired
permanently? I *really* liked the company, the group, and the work. Is
it a mistake to push the full-time business when we discuss the
contract? (That is, suggest that I would like to discuss a permanent
job again at the completion of the contract?)
Or is being considered for a contract when there is a full-time job
the kiss of death for that company?
