Temp pay v perm: Ask the Expert
A. From the figures you are quoting it sounds like the company is looking for someone at a higher level than you because temp or contract rates are normally 20-25% HIGHER than their permanent equivalent.
Normally, therefore, if they were looking for someone permanent at the equivalent of 52,000 temp rate (and by the way, we'd be interested to know how you worked out that annual figure) one would expect the salary to be more like 42,000-45,000. Given the big difference, the company must be looking for someone more qualified or experienced.
The only way you can command more from the company than your temp rate is if they really want you and you convince them that you will not do the job for less - because, for example, you have been offered something similar elsewhere. If you can establish your market rate outside the company as being 55,000+, then good luck, you are in with a chance of achieving that.
More likely, however, they are interviewing you out of courtesy and good sense to give you a chance to convince them you could do the bigger permanent job. They already know you are prepared to work for 52,000 on a temp basis and will assume you would take a cut for the stability, security, holiday pay, etc., of a permanent job.
"If I were the hiring manager I'd come in with a lower offer than your temp rate," says Niall FitzGerald, career adviser and headhunter with HR consultancy Fairplace. "If you said that was too low, you'd have to convince me that you've got other options."
It's also worth knowing how temp rates are annualised. FitzGerald says a typical multiple is your day rate times 220. That is based on a realistic number of days you might actually work in a year, allowing for holidays, illness and gaps between contracts.
That may not be what you want to hear, but it's better to go into any pay negotiations with a realistic idea of your market rate than to hanker for a salary that the company would be prepared to pay a more qualified or experienced candidate.
Next week's question:The company I work for is currently in a 90 day consultation period for redundancy, ending in 8 weeks. I have been told my position is redundant and am fine with this. I have also been told that as I am still on the payroll, when my position is finished, I would be expected to 'help out' where I can. Other staff have been put on 'garden leave' which I would prefer. I do not want to have to do jobs that I would not normally do. Would they need to provide me with a temporary contract and job description, or can I demand to be put on 'garden leave'?
What would you advise? Send your answer to:
expertadmin@efinancialcareers.com
Look
out for the Experts' answer to this dilemma and readers' comments on Ask the Expert next week! If you would like to submit a question to our panel of experts,
