Rather, IME at least, the difference between a contract and permanent position is that when offered a permanent position the employee should be able to reasonably expect that the company intends for that position to be required long-term, and that the position isn't a temporary one or one related to a specific (short-medium term) project. Unless, of course, the company and employee have agreed to a short-medium term position (which IMO, is really more akin to a contract worker).
In the United States, a Contractor is typically simply a worker who is not part of the Payroll of the company that uses his services.
They come in two basic types:
1099 Contractors are self-employed, handling the payroll taxes and withholdings that an employer would set aside for an employee. They have to budget for their own insurances, sick time, and vacations out-of-pocket but get to deduct business expenses related to earning their income.
W2 Contractors are employees of Agencies. The Agency handles their taxes and benefits and cuts their paychecks. The Agency bills the Company that needs the Contractor's services based on an agreed-upon contract between the two companies.
Employee-at-will is the typically non-contractor status for workers at a company. They work at a company as long as the company wants them there. They are paid directly by the company and are part of their company's payroll - including taxes and benefits.
Most Employees-at-will who earn a Salary rather than an Hourly Rate are considered "permanent" employees since their salary is agreed upon on an annual rate. They can still be terminated at any time by their employer.
If the above is true, then (barring unforecast disaster), the position should exist as long as the employee is willing and capable of performing it... and speaking for myself, I'd certainly do a bit of research to ensure that the company was planning growth and could reasonably support the position it was offering me long-term.
The moment someone else (or something else) comes along who can perform your tasks more ably or at the same level of ability (and I include trustworthiness and experience as relevant components in my definition of ability) but for less money the company should make plans to move you to a different job or lay you off. That's how competition and innovation work. It cuts both ways too - plenty of managers find their way out the door due to HR and Accounting specialist firms out-competing in-house departments. Advances in software have eliminated a lot of middle-managers from various fields over the years, just as machines have reduced the ratio of laborers-to-products in industrial work.
So yes, I guess I would go into that position expecting to hold the position as long as I was willing and capable of doing it, as I expect most people in a similar position would.
I don't have that expectation. I try and approach each day as if I'm trying to get hired anew rather than just serving time in a position that "belongs" to me. Jobs don't "belong" to employees, just like customers don't "belong" to businesses.
Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.
I'm glad to hear this, Mr. Tweet. Thanks for all your outstanding contributions to our games. I look forward to seeing what you come up with next!
- Marty Lund
