As an employer, I would not be able to offer a position to any applicant that requested a position to be truly permanent.
Well, it seems workplace rules are very different in Sweden than New Zealand (and other countries I've worked in, although I have heard that NZ is particularly pro-employee).
Also, there may be a terminology misunderstanding. I'm using permanent to mean "long term employee", as opposed to contractor which usually means someone who isn't considered an employee of the company and is only working for the company for a defined period and/or project.
Regardless - I wasn't trying to imply that someone offered a permanent position should expect a guarantee that the position would last
forever, or seek any kind of contractual guarantee from a company (I doubt any company would be foolish enough to agree to something like that).
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).
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.
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.
