Contract or Full Time Employment

Lleep35 on 02/06/2024 - 11:46

Currently employed under a 2 year contract which states there will be no extension or possibility of permanent employment with a Federal government department.

Served 18 months with 6 months remaining and I am 61 and in good health.

Last week my line manager approached me to offer an another 2 year contract or full time employment.

On initial acceptance of terms of the contract I was happy with the 2 year term then cruise into retirement phase.
Financially I can fund a comfortable retirement with super + investments returns 100k per year.
My partner is still enjoying work and the R word has not been discussed.
Mentally / emotionally prepared well that's another hurdle.

Manager is aware of my age and retirement is near.
They are desperate for qualified staff since the last CEO butchered the staffing levels on a national basis.

Work environment is field based and does provide a variety of work tasks.

This has throw a curve ball in my grand plan.

The Clash song " Should I stay or Should I go " is rattling in my head

Open to Ozbargainers wise thoughts.

Education & Work

Comments

  • altomic on 02/06/2024 - 11:57
    +14

    Do you find satisfaction in the work? If yes then Stay. 2 years. Get money.

    • marcozmitch on 04/06/2024 - 10:54

      Actually retiring can be more deadly than keeping on working.
      If you are in good health and are happy doing the work, keep going, until it is no longer enjoyable.
      If you are offerred a 4 day week, you can see if having extra days free is good or bad.
      If you are good at your job keep doing it.
      Money should not be as great a motivation as good health.

  • Hardlyworkin on 02/06/2024 - 12:16
    +4

    Can you do a progressive plan towards retirement? For example doing part time hours? If this is of interest to you.

    • Pikaloo on 02/06/2024 - 13:07
      +4

      Yes, Federal government is very flexible/accommodating. You could go less hours per day, less days per week, etc. I'd go permanent if retirement was 5+ years away.

  • Downvoter on 02/06/2024 - 12:26

    Work to live or live to work

  • amorn on 02/06/2024 - 12:32

    Only work if its what you would even after retirement.

  • AngoraFish on 02/06/2024 - 12:40
    +4

    Your terminology is weird, why would you prefer "another 2 year contract" (length of tenure) in preference to "full time employment" (number of hours worked, ie 36-40). I assume that you just mean "contract or permanent".

    There is literally no benefit to being on a full time contract compared to being full time permanent. In both cases either you or your employer can terminate early, however you get a raft of other benefits from a permanent position, such as consideration for other roles (if one came up that interested you), redundancy payments, just staying with them longer if you decide to do that, and also other accommodations, such as they would need to reasonably consider any requests to move from full time to part time hours.

    Who knows how you'll feel in two years, or what your life circumstances will be. My workplace had a 70th birthday party for one of my colleagues literally last week and he's still enjoying work and being active.

    In fact, retirement can be a danger period for some people if you don't have a clear plan. Retirement can sound attractive, but it commonly leads to boredom, alcoholism, social isolation and depression, depending on your social networks outside of work and how active you are, and how willing you are to sign up to things like the local Senior Citizens Club, a Men's Shed, or the University of the Third Age (U3A).

    I literally can't think of a single reason why you would not be better off accepting a permanent position. If you did decide to retire in six months there is nothing stopping you either way.

    • bobbified on 02/06/2024 - 13:04
      +4

      There is literally no benefit to being on a full time contract compared to being full time permanent

      A contract (either fixed term or 'daily' rate) usually involves higher pay than a normal permanent role, as a trade-off for job security and/or annual/sick leave and public holidays..

        • bobbified on 02/06/2024 - 13:13
          +1

          it's just permanent employment with an end date.

          That's what's commonly known as a "fixed term contract". The rate offered is usually higher because of that end date.
          I usually go for one (fixed term) or another (daily rate contractor) over a permanent role for this higher rate.

          There's more info here > https://www.seek.com.au/career-advice/article/fixed-term-emp…

        • Pikaloo on 02/06/2024 - 13:14
          +2

          You might be mistaking it for fixed term contract. There's also being a contractor where you are contracted 6 months at a time sometimes with a maximum times that the contract can be extended. These 6 month contracts are higher paid 30%+, if it's government it'll be a lot more and no benefits as mentioned above.

        • SlickMick on 03/06/2024 - 08:36
          +1

          Skilled contractors get a higher rate, without exeption in my experience.

          I'm aware of the issue you're referring to, were unskilled casual staff are missing out on all the perks unions fought for decades to get. I totally support this legislation.

  • SBOB on 02/06/2024 - 12:54
    +1

    Last week my line manager approached me to offer an another 2 year contract or full time employment.

    I assume the contractor payrate is higher.
    If not, I dont see why you wouldnt choose door #2 with its increased future flexibility for the same $

  • MessyG on 02/06/2024 - 14:37
    +6

    OP without a clear plan with what to do for your retirement I would keep on for another couple of years. The money will be a nice bonus, but I think you should sit down with your partner and discuss retirement and what that looks like. It's something that is quite invisible to society but a lot of people come apart in retirement because while they've planned financially, they've not planned what they will do with their days. If you've a good idea of the things you want to do, and these things will sustain you for the next 20 odd years, and you'll be financially well off doing so, then walk off into that sunset. But if you don't, use the next two years to come up with a plan and some projects to keep your brain active and you feeling relevant to the world. Retirement is not an end, it's a beginning.

    • miwahni on 02/06/2024 - 23:30
      +1

      Absolutely this. I moved into my current role at work 18 months ago when the incumbent retired at 75. I spoke to him not long back and he is still struggling to find some meaning in his life, now that his work identity has been stripped away. Sad really.

      • SlickMick on 03/06/2024 - 08:38
        +1

        This.

        Don't retire unless you have a plan. People without a purpose don't last long.

  • Gdsamp on 02/06/2024 - 14:49

    i believe there have been changes to Fair work act that affect non-ongoing APS employees that might be pertinent to you.

    Guidance on non-ongoing engagements and changes to the Fair Work Act 2009

    In particular, read the guidance document (word doc)

    What is meant by a contract renewal and consecutive contract?

    A contract renewal is where an existing engagement is extended beyond the original contract period. From 6 December 2023, a contract renewal can’t have an option to:
    • extend or renew the contract so that the period lasts longer than 2 years, or
    • extend or renew the contract more than once (only two contract terms are permitted).

    A consecutive contract is where a new fixed term engagement is offered to an employee following a previous fixed term contract. From 6 December 2023, a consecutive contract cannot be offered if:
    • the employee’s previous contract was also for a fixed term and
    • their previous contract and the new contract are for the same or substantially similar work and
    • there is not a substantial break in the employment relationship between contracts and
    • Any of the following apply:
    o the previous contract had an option to extend that was used
    o the total engagement period for the consecutive contracts is more than two years
    o the new fixed term contract has an option to extend or renew or
    o there was an initial contract in place (before the previous contract):

    • that was for a fixed term,
    • for the same or similar work and
    • where there was either no time between contracts or the period of time between the contracts wasn’t long enough to create a break in the employment relationship.
  • leep35 on 02/06/2024 - 16:40

    Taking on board all comments so far.

    Just to clarify job position conditions , 38hour week , pay rates and entitlements ie super 14% , annual / sick leave
    are the same for the contract or permanent position offer.

    Gdamp is correct with terms and conditions of short term contracts.
    I say HR is aware of this ruling.

    Possibly in the 2 year contract scenario I won't be entitled to any redundancy payments where as the permanent position will be offered redundancy payments.

    I commented to my manager if I take the permanent position and I decide to leave at later stage will the position be advertised to maintain staff levels.

    Retirement is not the end ( death is ) but a new beginning into the unknown.

    Retirement plans will provide a rough guideline which direction to head but what actually happens may be two different things.

    It will be challenging since throughout our schooling / career we are programmed to work

    Like most retirees wish list is to travel OS and possibly live overseas for 1 or 2 years while our health / mobility is still good.
    Yes I have to a serious discussion with my partner about the "retirement plan"

    Current workplace allows national travel , good laugh with bunch of blokes , involves field based technical work
    I don't have the dreading coming to work on Monday thoughts yet.

    • bobbified on 02/06/2024 - 17:43
      +2

      Just to clarify job position conditions , 38hour week , pay rates and entitlements ie super 14% , annual / sick leave
      are the same for the contract or permanent position offer.

      So what exactly are you actually asking? Whether you should retire or not?

    • adn on 04/06/2024 - 06:14
      +1

      If the pay rate is the same, go full time.

  • localhost on 02/06/2024 - 21:05
    +1

    In both cases you can terminate with 2-4 weeks notice. Just start which one is suitable for you and use that money to fix/repair you house, buy new car, etc…
    After that you will have to enjoy retirement and not doing any big purchases…

  • ozbargainoid on 03/06/2024 - 09:14
    +1

    Due to age, I think the permanent position would offer more suitable benefits like sick leave etc.

  • 2esc on 03/06/2024 - 10:41
    +3

    Retirement plans?

    How long is a piece of string?

    Dont leave it too late my dad worked his guts out his whole life retired started a big trip around Australia only to come back early 6 months later to die of cancer.

    Coworker retired at 74 and 2 years later dead. Ive heard this many many times locally.

    If you have the opportunity to retire and dont 110% love the job then retire.

    As much as they say there is a skill shortage out there lots of people it given the opportunity will make a career change.

    I will retire first opportunity i get that doesnt mean i will never work again but it will be when i want to. My wife has only gone back to work and is thinking career wise ive had the discussion with her if she's working and im retired im not waiting for her ill do that trip or what ever.

    Life is way too short to just work.

  • cordsplace on 03/06/2024 - 16:13

    There have been a lot of great thoughts and ideas from OZ family here. There has been a lot of discussion re permanent or contract. In your position i do not think it counts. as everyone has said you do get a higher rate to compensate for the loss of leave, sick leave and super. Re the latter, I think super may now be payable to those on longer term contracts. The best advice given in this debate is the one re leaving the workforce without a plan and the impact that retirement may have on some people on a social and mental side.

    I've seen the impact when workers, particularly those in senior positions suddenly find themselves as just another person, no workmates to converse with and no plan as to where they go next. If you (and your wife) are looking forward to retirement and that the plans you have like travelling around Australia, numerous trips around the world, seeing family more and developing your serious hobby then that's great but if that's not you then rethink the about retiring. I left my main job at the age of 56 through redundancy with a good payout. As a single guy I took 6 months off and travelled to the UK and US where I have family.

    I came back to some job offers overseas and spent 2 year in Thailand for a major accounting firm. I then bought a struggling business and spent 3 years building back up before selling it. Took 18 months of and then went back to work as a contractor for a family own business and worked there 4 days a week until 2 weeks past my 70th birthday. It was great. I was in the workforce, I had a reason to get up (4.45am) each day (left at 3.30). When I hit 70 my employer and good friend said I think we should find your replacement and I accepted that and went travelling, fishing and did all the things I wanted to do.The other advantage of a longer working life was never having to touch my super and in fact I was adding to it each year. I'm now 82, in good health and I think working as long as I wanted to was a great help.

    leep 35 it was a great question, lots of differing views but most very helpful.

  • justworld on 03/06/2024 - 20:06

    I would never work other than for a contract. The 'security' of full time employment really means you're getting entitlements (like protections and sick leave) that you probably don't need or can't maximise, while losing out on the higher pay afforded to contractors. If you are good at what you do you don't need the protections anyway. I worked most of uni as a full-time casual and loved the flexibility and higher pay. Then worked for a firm as a permanent and got bored out of my mind with the lockstep pay and politics. Happily waltzed out of there to go into self employment.

  • mrvaluepack on 04/06/2024 - 06:55

    You already found a place that appreciates you. How certain are you to be able to find another contract position else where if you quit this job? A bird in the hand…

  • Nebargains on 04/06/2024 - 07:54

    Maybe you aren't ready for retirement if you are even contemplating this? I know a few people who have taken the plunge and retired only to find them working a few days a week 6 months later with a variety of excuses but I suspect it is because they have nothing else to do.

  • S Baldrick on 04/06/2024 - 09:07

    2 year contractor position, or 2 year fixed-term contract?

    If it's the latter - go full-time and just retire when you feel like it (assuming pay is similar).

  • field1985 on 04/06/2024 - 09:42

    I would go full-time now, make the most of it while it lasts, don't burn yourself out, build up leave and entitlements. The economy is heading for recession and unemployment will only increase from here.

    By the time you do want to reduce your workload, but not stop (ie part-time/advisory), you will be in a better negotiating position then if you take a two year contract now and end up on cutting room floor.

    That can still happen if you are permanent, but at least you get a payout of your entitlements (accrued leave, long service, etc) as greater job security going into a very difficult time for people on fixed incomes.

  • Poor Ass on 04/06/2024 - 09:43

    investments returns 100k per year

    what's this invested in?

    • Eeples on 04/06/2024 - 09:51
      -2

      Who cares?

      • Poor Ass on 04/06/2024 - 10:01
        +2

        obviously I do because I asked the question?

  • Something Darkside on 04/06/2024 - 09:48
    +1

    Retire to something not from something. If you don't have a plan of what to do after you finish work you are probably go a bit crazy without some structure.

  • MMM on 04/06/2024 - 12:13

    Similar age here and the song rattling in my head is…

    "Will you still need me, will you still feed me
    When I'm sixty-four"… Beatles

  • AustriaBargain on 04/06/2024 - 12:23

    I'd retire. You didn't once say you enjoy your work. Unless you do enjoy your work, then take the contract. Say you had 10 years left to live, would you want to spend two years of it working?

  • R4 on 04/06/2024 - 12:40

    I'm kind of in a similar situation to you. Not quite at the level of financial security as you but will be in a few years. I'm a contractor and have been for most of my working life - in my industry the vast majority of us are as we earn substantially more than being permanent and there is usually always work available for continuity. I would only take a permanent role if the offer was exceptional. As a contractor in the past, I've been kept on even when permanent people have been let go. For me permanent employment is a scam to pay you less - I don't care what others on here think about this standpoint as it works for me and my peers and I'm not going to debate it. So. I'd go for the contract role.

    Personally, I'm not ready to retire. It actually scares me a bit if I'm being frank - I like the discipline of work and work culture. I could afford to retire now if we budgeted carefully, but I'm now involved in flying aircraft and want to continue with that - and it's not cheap! I'm planning to get an aircraft and that requires a bit of cash, for purchase and ongoing costs. So, a few more years of work it is!

  • ledgisv2 on 07/06/2024 - 19:38

    What have you invested in to get investment returns of 100k per year?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join