Not a fan. We tend to react to offers like this as if they were obviously equitable: after all, we're getting paid for the time even if we're not good matches. But the offers are never equitable, because they're almost invariably calibrated to your starting salary. In other words, "we'll pay you for two weeks, and then, if it works out, we'll commit to paying you indefinitely".

In the real market, a commitment to pay only two weeks comes attached to a drastic jump in your rate. If you expect a $100k offer, your 2-week rate isn't $50/hr; it's probably something much closer to $100/hr. There are a lot of reasons for this:

* Your cost basis as a contractor is higher than your cost basis as an employee; for instance, you're paying ~2x payroll tax, and paying to maintain your own health insurance.

* Your full-time salary includes a sizable discount that buys continuous payment, even when you aren't being utilized. A contractor doesn't make a dime when they're not doing billable work.

* Your rate includes the opportunity cost of not doing whatever else it was you could have been doing (if there's nothing you can be doing except accepting this offer, I guess you can't really negotiate it --- but then, fix THAT problem, stat.)

There's more not to like about these temp-to-perm arrangements. For starters, in a lot of jobs, the first N weeks of your employment are going to be your least productive. A lot of that time is going to be spent ramping up. One wonders whether offers like this are a manipulative way of getting people to work their asses off to minimize ramp-up cost; that practice would obviously be abusive.

Downthread, 'gruseom says he wishes offers like this were more common, because the risk of a bad fit with a new role cuts both ways. But it doesn't! Employment virtually everywhere in the US is at will. If you're in a bad fit, just leave; or, better yet, negotiate with the company owners, confident that you have a strong BATNA (what do you have to lose?).

If you come across a gig that wants to do this temp-to-perm dance, and you're amenable to it, my advice is to ask instead to just do a series of contracting gigs at a reasonable rate instead of taking full-time employment. Let the prospective employer get used to the idea of working with you, and do that at a contractor rate, so that when the time comes to cut over to full-time, your salary requirements automatically look sane in comparison.

More people should learn how to freelance. If a job's going to force you to do it, seize the opportunity to do it right.

Are they technical founders or business based? I have seen this personally from non-tech founders and they use it as a trial. I think logn gave you great advice. If you are interested, negotiate your perm salary and benefits before doing the 2 week "trail".

I say this because I witnessed exactly this just 2 months ago and the small business did it as a way to try and figure out if the developer could do the job and then decided the rate they would pay and it was a bad situation. I was a contractor helping this same business and terminated my relationship with them once I delivered my promises, and the main reason was after seeing their methods to hiring. I feel it was intentional to see what they could use to low ball this dev, who left a full time position.

Just my 2 cents. Doesn't mean it happens like that everywhere. I really like logn's idea, makes perfect sense and protects everyone involved.

This is very common, perhaps even the norm for web development shops. Not sure about start-ups. Probably almost never happens with big corps.

I don't see a problem with it. I don't care what my employment status is as long as I'm getting paid. The only difference between contractor and employee is the forms that the employer needs to fill out and that's not my problem. However, if I'm working as a contractor then I'm not going to change anything for the employer. I'm still going to charge my contractor rates and I'm still going to take in new contract work. It's too much of a risk to throw my business cycle out of whack while the employer tries to make a decision.

You should have your fulltime offer terms in writing for when they do hire you full-time. You don't want to be surprised, especially if you're leaving another job.

If they are good guys then they are aware that 2 weeks would give them enough time to see if you can do the job or not - very fair and sensible.

If they are bad guys then they know that once you accept a 2 week contract then you will probably have to turn down any other offers you get in the next few days as a result of other interviews. They can then offer you (if you pan out) a contract renewal with a longer term at a lower rate.

Tricky...

yes this is normal, especially if outside the bay area