I’ve noticed a recent trend in job listings for the media industry, which is the only industry I pay attention to, because that’s what I do. Scanning the biochemistry classifieds wouldn’t do me much good.
Anyway, back to the trend: I am seeing more and more listings for positions that are full-time, but only for a set term — three months, six months. Some dangle the carrot of a potential full-time offer when the time period ends, and some don’t.
I have always been reluctant to pursue any of these types of jobs. The way I look at it, I am not happy at all with where I am now, so why would I want to virtually guarantee that I’ll be in the same situation in three months, six months, or whatever?
My goal, as it has been since the day I walked out of my former place of employment in October 2008, is to secure a full-time job. I feel like committing to full-time work for a short period of time will take away the flexibility of being able to go on interviews, which, in all fairness, wouldn’t be right for me to do, anyway, after making a three-month or six-month commitment. I don’t want to deny myself the opportunity of finding a full-time job, only to find myself back on the unemployment line weeks later.
However, that being said, I may be forced to reconsider my position. Interviews have been few and far between recently. In fact, since returning from my honeymoon in mid-May, I have gone on a whopping total of one interview.
But I still can’t get past the concept of leaving myself in a situation where I’ll have absolutely nothing when the assignment ends. Is it worth making more money for the duration of the job, only to have nothing coming in afterward, or does it make more sense to stick with the two freelance jobs I have now
and retain my flexibility and my availability to snap up the full-time job that has been so evasive for the past 21-plus months?
Being unemployed is a series of ups and downs, and I’m heading downhill quickly right now. It’s been a long time since I’ve been this confused.