AIBU to take this job risk?

[SmashedPots]

I'm the main earner in the house. Mortgage and bills all covered by me.

I like my current job.

My perfect job came up in another organisation. But it's just an interim post (3 months) with "possibility of extension".

I've got an interview.

DH says I'm being irresponsible. 2 DC. 1 big mortgage. Recesssion. Don't give up permanent safe job for a 3 month role.

I hope I could impress them enough to get them to keep me. But it's a gamble.

DH says I'm being unreasonable even considering it.

What do others think?

Interview and ask what the long term prospects are. I wouldn't leave a job for a 3 month opportunity as the main breadwinner, I agree that is irresponsible (as presumably your household finances rely on your wage).

I agree with your dh.

I think that's crazy tbh

I'm a risk taker but not even I would take a 3m contract in your situation.

Do certainly interview to see what the possibility of long term role is. Although if it's a 3m contact I'd imagine they might want someone who is available soon, rather than waiting for a notice period.

No way! That ‘possibility of extension’ isn’t serious, it’s just there as bait otherwise they’d get no applicants at all.

Nope.

Most temp jobs will say possibility of extension but most do actually mean it- it's used as bait to get better candidates

Not unreasonable to consider it, nor to interview. You might as well find out more about it. But you would be foolish to take a 3-month contract at the moment. I'd be surprised if they'll find many candidates who want a 3-month role to be honest - it's a candidates' market at the moment and unless it's silly money I doubt many people would sign up to 3 months only.

You never know, they may be willing to negotiate on that point, so worth pursuing the conversation even if this precise role doesn't work out.

You could also ask about the nature of the vacancy they are trying to fill. If it's a new role they are trying out your plan might work, but if it's covering for someone who has gone off on a 3 month sabatical and is promised his or her job back you know it will not be more than 3 months. Tbh I would probably ask the recruiter that before I attended the interview, to avoid wasting time.

Too risky. Maybe if the contract was for 12m, but even then I’m not sure. And as the new firm, I think I might wonder whether something had gone wrong at your current employer to make you even consider this. Although they have given you an interview I suppose.

Too reckless at any time. But in the current chaos we’re in? No way.

Perfect job but just three months? nah. That extension will be dependent on budget, performance, staffing and things not changing in the company the three months you're in the job. Wouldn't do it in your current job circs - and I don't have a mortgage or children.

Going against the grain it seems but I'd go for it. Although with the caveat that there's enough in savings to cover if there's a break in your employment afterwards and/or you continue to look for alternatives and not just rely on the possibility to extend.

No I wouldn’t take that gamble. Even if you do impress them - 3 months is either a medium term cover (and increasing head count may not be possible) or a foray into something new - so client has not been secured or they aren’t really sure what they want. If you had another wage to rely on I would try but not if you’re the stable income

if you like your current job, i wouldn't move for a 3 month fixed term contract.

i worked fixed term contracts for a few years and other then a few months during lockdown 1.0, i've always had work. But, when i've had to look for work, i couldn't be fussy what jobs i take, because, like you, i'm the higher earner and life is expensive. personally, i'd hate to have left a job i enjoyed and ultimately end up somewhere awful.

depending on your job, it could take 3+ months to start a new job, so you'd have to start looking for another job right away, in case your contract wasn't extended.

there is nothing wrong with going for the interview though, as it's good practice and it will give you the chance to get yourself in front of the interview panel so you can find out the likelihood of an extension.

Is this a reverse?

3 months isn't long enough to make an impact for them to extend or make permanent. Sounds like they want someone in to quickly do the job and back out again or an easy way to get rid of someone quickly. As the main breadwinner with the recession I wouldn't consider anything less than 12 month contract and even then it would have to be the perfect employer and get the good feeling from the interview.

Do you know why it's 3 months?

Unless you've got a lot of savings and there's lots of other opportunities that come up regularly so you could find a new job quickly I wouldn't, especially as you're the main earner. I've done a couple of fixed term roles and I always started looking for new jobs about half way through because it can take months for the right job to come up.

@Butchyrestingface Why do you think it's a reverse?

We do have savings - but I would feel awful to run them down because of my decision. I guess I thought if I worked really hard I would ensure they wanted to keep me - but maybe i'm being naive. It's the company I've always wanted to work for & I've never seen a job I felt I have the qualifications for or any chance of getting. Now I have an interview, it's hard to not go for it. I don't want to mess them around and do the interview if I won't actually take the job. Gah. I guess you're all right. The family rely on me. The stress of not working and having all the bills pile up would be awful. No idea why it's 3 months. They are recruiting a lot so poss in a bit of a mess.

No, absolutely not. Stay put.

Interviews are a two way street. I’d do the interview but I’d want some very solid reasons for the three month timeframe.

Would your current workplace give you a sabbatical? Would it give you skills/network/something that would make you valuable to them?

It’s a nope from me. Three month posts like these are often created to satisfy employment laws during an internal restructure. There’s no real job there.

If it is only 3 months what would you do at the end of this? If there's a reasonable prospect of you being able to walk into contract work or other temporary positions then I would be more inclined to take a risk.
As pp have said it's worth going to the interview and finding out more

I think I'd go for the interview and if you get it then you've got a decision to make. Until you get an offer there is nothing to consider.

If they make an offer then you can consider whether to negotiate and say 3 months won't work but 12 months might. Although I once negotiated up to 6 months from a 3-month contract starting point and the organization in question later reneged on it because their requirements changed. But they were a smallish and quite shit company and I found something else anyway.

A FTC is the worst of all worlds imo, it's not a perm role and it's not a well-paid contract so I think they will really struggle to find anyone who'll want it and they might have to re-think anyway.

I think you should go for the interview and take it from there.

Also, how safe is your current job? How much do you have in savings? How much do you think you'll like the other job? What sort of reputation do the other company have?
I agree that it would be good to find out why it's only 3 months before you go for the interview though. It's a strange and unusual time requiremnt