Agree that this is the exact opposite of my experience as a contractor in the UK. I work as a contractor because the money is much better and because I have access to a wide variety of interesting projects. In the UK the contractors have the power - the companies I work for would hire me full time if they could.

Similar situation here. The company I'm currently contracting for mentioned they struggle to find experienced Scala devs who will interview for permanent roles.

I think this is an U.S thing where this kind of division has sprung up - so you have contractor ("temp", "paid less") full-time employee consultant ("paid more")

There is a pretty important distinction here -- We have seen in the US consulting market (at large corporations) an influx of 90s style contractor arrangements for staff augmentation. This is basically the counter to failed outsourcing efforts. These contractors almost entirely work for large groups like Robert Half, Tata, Infosys, Tek Systems and others.

We also still have a very very strong consultant labor force making 2-3x what W2 full-time employees can pull in. These consultants generally work through smaller consulting firms that take smaller cuts for the placement/handling billing and invoicing.

I'd classify it into three groups for the UK...

Perm - Mid level benefits + Pay (maybe options in a startup)

Contractor - Individual with their own Ltd company, pays less tax and much higher take home pay but without any benefits.

Consultant - On-site via a supplier on a framework of some kind, however, often a permanent employee of the supplier with the supplier cashing in the margin.

At least 50% of the tech workforce in companies I work with or where peers are at in London are made up of contractors, especially in Banking.

Contractors get paid way more in the US especially on the East Coast because they usually have to take care of their own benefits and taxes

Totally agree with you here. The contracting market in the UK (particularly London) is much more lucrative than relative permanent roles, even when their benefits are taken into account. It's actually more lucrative on tax here, though the Gov't are trying their best to change that.

It's also my experience that you get what you pay for, contractors in the whole tend to have a much wider breadth of knowledge from various sectors and hit the ground running whereas I don't tend to see the same appetite from Permanent employees (in most cases!).

IBM used this kinda of contractor quite a lot in the 2000s and a bit later; I don't know if it does anymore.