I ran across this article today and to be honest I felt it to be a bit harsh. I personally have never been in a contract-to-hire situation so I can't really agree or disagree with the article on personal experience. On the surface I do however think that contract-to-hire is intended to be heavily weighted in the employers favor.
https://blog.storagecraft.com/contract-hire-positons/
Sounds like someone got burned on a contract-to-hire position
makes no mention of the at-will employment for the FTE.
Yes, no firm ever describes a position as "Full time position with potential to become a contractor role," a hire-to-contract, if you will.
But that's also the reality. Just about everything in the USA is weighted in the employers' favor.
"Consultants live a less settled life but generally earn higher salaries and advance in their careers faster, see more diverse environments, get a better chance to learn and grow, are pushed harder, and have more flexibility. There are many factors which can make consulting or contracting intentionally a sensible decision. Intentional contracting is very often favored by younger professionals looking to grow quickly and gain experience that they otherwise could not obtain."
This was pretty accurate imo. That being said, from what I have witnessed C2H is fairly common in the gov'mnt contracting world. The recruiting company will make their bones before turning the contractor over to the prime as an at-will employee.
C2H is also more likely if the hiring firm has a contract in place with the employer that defines timeframes and how the hiring firm is compensated for matriculating a candidate.