Fixed-term employment contract financing?

I think here you can rather see what kind of people think they have to comment on everything on the internet and just talk know-it-all nonsense. Fixed-term contracts are nothing unusual in the public sector and do not mean that you end up on the street afterward. Just ask an employee at the university how many decades they have been "hanging" from contract to contract. It is not uncommon at all that only 5 out of 35 employees there are permanent staff. And even 15 years ago, fixed-term contracts in the public sector were by no means an obstacle for real estate financing. Anyone whose daily bread depends on this knows the situation and probably would not come up with the idea to claim that this entails an increased default risk for the bank.

Exactly how it looks, but as described in detail, the fixed term is no longer a bogeyman for the majority of banks at all!

I also have a fixed-term contract and am alone. During the interview directly at the bank, I was asked and I said that I have been with this employer since 2003 (ÖD), and the positions are simply limited from project to project. That then posed no problem at all. I also do not have to justify why I prefer to keep a position that I really enjoy this way rather than looking elsewhere. And it is certainly not the case that I would not find anything. In the general questions with the intermediary, however, I already had to indicate the fixed-term contract.

I also have a fixed-term contract and am alone. In the interview directly at the bank, I was asked and I said that I have been with this employer since 2003 (public sector), and the positions are fixed-term from project to project. That then posed no problem at all. I also do not have to justify why I prefer to keep a position that I really enjoy in this way rather than looking elsewhere. And it is certainly not the case that I wouldn’t find anything else.

In the general questions with the agent, I had already had to indicate the fixed-term nature.

I find it totally crazy.. isn’t it prohibited by law? Or does your public sector employer always change?

That's quite a gray area! Basically, there shouldn't really be chain contracts (repeated fixed-term contracts), unless there is a project commitment. But even with recurring project-related fixed-term contracts, an employee can theoretically eventually sue for a permanent position.

However, exactly this fact means that nowadays there are some public service offices that also ensure that this does not happen, which in the "worst case" means that the contract simply is not renewed. This was the case with my old employer; it became increasingly difficult to get extensions, as theoretically there were already a larger number of employees who could have sued (whether one actually wants that is another matter). Fortunately, for me the opportunity arose to switch to a permanent position in the public service, where I am just as happy.

Basically, a fixed-term contract for funding is indeed not an obstacle!

I find it totally crazy.. isn't it prohibited by the legislator? Or do you always change your public service employer?

Oh, there are quite a few loopholes... sometimes you are, according to the contract, just a maternity cover in between and suddenly it's not a fixed-term contract without objective reason anymore and therefore no problem. With project-based fixed-term contracts it's even less problematic as far as I know... to prevent that, the laws would need to be significantly revised

I find it totally crazy.. isn’t it prohibited by the legislator? Or do you keep changing your public sector employer?

I believe the public sector is pretty much the only one allowed to do this. And uses it excessively.