At first glance, temporary staffing seems like the simplest solution to labor shortages: make a call, order workers, pay the hourly rate, and you’re done. It is precisely this simplicity that makes the cost calculations misleading. This article takes a sober look at what temporary staffing actually costs in the restaurant and hotel industries—the visible costs, the hidden ones, and the structural ones—honestly assesses where the model is still indispensable, and compares it to direct hiring. Without silo thinking: Both models have their legitimate place, but only one of them builds a team. And because people often argue about this topic based on half-knowledge, this comparison relies exclusively on official figures and the mechanics of the contracts—not on anecdotes.
How Temporary Work Is Calculated: The Billing Rate
Temporary staffing refers to a model in which a staffing agency employs workers and assigns them to client companies in exchange for compensation; the client company does not pay a wage, but rather an hourly rate to the staffing agency. This rate includes far more than just the worker’s wages: it covers the employer’s full share of social security contributions, provisions for vacation and sick leave, administrative costs, the agency’s recruitment costs—and its profit margin. In addition, depending on the contract, there are surcharges for night, weekend, and holiday work—in the restaurant and hotel industries, this is not a footnote but the norm.
The result is an hourly rate that is significantly higher than the gross hourly wage the company would pay one of its own employees in the same position. This is not a criticism, but rather a matter of business economics: The staffing agency bears employer risks and holding costs, and those must be covered. The key is simply that the comparison is calculated correctly—hourly rate versus the company’s full personnel costs, not versus the bare gross wage. Anyone making a fair comparison also factors in social security contributions, vacation and sick days, administrative costs, and the proportionate recruitment costs for their own staff. Only then do both sides reveal their true costs—and only then does it become clear just how large the remaining gap actually is. And even then, there remains a structural markup that adds up to a substantial sum over the course of months.
The numbers that aren’t included in any bid estimate
Two key metrics should be considered in every decision regarding temporary staffing, and neither appears in any proposal. The first: The turnover rate for temporary staffing is 128.6—more than twice as high as the already high rate in the hospitality industry of 60.5 (Federal Employment Agency, 2024). No other industry in Germany turns over its staff more quickly. For the client company, this means that the likelihood of someone else being at the reception desk next week is structurally high. Mind you: This is not a statement about individual staffing agencies or even about the temporary workers themselves—it is a statistic reflecting a business model built on turnover. But that is precisely why it must be factored into the calculations of a business that depends on continuity.
Second: Even the staffing agencies themselves are having a hard time finding workers. The average time a position remains unfilled in the temporary staffing sector is 196 days (Federal Employment Agency, 2026)—practically on par with the 198 days in the hospitality industry. The notion that a staffing agency has a pool of available workers to draw from at any time is an illusion in a depleted market: Temporary work merely shifts the recruitment problem; it does not solve it. Anyone who believes they can escape the 198-day reality by calling a staffing agency is calling someone who is searching within that same reality. In practice, this manifests itself in longer wait times for temporary workers, more frequent last-minute cancellations just before an assignment, and candidate profiles that have less to do with the job requirements than hoped for—not out of malice, but because the market has nothing else to offer. Anyone planning to use temporary staffing should factor this uncertainty in their budget—as a second pillar alongside, not in place of, their own HR efforts.
What Temporary Work Achieves — An Honest Appreciation
Clear communication works both ways, which is why the list of strengths belongs here as well. Temporary staffing is unbeatable when it comes to truly short-term needs: sick leave right before a fully booked weekend, a one-time major event, or bridging the gap between an employee’s termination and the hiring of a replacement. The company bears no employer risk, no continued pay, and no notice periods—it pays for availability, and that’s exactly what it gets, provided the staffing agency can deliver. Organizationally, the model is streamlined as well: no in-house recruitment, no contract negotiations, no payroll processing—just one invoice per month, and that’s it. For companies without their own HR department, this convenience is a reality—it’s only expensive if it becomes a permanent solution.
The model is also valuable as a trial run: Anyone who sees a temporary employee in action can make a more informed decision about hiring them than they could after just any job interview—provided the terms of employment have been reviewed in advance and not just when the time comes. In these cases, temporary work is the right tool, and no serious comparison should downplay that. The key is to draw a clear distinction: All these strengths apply only to exceptional cases. They disappear the moment the exception becomes the rule—and in practice, this transition happens gradually, extension by extension, because the next extension always seems cheaper than making a decision.
The Hidden Costs: Where the Calculation Falls Apart
The problems begin when a temporary solution becomes a permanent arrangement. First, there’s the training: Every new temporary worker costs the core team productivity during their first few days—with a turnover rate of 128.6, this expense recurs at short intervals and doesn’t appear on any of the staffing agency’s invoices. Second, quality: Rotating staff are unfamiliar with the menu, the regulars, or the procedures; the cost of this to service doesn’t appear on any of the staffing agency’s invoices, but it’s reflected in every review. Especially in establishments whose concept thrives on recognition—the regulars’ table, the family-run restaurant, the personal touch—the constant turnover is noticeable to guests long before it shows up in the numbers. Third, team dynamics: A core team that is constantly training new staff without anyone staying eventually wears itself out—and the establishment’s own staff turnover rises along with it. Fourth, finally, the illusion of planning: Because temporary contracts are so easy to extend, in many businesses they quietly replace the actual staffing decision. Month after month is bridged, and the structural gap—which would have long since required a permanent hire—remains unaddressed—including the lead time that elapses in the meantime.
Added to this are the legal safeguards of the Temporary Employment Act, which deliberately make the model unattractive for long-term use: After nine months of assignment, the principle of equal pay takes effect, and assignment to the same company is limited to 18 months, unless a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise. At this point, at the latest, the revolving door starts all over again—or negotiations begin for a permanent hire, for which staffing agencies typically charge a fee—meaning that the supposedly “agency-free” path ultimately results in a placement fee after all, only after months of surcharges rather than before them. These guidelines are not a design flaw, but rather the intent of the legislature: temporary staffing is meant to cushion peaks in demand, not to replace permanent workforces. Anyone planning long-term assignments is therefore planning either recurring changes or a placement fee through the back door.
A Comparison of Temporary Work and Direct Hiring
That brings us to the actual comparison. Temporary staffing incurs an ongoing surcharge for every single hour worked, on a permanent basis, without creating any long-term commitment—the employee remains an employee of the staffing agency. Direct placement involves a one-time fee upon successful placement; after that, the employee becomes part of your own team, with her own contract, her own career development, and her own sense of commitment. Calculated over the long term, the balance therefore inevitably shifts: The longer the need persists, the more expensive the ongoing surcharge becomes compared to the one-time fee—and the greater the impact of the hidden costs associated with onboarding, quality, and team burnout. The threshold at which permanent hiring becomes more cost-effective varies depending on the position and terms—but it almost always comes sooner than the convenience of the current model would suggest. If you want to know exactly, compare the annual total of the ongoing fees to the one-time placement fee; the calculation takes ten minutes and puts an end to most internal discussions faster than any fundamental debate about models.
The success-based model takes this comparison a step further in one respect: the risk of the search lies with the placement agency, not with the company. Payment is made upon success—not for availability, which no one can guarantee in the current market anyway. That is the structural difference between the models: temporary staffing sells hours, while recruitment agencies sell placements—and only the latter aligns with what a company with ongoing needs actually wants to buy.
When to Choose Which Model
Ultimately, the decision-making rule is simple, straightforward, and follows three clear steps. First, determine the duration of the need: a few days to a few weeks suggest temporary work, while months and years point to a permanent position. Second, assess whether the need is recurring: A need that recurs every season is not a short-term need, but a structural one—and it requires a structural solution, as our article on seasonal staff versus permanent employment explains in detail. Third, consider the role: Key positions involving contact with guests and the team cannot tolerate high turnover; but they can easily handle temporary staff to cover peak periods. Anyone who answers these three questions honestly no longer needs a consultant to choose the right model—just consistency in implementation—and, in the case of long-term needs, the courage to actually start the search instead of continuing to make do with temporary solutions.
Temporary work is the band-aid; a permanent hire is the treatment. Anyone who wears the band-aid for months on end not only pays for it continuously—they also put off the treatment, whose lead time slips away unused in the meantime. With an average vacancy period of 198 days, this is the most expensive option of all: first paying ongoing surcharges for months on end, only to have to start the search all over again in the end. Our overview of labor migration to Germany in 2026 outlines the legal avenues available for permanent staffing.
Sources: Federal Employment Agency (turnover rate by economic sector, 2024; vacancy durations, 2026); Temporary Employment Act.
