Re: Subject: RE: Did ya ever wonder??

Subject: Re: Subject: RE: Did ya ever wonder??
From: Rebecca Merck <Rebecca -dot- Merck -at- ONESOFT -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 15:24:56 -0400

Oh, I've been trying to stay clear on this one, but I just can't. I see it
both ways.

1. You have an investment in your employees, and their continued happiness.


2. You don't want to waste money by ensuring that someone who is charging a
higher hourly rate (as a consultant) doesn't have the resources to do their
job expediently.

So all things being equal, all computers should be equal.

But this isn't a perfect world, and sometimes the answer IS that you have a
nice shiny PIII 500 and a 486 with 24 MB of RAM. Obviously you lose by
saddling EITHER the employee or the consultant with the dog-slow machine.
Either you pay the consultant extra to do the job on a cruddy machine, or
you pay the employee for the hours it takes to move from one machine to the
other, get software loaded, get things configured, get network issues
resolved, etc., when the task is over than the consultant leaves.
Meanwhile, you run the risk of the employee saying, "Doggoneit, they give
the consultants all the good machines!" and resigning, when you have to pay
for the hours of your own time and HR to hire to replace the disgruntled.

There are expenses in both directions. It's expensive for ANYONE to be on
inadequate equipment. That's all there is to it.

On the other hand, as a manager who has overseen the work of both full time
staff and consultants, often doing the same type of job, side by side, I do
feel that I have an ongoing investment in my permanent employees. When the
question of training comes up, I'm faster to train someone who has made a
committment to stay with the company. When the question of benes like going
to corporate meetings (which in some places I've worked were a lot of fun,
believe it or not), I'm going to send a permanent employee first, because
unless I am attempting to permanently hire the consultant, it is more
important to me to encourage "brand loyalty" in the employee. And when I
have the choice between giving a slightly better machine to a consultant or
a permanent employee, I know that the long-term feeling of being valued is
more important in a permanent employee than in a consultant with a limited
timespan with the company. And if I have the choice between giving MYSELF a
better computer or a better computer to someone who reports to me, guess
what? I think it should go to the employee, THEN the consultant, first,
before me.

I think it's VERY important to differentiate between the issue of giving
someone, ANYONE, inadequate equipment to perform their job, and whether a
consultant or employee should get first crack at adequate versus kick-butt
equipment. In the former case, there is no question -- NO ONE should have
equipment that prevents them from doing the job they are assigned. In the
latter case, there are a HUGE number of factors, not just the hourly rate of
the consultant, to be considered.

But I'd rather have a perfect world where everyone has all the tools to do
the job -- then, this would all be irrelevant.

-Rebecca


From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=



Previous by Author: Re: Should I Say Something?
Next by Author: The Skinny on the great disappearing FrameMaker rumor
Previous by Thread: Re: Subject: RE: Did ya ever wonder??
Next by Thread: Re: Subject: RE: Did ya ever wonder??


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads