Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Let me run a few terms past you (we can quibble about each, but this > seems to be the general set I've seen - there are variations within > each): I think your terms and definitions are reasonable, so I won't quibble about those. I've been on both sides of most of those terms. And none of them are as rigid as you state, of course, because there is a lot of gray area in any definition list. I've seen contractors be told exactly what to do and be micro-managed (and they put up with it or they lose the contract), and I've seen employees be let free to roam and do what they thought was best because they were hired to be smart. > * Employee - generally at will employment, most positions within a company, can be > told what to do, when to do it and how to do it generally by anyone above them in the > food chain. Generally only has a single employer (at least for salaried employees). Your use of "can be" in the employee definition is the important part. Its not the definitions of the position type that matters. It's how we, as the organization and people that are defining the role interact and manage said role. If we want to attract and keep good talent for the critical RSE role, then the way to do that is by being the type of organization and manager that will attract talented folks and make them want to stick around regardless of the business relationship type we select. [...other quotes snipped for length...] -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
