George Magklaras wrote: > mark wrote: > >> Let's also not forget that consultant rates are higher than employee pay >> rates, *and* there's the loading for the consulting co itself; the result >> is that it costs a company *more* for a consultant than for an employee. >> > > I swear I did not want to get into this but I can't :-) . Consultants do > cost more than employ rates, but every descent non corrupt management (from > the technical lead to the Director or whatever) makes a decision to employ a > consultant to either stop the company from loosing money or jumpstart the > company to higher earnings. Capable consultants do not just cost more, they > bring more value. If the opposite happens, management is either corrupt, > clueless or contracts did not have clauses to role over bad consultants. *sigh* First, the arguments I've heard for consultants include the idea that "it's easier to get rid of them than a Real Employee". And I've worked as both an employee and as a consultant. I've usually been considered valued. How would *I* "bring more value" as a consultant than as an employee? Or, for that matter, trust me, I've seen consultants I *really* didn't want to be working on systems or code. It seems to me that there *is* too much willfully ignorant management (along with Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss, and along with, apparently, 90% or so of HR) who have no idea of what the people who work for them do (it all falls under the heading of "a miracle occurs here", and trust me, several times, I've been that miracle, and the hours that it took...). Of course, it *is* those (as a buddy of mine likes to put it) clue-hostile managers who *don't* get rid of the bad employees *or* consultants, and confuse salary/rate with quality. <snip> > (Ex consultant, current employee :-) ) mark, currently between positions :-((( -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
