On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:24 PM, mark <m.roth2006@xxxxxxx> wrote: > hike wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM, mark <m.roth2006@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > how do you bring more value as a consultant over an employee? > > > > (1) as highly paid experts, consultants are listened to and their advice > is > > listened to; the employee is just "overhead". rember, a memorized > O'Reilly > > book is worth more than a Ph.D. any day. > > ROTFLMAO!!! > > Sorry, but I, and most other consultants I know, get listened to once in a > while; in general, we do what our manager tells us to do. Except in a > *truly* > management clusterf*ck, I've not seen a consultant offer better advice, > though > I have, once or twice, seen one listened to when an employee who said the > same > thing was ignored. > > > (2) as a consultant, you can leave any time you want; as "overhead", the > employee > > can be tossed out like waste paper. > > Huh? Sorry, dunno where you've been but where I've worked, it's the other > way > around - it's the consultant who can be told "bye-bye" without a second > thought. (And that includes tiny companies like Ameritech (former Baby > Bell) > and AT&T.) > > >(3) as a consultant, you have a "contract" and can't be screwed-with; > > as an employee, you are a control-freak's plaything. > > What? That's not been the case anywhere I've worked, nor what I've heard > from > most folks I've worked with. We won't even talk about the former Anderson > Consulting (now Accenture), who *literally* treat their people as > consumables. > > > (4) as a consultant, > you have your own insurance; as an employee, we > can yank > > your insurance any time we want (control freaks R us!). > > At this point, I'm really mind-boggled. First, I've *always* worked as a > W-2, > and all the consulting companies I've worked for offered me insurance, > which I > always took, since it was *much* cheaper than anything I can find (that is, > assuming anyone will take me, as I'm a) older, and b) had a serious medical > condition a few years back). I've *never* seen insurance yanked from an > employee, anywhere, not in a career that's coming up on thirty years. > > >(5) as a consultant, we can't really reduce you pay without your approval; > > as an employee, we can reduce your pay rate to what we think you are > worth > > ($0, for instance). > > Again, I can't imagine what you're talking about. I've had a salary > increase > that was promised on hire not happen, but that was when they froze > everyone's > salary (we'll ignore the execs bonuses). > > > (6) as a consultant,you can brown-nose your way into $100K contract; as > an > > employee, we can tell you to shut up and get back to work. > > Really? Hey, cool, can you tell me where I can get a $100k contract, since > I've > never made that much. > > > > all managers pretty much suck. of course, all people pretty much suck. > the > > task is to suck less whether you are a mgr/phb or an employee (a.k.a., > kinda > > normal jane or joe) > > Well, no - I've had some *very* good managers, who actually knew what I was > doing, and valued me for it. There are *always* jerks and MBA's.... > > mark > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > Mark, first of all, i am glad you understand the tongue-in-cheek manner of my post. as with all humor (?), it does a kernel of truth. on to a response,,,,, there is a great difference between a consultant and a contractor. most of the jobs that i would actually say that i am a "consultant" but i was actually a "contractor". contractors are hired to do the work; consultants aren't. if you get a w2 and buy your insurance from the firm you are contracting from, you are a contractor. by the way, if you get lay off, you lose your insurance. you have seen insurance yanked--you just didn't recognize it. you've never seen a company reduce insurance benefit? when we last moved, we purchased our insurance outside of the work place. this makes me a "better buy" to perspective employers. insurance is one of the tools that mgrs/phbs use to control/manipulate "employees". and the insurance companies and the government assist the mgrs/phbs--ever heard of COBRA? insurance sucks and is one of the biggest scare tactics that politicians have--there is so much goobly-gook about the value, needs, requirement, etc. of insurance. before the government forced company sponsored insurance on us, it cost $400-$500 a year for a family. Now, the current administration is going to make it mandatory--you won't be able to get a job without insurance. (It will be fun to watch how you will change jobs in that environment.) even about insurance. keep buying it. i need a bigger retirement and every time you buy insurance it does my portfolio good. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
