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

[Kathleen Kuvinka <kkuvinka -at- EPICOR -dot- COM>]

> Why "should" you? Is it automatic that only an
> employee, by simply being an employee, has the "right"
> to equipment that will do the task assigned to them?
> Why not base it on the criticality/visibility/urgency
> of the project.

One of the perceived perks, I guess. Same reason some managers spend their
budgets on high tech toys that they don't need and that do not benefit the
company. See how immersed in the corporate culture I am? On the other hand,
you have a good point, and I imagine this may be true in some
situations...but I have never been in one of those.

>
> Let's say that the contractor is costing a *total*
> cost (not only paid to the contractor) to the company
> of $85 per hour. That 32 extra hours is costing them
> $2,720.  For that difference, they've more than bought
> and paid for the current hardware in less than a
> month.
>
> Granted, this is quick-and-dirty math and YMMV, but if
> a company is truly looking at costs and not just
> percieved costs, the math makes a case for it, no?
>

As I am learning, companies don't always hire contractors to save money! For
example, they may (for whatever reason) have the budget to spend dollars on
labor but not equipment. It really shouldn't be the contractor's concern.

I imagine I would find it very frustrating to work on utter crap. But as I
mentioned, my needs are seldom a priority, even as an employee. So I can be
annoyed, or be annoyed and make an extra $2,720. Maybe someday I'll wise
up...

Good luck to you!


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