Xen virtual machines and ntp

[hike]

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:24 PM, mark <m.roth2006 at rcn.com> wrote:

> hike wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM, mark <m.roth2006 at rcn.com> 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 at redhat.com?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 at redhat.com?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.