Re: Contractors of Questionable Ability

[Barb Philbrick <caslonsvcs -at- IBM -dot- NET>]

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:38:51 -0500, you wrote:

>Two reactions, both peripheral, to this thread:
>
>1.) I notice that the comment that contractors are unreliable seems to
>come up frequently. I can't help wondering if the full-timers feel a
>little bit jealous of people with more freedom? There are plenty of
>incompetent technical writers around - the field's booming, so that's to
>be expected. But I've encountered as many incompetents with benefits as
>incompetents on contract.
I think it grates more when someone's getting paid $40 or 50 an hour.
As a contractor myself, I know that $40-50 allows me to make basically
just a bit more than I was making as a full-timer (but a lot more
freedom), but it sounds like a lot if you're working in the full-time
$15 to 20 range.

That said, I've been appalled at the number of horrible contractors.
One of my clients has gone through eight contractors to wind up with
three regulars. That's a really lousy ratio, and chills me, since I
have to convince their previous clients that all contractors aren't
weirdos or rip-off artists. (BTW, this client has been wonderful to
work for, so it's not a matter of unreasonable demands or personality
conflicts. It's been a matter of understanding material and showing up
to work.)

>2.) If contractors are unreliable, then it's easy to turn the fact to
>your advantage. Do good work to deadline, and you should have no trouble
>being employed
This is right on the button! I've been in the fortunate position of
being able to turn down work for the last few years following this
basic philosophy.

It's qualifying what "good work" is that's hard to define.

Barb

Barbara Philbrick, Caslon Services Inc.
Technical Writing