- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Attention seeking post
Collapse
X
-
-
The same guys.Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.Comment
-
"Lick it, stick it and shove it"?Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Postthe best instruction I ever had were so long ago they were on the back of a penny blackMy all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.Comment
-
Weeeeeeeeeeellllllllllll,Originally posted by suityou01 View PostI need a group hug guys.
I just got a huge kicking for a requirements gap in a spec that I wrote last October. The subsequent deliverable is deemed not fit for purpose and has been dropped from the release.
I was brought to book and shown the section in the related high level requirements document. Sure enough there it was and it was not in my f-spec.
So I wanted to know how I missed it. Berating myself I opened the DMS and located the document. Opened it. Read and re-read the section. Then I checked the document revision history. This section was added a month after sign off of the f-spec and the document owner did not warn me.
I'm not sure what approach to take with ClientCo. I am rightly pissed off.
Options please? Gun-toting killing spree is already on the list
Given that I've met you, and given that we now know we have the same client co, I would say this isn't unusual and there really is no hope for them. Find a way to get a rate rise out of it and you are good.While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'Comment
-
Yeah I know. No help for them really. While I sit here and simmer thinking about the hot coals I was dragged over.Originally posted by doodab View PostWeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllll,
Given that I've met you and think that you're a really really top top bloke, and given that we now know we have the same client co, I would say this isn't unusual and there really is no hope for them. Find a way to get a rate rise out of it and you are good.
Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.Comment
-
*Always* check the document history first."See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."Comment
-
That pretty sums up the last two years of my working life.Originally posted by MaryPoppins View PostAct like, yeah it's OK, I'm so laid back and uber professional I don't mind the constant and soul destroying incompetance that plagues my working life from you tosspots.While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'Comment
-
Just go back to whoever pointed that out to you and explain why it happened.
No harm in doing that. Natural thing is to have a post-mortem on these things to make sure it doesn't happen again. You can even tell them that next time you won't assume to be informed if documents are changed and you'll regularly check the archive in future. Then it sounds like how you personally will make sure this doesn't happen again, without just laying blame. "Oh I was silly enough to assume that I would be informed about changes, so next time I'll double check".Last edited by BlasterBates; 28 January 2011, 05:40.I'm alright JackComment
-
Doesn't that risk volunteering to be the scapegoat for future cock-ups?Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostYou can even tell them that next time you won't assume to be informed if documents are changed and you'll regularly check the archive in future.My all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.Comment
-
Yes, and in the client's eyes it would be half way to admitting he should have checked for past cock-ups, in other words a bit _too_ accommodating.Originally posted by RichardCranium View Post
Doesn't that risk volunteering to be the scapegoat for future cock-ups?Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ hereComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- How to land a temporary technology job in 2026 Jan 9 07:01
- Spring Forecast 2026 ‘won’t put up taxes on contractors’ Jan 8 07:26
- Six things coming to contractors in 2026: a year of change, caution and (maybe) opportunity Jan 7 06:24
- Umbrella companies, beware JSL tunnel vision now that the Employment Rights Act is law Jan 6 06:11
- 26 predictions for UK IT contracting in 2026 Jan 5 07:17
- How salary sacrifice pension changes will hit contractors Dec 24 07:48
- All the big IR35/employment status cases of 2025: ranked Dec 23 08:55
- Why IT contractors are (understandably) fed up with recruitment agencies Dec 22 13:57
- Contractors, don’t fall foul of HMRC’s expenses rules this Christmas party season Dec 19 09:55
- A delay to the employment status consultation isn’t why an IR35 fix looks further out of reach Dec 18 08:22

Comment