The Decision Tool :)

[northernladuk]

I get what you are saying, but the question should be more about your ability to supply your own tools. There are plenty of places where the client won't allow you to use your own equipment for security reasons etc. It's somewhat unfair to use the clients preference as to the source of the equipment as a determining factor for the contract.

Many permies bring their own kit on site as well.....

[BoredBloke]

Many permies bring their own kit on site as well.....

Sorry when I say my kit I mean my employers kit! So I go in with a laptop from my employer and one from theirs

[WordIsBond]

The equipment question should be about whether you are >required< to use your company's equipment, not whether you are permitted to. Lots of employees use their own equipment. But if you have to use your own rather than theirs, it's a strong indicator.

And it should not ask whether your company owned the equipment previously. Totally irrelevant.

[BoredBloke]

The equipment question should be about whether you are >required< to use your company's equipment, not whether you are permitted to. Lots of employees use their own equipment. But if you have to use your own rather than theirs, it's a strong indicator.

And it should not ask whether your company owned the equipment previously. Totally irrelevant.

I obviously don't agree. As I said, if the client has security reasons which mean you can't use your kit on their network then It's somewhat unfair to use that as a determining factor on the contract. There should be a question asking if you are able to supply the kit required to do the contract. The fact that they insist on theirs being used is their choice for whatever reasons they might have.

I'm pretty sure, in the times of budget cuts, if the PSB could allow all their contractors to supply their own kit they would happily do so. The fact that they don't shows that this question is flawed.

[northernladuk]

And I'm with WiB. Anything else is so open to interpretation is worthless.

[MPwannadecentincome]

useful info from QDOS in the other thread.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/publi...ml#post2381488

Admin - need a thread merge I think.

[WordIsBond]

I obviously don't agree. As I said, if the client has security reasons which mean you can't use your kit on their network then It's somewhat unfair to use that as a determining factor on the contract. There should be a question asking if you are able to supply the kit required to do the contract. The fact that they insist on theirs being used is their choice for whatever reasons they might have.

If you are required to use your own, that pretty much proves you are not an employee. So the question should definitely ask that.

If you are permitted to use your own, that should only be a question if employees aren't permitted to. Otherwise, it doesn't distinguish at all between you and employees.

The point of the tool is to find out if you are different from an employee or not. So only questions that distinguish you from employees, or show that you are like one, are useful.

[WordIsBond]

useful info from QDOS in the other thread.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/publi...ml#post2381488

Admin - need a thread merge I think.

The obvious answer is to start a third thread.

I've got a list of very specific flaws in the tool, should I start it as a separate thread or bury it 80 comments down in one of the existing threads?

[MrMarkyMark]

Many permies bring their own kit on site as well.....

Exactly, your Mrs always like to supply her own "gear"

[Yorkie62]

And I'm with WiB. Anything else is so open to interpretation is worthless.

Not if you are engaged on a List-X site. Then for reasons of national security I would not be permitted to use my own gear (laptop), nor can I remove any such data from the site. To fulfil the contract I have no option but to work on the clients site. Unless of course I am allowed to turn my business premises into a List-X site with all the appropriate network and physical security. I think the local council might have something to say about the physical security measures.