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!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
I seem to be getting a sniff at a few permie roles - even had 2 recruiters contact me this week. Not sure it'll lead to anything but it's an improvement on previous tumbleweed. I'd deleted my Linkedin as I was so sick of it - my new profile with almost zero history and about 3 connections is already proving better than the 1000+ connections regular postings one I used to have.
Seeking to maximise personal revenue, while minimising effort should not be detrimental to one's clients and doesn't break 'Rule 1'. One won't maximise revenue over the long term by doing poor quality work; similarly, minimising effort equates to delivering in the most efficient manner. It's transactional.
At business school we're taught that the objective of the firm is to maximise profit (shareholder value). For a firm, workers are a means to that end. It's therefore, I suggest, rational for workers to consider the firm (client) as a means to an end. To my mind this is not indicative of a detrimental attitude.
I'm sure we've all seen capable workers who were naively loyal to a firm getting ditched when the firm no longer needs them. This is particularly the case for people who become middle-managers and lose marketable skills along the way. I do think that some (smaller) firms are still benevolent to their workers, but I've noticed a general decline in this over the decades. I simply see working for a living as a transaction, not a relationship.
Nicely put, I was just going to tell him to **** off! lol..
Finding the error in 1000s of lines of code is par for the course with the old 2GL languages, not just COBOL. You have to learn to read the core dumps. But properly written (a lot of which wasn't, naturally) it can be pretty much self-documenting.
COBEL still in use?
VB6/VB.Net died a long, long time ago.
Introduction to Programming back in the day (early 90s) at Uni.
1st semester: Turbo Pascal, nice to learn, there's an error on this line and it's probably because of this...
2nd semester: COBOL There's an error in these 1000s of lines. F**ked if I'm telling you where the error is or what it is.
So I was not a fan of COBOLLOX.
qh
Finding the error in 1000s of lines of code is par for the course with the old 2GL languages, not just COBOL. You have to learn to read the core dumps. But properly written (a lot of which wasn't, naturally) it can be pretty much self-documenting.
Not to be a Boyscout, but I find this behaviour very disheartening.
Rule 1: Always act in the best interest of the final client. Good things will then happen to you (and the parasites between you) naturally.
Contractors with the attitude espoused by Protagoras and Oliveson working with me tend not to find themselves in that situation for long.
Seeking to maximise personal revenue, while minimising effort should not be detrimental to one's clients and doesn't break 'Rule 1'. One won't maximise revenue over the long term by doing poor quality work; similarly, minimising effort equates to delivering in the most efficient manner. It's transactional.
At business school we're taught that the objective of the firm is to maximise profit (shareholder value). For a firm, workers are a means to that end. It's therefore, I suggest, rational for workers to consider the firm (client) as a means to an end. To my mind this is not indicative of a detrimental attitude.
I'm sure we've all seen capable workers who were naively loyal to a firm getting ditched when the firm no longer needs them. This is particularly the case for people who become middle-managers and lose marketable skills along the way. I do think that some (smaller) firms are still benevolent to their workers, but I've noticed a general decline in this over the decades. I simply see working for a living as a transaction, not a relationship.
Leave a comment: