According to the article on today's home page, CXC Global (never heard of them before) are advising end clients to label contractors as 'supervised', or at least that's how it reads.
The article refers to an agency that appear to have advised clients to do the opposite. I assume because the client is suddenly wondering why they can't get the resource they need and don't want to pay more.
Now clearly, if a contractor should be supervised, then this should be reflected in the contract. However, equally, to suggest that all contractors should be supervised is as bad as suggesting none should be.
In an ideal world job ads etc would state up front whether or not supervision was applicable. Unlikely, for now at least.
Maybe Michelle Reilly would like to come on here and explain her position?
The article refers to an agency that appear to have advised clients to do the opposite. I assume because the client is suddenly wondering why they can't get the resource they need and don't want to pay more.
Now clearly, if a contractor should be supervised, then this should be reflected in the contract. However, equally, to suggest that all contractors should be supervised is as bad as suggesting none should be.
In an ideal world job ads etc would state up front whether or not supervision was applicable. Unlikely, for now at least.
Maybe Michelle Reilly would like to come on here and explain her position?
Comment