Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"Given a choice a Manager will almost always opt for a contractor and to top it all of Contractors earn more cash."

This hasn't been my experience at real-world medium-size companies around here. I have friends in several, but almost everyone's IT department has a VP or director that has a policy of "absolutely no contractors", so I can't get a foot in the door at any of these places. If they want something done, they _only_ do it internally. They will buy outside products, but they will not outsource development work.

The other medium-big companies in the area have contracts with big groups like RHT or EDS, which is really frustrating and annoying.



Well, the reasoning behind this is obvious. What is the value of a high tech company? It's not "the brand", it's not that it owns a pile of servers in a datacentre somewhere, it's not even in the code in its version control. It's that it is a group of people able to identify and solve new and commercially relevant problems, and that that group possesses a great deal of institutional knowledge. A contractor has self-consciously decided to discount that kind of knowledge; therefore what they can contribute in such an environment is only what could be automated anyway.


My experience has been mainly with large/very large Financial institutions and this is almost always the case.

Manager gets money for Project , hires contractors , if project deemed successful , more money, more contractors , if project deemed failure , fire contractors move on. Cycle repeats.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: