|
I am with MM on this one, I would tell them to f*** off.
|
|
|
|
|
Then you are both self-evidently independently wealthy.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: Then you are both self-evidently independently wealthy.
No, just kinda working for myself and sub-contracting with a bunch of knobs when not having enough of my own work.
I don't interview well and can last a couple of years when I have too, before I tell some Mike Hunt what I think of them and or the company.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Fool! Know you not that if things were done correctly than HR would be out being interviewed, themselves?
As employees come and go they make work for HR to justify themselves at current (or even increased) staffing levels.
As for you? Get with the program!
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Meet the team?? Holy Elephant!
R&D is there for HR. But YOU seem to think it is the other way around!
On a more serious note: it may be possible that the test responsibility could be shared a bit with automatic regression testing and coders required to write and run proper unit/function tests before push/submit/checkin to master. Even so the 1/16 proportion is of course off!
Life is too shor
|
|
|
|
|
Retro fitting unit tests into existing (poor) code is just too hard, costly and tends to result in poor test coverage vs cost.
Automatic regression testing -sure. And who's going to set the tests up? Oh! the tester; but wait - the tester is too busy doing testing!!!!!!!!!!!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Maxxx wrote: Retro fitting unit tests into existing (poor) code is just too hard, costly and tends to result in poor test coverage vs cost.
This is the exact problem we have right now, along with one of the senior devs (who happens to be the scrum master of the largest team) viewing unit tests as a waste of his precious time.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a real opinion on the usefulness of unit tests, having never worked anywhere where they succesfuly used them.
One of the teams here write unit tests that access real data from a database, perform a myriad of updates and gets to check updates have happened etc. It appears to me this happens because the code developed is not test friendly - so we end up with tests that require a db server, specific datasets installed etc - and are slow as all buggery!
And the released code is still of poor quality!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
That's not a unit test, that's an integration text.
My previous job implemented a 80% code coverage rule on a system that had no unit test (or test friendly code) on there. So even if you changes a single character in a method, you needed at least %80 code coverage. Very mixed opionions on the usefulness but after a number of years and after we tied the tests into TFS's nightly builds, it really started to pay dividends.
It's a real tough start but I'm all for it. I remember someone wrote a unit integration test that only worked the 4th time is was run because it needed the other tests to populate the DB with enough test accounts for it to work 
|
|
|
|
|
Is this in the Health Industry by chance?
I remember where in Cane Toad Land you are and a quick Google throws up lots of ads for what I reckon is 1 or 2 jobs in that area of the world for testers.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
No - that's not us. Our ads went in a while ago - just long delays in getting interviewees in due to HR help
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Wait ... you have someone testing stuff before it's released? And now you want to double up? No wonder HR are suspicious! 
|
|
|
|
|
THE Team, that is you I guess.
it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
My flatmate last night came in from work and told me of a change that is in the offing in the UK regarding a change to the UK's tax laws and contractors, a contract can only last a max of 3 Months any longer and you will be considered a PAYE permie. Having done a contract I can say it took me a month to get settled with the way they work... I can see that could cause problems. Anybody heard this as well? 
|
|
|
|
|
There were reports in the Daily Fail at the weekend that Osborne is planning to introduce this in his November budget and, worse news for you, that it's 1 month before you are considered PAYE.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe (not certain though) that the changes are more to do with not being able to claim transport as an expense, and getting somewhat less tax relief.
I believe it is already tax avoidance to effectively work as an employee while paying tax as a contractor - it's just that there isn't a definitive description of what that means.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh joy the Daily Fail, I hope this is like most big scoops the mail has...
|
|
|
|
|
I've never heard of a personal service company, does he mean an umbrella company? If so not many contractors use those, and anyway;
Quote: staff.
A contractor who uses an agency to find work with a range of IT firms for short periods will still be able to classify themselves as a personal service company
It seems to be aimed more at the likes of "BBC staff" who can be pretty much considered employees but work non-PAYE. Contractors rarely do this though, I know some contractors do end up in long-term contracts and I think it's fair enough to start to class those people as perms and there are already expense-related timeframes after which you can no longer claim.
Most contractors work via their own Ltd company, and if someone working long-term at the same organisation via a Ltd company is a perm then....what does that make MPs? You think MPs are on PAYE? MPs lease their services to the government via their own Ltd companies and they are no less employees of the government than presenters are employees of the BBC.
Further more, what are the employment law issues here? Another advantage of contracting is that there is no employment law between you and the firm you provide services for. This gives firms greater freedom to get rid of bad workers, or to just get rid of people they no longer need. If contractors are classed as perms then they should get perm legal rights too, and bad ones will then become overpaid and unsackable.
|
|
|
|
|
The issue is contractors who only work for one company, 5 days a week, office hours and are obviously avoiding paying tax by paying company tax not PAYE
The company can pay them higher rates to compensate for their poorer conditions (no leave, sick leave, health insurance whatever) - but the *taxpayer* should have to compensate them for that!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
You are still subject to income tax when you submit your tax return in addition to the corporation tax you need to pay, the two lots of NI you pay also. Contracting isn't *that* "tax efficient". No paid holiday, no sick pay, and many contractors have high costs associated with what they do (eg working away from home, a lot of travel etc) so why should they have to pay extortionate amounts of tax on that income when it doesn't touch their pockets? As a real-world example I currently pay £800 a month just to execute my current contract...ultimately my client really pays for that, I don't see that money, so why should I be taxed on it? If I was PAYE my rate would just have to go up. If contractors had to go on PAYE then the rates would just soar *shrug* and who is that going to help? The government in the short term, but in the long term it will badly affect business (and therefore government) as firms won't have access to the resources they need at rates they can afford.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: many contractors have high costs associated with what they do (eg working away from home, a lot of travel etc) so why should they have to pay extortionate amounts of tax on that income when it doesn't touch their pockets?
They shouldn't. Which is why you can claim cost of doing business against your tax. But many, many contractors are employed as sole traders, one-man or umbrella companies with the sole purpose of avoiding paying tax. It costs the employer almost the same to employ a contractor as a permanent staff member - just harder to get rid of them when they need to!
F-ES Sitecore wrote: As a real-world example I currently pay £800 a month just to execute my current contract...ultimately my client really pays for that, I don't see that money, so why should I be taxed on it?
Sh*t - $800 a month? You probably pay that in train fare to commute to a big city these days! But permanent employee commuters pay that! How come you don't see that money? Surely you pay it out of your contract pay?
And probably you "pay yourself" significantly less than your 'salary' out of your company? (I'm assuming here you're a one-man company)
Again, I agree if you want the same take-home and had to go PAYE then the rate would go up - which means the company and not the government (aka ME) are footing the bill for your lifestyle choice!
F-ES Sitecore wrote: and who is that going to help? The government in the short term
How so?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: $800 a month? You probably pay that in train fare to commute to a big city these days!
Not $800, £800 - British pounds, which is 1,700 dollars to you  Yes, that's how much I pay in travel and accommodation per month in order to do my current job. If I was perm I'd simply get a job closer to home where I wouldn't have these costs, but being able to get tax relief on them makes it possible for me to provide services to a company that would not normally have access to them. In the UK places like London where commuting is more popular pay higher wages that helps offset the costs of travel.
|
|
|
|
|
'personal service company' I was a bit lost on that, I did use an Umbrella for the contract I did (before the PUB), I was being told I should use my own Limited company...
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonBackInThePUB wrote: 'personal service company'
I would expect them to advertise in telephone boxes.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
