Forum

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

What's the difference between using seasonal workers, and hiring/laying off staff, other than the words used?

It may seem like semantics, but there's actually a world of difference. It's generally much more cost efficient and predictable to use temporary workers who are hired for a specific project/duration. Well run businesses are all about predictability and repeatability.

It also creates much less ill will. If someone is given a 6 month contract, they will be assuming it won't be renewed or extended at the end of that period. If it is, they will be happy about that, but if it isn't they will just look for another contract - it's the life of contract/seasonal staff and they accept it (if they don't, then they should be looking for permanent work).

Permanent staff on the other hand expect (and let's not get into the debate about whether this expectation is valid or not), that once they're given a job it is theirs until they are no longer capable or willing to perform it. Consequently, when they're laid off there is a lot more ill-will towards the company and unease among the retained staff (the "who's next" syndrome).

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Developing a new edition is done with a full-time staff, due to the commitment required (and probably also due to confidentiality concerns), while the supplement mill relies more on freelancers.

Sorry, but having been a contract worker I'm going to call BS on that one. Contract staff are subject to the same confidentiality agreements, and expected to have the same commitment to a project as permanent staff. In fact, it can be argued that contract staff hired for a specific project are often more committed, because it's specifically why they've been hired, and the only thing they're tasked with doing (as opposed to permanent staff, who - despite the best intentions - will always have other demands on their time from the company.