atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- From: "Hallett, Michelle" <Michelle.Hallett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:32:50 +1100
I think the meeting room in Epping is a good idea but probably pricey.
It might be best used once some work had been done to present to people
and would require sponsorship from one or other of the lurking
professional associations.
I would suggest a working group. It could be a few people meeting
regularly either in one place (Syd, Melb, Wagga, Kalgoorlie,???) or a
few people meeting using online software (the 'American organisation'
might be able to help there). The working group could produce a 10-page
document aimed at educating agents and employers as to what we do. The
resulting document could be published widely and a website maintained to
which people could post comments. Then we create a second working group
to suggest a strategy for presenting our document to its audience. This
is a cheaper option but still requires sponsorship and someone to 'own'
and 'drive' it.
The working groups could be volunteers or they could be voted for from
amongst those we think have the experience to best represent us. I'm
happy to start the volunteer list with my name.
Michelle Hallett
IT Trainer/Support Analyst
Leighton Contractors P/L
Tel: 02 8668 6047
Fax: 02 8668 6666
Mob: 0434 183 541
Email: michelle.hallett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
________________________________
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Warren
Lewington
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 6:30 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another
longish contribution)
Thanks Ted, Michele.
I would be happy to organise something somewhere. I think
Sydney/Melbourne/Can't-borough would get big turnouts for a nation-wide
teleconference. I can organise a meeting room in Epping Sydney with some
remarkable on-line facilities, close to trains and parking.
Is el-presidente for ASTC-NSW lurking on the list?
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ted Briggs
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 17:34
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes
(another longish contribution)
The members of the societies of editors in Australia voted in
Dec 2004 in favour of introducing an accreditiation scheme for editors.
That vote was the culmination of several years of work which is still
continuing, and I think the first accreditation is still at least a year
off. It is indeed a long haul, for all the reasons that have been
identified on this list. However there is a definite commitment to
making it work.
For an update on where it is up to (or at least where it was up
to at the last National editors' conference in Oct 2005), have a read of
this report: http://www.iped-editors.org/files/Accred_Going_On.pdf
The Institute of Professional Editors (a sort of umbrella body
for the state-based societies) has lots of information about the history
of accreditaion and about the proposed scheme:
http://www.iped-editors.org/accreditation.html
Cheers
Ted Briggs
Business and Technical Writing and Editing
________________________________
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Irene Wong
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 3:51 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes
(another longish contribution)
I understand that the professional bodies (state based) for
editors are also looking at this issue of accreditation.
Irene Wong
Publishing Manager
Office of Corporate Affairs, Sydney
Australian Securities & Investments Commission
02 9911 2601 (internally dial 22601)
"Bruce Ashley" <bashley@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
16/01/2007 03:00 PM
Please respond to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
<austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Fax to
Subject
atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish
contribution)
***
This email message has been processed by MIMEsweeper
***
IMNSHO, the Westies option floundered because it offered a model
based on
popularity (or that was my perception) and not on ability.
Those like myself want to see the introduction of a
skills/knowledge-based
accreditation system, NOT a guild model based simply on time in
the job or
on a vote by those we potentially do not class as our peers.
I personally know several TWs that have been in the job for
years and still
cannot produce a workable template and I would be disappointed
if they
controlled the agenda, any part of the industry or my
professional standing.
But apart from that, and the childish references to the PM, I
agree with
much of what Warren has to say.
BTW, I argued against the formation of the STC chapter at the
time but
clearly Jill et. aliae needed something not available from the
ASTC.
Cheers,
Bruce Ashley
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Hallett, Michelle
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 2:33 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes
(another longish
contribution)
Who cares which professional association does it as long as
someone
does.
As for the Westies effort, why did it fizzle? Why wasn't it
promoted
further by the people who developed it.
I've certainly offered to help in the past, I came to a Westies
meeting
once to do so, even though getting there is difficult for me (I
live on
the Central Coast). I promoted the effort in the 'American
organisation'
during the 5-6 years when I was a volunteer there. And my reason
for
being involved there was to ensure that money paid in fees by
Australian
members came back to this country to promote the profession
here. It had
nothing whatsoever to do with George W and Little Johnnie.
So Warren, I think I've earned the right to make a little noise.
What about the rest of you? Do you want some respect and a
little better
pay packet? Or do you want to keep whingeing?
Michelle Hallett
IT Trainer/Support Analyst
Leighton Contractors P/L
Tel: 02 8668 6047
Fax: 02 8668 6666
Mob: 0434 183 541
Email: michelle.hallett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Warren
Lewington
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 1:38 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes
(another
longish contribution)
Well.
You know.
At the Westies we identified a number of possible solutions to
many of
our
problems we face as technical writers. Professional promotion
and
associations rise prominently in the conversations. Some members
of ASTC
NSW
tried to promote a process of establishing a credible and
logical system
of
accreditation/training, and together with the Westies came up
with a
couple
of options. At the same time, various people have been trying to
amalgamate
the disparate technical communication associations into one.
Reason?
This
country isn't big enough for two. And while I admire those who
can
afford to
belong to an American association, they don't give a shit about
the
minions
of George W's lap-dog Little Johnnie.
All we have received in response here in Australia is muted
support or
criticism. Because we as a fraternity don't want to work
together, we
aren't
going to get anywhere changing the problems.
It is always interesting to see the people who make the most
noise very
often don't help the volunteers who run the industry
associations. If we
want to change things in our industry we are all going to have
to
contribute. United we stand. Otherwise: Divided we fall.
I know of several nobodies who changed an entire industry (at
their
direct
financial benefit) simply because they were opportunistic (and
narcissistic)
enough to do it. We could do exactly the same thing if we so
chose, and
it
would benefit us all directly. Again, look at accountants,
project
managers,
actuaries (hell of a case study there), physiotherapists,
doctors and so
the
list goes on.
Are we dedicated professionals, prepared to defend ourselves and
benefit
our
fraternity or are we a bunch of wusses?
Warren Lewington.
Black-listed black-humoured black-sheep.
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 09:01
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (long)
Both Colin and Christine make a valid point in that it is our
responsibility
to educate people as to what we are and what we can do and we
need to do
so
as a group. We need our professional associations to lead this
discussion
and to create forums in which these matters can be discussed.
And the
results need to be promoted within the community.
We also need to stop being afraid of agents lurking on the list.
They do
not
control (and, as Colin pointed out, often do not understand)
what we do.
We
need to educate them and help them understand, and where
exploitation
occurs
we need to act against it and refuse to work for agencies who
undermine
our
skills or undersell them. Agencies need to be able to attract
the best
staff
for their clients, no agent wants to be ignored by people with
the best
skills.
It all starts with us valuing what we do and teaching employers
and
agencies
to value it. Look at the respect within IT for project managers.
Most of
them have less skills than technical writers and some of the
ones I've
worked with have far less technical knowledge. They have
professional
associations which promote them and the work they do.
Michelle Hallett
IT Trainer/Support Analyst
Leighton Contractors P/L
Tel: 02 8668 6047
Fax: 02 8668 6666
Mob: 0434 183 541
Email: michelle.hallett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Christine Kent
Sent: Saturday, 13 January 2007 9:28 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (long)
Very well said, Colin
I had a contract with a team of Business Analysts where I
realised the
same
thing. I was employed as a technical writer to document their
processes, by
a manager who could not get to grips with why their work was so
bad. I
realised very quickly how seriously TWs are underselling
themselves.
Where we "write procedures" a business analyst is a "process
analyst".
Where
we "document systems" a BA is a "functional analyst". Where we
perform
a
needs analysis, a BA is a "requirements analyst".
The perception of the manager was that only those from an IT
background
could do any of the "analyst" jobs well. So the role of a TW
was to
write
what analysts tell them to write, where the role of a BA is to
think and
write as well. No matter what I did, I did not manage to change
her
perceptions that the BA had to come from a techo background.
She wanted
me
to invent systems to get them to write well, when the problem
was that
they
could not think well.
In part she was right. I have worked with far too many TWs who
do not
require that they make sense of what they write, or that any
user is
ever
going to be able to use what they write. Unfortunately the
industry is
at
least littered if not dominated by this passive type of TW who
just
produces
wads of fabulously punctuated drivel. Even worse, this seems to
be what
the
employer wants them to do. "There has to be documentation so
produce it
- we
all know it is a waste of money and time and that it will sit on
the
shelves
(metaphorically) collecting dust, so let's not take the whole
process
too
seriously!"
On the other hand, the Business Analysts, on the whole, could
only do
one of
those jobs (process, functional or requirements) and even then
not do it
very well, where any competent and thinking TW can do all of
them, and
do
them superbly.
I don't think our primary problem is providing a standard by
which we
can be
measured. The problem comes before that, with identifying what
we are
measuring. To my mind it comes back, all the time, to our use
of
language -
the person who invents the language is in control, so we need to
be
inventing the language that covers what we do. What is the name
for the
"thinking tech writer" compared to the "transcription tech
writer"? What
is
the name for the TW who is a good analyst, compared to the TW
who will
structure and punctuate something superbly, compared to the TW
who will
graphically present something that someone else writes, compared
to the
TW
who can script a good website, compared to the TW who can write
documentation that trains the reader. These are all different
skills.
The
employer knows which they want, so we should give them the
language to
recruit that person.
At the next conference why not use a facilitation methodology
with an
expert
facilitator, and a full day session, to brainstorm through the
types of
skill sets, give them names, identify their customers, etc?
After that,
this list could agree to use the new terminology, and send it
around to
every single recruiter they know. What price a day in our
lives? Is a
day
too much?
ck
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Info
Action
Sent: Friday, 12 January 2007 8:29 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (long)
Hi,
I am between contracts right now, with some time up my sleeve
for a
visit to
austechwriter. (Gratuitous plug: I am in the market if there's
any
contracts
around with direct-to-client billing). I've just picked up on
the thread
started by Gary Stevens - I'm a bit late to the party on this,
but I'd
like
to comment.
I think the debate about recruitment agencies arising from
Gary's post
is
tangential to the real issue: how is it that recruiters have
become the
gatekeepers of technical writing in Australia? Sadly, the
observation
that
'some of them might be reading this, so we better not say
anything bad'
may
not be too far from the truth.
Here's what I see as the consequences of the current status quo:
1. The majority of agency placements are opportunistic. The
agency has a
relationship with the client via 'mainstream' placements
(programmers
etc)
but doesn't want to miss an opportunity when they uncover a tech
writer
vacancy, even though they have minimal credentials in evaluating
the
skills
of candidates. Naturally I exclude specialist agencies from this
observation.
2. For many agencies, the first pass of filtering is done by
machine.
They
are just searching for a few magic words. This will obviously
eliminate
well-qualified candidates who didn't use the right combination
of magic
words.
Part of the reason that recruiters have resorted to such a
low-skill
approach is that job descriptions are vague and don't mention
critical
requirements. Perhaps they just don't understand the role? I
realise in
many
cases the client does not provide a decent job description, but
surely
this
is an opportunity for the recruiter to add some value to the
process?
Tighter job descriptions would yield fewer and better qualified
applicants.
3. The reputation of technical writers as a whole is diminished.
There
are
way too many defacto editors being placed as writers. The
expectation
that a
writer can create original content (rather than rewrite
dictation or
drafts)
has all but disappeared from Australian industry.
Further, technical skills are vestigial. Job descriptions are
mostly
framed
to eliminate their need, which is really a pity because there is
so much
more value that can be added when they are available. It's a
serious
constraint on the scope of tech writing roles.
4. The role of technical writers has stagnated. It's the
recruiters who
decide exactly what a tech writer can do (and cannot do), hence
the role
does not evolve to take onboard relevant new technologies (how
did
graphic
designers gazump tech writers in the first wave of web
developers?). I
once
attended a Knowledge Management seminar, only to find that KM
luminaries
were grappling with the concept of "identifying audiences"!
This is not a question of ability, it is a question of
perception. It's
pretty much a case of "don't you worry about that, just keep
pressing
Alt
Print Screen".
5. Extending points (1) and (2), the lack of ability in
identifying
actual
skill means that many candidates are chosen on the basis of the
companies
that they have worked for and the job titles they held. How many
times
have
you seen a role advertised with a 'prestige client?' The client
name is
everything to recruiters - far more important than the actual
job
skills.
Fact: it is far easier to hide incompetence in a big company
than in a
one-person department.
6. Again on points (1) and (2) there is an inappropriate
fixation with
software package. You must have seen it - 'two years recent
experience
with
Framemaker' and so on. The fact is, expertise in any package is
quickly
transferred to comparable packages. Anyway, I think the notion
that
Framemaker is hard to learn has arisen through the lore of
inexperienced/incompetent practitioners who had only minimal
understanding
of Word to begin with.
7. Contractors exist in a no-man's land, deemed by the ATO to be
employees
when working through an agency, but treated by agencies as a
business.
As
far as the ATO is concerned, agency contractors have no tax
entitlements
beyond a normal employee, yet they are still obliged to carry
the normal
risks and costs of running a business.
8. Agencies add a significant overhead but not much value. This
is
generally
true of any agency placement, but a particular burden with
technical
writing
due to the poor quality of selection, as per point (1).
Think about it: the agency offers no warranty to the client and
no
guarantee
of continuity to the contractor. Only the agency benefits from
this
arrangement. Obviously clients have only themselves to blame by
outsourcing
their HR function and not effectively supervising the process.
But how
did
tech writers come to be such passive victims? (see next point).
9. We have only ourselves to blame. All professionals will be
compared
when
it comes time to make a selection - it's a simple consequence of
having
more
candidates than roles. We provide no standard by which we can be
measured,
so others step into the void. The process is in many cases
superficial
and
the criteria inappropriate, but it's better than indicators that
we
collectively give about ourselves (i.e. nothing).
OK then . that's about all I have to get off my shoulders on
this
subject.
Oh yes . happy new year!
cheers
Colin Dawson
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the
Subject
field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date:
10/01/2007
2:52 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date:
12/01/2007
2:04 PM
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the
Subject
field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
************************************************************************
****
*
This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential
and
intended
for use by the addressee only. The confidential nature of the
information
contained in the email and/or file attachment is not waived,
lost or
destroyed if it is sent to other than the addressee. Use or
dissemination of
the information contained in the email and/or file attachment,
by a
recipient other than the addressee, may cause commercial damage
to
both/either the sender and/or addressee. If you are not the
addressee of
this email/file attachment contact the sender immediately and
delete
this
email/file attachment.
All email communications to and from this company are filtered
and
stored
for risk management purposes in accordance with our Computer and
Email
Policies. Please contact our Privacy Manager on (02) 8668 6947
if you
would
like further information about our Policies in regard to these
issues.
************************************************************************
****
*
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the
Subject
field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the
Subject
field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
************************************************************************
****
*
This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential
and intended
for use by the addressee only. The confidential nature of the
information
contained in the email and/or file attachment is not waived,
lost or
destroyed if it is sent to other than the addressee. Use or
dissemination of
the information contained in the email and/or file attachment,
by a
recipient other than the addressee, may cause commercial damage
to
both/either the sender and/or addressee. If you are not the
addressee of
this email/file attachment contact the sender immediately and
delete this
email/file attachment.
All email communications to and from this company are filtered
and stored
for risk management purposes in accordance with our Computer and
Email
Policies. Please contact our Privacy Manager on (02) 8668 6947
if you would
like further information about our Policies in regard to these
issues.
************************************************************************
****
*
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the
Subject field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject
field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject
field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the
addressee(s) only and may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged or copyright material. You should not read, copy, use or
disclose them without authorisation. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact the sender as soon as possible by return e-mail
and then please delete both messages. This notice should not be removed.
*****************************************************************************
This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended
for use by the addressee only. The confidential nature of the information
contained in the email and/or file attachment is not waived, lost or destroyed
if it is sent to other than the addressee. Use or dissemination of the
information contained in the email and/or file attachment, by a recipient other
than the addressee, may cause commercial damage to both/either the sender
and/or addressee. If you are not the addressee of this email/file attachment
contact the sender immediately and delete this email/file attachment.
All email communications to and from this company are filtered and stored for
risk management purposes in accordance with our Computer and Email Policies.
Please contact our Privacy Manager on (02) 8668 6947 if you would like further
information about our Policies in regard to these issues.
*****************************************************************************
- Follow-Ups:
- atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- From: Warren Lewington
Other related posts:
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- » atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- From: Warren Lewington