atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- From: "Hallett, Michelle" <Michelle.Hallett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:55:00 +1100
A working group at Epping sounds good. How do we make it happen?
I will make myself available for whatever is needed.
Warren, I agree about advertising this properly and I think that is what
has failed in the past. I taught User Manual Design courses for
Macquarie Community College for a while and found that most of my
students were youngish people who had no training and didn't imagine
themselves to be technical writers. Their bosses, who also had no idea
what a technical writer was, had given them the job of writing a manual
and they came along to find out how. Many of them found out about the
ASTC and austechwriter from me. They came from very diverse industries,
most were in health-related professions but there were others. The one I
remember most clearly is the Harbour Bridge climb company. All the above
leads me to conclude that:
1. People participating in our surveys and conferences are older
because it takes a while to find us
2. It will take a long time to compile a list of places where we
should advertise. But we won't do it all if we don't start and an
initiative like this is a good place to start.
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: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 10:29 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another
longish contribution)
Epping will be cheap. Travelling to Kalgoorlie from anywhere in
Australia will be more expensive than meeting in a number of rooms and
organising internet based or phone based teleconferencing.
I would recommend Allan Charlton, Roslyn Abele and Colin Dawson to be
involved in the working group. I have some other people in mind as well
but need to consult quietly before I make any more recommendations.
My website had a small dissertation about accreditation as it was a
couple of years ago.
http://www.wjl.com.au/pages/astc_accred/astc_home.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hallett,
Michelle
Sent: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 09:33
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes
(another longish contribution)
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.
************************************************************************
*****
*****************************************************************************
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.
*****************************************************************************
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)