Date:         Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:39:43 -0800
Reply-To:     John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Moral question--no Bob-related content
Comments: To: Geza Polony <gezapolony@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To:  <vanagon%2007011617264349@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

>
> He put in the time, so he should be paid. I didn't get the problem fixed,
> so
> he shouldn't be paid. What's the answer?


As a technical service person myself, this is how I look at it: I am hired
to perform a task. I generally bill hourly for the time it takes to complete
that task, under the presumption that I am competent to do the job and won't
be billing for time spent scratching my head. I have had cases where a job
has taken me 1 or 2 hours longer than it should have because I missed
something obvious and critical. I never bill for those 1 or 2 hours, because
the client is paying for my expertise, not my stupidity. In a case where I
can't solve the problem, I will either walk away without billing a dime (if
I'm totally stumped), or bill for perhaps an hour or two (if I am able to
tell the client WHY I can't fix it, and maybe tell them who CAN).

In short, it's not the time alone that's worth anything, it's the time spent
providing you with a valuable service. Troubleshooting that ends with "I
dunno" isn't worth squat. The mechanic and HVAC guys are jerks to ask you to
pay full boat for fruitless troubleshooting. If they want to be paid hourly
without regard to performance, then they need to go work in a factory, or
state government, or something.

--
John Bange
'90 Vanagon - "Geldsauger"
"Staubkess bolt? I have one of those?"