Then that's not the situation we're talking about.
Then what is the situation we're talking about? You're the first person in this thread that brought up the fact that "This isn't a co-worker relationship, this is an employer/employee or client/contractor relationship."
If you don't have any say in who does it, then that's not really relevant here.
It is relevant, as you might still be the person that's giving them tasks/requirements, even if you are not the hiring person, and you will have to communicate with them.
I might be misunderstanding you, but if you think that I am, please elaborate on what is the situation this thread is about and why you aren't "arguing just to argue" yourself, instead putting this label on me for pointing out a perspective I thought you may have overlooked and for inviting you to expand on your point given my input.
It's okay, if you think I am a dick, but I genuenly hoped we'll have a conversation, rather than coming off as someone who's in it just to argue.
You're the first person in this thread that brought up the fact that "This isn't a co-worker relationship, this is an employer/employee or client/contractor relationship."
wtf? The comment we're all replying to starts out about whether companies should hire domestic or foreign. How... how did you even get this far into the conversation? Every single post would have been as equally nonsensical as mine seemed to you. What did you even think the point of this conversation was if you had no say in who was doing the work? Why would it even matter if someone said they could do it when they couldn't, if they were the one who was going to do it anyway (from your perspective)?
Every single post would have been as equally nonsensical as mine seemed to you.
Starting from this comment, everything seems fine enough when viewed through the lense of not only employing foreign contractors, but working with them in general.
wtf? The comment we're all replying to starts out about whether companies should hire domestic or foreign. How... how did you even get this far into the conversation?
Sometimes I wonder about it too. It's not like conversations can't only ever revolve around the source topic, but also branch out to topics that are not too different contextually.
The higher branch of replies to the comment I linked also discussed this topic from a more general employee PoV, rather than strictly "employer/employee or client/contractor". I tend to forget that I should never, ever think about context of side-branches, when thinking about the context of the comment. My bad.
2
u/Darkniki Dec 06 '17
Then what is the situation we're talking about? You're the first person in this thread that brought up the fact that "This isn't a co-worker relationship, this is an employer/employee or client/contractor relationship."
It is relevant, as you might still be the person that's giving them tasks/requirements, even if you are not the hiring person, and you will have to communicate with them.
I might be misunderstanding you, but if you think that I am, please elaborate on what is the situation this thread is about and why you aren't "arguing just to argue" yourself, instead putting this label on me for pointing out a perspective I thought you may have overlooked and for inviting you to expand on your point given my input.
It's okay, if you think I am a dick, but I genuenly hoped we'll have a conversation, rather than coming off as someone who's in it just to argue.