Consulting Fees - Charging for phone calls, emails, etc.

[Helmut Jilling]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Wynne

The new wording changes nothing. It would have been a simple thing to clarify the issue, though, but they didn't do it. If I'm the Top Dog, I can still bestow the MR title on the janitor and claim that my assigning her the responsibility is what makes her a member of management.

My dear Jim, you can "bestow" anything you wish, but it does not make it right. And the auditor can write it up if he feels it is a sham, but that does not guarantee the finding is correct. In the audits I participate in, I prefer we adhere to a little higher level of working together in a true sense. I would drop a client that tries to play games with the standard, and have done so a number of times. I work too hard to put up with silly games.

[Helmut Jilling]

In Reply to Parent Post by JaneB

I disagree.

A business could appoint the owner of the local burger stand as a member of their management if they chose to - it's their business.

If an auditor took the tack you're suggesting, I'd protest and if necessary ask for a ruling on it.

That would be your prerogative.

I was just making the point that wording changes in the standard may not always be clear, but they are not arbitrary.

You will probably be aware that the language in this clause has gradually ramped up over the last decade or so, pushing the bar higher toward management with authority. That is happening in the 14001 and 18001 standards as well. In fact, while it is not an ISO standard, 18001, actually says it shall be "Top" management.

[JaneB]

In Reply to Parent Post by Helmut Jilling

That would be your prerogative.

I was just making the point that wording changes in the standard may not always be clear, but they are not arbitrary.

You will probably be aware that the language in this clause has gradually ramped up over the last decade or so, pushing the bar higher toward management with authority. That is happening in the 14001 and 18001 standards as well. In fact, while it is not an ISO standard, 18001, actually says it shall be "Top" management.

Yes, I'm entirely in agreement that the bar should and must be pushed higher toward management with authority - they days of delegating it off to the junior clerk (or whoever) are presumably over.

The only point I was disagreeing with (and may not have expressed myself clearly) is that it doesn't have to be someone 'internal' to the organisation. I (probably) share the view that this is best, but I'm also aware of a varied number of situations where a consultant/contractor/similar was used and where it worked well.

As for words being 'arbitrary' I'm with you in being sure they aren't. After the length of time and committee meetings and drafts and so forth... in fact, I bet getting some kind of wording that everyone will agree on occupies a huge propoortion of that time.

[JaneB]

In Reply to Parent Post by vasimmons

It would be great if all of us understand, that in this era Senior Management in a number of companies lump contractors and consultants the same . I was a Senior Consultant for over 15 years with Andersen and in todays market it does not matter if you are a consultant or contractor you are just a number in the A/P system

I read this to mean that it really doesn't matter what the specific terms of the engagement are. If so, I agree with you.

I know many organisations where the executive management - all the way up to CEO - are on fixed-term contracts.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by JaneB

I read this to mean that it really doesn't matter what the specific terms of the engagement are. If so, I agree with you.

I know many organisations where the executive management - all the way up to CEO - are on fixed-term contracts.

All consultants are contractors, but not all contractors are consultants.

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Wynne

All consultants are contractors, but not all contractors are consultants.

Well put. Like "records" and "documents."