[caoilte]

I would be sad that it seems they didn't feel they could trust me, but if they did the job well and for a good price why wouldn't I hire them again?

Also, they're not my employee. I contracted them for a one time job. Totally different working relationship.

[m00n]

You say you would feel "sad". To be honest, I would feel cheated. And to set up this smokescreen with pseudo-gardening people (or prerecorded data entry screencaptures to stay with the article) is outright fraught, IMHO.

[caoilte]

Strange. It might be a cultural difference.

I value outputs.

To worry about how work is done if it is done well is micro-management.

Some people do want to pay money to have employees that look busy. I knew someone (in America it has to be said) who lived on a road where one person would constantly be getting gardening done just to show that they could afford it. It was constant re-work and pointless, which just showed off how much money they had. Maybe there is an element of that at work.

Security guards and secretaries are a similar phenomenon. They're not really needed, so god forbid they were to study for evening class while at work.

[m00n]

Maybe it really is a cultural difference. I think there is a continuum of valuations at work here:

If a contractor gets his materials cheaper or does have cheaper labor available, I don't see any obligation or market process to pass these savings onto clients, when the work is of the same quality.

On the other hand, when you delegate work to an expert, and he doesn't tell you about the 99% savings you could employ with existing technologies, I feel this is bad conduct, regardless of output. It just amounts to a 9900% markup on his value. I don't think this kind of markup is ethical, but probably the market will catch up to this expert and revalue him.