|
|
|
|
|
|
by arjie
37 days ago
|
|
|
That seems entirely logical if you: * need the ability to stop paying the person * have a duty-cycle lower than 83% on the contractor over the next 10 years Paying a premium for flexibility is pretty standard business practice. I suppose I’m somewhat surprised the gap is merely 20%. With the triple-lock etc. in place I think that’s a screaming deal and I would take on as many substitutions as possible. |
|
|