Althea Garner
| |
To answer both Terese and Eric.....
A Virtual Assistant is preferrable to a full time member of staff, because they are brought in on an ad hoc basis. Being able to book a person's time only as a when needed is far more attractive than having to pay a person to sit around trying to look busy.
In addition, the employer does not have the burden of all the red tape invloved in a full time employee (this involves many man hours a month), there are no benefits to pay and no annual vacations.
Most VA's charge a little more than a full time employee would cost, but if you weigh the two, VA's are far cheaper, work faster and are far more versatile.
I would not be without my VA (Patti Balch, Ryze member) - she is worth her weight in gold!
Three cheers for VA's!
:)
A
> Terese Strickland wrote:
>
>I am curious about this topic as well. I am trying to start a local (I want to work with people in my community but still from my home) service that is similar to VA's.
>
>Terese
>www.personalliberties.com
>
>
>
>
>
>> Eric Sohn wrote:
>> Althea mentions an important resource - virtual assistants.
>>What do members use VAs for...and, more importantly, what could you use them for?
>>What alternatives are there to VAs? What are the pros and cons of each?
>>For more info, check out the IVAA, the VA professional organization, and AssistU, which trains VAs.
>>Finally, any recommendations for VAs? I'm working out a partnership with someone from the Rocky Mountain VAs
>>Coach Eric Private Reply to Althea Garner (new win) |
