As loath as I am to disagree with anyone here, the choice of what kind of staff to engage depends on your needs. If you need someone during the entire day, need them on-site for some reason, want them to run the business in your absence... VAs may not be the right answer.
That being said, I think the advent of VAs is a tremendous innovation, since it gives the small business owner flexibility he or she never had before.
So, it's probably best to consider all your options at the time you need to staff: VAs, seasonal staff, job-sharing staff, part-time staff, full-time staff, piecework workers, consultants... and whatever else I left out.
> Althea Garner wrote:
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.
Private Reply to Eric Sohn (new win)