5 ms·

This is such a big win for the temporary / contingent workforce. The reality of the industry perpetuated by companies like Manpower, Kelly Services (Aerotek),

This is such a big win for the temporary / contingent workforce. The reality of the industry perpetuated by companies like Manpower, Kelly Services (Aerotek), Robert Half, Randstad, Adecco, etc. is rapacious and financially harmful to most workers. All the while being unnecessarily expensive (in my analysis) for the clients those workers are sent to. The cut that these companies take from the employees they outsource does not justify the cost they're charging the clients. 50 percent sometimes for doing nothing more than posting a craigslist ad and shoving a contract in the face of some poor, but earnest, immigrant or a down `n out tech worker. [edit typo]

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
How are the temp companies harming "most workers"? How would you do things differently?
- dalke 11y ago
  While the news article didn't describe the percentage of people "harmed" by using a temp company, it did give examples including the Teamsters / Leadpoint / Browning-Ferris case, it described that it was a non-trivial fraction of people affected, and it explained the rule change for to do things differently. It also linked to the actual decision, at https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-decision-browning-ferris-industries https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-d... , so you can read the full details. That in turn says (emphasis mine): > Consistent with earlier Board decisions, as well as the common law, we will examine how control is manifested in a particular employment relationship. We reject those limiting requirements that the Board has imposed— without foundation in the statute or common law—after Browning-Ferris. We will no longer require that a joint employer not only possess the authority to control employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but also exercise that authority. What more information do you want on the topic, rather than shawnee_'s opinions? I ask because your questions here look like they are meant more to put shawnee_ on the spot than anything else, when shawnee_'s opinions are consistent with that of: > labor advocates and academics who have described an increasingly “fissured” economy, in which whole industries have been built on business models that offer workers few of the protections of a traditional employer relationship. Is it not more useful to look at the broader arguments already presented in the WaPo article?
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    I read the WaPo article and see no financial rationale for forcing this relationship between contractors and commercial organizations. And since when is it wrong to "put someone on the spot" by asking questions? The "increasingly fissured economy" argument is an old one but the solutions are not at all clear. Legislating more lawsuits, forcing contractors and temps into an employee relationship with 3rd parties -- this is a temporary favor to unions and wage-and-benefit advocates but doesn't solve the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. I would address the cost basis first, and make it less expensive to hire full timers, and then we'll see more hiring of full timers.
    - dalke 11y ago
      There's no financial rationale because the case didn't concern financial rationale. This is a question of how to interpret the existing National Labor Relations Act. Thus, your comments make no sense. Regarding "put someone on the spot"; you are veering close to "JAQing off" territory. The question you had were general ones addressed by the article, and here are many easily found sources that would give you the insight you are looking for. Your one line response to shawnee_ did not give any evidence that you understood the context, or cared to do your own research, it had a implicit assumption that a random HN should educate you, a full answer would have required multiple paragraphs, and would unlikely to be correct as HN readers tend to not be aware of labor law. Plus, shawnee_ was clearly expressing an opinion and not trying to make provable statements that can be backed up by the specifics you wanted. Following up as you did is hard to distinguish from sealioning.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      >the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. [citation needed]. What's the above-salary overhead on hiring someone in the USA vs other countries vs the USA at other times when the labor market was tighter?
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  The short answer is bad employers of minimum wage McJobs fuck it up for the rest of us.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    How so? People complain, on others' behalf, about minwage jobs yet offer no particular solution other than: force the min wage up, causing inflation and unemployment. I'd love to see someone open a McDonalds-like fast food restaurant that paid $20 or $25 per hour, plus decent benefits, and make a profit. If it were possible to do, why can't anyone do it?
    - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
      It works like this 1 Bad employers exploit a loop hole to fuck over poor people 2 It becomes a political issue "something must be done" 3 Laws are passed in haste that negatively effect contractors on $1000/day
    - dalke 11y ago
      Why do you say there's "no particular solution" when the NLRB did offer a particular solution, in the decision linked to by this WaPo article? Moreover, that solution concerns many issues besides wages, including "employment qualifications, work hours, breaks, productivity standards, staffing levels, work rules and performance, the speed of the lines, [and] dismissal." As I suggested elsewhere, it seems like the questions you have can easily be answered by the many articles on this topic, including the WaPo article and the primary references. You instead ask other commenters for answers to your questions, which is unlikely to get you far as most HN readers are 1) not here to educate you and 2) not knowledgeable about labor law and practices. As an example of one of the things which often come up in this discussion, McDonald's in Denmark pays $20/hour. See http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/15/fight-for-15-try-21/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/15/fight-for-1... or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/global-mcdonalds-protests_n_5324938.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/global-mcdonalds-pr... or http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/03/other-98/can-you-make-45000year-mcdonalds-denmark/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/03/... as some of the many articles on the topic. And there are no minimum wage laws in Denmark. Can explain why it is that McDonald's can make a profit in Denmark while paying $20/hour, but (according to you) can't do so in the US?
- Spooky23 11y ago
  The isolate the employment relationship from the supervisory relationship. So your boss isn't your boss. In a collective bargaining scenario, they provide a 2nd class workforce not subject to bargaining that weakens the union's bargaining position.
wheaties 11y ago
Robert Half... gave me an intelligence test and then told me, based on my score, they could only pay me 3/4th my thrn salary. Funny because I was already under the 20th percentile on the low end. Leeches.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

How are the temp companies harming "most workers"? How would you do things differently?

dalke 11y ago
While the news article didn't describe the percentage of people "harmed" by using a temp company, it did give examples including the Teamsters / Leadpoint / Browning-Ferris case, it described that it was a non-trivial fraction of people affected, and it explained the rule change for to do things differently. It also linked to the actual decision, at https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-decision-browning-ferris-industries https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-d... , so you can read the full details. That in turn says (emphasis mine): > Consistent with earlier Board decisions, as well as the common law, we will examine how control is manifested in a particular employment relationship. We reject those limiting requirements that the Board has imposed— without foundation in the statute or common law—after Browning-Ferris. We will no longer require that a joint employer not only possess the authority to control employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but also exercise that authority. What more information do you want on the topic, rather than shawnee_'s opinions? I ask because your questions here look like they are meant more to put shawnee_ on the spot than anything else, when shawnee_'s opinions are consistent with that of: > labor advocates and academics who have described an increasingly “fissured” economy, in which whole industries have been built on business models that offer workers few of the protections of a traditional employer relationship. Is it not more useful to look at the broader arguments already presented in the WaPo article?
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  I read the WaPo article and see no financial rationale for forcing this relationship between contractors and commercial organizations. And since when is it wrong to "put someone on the spot" by asking questions? The "increasingly fissured economy" argument is an old one but the solutions are not at all clear. Legislating more lawsuits, forcing contractors and temps into an employee relationship with 3rd parties -- this is a temporary favor to unions and wage-and-benefit advocates but doesn't solve the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. I would address the cost basis first, and make it less expensive to hire full timers, and then we'll see more hiring of full timers.
  - dalke 11y ago
    There's no financial rationale because the case didn't concern financial rationale. This is a question of how to interpret the existing National Labor Relations Act. Thus, your comments make no sense. Regarding "put someone on the spot"; you are veering close to "JAQing off" territory. The question you had were general ones addressed by the article, and here are many easily found sources that would give you the insight you are looking for. Your one line response to shawnee_ did not give any evidence that you understood the context, or cared to do your own research, it had a implicit assumption that a random HN should educate you, a full answer would have required multiple paragraphs, and would unlikely to be correct as HN readers tend to not be aware of labor law. Plus, shawnee_ was clearly expressing an opinion and not trying to make provable statements that can be backed up by the specifics you wanted. Following up as you did is hard to distinguish from sealioning.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. [citation needed]. What's the above-salary overhead on hiring someone in the USA vs other countries vs the USA at other times when the labor market was tighter?
spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
The short answer is bad employers of minimum wage McJobs fuck it up for the rest of us.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  How so? People complain, on others' behalf, about minwage jobs yet offer no particular solution other than: force the min wage up, causing inflation and unemployment. I'd love to see someone open a McDonalds-like fast food restaurant that paid $20 or $25 per hour, plus decent benefits, and make a profit. If it were possible to do, why can't anyone do it?
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    It works like this 1 Bad employers exploit a loop hole to fuck over poor people 2 It becomes a political issue "something must be done" 3 Laws are passed in haste that negatively effect contractors on $1000/day
  - dalke 11y ago
    Why do you say there's "no particular solution" when the NLRB did offer a particular solution, in the decision linked to by this WaPo article? Moreover, that solution concerns many issues besides wages, including "employment qualifications, work hours, breaks, productivity standards, staffing levels, work rules and performance, the speed of the lines, [and] dismissal." As I suggested elsewhere, it seems like the questions you have can easily be answered by the many articles on this topic, including the WaPo article and the primary references. You instead ask other commenters for answers to your questions, which is unlikely to get you far as most HN readers are 1) not here to educate you and 2) not knowledgeable about labor law and practices. As an example of one of the things which often come up in this discussion, McDonald's in Denmark pays $20/hour. See http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/15/fight-for-15-try-21/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/15/fight-for-1... or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/global-mcdonalds-protests_n_5324938.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/global-mcdonalds-pr... or http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/03/other-98/can-you-make-45000year-mcdonalds-denmark/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/03/... as some of the many articles on the topic. And there are no minimum wage laws in Denmark. Can explain why it is that McDonald's can make a profit in Denmark while paying $20/hour, but (according to you) can't do so in the US?
Spooky23 11y ago
The isolate the employment relationship from the supervisory relationship. So your boss isn't your boss. In a collective bargaining scenario, they provide a 2nd class workforce not subject to bargaining that weakens the union's bargaining position.

wheaties 11y ago

Robert Half... gave me an intelligence test and then told me, based on my score, they could only pay me 3/4th my thrn salary. Funny because I was already under the 20th percentile on the low end. Leeches.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]