4 ms·

I was struck by this part "The MPL team was not the ideal workforce: They were (and remain) contractors to contractors. They were not protected by a union, nor

I was struck by this part "The MPL team was not the ideal workforce: They were (and remain) contractors to contractors. They were not protected by a union, nor did they enjoy the many benefits of working as public employees. They are coders-for-hire who could relocate across the country quickly, and they reflect the larger industry they work in: Mostly young, mostly male, and highly educated. It does not have to be this way. This kind of precarious employment—lucrative, quasi-nomadic—is as much the result of poor planning as a natural consequence of writing code for a living." Why are any of those things not ideal? What's wrong with being contractors to contractors,non-unionized, young, male or educated? Or am I misunderstanding the author's point?

dastbe 10y ago
I think the focus was on the temporary employment part. The government does not need fly-by-night developers who come in when things are completely broken. they need a strong technical core that builds things well and with low costs the first time.
serge2k 10y ago
> non-unionized How much would they have made if they were unionized workers who got OT for the countless hours? Would they even have been asked to? Could they have gotten a proper office if they weren't non-union contractor to contractor workers? What sort of benefits do they get? You're working yourself at an insane pace, do you get health benefits and some guarantee of time off at some point? > young, male or educated At the exclusion of older, female, and minority workers.