5 ms·

They are excluded from events because they are working not for Facebook, but a food service company that contracts for Facebook. This may be technically true,

They are excluded from events because they are working not for Facebook, but a food service company that contracts for Facebook. This may be technically true, but ultimately it's just window dressing. And for FB (and many other companies that play the same game with its more expendable workers), a convenient dodge in terms of both expenses and liabilities. If you show up at Facebook's building every morning, work in their cafeteria, mop their floors and scrub their toilets -- then for all practical purposes, you're working for Facebook. I've done contract programming, on site, for a blue collar heavy business. I didn't get invited to their functions either. Let's please not try to compare the "plight" of contract tech workers to to the situation that bottom-tier contract service workers are in.

tyingq 9y ago
>Let's please not try to compare the "plight" of contract tech workers I don't personally see a difference other than the average wage for what I do. Companies contract other companies for many things. Janitorial, security guards, software work, etc. They shouldn't be involved in the salary of some other company's workers. If there's a wage issue in this case, it's not Facebook's issue to sort it out.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  I don't personally see a difference other than the average wage for what I do. There's this "respect" part, which is one of the major points of the article. And the fact that you apparently don't even see it as an issue -- while those on the other side of the coin insist that it is, in fact, quite a huge issue -- is a great part of what makes it such a huge issue. If there's a wage issue in this case, it's not Facebook's issue to sort it out. Right -- it's a matter for the legislators and the courts. And if Facebook can't, or won't do the right thing for their workers, on this front -- they'll be made to do it.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    >There's this "respect" part My experiences as an on site contract worker don't always line up with that. I do get your point in cases where companies are misclassifying actual workers as contract help. I think we just disagree that this is the case here. It seems obvious to me that they are employees of the food service company, and should be. Fwiw, I have been a low paid factory worker in the past. It's not a matter where I don't empathize. Are there notable companies that staff their in house cafeteria with actual employees?
    - kafkaesq 9y ago
      My experiences as an on site contract worker don't always line up with that. You keep getting back to your experience as an on-site, and highly paid (compared to most folks) tech worker. The whole point of the original article is the experience of low-paid, contract service workers is vastly different. It seems obvious to me that they are employees of the food service company, and should be. Whether they should or should not be is something one can have various points of view on. I just don't think that just because they, currently, technically, "are" has any bearing on the "should be" part.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        >You keep getting back to your experience as an on-site highly paid (compared to most folks) tech worker. Yes, because you implied it came with respect. It doesn't always.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        You really seem set on missing kafkaesq's point, take this specific line from the article, and this specific line from you: the distance between the two classes of Facebook workers can feel immense. >I don't personally see a difference other than the average wage for what I do. As a highly-paid tech contractor it is obvious on which side of that class divide you fall. Even though you were a contractor. So when you say that you were a contractor and were still respected that's not really the point. Of course you were respected, you're on the correct side of the class divide. That is the difference in respect here, not contract work per se, but the experience of being a poorly paid service worker who lives in a garage yet spends every day working at a company employing legions of young and wealthy programmers who live in fancy apartments. That's why she says: “We don’t live the dream. The techies are living the dream. It’s for them.” You're that techie, you're living that dream.
  - komali2 9y ago
    I wish it didn't have to be a matter for the legislators and the courts, but it seems like capitalism means that facebook has to not do the right thing for the workers if it's more profitable not to - obligation to the shareholders and all that.
    - chii 9y ago
      If we only had capitalism and no legislation, the invisible hand would've made slaves of all of us for the few rich.
booleandilemma 9y ago
This is pretty standard, isn't it? The people who clean my company's office don't attend our town hall meetings, eat lunch with us, or take part in our 401k. They may be working at Facebook, but they work for their own company.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  This is pretty standard, isn't it? Actually it's a fairly recent invention. It only seems "standard" if one has no recollection of a time and a place (not so far back) when outsourcing (and the systematic discounting of blue collar workers, generally) wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today. They may be working at Facebook, but they work for their own company. We all acknowledge that that's the way things (technically) are. What's at issue is whether that's the way they ought to be. And the extent to which, while it may be technically correct that these people are working for different companies... on a deeper, more fundamental level -- it's just a big gimmick.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    I worked for an office cleaning company in 1983. Contracting things like on site food facilities, security, building maintenance, and janitorial isn't new. Maybe the spread of how popular it is vs in house has changed, but it isn't new.
    - kafkaesq 9y ago
      It isn't "new" of course, but it's been greatly, greatly expanded. Back around that time, if you considered, say a school district... it'd be nearly a given that most of those people were employees of the school district. Nowadays? Practically the opposite. So I guess what I was trying to say was, while it isn't new, it's become so common that one could say that things have basically "tipped". And it's the idea that this state of affairs is somehow "standard" -- is what's the invention.

tyingq 9y ago

>Let's please not try to compare the "plight" of contract tech workers I don't personally see a difference other than the average wage for what I do. Companies contract other companies for many things. Janitorial, security guards, software work, etc. They shouldn't be involved in the salary of some other company's workers. If there's a wage issue in this case, it's not Facebook's issue to sort it out.

kafkaesq 9y ago
I don't personally see a difference other than the average wage for what I do. There's this "respect" part, which is one of the major points of the article. And the fact that you apparently don't even see it as an issue -- while those on the other side of the coin insist that it is, in fact, quite a huge issue -- is a great part of what makes it such a huge issue. If there's a wage issue in this case, it's not Facebook's issue to sort it out. Right -- it's a matter for the legislators and the courts. And if Facebook can't, or won't do the right thing for their workers, on this front -- they'll be made to do it.
- tyingq 9y ago
  >There's this "respect" part My experiences as an on site contract worker don't always line up with that. I do get your point in cases where companies are misclassifying actual workers as contract help. I think we just disagree that this is the case here. It seems obvious to me that they are employees of the food service company, and should be. Fwiw, I have been a low paid factory worker in the past. It's not a matter where I don't empathize. Are there notable companies that staff their in house cafeteria with actual employees?
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    My experiences as an on site contract worker don't always line up with that. You keep getting back to your experience as an on-site, and highly paid (compared to most folks) tech worker. The whole point of the original article is the experience of low-paid, contract service workers is vastly different. It seems obvious to me that they are employees of the food service company, and should be. Whether they should or should not be is something one can have various points of view on. I just don't think that just because they, currently, technically, "are" has any bearing on the "should be" part.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      >You keep getting back to your experience as an on-site highly paid (compared to most folks) tech worker. Yes, because you implied it came with respect. It doesn't always.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        You really seem set on missing kafkaesq's point, take this specific line from the article, and this specific line from you: the distance between the two classes of Facebook workers can feel immense. >I don't personally see a difference other than the average wage for what I do. As a highly-paid tech contractor it is obvious on which side of that class divide you fall. Even though you were a contractor. So when you say that you were a contractor and were still respected that's not really the point. Of course you were respected, you're on the correct side of the class divide. That is the difference in respect here, not contract work per se, but the experience of being a poorly paid service worker who lives in a garage yet spends every day working at a company employing legions of young and wealthy programmers who live in fancy apartments. That's why she says: “We don’t live the dream. The techies are living the dream. It’s for them.” You're that techie, you're living that dream.
- komali2 9y ago
  I wish it didn't have to be a matter for the legislators and the courts, but it seems like capitalism means that facebook has to not do the right thing for the workers if it's more profitable not to - obligation to the shareholders and all that.
  - chii 9y ago
    If we only had capitalism and no legislation, the invisible hand would've made slaves of all of us for the few rich.

booleandilemma 9y ago

This is pretty standard, isn't it? The people who clean my company's office don't attend our town hall meetings, eat lunch with us, or take part in our 401k. They may be working at Facebook, but they work for their own company.

kafkaesq 9y ago
This is pretty standard, isn't it? Actually it's a fairly recent invention. It only seems "standard" if one has no recollection of a time and a place (not so far back) when outsourcing (and the systematic discounting of blue collar workers, generally) wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today. They may be working at Facebook, but they work for their own company. We all acknowledge that that's the way things (technically) are. What's at issue is whether that's the way they ought to be. And the extent to which, while it may be technically correct that these people are working for different companies... on a deeper, more fundamental level -- it's just a big gimmick.
- tyingq 9y ago
  I worked for an office cleaning company in 1983. Contracting things like on site food facilities, security, building maintenance, and janitorial isn't new. Maybe the spread of how popular it is vs in house has changed, but it isn't new.
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    It isn't "new" of course, but it's been greatly, greatly expanded. Back around that time, if you considered, say a school district... it'd be nearly a given that most of those people were employees of the school district. Nowadays? Practically the opposite. So I guess what I was trying to say was, while it isn't new, it's become so common that one could say that things have basically "tipped". And it's the idea that this state of affairs is somehow "standard" -- is what's the invention.