3 ms·

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. A

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.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        No I'm not missing this point I just don't agree with it. Companies contract with other companies for all kinds of services. When I call someone to fix my air conditioner I'm not suddenly responsible for the person fixing the air conditioners wages or social status or class. If Food Service workers are underpaid that's a fair point but it's not something for Facebook to fix. If the idea is just that Facebook employees should be polite and well-mannered two other types of workers in the building that makes sense. Edit: I just don't get where the line is. If FB uses ChemLawn to fertilize the grounds, are they also responsible for those workers wage rates? What about the HVAC crew, building maintenance (assuming they work for, say, Smith Building Maintenance) ? If ADP does their payroll is FB responsible for those employees wage rate? Security guards? These food service employees work for a company that provides food for more than one company. I just don't get it. Why isn't their actual employer responsible for their wage rate?
        kafkaesq 9y ago
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.

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.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      No I'm not missing this point I just don't agree with it. Companies contract with other companies for all kinds of services. When I call someone to fix my air conditioner I'm not suddenly responsible for the person fixing the air conditioners wages or social status or class. If Food Service workers are underpaid that's a fair point but it's not something for Facebook to fix. If the idea is just that Facebook employees should be polite and well-mannered two other types of workers in the building that makes sense. Edit: I just don't get where the line is. If FB uses ChemLawn to fertilize the grounds, are they also responsible for those workers wage rates? What about the HVAC crew, building maintenance (assuming they work for, say, Smith Building Maintenance) ? If ADP does their payroll is FB responsible for those employees wage rate? Security guards? These food service employees work for a company that provides food for more than one company. I just don't get it. Why isn't their actual employer responsible for their wage rate?
      - kafkaesq 9y ago

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.