5 ms·
Depends on the culture of the people. I have experienced numerous instances where an Indian candidate is not who they claim to be. Person X is hired, person Y
by BadThink6655321 8y ago
Depends on the culture of the people. I have experienced numerous instances where an Indian candidate is not who they claim to be. Person X is hired, person Y shows up. Person X conducts the phone interview for person Y. And so on. And this has happened for not just me.
- maxxxxx 8y agoI just experienced this with a contractor. I have never seen him do anything himself. I strongly suspect he is sending his work somewhere else.
- freeone3000 8y agoHe's a contractor. That's the difference between him and an employee: He chooses the time, place, and manner of his work, including subcontracting it. If he's not allowed to do this, chances are you have an employee.
- frisco 8y agoNot true, limitations on subcontracting (or at least limiting it to approved subcontractors) are allowed and common. Just because he’s a contractor doesn’t mean NDAs are meaningless.
- lovich 8y agoLimiting work to people with security clearances is an example of ok limitations. Adding so many limits that the acceptable people to do work are the single contractor means youve jaut made a constructive way to get around hiring a person as an employee
- zero_intp 8y agoyour statements are unsupported. It is my observation that you are stating spirit of law to your understanding, but not what occurs in law or practice.
- abiox 8y ago> He chooses the time, place, and manner of his work, including subcontracting it. all of this is entirely within the scope of the contract. "subcontracting" is unlikely to be permissible in a variety of scenarios, especially if the material being worked on is even vaguely sensitive. when it does happen, it's typically in a larger organizational context and then there will usually be some vetting or approval process.
- lovich 8y agoIf you are controlling how work is done then you have an employee. If subcontracting is unacceptable and you are still hiring contractors then you are just trying to run around employment law, at least in the US
- abiox 8y agodo you have specific citations or is this some ideological stance? to me it makes zero sense to hire a vetted contractor who can then just toss say, classified data, over to some unknown random. it's a completely untenable proposition.
- lovich 8y agoIf you are requireing who can do the work and how it's done you've constrained the person into an employee-employer relationship regardless of what you decide to call. Contracts are like an interface, you are setting up an agreement on what is being provided and don't care about the implementation. When you constrain the contract so much that only a single person can fulfill the contract you are just abusing the concept of contracting. In the example above with NDAs and security clearance that can be a perfectly valid requirement, but you can't reasonably be upset if the contractor subcontracts out to someone else with clearance who has signed the same NDA
- abiox 8y agoi don't agree with your definition of contracting, but either way i'm particularly interested if you can point to some legal code that forbids a contract from containing a "no subcontracting" clause. that would be quite interesting.
- maxxxxx 8y agoThis contractor is working onsite during normal working hours. I am not even judging the situation but from what I can see he is not doing anything himself. He also got hired with the assumption that he would do the work.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoWould something be wrong with that? Isn't that basically the concept of contracting?
- darpa_escapee 8y agoDoes person X show up to person Y's on-site interviews?
- BadThink6655321 8y agoNot in my experience. But doing an on-site interview in India is the exception, not the rule. (Note: I’ve done both). And when an “on-site” interview is done, make sure you’re the one who is on-site, and not an Indian agent. Their caste system makes it hard for “others” to be people, and we all know what happens when you dehumanize others.
- whatshisface 8y ago>Their caste system makes it hard for “others” to be people, and we all know what happens when you dehumanize others. Since I have little experience with outsourcing to India, the implication here is mysterious to me. What are you getting at?
- BadThink6655321 8y agoLet me relate a true story, and then discuss some implications. After dinner one night, many years ago, an Indian co-worker and I started discussing politics. The Indian wanted to know why we didn’t nuke Pakistan in our hunt for bin Laden. I said that the fallout would kill tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of his countrymen. His response? “They’re excess people.” If you don’t care about others, then you will use the “other” for your benefit - not mutual benefit. You will be used, you will be lied to, and the political maneuvering will be slanted against you. Note that this isn’t limited to Indians. It’s, unfortunately, becoming more prevelant in American society, too. In a shrinking world, tribalism (aka identity politics) will be an increasing problem. But Indians have been practicing it for 6K years, so they’re especially good at it.
- joelcornett 8y agoSweeping generalizations and thinly veiled racism is ok on HN?