7 ms·

I realize that it's the article's title, but this seems misleading. The bug testers were contractors working under the temp agency Lionbridge Technologies Inc.

• noobermin 8y ago
  It seems convenient and frustrating, but it did seem like Lionbridge specifically targeted them for laying off.
• dsr_ 8y ago
  That is the political line from Lionbridge and Microsoft. Do you think there's something special about QA for Windows Mobile that makes them unhireable for other QA jobs?
  • scarface74 8y ago
    If Microsoft’s review process is anything like Apple’s for apps, I would assume it’s a lot different from testing internal Microsoft products.
    • jacquesm 8y ago
      So then you retrain your workforce in order to keep them employed.
      • EpicEng 8y ago
        It's not their workforce
        • dsr_ 8y ago
          It looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck being held off at a distance by an intermediate party whose sole purpose is to let Microsoft have all the benefits of full time employees without the protections that we award to full time employees.
          • true_religion 8y ago
            Those people could easily be full time employees with benefits---only employed by Lionsbridge, rather than Microsoft. Heck, before Microsoft, Lionsbridge primarily contracted out to Nokia. It's an independent company, that worked in an industry that consolidated around two parties---Android and iOS---and LionsBridge didn't have a significant part in either of those. They simply bet on the wrong players.
            • throwaway432084 8y ago
              > Those people could easily be full time employees with benefits---only employed by Lionsbridge, rather than Microsoft. Not good enough. The quality of benefits from Lionbridge or similar companies is much worse than the benefits offered by Microsoft. Microsoft is getting a tax break (they don't pay FICA on health insurance or certain other benefit-based employee compensation) dependent on making those benefits available to all employees; they need to hold up their end of that deal instead of scamming taxpayers by using subcontracting loopholes.
              • scarface74 8y ago
                Not good enough. The quality of benefits from Lionbridge or similar companies is much worse than the benefits offered by Microsoft. Microsoft is getting a tax break (they don't pay FICA on health insurance or certain other benefit-based employee compensation) dependent on making those benefits available to all employees; they need to hold up their end of that deal instead of scamming taxpayers by using subcontracting loopholes. That’s not how W2 contracting works. LionsBridge is paying FICA, the contractors are considered LionsBridge employees. LionsBridge is passing the cost on to Microsoft. Microsoft is not saving money on FICA. Not necessarily in this case, but full time employees overindex on the value of company provided benefits. It’s just another part of your compensation. You can get health insurance on the open market, without depending on your employer. You have to set your hourly rate high enough to compensate. I’ve done W2 contracting, I made damn sure that my hourly rate was high enough to cover the absence of benefits, the lack of paid time off, etc. In the case of W2 contracting, you can usually buy insurance through your consulting company - full price, pretax. If you are a 1099 contractor you can buy insurance through the exchange and it’s tax deductible.
  • cwyers 8y ago
    They worked under a contract. The contract ended. They could have gotten another contract with Microsoft. But they could have gotten a contract with any other software company, too. Why didn't Lionbridge find another contract?
    • weberc2 8y ago
      Not familiar with Lionbridge, but lots of contract companies pretty much serve one large, local company. It’s often hard to drum up work for a large number of contractors on demand.
      • cwyers 8y ago
        It's probably similarly hard for Microsoft, though, isn't it? It's not like their ending of the Windows Phone project opened up a bunch of vacancies in their other QA projects.
        • weberc2 8y ago
          I agree. I was responding to your question, "Why didn't LionBridge find them more work?". If LionBridge principally works with Microsoft (as is common among contractors) and Microsoft cut QA work, then LionBridge likely couldn't find work for those contractors. This may be _especially_ true if those contractors were demanding a certain salary that is infeasible in LionBridge's market.
    • geezerjay 8y ago
      > They worked under a contract. The contract ended. This sort of argument is disingenuous at best. Unless Lionbridge suddenly left the software development business and stopped hiring developers and testers, it is not possible to assume that these employees were fired just because the company went out of business.
  • EpicEng 8y ago
    Why would MS try to find them work if they didn't need them any longer? Other projects were likely already provisioned for. mS doesn't employ these people directly, it's not their problem.
• devhead 8y ago
  from the title: "then they were dismissed" should have been: "then a few years later they were dismissed"
• calcifer 8y ago
  Since you are quoting... creatively, let me grab the part you ignored: > In documents obtained via FOIA request, the union provided updates from management in the fall of 2016 about pending assignments that it said showed no substantial decline in workload.
  • unreal37 8y ago
    "The number of apps in its Windows Store had dwindled to 13 percent of the 1.1 million offered in 2014, the company said, and it needed less bug testing from Lionbridge, according to a January 2017 memo obtained via a FOIA request." The number of apps is 1/8th what it used to be. That's significant.
    • sharkmerry 8y ago
      but you used 2014. parent poster mentioned 2016. "the union provided updates from management in the fall of 2016 about pending assignments that it said showed no substantial decline in workload."
      • andy_ppp 8y ago
        I mean seriously, testers gunna test stuff right? Have you ever had a situation where the testing work couldn’t expand? The work grows in size to fill the available time.
        • digitaLandscape 8y ago
          You needed to think for another minute before posting this.
          • andy_ppp 8y ago
            I’m probably just tired but re-reading my comment I think it’s reasonable. To clarify, the workload for all the testers could be proven to be the same while the number of things to test could have reduced by 7/8th as the article suggests.
• modells 8y ago
  Microsoft abused subcontractors to deny them benefits even though they were de-facto employees. It doesn't matter what bullshit excuses Microsoft or anyone else comes up with, because they treated people like garbage.
  • hermitdev 8y ago
    It's not Microsoft's responsibility to provide benefits for contractors or subcontractors. It's up to those contractors' actual employer (assuming W2) or themselves (if 1099) to provide those benefits. If you're a contractor under W2, you need to take that up with your direct employer, not MS. If you're a 1099, you need to negotiate a sufficient rate to provide yourself with ability to provide yourself with the benefits. I formed my own S-Corp and hired myself as an employee when I was contracting. Better rates than going through a higher agency. Made sure my rate was high enough I could afford health insurance (~$400/month as an individual). You have to negotiate these things, not just take an offer or leave it. Group you're contracting for is always going to low ball it, if you accept it as is, you're at fault. Contracts are negotiable, not take it or leave it. If they say it's take it or leave it, you leave it - they're not going to be worth working for, anyway, and they're going to have a really hard time filling their need.
    • TheBobinator 8y ago
      That entire post sounds an awful lot like the kind of 3-year old tantrum someone at Microsoft would have if employee's decided to negotiate for themselves, or to work together through collective bargaining. Also, condoning grift is unbelievably short-sighted. A fraction of people are badly taken advantage of or get trapped in bad situations, and when you allow that to happen around you, you are also condoning the <I>violence that inevitably ensues those situations and the violence that becomes a part of the local community, of which you may be a target</I>.
• sureaboutthis 8y ago
  What a coincidence.
• mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
  Work for Microsoft?:)