4 ms·

I work in pharma, and I was a contractor before I was hired on. It's a similar situation to what's described in the article, where contractors are full-time emp

I work in pharma, and I was a contractor before I was hired on. It's a similar situation to what's described in the article, where contractors are full-time employees of a third-party company, and that company's rules are the ones that apply to their employees. If I remember correctly, the contract company was mostly concerned with co-employment. As it was explained to me, Microsoft had a similar setup, but contractors were treated exactly the same as employees. Those contractors sued and won all of the additional compensation they had been denied as contractors. For that reason, Google can't have too much control over things like hiring and firing decisions, healthcare offerings, compensation, etc, lest they be considered a co-employer. In the article, it sounds like the Google employees want Google to wield its power to enforce particular HR policies on their contractors, but I'm not entirely sure that's possible. Disclaimer: I'm a biologist, not a lawyer.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
These "contractors" exist solely to create the ability to exclude employees from benefits and rights. It's entirely possible for Google to resolve this: Google can hire it's own employees. From my recollection, Apple Store employees are, in fact, employees of Apple. Whereas if you go to any sort of Google popup retail location, you're going to be working with contractors. The other way Google can control all of these aspects even for contractors is to refuse to work with contractors who do not uphold the standards they set. As these contracting companies exist solely to provide contract work to big tech cos, they will fall in line immediately.
- sultanofswing 8y ago
  But you've sort of hit the nail on the head right there. Apple Store employees are likely employees because Apple Stores are a major part of Apple's business. Apple hires hoards of contractors for all sorts of roles internally (experimental projects, kitchen staff blah blah). Google popup locations are not comparable to Apple Stores.
- BinaryIdiot 8y ago
  > The other way Google can control all of these aspects even for contractors is to refuse to work with contractors who do not uphold the standards they set. As these contracting companies exist solely to provide contract work to big tech cos, they will fall in line immediately. Hmm. But if they try to match (or come close) to Google's standards then Google will likely have to pay more for a contractor than they do for an employee. At that point might as well just hire them.
  - jonlucc 8y ago
    Even when I was a contractor, I never quite understood this. The contractor costs Google whatever it costs the contractor to employ them plus some amount of profit for the contract company. It would be cheaper to just employ people at a contractor's wage and internalize those processes, at least where the contractors are doing similar work to their own employees. It might still not make sense to start doing things like maintenance or cooking. As best I can tell, it is a different pot of money. In my company, contractors are a budgetary decision, while employees require HR and other hurdles. Similarly, when you want to cut costs, you can fire contractors (shrink the contract and let the contract company do whatever they need to) without making the news with a headline like "Google lays off 10% of its workforce".
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > The contractor costs Google whatever it costs the contractor to employ them plus some amount of profit for the contract company. Plus contracting overhead on both sides (the contractor-side overhead is neither an employment cost for the contracting firm nor profit.)
- bsimpson 8y ago
  From what I can tell, there are two main reasons companies use TVCs: 1. They don't want to be in the business of hiring/vetting/training/supplying benefits for people who aren't part of the business's core competency (security guards, cooks/baristas, receptionists, etc.). 2. Bureaucratically, TVCs are a lot easier to hire. You don't need months of interviews or headcount approvals in your budget: you just need to be able to spend money. Of course, these problems are both theoretically solvable if a business cared to solve them. (It really bothers me that the people who take care of us aren't always well taken-care-of.) However, it's important to understand that there are multiple factors at play. TVCs are often chosen less for cost savings; more because at the hiring manager level, they're a lot easier to get approved.
philfrasty 8y ago
Would you mind sharing your opinion/learnings on your time contracting? My wife (molecular biologist) is currently interviewing for a similiar position through one of these middleman companies (Agap2). Edit: (bit of background) from what I see (through her) really hard to get directly into Pharma here in Germany/EU even with a PhD and decent CV.
- jonlucc 8y ago
  Gladly! I'm in the US, so it may be a bit different, but here is my experience. To start, would I do it again? Yes, in a heartbeat. I was fresh out of undergraduate with a degree in biology, but very little experience in labs. I spent several months applying to jobs and not hearing back at all. I eventually answered a very odd job ad, and they were basically so desperate for bodies that they interview almost everyone who applies with the appropriate degree. There were two systems for that company at the time, but both were on-site in the pharma company's facility, using their equipment. The first was a core lab that did a bunch of cell culture and other various work and only interacted with people at the pharma company as clients. The second is essentially a contractor embedded in a pharma lab, doing whatever work the lab needed. I was in the second type of lab. I had some basic computer stuff on my resume, and they decided that matched well with a lab that needed someone to do CT scan analysis. I only saw my boss at the contracting company in the halls or at monthly check-ins; otherwise, all of my daily interactions were from the lab's PI and pharma employees. I eventually was a supervisor to the other contractors in my department, and I was on the management track, but I wanted to stay in the science. I spent a few years as a contractor. That original PI retired and I moved to another lab that I still work in. Getting hired as a contractor is a pain in the ass, because the job has to be posted internally first, and I wasn't allowed to apply until it was posted externally. In my mind, the contract company served to hire people with little experience, give them the necessary basic skills (pipetting, weighing, maybe ELISAs, TaqMan, etc) and weed out people who couldn't learn new things, which is of value to the pharma company. As a contractor, I learned all of the practical stuff that hadn't been taught in college, and I got to network with tens of labs. I was somewhat fortunate that I love the lab I was placed in, so I didn't hesitate to apply for a full-time position when it became available, but I also was very aware of a couple of labs I would have been miserable in, which is also more information to have than a true outsider would have. Lastly, the majority of people at my level (hands-on research) who are hired from outside without knowing someone on the inside are hired for very specific skills, and I had none at the time. I'm happy to answer more specific questions if it would be helpful. My email is my username @ gmail. Good luck to her!

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

These "contractors" exist solely to create the ability to exclude employees from benefits and rights. It's entirely possible for Google to resolve this: Google can hire it's own employees. From my recollection, Apple Store employees are, in fact, employees of Apple. Whereas if you go to any sort of Google popup retail location, you're going to be working with contractors. The other way Google can control all of these aspects even for contractors is to refuse to work with contractors who do not uphold the standards they set. As these contracting companies exist solely to provide contract work to big tech cos, they will fall in line immediately.

sultanofswing 8y ago
But you've sort of hit the nail on the head right there. Apple Store employees are likely employees because Apple Stores are a major part of Apple's business. Apple hires hoards of contractors for all sorts of roles internally (experimental projects, kitchen staff blah blah). Google popup locations are not comparable to Apple Stores.
BinaryIdiot 8y ago
> The other way Google can control all of these aspects even for contractors is to refuse to work with contractors who do not uphold the standards they set. As these contracting companies exist solely to provide contract work to big tech cos, they will fall in line immediately. Hmm. But if they try to match (or come close) to Google's standards then Google will likely have to pay more for a contractor than they do for an employee. At that point might as well just hire them.
- jonlucc 8y ago
  Even when I was a contractor, I never quite understood this. The contractor costs Google whatever it costs the contractor to employ them plus some amount of profit for the contract company. It would be cheaper to just employ people at a contractor's wage and internalize those processes, at least where the contractors are doing similar work to their own employees. It might still not make sense to start doing things like maintenance or cooking. As best I can tell, it is a different pot of money. In my company, contractors are a budgetary decision, while employees require HR and other hurdles. Similarly, when you want to cut costs, you can fire contractors (shrink the contract and let the contract company do whatever they need to) without making the news with a headline like "Google lays off 10% of its workforce".
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The contractor costs Google whatever it costs the contractor to employ them plus some amount of profit for the contract company. Plus contracting overhead on both sides (the contractor-side overhead is neither an employment cost for the contracting firm nor profit.)
bsimpson 8y ago
From what I can tell, there are two main reasons companies use TVCs: 1. They don't want to be in the business of hiring/vetting/training/supplying benefits for people who aren't part of the business's core competency (security guards, cooks/baristas, receptionists, etc.). 2. Bureaucratically, TVCs are a lot easier to hire. You don't need months of interviews or headcount approvals in your budget: you just need to be able to spend money. Of course, these problems are both theoretically solvable if a business cared to solve them. (It really bothers me that the people who take care of us aren't always well taken-care-of.) However, it's important to understand that there are multiple factors at play. TVCs are often chosen less for cost savings; more because at the hiring manager level, they're a lot easier to get approved.

philfrasty 8y ago

Would you mind sharing your opinion/learnings on your time contracting? My wife (molecular biologist) is currently interviewing for a similiar position through one of these middleman companies (Agap2). Edit: (bit of background) from what I see (through her) really hard to get directly into Pharma here in Germany/EU even with a PhD and decent CV.

jonlucc 8y ago
Gladly! I'm in the US, so it may be a bit different, but here is my experience. To start, would I do it again? Yes, in a heartbeat. I was fresh out of undergraduate with a degree in biology, but very little experience in labs. I spent several months applying to jobs and not hearing back at all. I eventually answered a very odd job ad, and they were basically so desperate for bodies that they interview almost everyone who applies with the appropriate degree. There were two systems for that company at the time, but both were on-site in the pharma company's facility, using their equipment. The first was a core lab that did a bunch of cell culture and other various work and only interacted with people at the pharma company as clients. The second is essentially a contractor embedded in a pharma lab, doing whatever work the lab needed. I was in the second type of lab. I had some basic computer stuff on my resume, and they decided that matched well with a lab that needed someone to do CT scan analysis. I only saw my boss at the contracting company in the halls or at monthly check-ins; otherwise, all of my daily interactions were from the lab's PI and pharma employees. I eventually was a supervisor to the other contractors in my department, and I was on the management track, but I wanted to stay in the science. I spent a few years as a contractor. That original PI retired and I moved to another lab that I still work in. Getting hired as a contractor is a pain in the ass, because the job has to be posted internally first, and I wasn't allowed to apply until it was posted externally. In my mind, the contract company served to hire people with little experience, give them the necessary basic skills (pipetting, weighing, maybe ELISAs, TaqMan, etc) and weed out people who couldn't learn new things, which is of value to the pharma company. As a contractor, I learned all of the practical stuff that hadn't been taught in college, and I got to network with tens of labs. I was somewhat fortunate that I love the lab I was placed in, so I didn't hesitate to apply for a full-time position when it became available, but I also was very aware of a couple of labs I would have been miserable in, which is also more information to have than a true outsider would have. Lastly, the majority of people at my level (hands-on research) who are hired from outside without knowing someone on the inside are hired for very specific skills, and I had none at the time. I'm happy to answer more specific questions if it would be helpful. My email is my username @ gmail. Good luck to her!