6 ms·

95% of the problem is in this quote: "Temps, vendors and contractors are an important part of our extended workforce, but they are employed by other companies,

by dsr_ 8y ago

95% of the problem is in this quote: "Temps, vendors and contractors are an important part of our extended workforce, but they are employed by other companies, not Google." This is completely incorrect in every way except legally. Google employs them, and pretends that they don't by inserting another company in between. When you find yourself doing something simple in a complicated way because the law gives you additional advantages, that's a great sign that the law is bad.

Daishiman 8y ago
Yes, and in many civilized countries courts have seen this farce for what it is. Unfortunately that's not the case everywhere.
CPLX 8y ago
> When you find yourself doing something simple in a complicated way because the law gives you additional advantages, that's a great sign that the law is bad. Not really. It's usually a sign that you're trying to evade the plain meaning of the law with technicalities.
- graedus 8y ago
  Doesn't it follow that if you're able to evade the plain meaning of the law, then the law as written (or its enforcement) is ineffective, or "bad"?
  - eropple 8y ago
    On some axes, sure. On others: there is a basic social contract that underpins...well...society. And it's telling, to me, that Google is conflating "following the law" and "what might possibly cost us rounding errors in additional benefits" in the documentation quoted in the Guardian piece, to be honest: they're tipping their hand here. And I don't think it's nearly as murky as some folks want it to look. Let's be real: more often than not, when somebody's doing something dirty, they know it's dirty.
wycy 8y ago
Exactly. If you go to work every day at Google, you work at Google. It is unfortunate that laws don't reflect that, but of course if they did, companies would find loopholes. If working every day at Google were legally defined such that you work for Google, perhaps contractors would simply be forced to rotate between workplaces weekly to skirt these definitions.
- SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
  I don't think that would make sense as a hard-line rule though. If IBM sells a new mainframe system, and sends a squad of engineers to help set it up for a few months, surely we shouldn't force those engineers to become employees of the customer.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dsr_ 8y ago
    Easy test: does IBM have a staff of mainframe site install engineers, who don't take direction from IBM's customer but rather from IBM's management, and can reasonably be expected to work on more than one site install during the length of their employment at IBM? That looks like an IBM employee to me. Or does IBM sell development services to the customer, hire the workforce, turn over day-to-day management to the customer and fire the engineers when the setup job is done? That looks like the customer hired IBM as a cut-out.
    - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
      Install engineers often do end up taking direction from customers, the same way as management consultants and such do. I’d agree that the rest of it is a good test, but I think it’s also a test the vast majority of Google contractors would pass. Temp agencies don’t typically fire people at the end of every project, and certainly the janitorial services don’t.
- noobiemcfoob 8y ago
thomascgalvin 8y ago
That can probably summed up as "loopholes considered harmful". Unfortunately, we have an entire profession dedicated to extracting maximum value from the letter of the law, regardless of its original intent.
tylerl 8y ago
You seem to be taking this all at face value. Temp agencies are a pretty nontrivial force in the employment world. If you work at a temp agency, they pay you regardless of whether you're bringing money, they do technical training and career advancement work, all the while you're "on deck" not actually being useful. Then a company like Google or Boeing or Joe's Game Studio comes along and says "we need 3 highly skilled C++ programmers in two weeks, for 6 months", and the temp agency sends you off to work there. You relocate, you work on some internal project for 6 months, and then you're back "on deck" at the temp agency, and then off to somewhere else. The company does not have the option to hire you permanently unless the temp agency put that into the agreement (probably for a price), the agency charged something like 2x or even 3x your salary to the company while you were working there, but your wage and benefits stay the same throughout, working or not. So, who's your real employer? Looking at this from an armchair, it's easy to miss that there's more going on than just, "Tim is on the team for the next few months." Whether or not you like the fact that this kind of agency exists and this kind of work is possible is another question.
- nroach 8y ago
  But when "temps" can be employed for 10+ years in the same role with the same host company, is that model still true?
  - noobiemcfoob 8y ago
    Yes. Having the option of being redeployed elsewhere or called back but not doing so is not the same thing as not having that option.
- chaosite 8y ago
  But that's not how red/green/$color badges work at Google/Intel/Facebook/$company. They're not "3 highly skilled C++ programmers", they're usually slotted into some kind of not as appreciated but still required role, like QA or data entry, and they're not "in two weeks, for 6 months", they're basically at a single host company for the entire time, but they renew the contract in 6 month increments until such time when the host company decides it doesn't need them anymore. Which is basically a form of downsizing. They aren't some form of highly skilled consultants that drop to aid a project in a pinch. Usually they're basically indistinguishable from FTEs.
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
It's not doing something simple in a complicated way though. This is how the laws work for contract labor and Google is simply abiding by them. Google hires people full time as employees and the laws for them require some things. Google also hires companies to provide services on a contract basis and the laws for them require others. Is your contention that Google shouldn't subcontract labor for anything because Google is somehow different than every other company?

by dsr_ 8y ago

Daishiman 8y ago

Yes, and in many civilized countries courts have seen this farce for what it is. Unfortunately that's not the case everywhere.

CPLX 8y ago

> When you find yourself doing something simple in a complicated way because the law gives you additional advantages, that's a great sign that the law is bad. Not really. It's usually a sign that you're trying to evade the plain meaning of the law with technicalities.

graedus 8y ago
Doesn't it follow that if you're able to evade the plain meaning of the law, then the law as written (or its enforcement) is ineffective, or "bad"?
- eropple 8y ago
  On some axes, sure. On others: there is a basic social contract that underpins...well...society. And it's telling, to me, that Google is conflating "following the law" and "what might possibly cost us rounding errors in additional benefits" in the documentation quoted in the Guardian piece, to be honest: they're tipping their hand here. And I don't think it's nearly as murky as some folks want it to look. Let's be real: more often than not, when somebody's doing something dirty, they know it's dirty.

wycy 8y ago

Exactly. If you go to work every day at Google, you work at Google. It is unfortunate that laws don't reflect that, but of course if they did, companies would find loopholes. If working every day at Google were legally defined such that you work for Google, perhaps contractors would simply be forced to rotate between workplaces weekly to skirt these definitions.

SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
I don't think that would make sense as a hard-line rule though. If IBM sells a new mainframe system, and sends a squad of engineers to help set it up for a few months, surely we shouldn't force those engineers to become employees of the customer.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dsr_ 8y ago
  Easy test: does IBM have a staff of mainframe site install engineers, who don't take direction from IBM's customer but rather from IBM's management, and can reasonably be expected to work on more than one site install during the length of their employment at IBM? That looks like an IBM employee to me. Or does IBM sell development services to the customer, hire the workforce, turn over day-to-day management to the customer and fire the engineers when the setup job is done? That looks like the customer hired IBM as a cut-out.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
    Install engineers often do end up taking direction from customers, the same way as management consultants and such do. I’d agree that the rest of it is a good test, but I think it’s also a test the vast majority of Google contractors would pass. Temp agencies don’t typically fire people at the end of every project, and certainly the janitorial services don’t.
noobiemcfoob 8y ago

thomascgalvin 8y ago

That can probably summed up as "loopholes considered harmful". Unfortunately, we have an entire profession dedicated to extracting maximum value from the letter of the law, regardless of its original intent.

tylerl 8y ago

You seem to be taking this all at face value. Temp agencies are a pretty nontrivial force in the employment world. If you work at a temp agency, they pay you regardless of whether you're bringing money, they do technical training and career advancement work, all the while you're "on deck" not actually being useful. Then a company like Google or Boeing or Joe's Game Studio comes along and says "we need 3 highly skilled C++ programmers in two weeks, for 6 months", and the temp agency sends you off to work there. You relocate, you work on some internal project for 6 months, and then you're back "on deck" at the temp agency, and then off to somewhere else. The company does not have the option to hire you permanently unless the temp agency put that into the agreement (probably for a price), the agency charged something like 2x or even 3x your salary to the company while you were working there, but your wage and benefits stay the same throughout, working or not. So, who's your real employer? Looking at this from an armchair, it's easy to miss that there's more going on than just, "Tim is on the team for the next few months." Whether or not you like the fact that this kind of agency exists and this kind of work is possible is another question.

nroach 8y ago
But when "temps" can be employed for 10+ years in the same role with the same host company, is that model still true?
- noobiemcfoob 8y ago
  Yes. Having the option of being redeployed elsewhere or called back but not doing so is not the same thing as not having that option.
chaosite 8y ago
But that's not how red/green/$color badges work at Google/Intel/Facebook/$company. They're not "3 highly skilled C++ programmers", they're usually slotted into some kind of not as appreciated but still required role, like QA or data entry, and they're not "in two weeks, for 6 months", they're basically at a single host company for the entire time, but they renew the contract in 6 month increments until such time when the host company decides it doesn't need them anymore. Which is basically a form of downsizing. They aren't some form of highly skilled consultants that drop to aid a project in a pinch. Usually they're basically indistinguishable from FTEs.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

It's not doing something simple in a complicated way though. This is how the laws work for contract labor and Google is simply abiding by them. Google hires people full time as employees and the laws for them require some things. Google also hires companies to provide services on a contract basis and the laws for them require others. Is your contention that Google shouldn't subcontract labor for anything because Google is somehow different than every other company?