3 ms·

From the friendly article: The benefits will not extend to independent contractors, who are self-employed, but they will extend to "vendors," employees that wor

From the friendly article: The benefits will not extend to independent contractors, who are self-employed, but they will extend to "vendors," employees that work for companies that are under contract with Google. "Vendors" include those who work in Google's cafes, transportation services and more."

StudentStuff 8y ago
Ooof, so all the research assistants and other people who work beside Googlers as Independent Contractors (most of the half of the company that is purposefully misclassified as 1099's) will continue to lack access to critical meetings about the project their working on, healthcare, retirement and IRS deduction split. Sounds like Google doing the bare minimum to get some good PR, while avoiding fixing the real issues at hand. FYI they did the same thing wrt Independent Contractors that get harassed by Googlers. The contractor is still screwed, Google has ensured they can fire or suppress the contractor's claim, forcing them to work with their harrasser. Considering most of these contractors are the bulk of the diversity on campus (women and/or non-white/non-asian) compared to Google's W-2 workforce, its likely they are experiencing the bulk of the harassment that occurs at Googleplexes. Facebook does the same purposeful misclassification scheme to duck out on Benefits & ensure their abusive employees are protected.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  I'm a bit confused here. The (vast) majority of the people who you are calling "Independent Contractors" are actually "Vendors", ie. employees of 3rd party contracting firms.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    Generally these workers are 1099's of said "Vendors", yet they turn up to the same offices, do the same work as Googlers, and get treated much worse. The vendor is just an intermediary to add a step of indirection and lack of accountability.
- fgonzag 8y ago
  If you get paid straight from Google and you'd have to pay the insurance and leave yourself, it is not required. If you get paid through a 3rd party which would have to absorb the cost of the insurance and paid leave, then it is required. The vendor will probably cut wages in order to make up the lost profit, so I'm fairly sure this will backfire and end up costing the employees too.

StudentStuff 8y ago

Ooof, so all the research assistants and other people who work beside Googlers as Independent Contractors (most of the half of the company that is purposefully misclassified as 1099's) will continue to lack access to critical meetings about the project their working on, healthcare, retirement and IRS deduction split. Sounds like Google doing the bare minimum to get some good PR, while avoiding fixing the real issues at hand. FYI they did the same thing wrt Independent Contractors that get harassed by Googlers. The contractor is still screwed, Google has ensured they can fire or suppress the contractor's claim, forcing them to work with their harrasser. Considering most of these contractors are the bulk of the diversity on campus (women and/or non-white/non-asian) compared to Google's W-2 workforce, its likely they are experiencing the bulk of the harassment that occurs at Googleplexes. Facebook does the same purposeful misclassification scheme to duck out on Benefits & ensure their abusive employees are protected.

joshuamorton 8y ago
I'm a bit confused here. The (vast) majority of the people who you are calling "Independent Contractors" are actually "Vendors", ie. employees of 3rd party contracting firms.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  Generally these workers are 1099's of said "Vendors", yet they turn up to the same offices, do the same work as Googlers, and get treated much worse. The vendor is just an intermediary to add a step of indirection and lack of accountability.
fgonzag 8y ago
If you get paid straight from Google and you'd have to pay the insurance and leave yourself, it is not required. If you get paid through a 3rd party which would have to absorb the cost of the insurance and paid leave, then it is required. The vendor will probably cut wages in order to make up the lost profit, so I'm fairly sure this will backfire and end up costing the employees too.