10 ms·

Why is this newsworthy? Genuine question. The article (I did read it!) doesn't seem to articulate why exactly this is a problem. I think (happy to be convinced

Why is this newsworthy? Genuine question. The article (I did read it!) doesn't seem to articulate why exactly this is a problem. I think (happy to be convinced otherwise) it is ok for a company to have more temps than employees or vice versa. What does it matter? Is there a US cultural/social nuance that I'm missing?

dao- 7y ago
It matters to the workers? I guess there is a cultural aspect, then, playing into this question: (How much) do you care about worker rights?
locopati 7y ago
There was a significant lawsuit in the 90s that Microsoft lost over hiring permatemps, temps who did the same work as employees, weren't really temporary, weren't going to be hired, and weren't receiving benefits like stock options or health insurance. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1297250.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1297250.html
r3bl 7y ago
Lower paychecks (75-80% of hourly rate of full-time workers), little to no benefits (like healthcare coverage), harder to keep track of for taxation purposes, harder to object to inhumane conditions like exploitative working hours or sexual harassment (since you're seen as a "guest" instead of an employee, complaining to the HR will usually result in you simply being discarded and replaced by someone else who won't complain) etc. Note: I wrote this as a general trend, which does not mean this applies to Google specifically.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  When I was contracting, I was making significantly more than my usual salaried rate. Using contractors doesn’t mean you must be exploiting them somehow.
  - brianwawok 7y ago
    Porn filter temps or any of the low end temps aren’t paid like developer contractors.
  - acdha 7y ago
    You have to remember that we’re a couple decades into reclassifying jobs with less negotiating power as contractors and healthcare costs growing astronomically (not unrelated). The people who are still doing traditional contracting - short-term experts, independent businesses which can negotiate – are going to have a very different experience than the people who were never respected.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Is this like for like? your not going to pay a security guard the same as a SRE are you. If I went as a contactor in the UK id expect 2x to 3x when compared to a FTE at a similar grade.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    “If I went as a contactor in the UK id expect 2x to 3x when compared to a FTE at a similar grade.” At least in the US that’s often not how it works. The agency takes a big cut and the contractor probably makes less than an FTE. In my company must contractors are super eager to go full time given the opportunity.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - r3bl 7y ago
    Just because we're in a position to say no doesn't mean that we shouldn't feel compassion for the others that are not in an opportunity to do so. A tech office without a janitor will be dysfunctional, same as the one without a senior engineer. But unlike a senior engineering position, a janitor will not be a full-time position. I'd personally even take it one step further: those who are payed the least need benefits the most. By relegating this work to temporary workers you're doing exactly the opposite: cutting away the privileges that the full-time employees have. Not to just one employee, but anyone who's ever going to fill out that position. A trip to the doctor would not make a dent in a senior engineer's pocket (regardless of the insurance), but a janitor could not afford a trip to the doctor in the first place. This could work in a country with good social programs to fall back on, but it has catastrophic consequences in the US.
    - C1sc0cat 7y ago
      Oh I agree.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      I agree in general terms, but the solution would be to pass stricter laws requiring more benefits to full-time workers. These contractors are full-time workers, they're just full-time workers of staffing firms that contract with Google and that themselves don't have benefits that are nearly as good. So either require them to offer better benefits, or preferably, decouple benefits from employment entirely. Everyone should get healthcare, retirement accounts, etc.; it shouldn't be tied to your employer. It's unreasonable to expect one company to make big strides in this area when all it does it put them at a competitive disadvantage to their peers. Google is already mandating a $15/hour minimum wage on all contracted-out workers, plus some minimums for sick days, which is much better than most other companies (which tend not to have requirements on contracted out employees in their contracts with staffing firms at all).
radmuzom 7y ago
It provides a specific example of the power imbalance between Googlers and non-Googlers. It provides some facts on how temps make less money, have different benefits and receive no paid vacation in the US. Probably far-fetched, but it may be hoping to convince some people to engage with their elected representatives on stricter laws for companies who employ a lot of contractors. Why is this not newsworthy?
- ng12 7y ago
  Because it's literally business as usual. Companies do not have to offer benefits in the US, Google or no.
  - radmuzom 7y ago
    All the more reason to publish it, raise awareness and try to change the status quo.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    That's why it's newsworthy. A lot of people don't know that this is what "business as usual" looks like.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Companies shouldn't be providing benefits anyway. It's a terrible model. Much better for the government to be providing healthcare for all than to have it unnecessarily tied up with employment. The United States is unusual in this regard because of a historical quirk of tax evasion.
e40 7y ago
It's been in the news so much that I think they assumed you would not that contractors don't get benefits, like health insurance. Lack of benefits are the reason they are contactors. Period.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Negative, the contractors being discussed in the linked article are actually full time employees of staffing firms. They aren't employed by Google, they're employed by the likes of Adecco. Their healthcare isn't as good as what Google itself offers, granted, but they do have some benefits. There's an incredible amount of conflation here between individuals that are directly contracted to companies (what most of these comments seem to be talking about) and then what actually happens at large corporations (staffing firms that contract out their own employees).
rchaud 7y ago
The article brought up a few points that should encourage broader discussion, around the general idea that contractors don't have the same agency as FTEs, which in the case of Google, has reportedly led to: - project leaders pressuring contractors to work longer hours than stated in their contracts without reporting overtime (on the vague possibility of a full-time role). - the contractor recruiter who was sexually harassed by a FTE manager and may have been fired due to her rejection of him

dao- 7y ago

It matters to the workers? I guess there is a cultural aspect, then, playing into this question: (How much) do you care about worker rights?

locopati 7y ago

There was a significant lawsuit in the 90s that Microsoft lost over hiring permatemps, temps who did the same work as employees, weren't really temporary, weren't going to be hired, and weren't receiving benefits like stock options or health insurance. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1297250.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1297250.html

r3bl 7y ago

Lower paychecks (75-80% of hourly rate of full-time workers), little to no benefits (like healthcare coverage), harder to keep track of for taxation purposes, harder to object to inhumane conditions like exploitative working hours or sexual harassment (since you're seen as a "guest" instead of an employee, complaining to the HR will usually result in you simply being discarded and replaced by someone else who won't complain) etc. Note: I wrote this as a general trend, which does not mean this applies to Google specifically.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
When I was contracting, I was making significantly more than my usual salaried rate. Using contractors doesn’t mean you must be exploiting them somehow.
- brianwawok 7y ago
  Porn filter temps or any of the low end temps aren’t paid like developer contractors.
- acdha 7y ago
  You have to remember that we’re a couple decades into reclassifying jobs with less negotiating power as contractors and healthcare costs growing astronomically (not unrelated). The people who are still doing traditional contracting - short-term experts, independent businesses which can negotiate – are going to have a very different experience than the people who were never respected.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Is this like for like? your not going to pay a security guard the same as a SRE are you. If I went as a contactor in the UK id expect 2x to 3x when compared to a FTE at a similar grade.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  “If I went as a contactor in the UK id expect 2x to 3x when compared to a FTE at a similar grade.” At least in the US that’s often not how it works. The agency takes a big cut and the contractor probably makes less than an FTE. In my company must contractors are super eager to go full time given the opportunity.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- r3bl 7y ago
  Just because we're in a position to say no doesn't mean that we shouldn't feel compassion for the others that are not in an opportunity to do so. A tech office without a janitor will be dysfunctional, same as the one without a senior engineer. But unlike a senior engineering position, a janitor will not be a full-time position. I'd personally even take it one step further: those who are payed the least need benefits the most. By relegating this work to temporary workers you're doing exactly the opposite: cutting away the privileges that the full-time employees have. Not to just one employee, but anyone who's ever going to fill out that position. A trip to the doctor would not make a dent in a senior engineer's pocket (regardless of the insurance), but a janitor could not afford a trip to the doctor in the first place. This could work in a country with good social programs to fall back on, but it has catastrophic consequences in the US.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Oh I agree.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    I agree in general terms, but the solution would be to pass stricter laws requiring more benefits to full-time workers. These contractors are full-time workers, they're just full-time workers of staffing firms that contract with Google and that themselves don't have benefits that are nearly as good. So either require them to offer better benefits, or preferably, decouple benefits from employment entirely. Everyone should get healthcare, retirement accounts, etc.; it shouldn't be tied to your employer. It's unreasonable to expect one company to make big strides in this area when all it does it put them at a competitive disadvantage to their peers. Google is already mandating a $15/hour minimum wage on all contracted-out workers, plus some minimums for sick days, which is much better than most other companies (which tend not to have requirements on contracted out employees in their contracts with staffing firms at all).

radmuzom 7y ago

It provides a specific example of the power imbalance between Googlers and non-Googlers. It provides some facts on how temps make less money, have different benefits and receive no paid vacation in the US. Probably far-fetched, but it may be hoping to convince some people to engage with their elected representatives on stricter laws for companies who employ a lot of contractors. Why is this not newsworthy?

ng12 7y ago
Because it's literally business as usual. Companies do not have to offer benefits in the US, Google or no.
- radmuzom 7y ago
  All the more reason to publish it, raise awareness and try to change the status quo.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  That's why it's newsworthy. A lot of people don't know that this is what "business as usual" looks like.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Companies shouldn't be providing benefits anyway. It's a terrible model. Much better for the government to be providing healthcare for all than to have it unnecessarily tied up with employment. The United States is unusual in this regard because of a historical quirk of tax evasion.

e40 7y ago

It's been in the news so much that I think they assumed you would not that contractors don't get benefits, like health insurance. Lack of benefits are the reason they are contactors. Period.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Negative, the contractors being discussed in the linked article are actually full time employees of staffing firms. They aren't employed by Google, they're employed by the likes of Adecco. Their healthcare isn't as good as what Google itself offers, granted, but they do have some benefits. There's an incredible amount of conflation here between individuals that are directly contracted to companies (what most of these comments seem to be talking about) and then what actually happens at large corporations (staffing firms that contract out their own employees).

rchaud 7y ago

The article brought up a few points that should encourage broader discussion, around the general idea that contractors don't have the same agency as FTEs, which in the case of Google, has reportedly led to: - project leaders pressuring contractors to work longer hours than stated in their contracts without reporting overtime (on the vague possibility of a full-time role). - the contractor recruiter who was sexually harassed by a FTE manager and may have been fired due to her rejection of him