3 ms·
I’ve definitely seen the tiered system you’re describing. For example, contractors aren’t given the same training or professional development opportunities as F
by tylerrobinson 7y ago
I’ve definitely seen the tiered system you’re describing. For example, contractors aren’t given the same training or professional development opportunities as FTEs. But do you know if there are actually legal reasons for this, or is it just pragmatic to give fewer opportunities or privileges to employees you know won’t be around long?
- CydeWeys 7y agoThere is legal precedent for it. The most famous and precedent-setting case in this area occurred with Microsoft in 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsof... That set the framework for all contracting that has followed since.
- tylerrobinson 7y agoInteresting, thanks for the reference. In the Microsoft case it looks like the decision hinged on the definition of a common law employee. Wikipedia notes that benefits eligibility can be formally defined. Employers don’t have to treat their contractors badly just to imply a tiered system, in other words, as the parent comment suggests.