4 ms·

Facebook contractors and subcontractors will not receive $1000 bonus

nikivi 7y ago
It’s expected. The companies of this size don’t really care about contractors. Probably think it’s government’s issue to deal with.
- true_religion 7y ago
  Contractors theoretically get paid more to deal with this sort of thing on their own. Subcontractors are employees of someone else, so it’s that companies responsibility.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  > The companies of this size don’t really care about contractors Should they? I'm a contractor. I realize the pros and cons of my choices.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    If 'contractor' always meant "financially sophisticated professional who is well prepared to weather this storm" I would agree with you. Can't take extra pay in lieu of benefits then insist on the benefits too! However, contractor status is often also used as a way to bypass minimum-wage laws for cleaners, moderators and suchlike. People in this position might not be prepared to weather the storm; and some people are sympathetic to their plight.
zenincognito 7y ago
Don't bite the hands that feed you.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
creddit 7y ago
Being the company everyone loves to hate is tough. They're paying the people their full wages still, many of whom won't be working anymore but they're evil because FB chose to give $1K to their FTEs. All they had to do was not be super extra nice to their FTEs and no one would give a shit. The full class of workers would be worse off but FB the company would be better off. What a stupid thing to complain about.
- room271 7y ago
  I think you've missed the broader point. The whole thing is a reminder that many 'progressive' companies like Facebook like to boast about how well they treat their employees - high wages etc - but in reality they outsource most/all of the lower-paid jobs. There's nothing wrong with this(!) but it does mean they lose some moral highground as a lot of people working physically in their offices probably don't have very good terms/job security after all. (Unless, of course, they also require good conditions for their outsourced workers too.)
  - foogazi 7y ago
    > There's nothing wrong with this Agree
  - creddit 7y ago
    I don't know much in the way of details but there's this quote from the article implying the get meals: > “Would help ease the cost of not having hot food and snacks at work five days a week also.” There's also this article (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-13/facebook-to-raise-pay-for-thousands-of-contract-workers-including-content-moderators https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-13/facebook-...) which implies the minimum wage for their contractors is $18/hr in low cost areas and $22/hr in high cost areas.
    - room271 7y ago
      Thanks. One does wonder why they have tens of thousands of content moderators, none of whom are actual employees.
s17n 7y ago
This is crazy, the majority of FTE's will barely notice the extra $1000 but it could make a huge difference for most of the subcontractors.
aminozuur 7y ago
Facebook is a customer of sub-contracters. Facebook is not their employer. It makes sense that the subcontractors' boss take care of them, not Facebook. Not that strange.
- akiselev 7y ago
  Yeah, that's called "plausible deniability."
xtiansimon 7y ago
I don't know what is the situation of contractors and sub-contractors at Facebook. I don't know the actual number of people effected. I don't know what is the ratio of contractors to employees. What I have experienced, first hand, is working as a contractor for large corporations. I think some people are having a hard time seeing any downside to this arrangement. One distinction in contracting is if you receive a 1099 or W-2 at the end of the year. For the employer, the 1099-contractor is an attractive position. You don't have to pay payroll taxes. They're (sometimes) not included in your workmans comp and (in some circumstances) liability insurance. They're not eligible for unemployment, and therefore your UI rate is lower. Why would you hire someone as a 1099 contractor? Maybe your department has a new project and need someone who is an expert in, IDK, 'spaghetti code'. No one knows it, so the contractor works self-directed, from home, on their own machine. I knew a guy who was a contractor for banks and setup ATMs--very specialized knowledge. Here's the first problem. "Looks like a duck. Walks like a duck. It's a duck." What happens when that contractor sits in your office right next to you. Does the same work. Is managed by the same manager. Working indefinitely. But, they're paid by a third-party. They don't get benefits. They're guaranteed to be the first people to be laid-off. Compare this person to any-other worker in the market, there may be very few differences. They're still 'hired' by the third-party (and get a W-2), so they're eligible for unemployment. But compare them to the 'employees' they work with, and there may be a lot differences--such as this $1k free money at Facebook. When the market is saturated with these sub-contracting jobs, it's a fraught choice. Work at 'Facebook' as a contractor, and start earning money, versus, what? keep looking? take a job at an unknown corporation? If you're young and inexperienced, and all of the points above sound new and unknown, you could ask yourself what's the difference? The difference is qualitative one for the employee (No $1k bonus, and you're laid off), but a lot of small and marginal quantitative benefits for the employer. There are a lot of other issues here. The rise of contracting and sub-contracting was a major change in the employment landscape when it started appearing 30 yrs ago. I think it's similar to the move from pensions to 401k.

It’s expected. The companies of this size don’t really care about contractors. Probably think it’s government’s issue to deal with.

true_religion 7y ago
Contractors theoretically get paid more to deal with this sort of thing on their own. Subcontractors are employees of someone else, so it’s that companies responsibility.
ramblerman 7y ago
> The companies of this size don’t really care about contractors Should they? I'm a contractor. I realize the pros and cons of my choices.
- michaelt 7y ago
  If 'contractor' always meant "financially sophisticated professional who is well prepared to weather this storm" I would agree with you. Can't take extra pay in lieu of benefits then insist on the benefits too! However, contractor status is often also used as a way to bypass minimum-wage laws for cleaners, moderators and suchlike. People in this position might not be prepared to weather the storm; and some people are sympathetic to their plight.

zenincognito 7y ago

Don't bite the hands that feed you.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

creddit 7y ago

Being the company everyone loves to hate is tough. They're paying the people their full wages still, many of whom won't be working anymore but they're evil because FB chose to give $1K to their FTEs. All they had to do was not be super extra nice to their FTEs and no one would give a shit. The full class of workers would be worse off but FB the company would be better off. What a stupid thing to complain about.

room271 7y ago
I think you've missed the broader point. The whole thing is a reminder that many 'progressive' companies like Facebook like to boast about how well they treat their employees - high wages etc - but in reality they outsource most/all of the lower-paid jobs. There's nothing wrong with this(!) but it does mean they lose some moral highground as a lot of people working physically in their offices probably don't have very good terms/job security after all. (Unless, of course, they also require good conditions for their outsourced workers too.)
- foogazi 7y ago
  > There's nothing wrong with this Agree
- creddit 7y ago
  I don't know much in the way of details but there's this quote from the article implying the get meals: > “Would help ease the cost of not having hot food and snacks at work five days a week also.” There's also this article (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-13/facebook-to-raise-pay-for-thousands-of-contract-workers-including-content-moderators https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-13/facebook-...) which implies the minimum wage for their contractors is $18/hr in low cost areas and $22/hr in high cost areas.
  - room271 7y ago
    Thanks. One does wonder why they have tens of thousands of content moderators, none of whom are actual employees.

s17n 7y ago

This is crazy, the majority of FTE's will barely notice the extra $1000 but it could make a huge difference for most of the subcontractors.

aminozuur 7y ago

Facebook is a customer of sub-contracters. Facebook is not their employer. It makes sense that the subcontractors' boss take care of them, not Facebook. Not that strange.

akiselev 7y ago
Yeah, that's called "plausible deniability."

xtiansimon 7y ago

I don't know what is the situation of contractors and sub-contractors at Facebook. I don't know the actual number of people effected. I don't know what is the ratio of contractors to employees. What I have experienced, first hand, is working as a contractor for large corporations. I think some people are having a hard time seeing any downside to this arrangement. One distinction in contracting is if you receive a 1099 or W-2 at the end of the year. For the employer, the 1099-contractor is an attractive position. You don't have to pay payroll taxes. They're (sometimes) not included in your workmans comp and (in some circumstances) liability insurance. They're not eligible for unemployment, and therefore your UI rate is lower. Why would you hire someone as a 1099 contractor? Maybe your department has a new project and need someone who is an expert in, IDK, 'spaghetti code'. No one knows it, so the contractor works self-directed, from home, on their own machine. I knew a guy who was a contractor for banks and setup ATMs--very specialized knowledge. Here's the first problem. "Looks like a duck. Walks like a duck. It's a duck." What happens when that contractor sits in your office right next to you. Does the same work. Is managed by the same manager. Working indefinitely. But, they're paid by a third-party. They don't get benefits. They're guaranteed to be the first people to be laid-off. Compare this person to any-other worker in the market, there may be very few differences. They're still 'hired' by the third-party (and get a W-2), so they're eligible for unemployment. But compare them to the 'employees' they work with, and there may be a lot differences--such as this $1k free money at Facebook. When the market is saturated with these sub-contracting jobs, it's a fraught choice. Work at 'Facebook' as a contractor, and start earning money, versus, what? keep looking? take a job at an unknown corporation? If you're young and inexperienced, and all of the points above sound new and unknown, you could ask yourself what's the difference? The difference is qualitative one for the employee (No $1k bonus, and you're laid off), but a lot of small and marginal quantitative benefits for the employer. There are a lot of other issues here. The rise of contracting and sub-contracting was a major change in the employment landscape when it started appearing 30 yrs ago. I think it's similar to the move from pensions to 401k.