4 ms·

I think you missed parent’s point, which is that companies will have (yet another) incentive to replace their lowest paid workers with contractors. First they

I think you missed parent’s point, which is that companies will have (yet another) incentive to replace their lowest paid workers with contractors. First they came for the janitors, but I did not speak up, for I was not a janitor...

XorNot 6y ago
I'm completely at a loss as to why they wouldn't have already done as much of this as it was conceivably possible to do right now - or wouldn't get there eventually. Companies don't pay you more money because they CEO looks at his salary and goes "yeah I think I have enough".
- bluGill 6y ago
  Because outsource vs in house is not a simple decision. there are many factors each with a set of pros and cons. Sometimes outsourcing lets "them" focus on efficiency and getting the details right and so you are better off. Sometimes out sourcing cuts quality to get better costs. There are many accountants, it is relatively standard across industries, and so you can outsource it all easily - but most big companies have it in house anyway. (though they will hire out some of the grunt work) This is one area where messing up will kill your company so you better keep a close eye on it. (An accountant can easily steel enough money that you can't maintain cash flow - you might get the accountant in prison but your great company is bankrupt anyway). This is but one example of many cases where out sourcing is bad. On the other side power utilities outsource most tree trimming around power lines. The companies that do this work give the utility a great deal because the contract that keeps their crews busy 3/4ths of the year which is important because most of this type of work is right after a storm and employees are easier to keep when they aren't laid off 3/4ths of the year waiting on the next job. When an out sourcing is borderline not worth it because of risks above it, it may become worth it after this change.
another-dave 6y ago
It would be good if they said something like "staff from other companies who spend more than 50% of their work week at your office will be included in your company average wages, even if hired through a subcontractor" — like residency requirements but for employees — to cover catering/security/reception jobs etc. that may get outsourced.
gcheong 6y ago
So how does one "speak up" as a janitor then? I think as long as maximizing shareholder value is the dominant incentive of corporations, your job will always be at risk of being outsourced unless you have either a clear competitive advantage or a strong collective bargaining ability.
- sushid 6y ago
  One would have been voting down on this stupid measure. SF has a child's notion of how to fix problems. Rich CEO bad? Tax companies for rich CEOs. Tenderloin full of shit? Create a whole new division of people with more taxes to clean up shit. It never addresses the root cause. There won't be a Bay Area exodus anytime soon but you bet a startup is going to move out of SF when it starts to get big. The additional taxes will only hurt the companies that have a firm root here and will discourage future companies from forming in SF. Sf wants everything to remain exactly the same in a world that's changing faster than ever. It's time to encourage new residential units, properly tax land/property, and start actually proactively fixing its problematic neighborhoods.

XorNot 6y ago

I'm completely at a loss as to why they wouldn't have already done as much of this as it was conceivably possible to do right now - or wouldn't get there eventually. Companies don't pay you more money because they CEO looks at his salary and goes "yeah I think I have enough".

bluGill 6y ago
Because outsource vs in house is not a simple decision. there are many factors each with a set of pros and cons. Sometimes outsourcing lets "them" focus on efficiency and getting the details right and so you are better off. Sometimes out sourcing cuts quality to get better costs. There are many accountants, it is relatively standard across industries, and so you can outsource it all easily - but most big companies have it in house anyway. (though they will hire out some of the grunt work) This is one area where messing up will kill your company so you better keep a close eye on it. (An accountant can easily steel enough money that you can't maintain cash flow - you might get the accountant in prison but your great company is bankrupt anyway). This is but one example of many cases where out sourcing is bad. On the other side power utilities outsource most tree trimming around power lines. The companies that do this work give the utility a great deal because the contract that keeps their crews busy 3/4ths of the year which is important because most of this type of work is right after a storm and employees are easier to keep when they aren't laid off 3/4ths of the year waiting on the next job. When an out sourcing is borderline not worth it because of risks above it, it may become worth it after this change.

another-dave 6y ago

It would be good if they said something like "staff from other companies who spend more than 50% of their work week at your office will be included in your company average wages, even if hired through a subcontractor" — like residency requirements but for employees — to cover catering/security/reception jobs etc. that may get outsourced.

gcheong 6y ago

So how does one "speak up" as a janitor then? I think as long as maximizing shareholder value is the dominant incentive of corporations, your job will always be at risk of being outsourced unless you have either a clear competitive advantage or a strong collective bargaining ability.

sushid 6y ago
One would have been voting down on this stupid measure. SF has a child's notion of how to fix problems. Rich CEO bad? Tax companies for rich CEOs. Tenderloin full of shit? Create a whole new division of people with more taxes to clean up shit. It never addresses the root cause. There won't be a Bay Area exodus anytime soon but you bet a startup is going to move out of SF when it starts to get big. The additional taxes will only hurt the companies that have a firm root here and will discourage future companies from forming in SF. Sf wants everything to remain exactly the same in a world that's changing faster than ever. It's time to encourage new residential units, properly tax land/property, and start actually proactively fixing its problematic neighborhoods.