34 ms·

"The author's main gripe seems to be that contractors don't get treated like employees." I thought the main point was that they weren't treated like other cont

• glenra 15y ago
  My impression was that he's a contractor (under salary) for one contract firm while they're contractors (probably on an hourly wage) for a different contract firm. Why would he expect the two to have the exact same benefits package?
  • gtirloni 15y ago
    Your impression could be wrong so there's no point in arguing both cases. All the guy know is that both groups were contractors. Do you know of any law that distinguishes contractors based on hourly or salary rules? If not, I don't see your point.
    • glenra 15y ago
      >Do you know of any law that distinguishes contractors based on hourly or salary rules? If not, I don't see your point. The point is purely practical, not so much legal. When employees are on salary, it's worth doing whatever you can to make it convenient for them to stick around and stay longer. Providing perks such as free food helps with that - it helps get more work hours out of people for a given salary. The perks are in some way a substitute for extra salary, and likely to save the company money in the long run. Especially perks that save employees time, like letting them start work on the bus during their commute or letting them have meals right on campus so they don't lose time driving elsewhere. Whereas hourly employees get paid for each specific hour they work so there's little benefit to encouraging them to stick around longer than they would otherwise be inclined. In fact, you generally want to discourage hourly workers from doing any overtime, since you'd have to pay them time-and-a-half.