3 ms·
Your dad's "winning" of the case was a mixed blessing. It did not result in temporary workers becoming real employees with full benefits. Instead, it removed a
by antiterra 16y ago
Your dad's "winning" of the case was a mixed blessing. It did not result in temporary workers becoming real employees with full benefits. Instead, it removed a number of benefits from temporary employees of large corporations all over the country. It also removed the contractor's ability to work for longer than a year at a time without a break.
For example, Intel does not allow temps to use the gym because their legal department worries that might make the division between employee and contractor less solid.
The ruling has created a group of roaming workers who will often work a lesser job for 90 days until they can go back to their big company temp job.
A number of contractors would consider themselves better off if your dad hadn't sued Microsoft. Corporations don't need to do anything illegal for this to be the case.
- protomyth 16y agoThat churn is a huge PITA and disrupts implementation projects something fierce. The ruling also disrupts team cohesion at some places. I am convinced some of the outsourcing that has gone on is directly tied to this ruling.
- gtirloni 16y agowhy not hire the people that are expected to be doing work for your company for years to come? why they need to be "long-term temps"? It doesn't make sense. It feels like this is a poor excuse for hiring cheaper labor and get away with hiring as few perm employees as possible.
- protomyth 16y agoFirst, I wasn't "cheaper" labor. The fundamental difference is that the people who build new stuff often are too expensive for maintenance duty. So, a company might have a group of projects that need to be done. Some take multiple years. This ruling really shifted the strategy to an outsource solution instead of a contractor / employee solution.