4 ms·

Yep. It's an awkward situation. A lot of the data engineers I work with are CWs, and under the circumstances of normal interaction they're pretty much indisting

Yep. It's an awkward situation. A lot of the data engineers I work with are CWs, and under the circumstances of normal interaction they're pretty much indistinguishable from FTEs. But there are all sorts of compliance reasons for why you aren't supposed to treat them as real "team members" with all the attendant perks and privileges. Many ICs will not even realize that their colleagues are CWs since it's not the default presumption. The "solution" of just converting them all to FTEs and effectively giving them massive boosts in total compensation is impractical. So this awkward, hushed reality is likely to continue as a least-bad solution.

TigeriusKirk 6y ago
>The "solution" of just converting them all to FTEs and effectively giving them massive boosts in total compensation is impractical. Why is it impractical?
- yanderekko 6y ago
  Because companies reasonably try to avoid throwing away money? I mean, I'm not sure exactly why companies higher CWs as opposed to just lower-paid FTEs. Could be a remedial stopgap to deal with issues in the "normal" hiring pipeline, I'd guess? But the answer to why they don't just throw extra money at people who are already willing to work for you is obvious.
  - cool_dude85 6y ago
    Well, if Google can afford to do it (they can) then it's perfectly practical. They just don't want to, and you're right that the reason is obvious.
    - matz1 6y ago
      I can easily afford to pay my mechanic twice the money. Of course just like google, I don't want to.
      - geodel 6y ago
        Exactly. When others do it, it is just an excuse. When I do it, it is necessity.
    - syshum 6y ago
      So when you go to find a Plumber, Auto Mechanic, Roofer, etc you look at the amount of money you can "afford" than pay exactly that? so If a plumber says he can fix my sink for $150 but I cna "afford" to pay $500 I should pay $500?
      - lowercased 6y ago
        Are you also actively working with other people/companies who might hire those same people to put caps on what they might get paid, or indeed to negotiate hiring them at all? Google/apple/etc have enormous sway in some areas re: hiring/referrals/etc, and engaged in 'antipoaching' stuff that prevented free movement of labor (imo). The plumber/mechanic analogies fall down when you look at the size and actions of google in the marketplace as a whole, not just with the specific interactions of an individual contractor/employee.
        Aunche 6y ago
        During the time of the anti-poaching agreements, Apple and Google had close to an oligopsony on high-end tech labor. There are too many employers of low-skill labor for collusion to accomplish anything.
        matz1 6y ago
        >Are you also actively working with other people/companies who might hire those same people to put caps on what they might get paid, or indeed to negotiate hiring them at all? Google/apple/etc have enormous sway in some areas re: hiring/referrals/etc, and engaged in 'antipoaching' stuff that prevented free movement of labor (imo). If I have the ability/resource to do that and if the total cost is less then of course.
  - pydry 6y ago
    "Impractical" and "not throwing away money" are really interesting choices of words when discussing why one of the world's richest companies gives PTO or health insurance.
    - yanderekko 6y ago
      I think it's a lot less interesting than people want to pretend it is. A company's willingness to throw away money should be largely invariant to its overall financial health.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        I like that you're blunt about it, makes it much easier to reason why more regulation around labor is required. "BigCorp will avoid as much labor costs as possible. To improve labor conditions and compensation, regulation must require it."
        yanderekko 6y ago
        "To ensure that people only have good jobs, we must ensure that people who cannot get good jobs are unemployable."
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        "How can we justify Big Tech being worth trillions collectively without allowing them to treat their workers as interchangeable widgets at the lowest cost possible." Which sounds better to an electorate? What are the odds your average citizen is ever going to be an ultra high net worth individual or work at a FAANG? I believe the odds are in regulatory favor. Google has the resources (with gross profit ~$100 billion for 2020), they simply choose to evade labor law in this case.
        pydry 6y ago
dx034 6y ago
Why do you have to give them a huge boost in comp? There's no union at Google, they can pay whatever they see fit. They could just hire them at lower salaries but that'd destroy the image that anyone working at a FAANG makes at least $250k/yr.
- geodel 6y ago
  Yes, that would just compound the grief. Endless media articles on how certain employees are considered second class citizens at Google.
  - erikpukinskis 6y ago
    Doesn’t this whole thread make it pretty clear that they are?
    - geodel 6y ago
      And this is when they are not actual employees so there is at least legal cover. If Google made them employee it would be 100 times worse. Mind you, I am not somehow advocating that Google must not hire them. From a culture/ country other than America, I see people can be treated with respect but not paid lot of money mainly because there is not much money to around. But people receiving also understand not a lot of money can be given for certain tasks. However modern media culture is worst. If Google were to hire full time, I can see headlines "World Richest company pay pittance for back breaking work". And point about job security , benefits would be forgotten. One can check coverage of full time Amazon warehouse workers on how it plays out. I have never heard a good story about it. Or how other companies hiring warehouse workers doing compare to Amazon across America or world.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      I mean, this is the case at any company really. The highly valued people or people in the management structure are more highly valued and have more say. The very org structure alludes to a class system.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago

TigeriusKirk 6y ago

>The "solution" of just converting them all to FTEs and effectively giving them massive boosts in total compensation is impractical. Why is it impractical?

yanderekko 6y ago
Because companies reasonably try to avoid throwing away money? I mean, I'm not sure exactly why companies higher CWs as opposed to just lower-paid FTEs. Could be a remedial stopgap to deal with issues in the "normal" hiring pipeline, I'd guess? But the answer to why they don't just throw extra money at people who are already willing to work for you is obvious.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  Well, if Google can afford to do it (they can) then it's perfectly practical. They just don't want to, and you're right that the reason is obvious.
  - matz1 6y ago
    I can easily afford to pay my mechanic twice the money. Of course just like google, I don't want to.
    - geodel 6y ago
      Exactly. When others do it, it is just an excuse. When I do it, it is necessity.
  - syshum 6y ago
    So when you go to find a Plumber, Auto Mechanic, Roofer, etc you look at the amount of money you can "afford" than pay exactly that? so If a plumber says he can fix my sink for $150 but I cna "afford" to pay $500 I should pay $500?
    - lowercased 6y ago
      Are you also actively working with other people/companies who might hire those same people to put caps on what they might get paid, or indeed to negotiate hiring them at all? Google/apple/etc have enormous sway in some areas re: hiring/referrals/etc, and engaged in 'antipoaching' stuff that prevented free movement of labor (imo). The plumber/mechanic analogies fall down when you look at the size and actions of google in the marketplace as a whole, not just with the specific interactions of an individual contractor/employee.
      - Aunche 6y ago
        During the time of the anti-poaching agreements, Apple and Google had close to an oligopsony on high-end tech labor. There are too many employers of low-skill labor for collusion to accomplish anything.
      - matz1 6y ago
        >Are you also actively working with other people/companies who might hire those same people to put caps on what they might get paid, or indeed to negotiate hiring them at all? Google/apple/etc have enormous sway in some areas re: hiring/referrals/etc, and engaged in 'antipoaching' stuff that prevented free movement of labor (imo). If I have the ability/resource to do that and if the total cost is less then of course.
- pydry 6y ago
  "Impractical" and "not throwing away money" are really interesting choices of words when discussing why one of the world's richest companies gives PTO or health insurance.
  - yanderekko 6y ago
    I think it's a lot less interesting than people want to pretend it is. A company's willingness to throw away money should be largely invariant to its overall financial health.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      I like that you're blunt about it, makes it much easier to reason why more regulation around labor is required. "BigCorp will avoid as much labor costs as possible. To improve labor conditions and compensation, regulation must require it."
      - yanderekko 6y ago
        "To ensure that people only have good jobs, we must ensure that people who cannot get good jobs are unemployable."
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        "How can we justify Big Tech being worth trillions collectively without allowing them to treat their workers as interchangeable widgets at the lowest cost possible." Which sounds better to an electorate? What are the odds your average citizen is ever going to be an ultra high net worth individual or work at a FAANG? I believe the odds are in regulatory favor. Google has the resources (with gross profit ~$100 billion for 2020), they simply choose to evade labor law in this case.
        pydry 6y ago

dx034 6y ago

Why do you have to give them a huge boost in comp? There's no union at Google, they can pay whatever they see fit. They could just hire them at lower salaries but that'd destroy the image that anyone working at a FAANG makes at least $250k/yr.

geodel 6y ago
Yes, that would just compound the grief. Endless media articles on how certain employees are considered second class citizens at Google.
- erikpukinskis 6y ago
  Doesn’t this whole thread make it pretty clear that they are?
  - geodel 6y ago
    And this is when they are not actual employees so there is at least legal cover. If Google made them employee it would be 100 times worse. Mind you, I am not somehow advocating that Google must not hire them. From a culture/ country other than America, I see people can be treated with respect but not paid lot of money mainly because there is not much money to around. But people receiving also understand not a lot of money can be given for certain tasks. However modern media culture is worst. If Google were to hire full time, I can see headlines "World Richest company pay pittance for back breaking work". And point about job security , benefits would be forgotten. One can check coverage of full time Amazon warehouse workers on how it plays out. I have never heard a good story about it. Or how other companies hiring warehouse workers doing compare to Amazon across America or world.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I mean, this is the case at any company really. The highly valued people or people in the management structure are more highly valued and have more say. The very org structure alludes to a class system.
lotsofpulp 6y ago