3 ms·
Right, it's precisely like calling an FBA warehouse employee a "Big Tech" employee. They might be good jobs in a general sense, but they are not fat turkey jobs
by mountainb 5y ago
Right, it's precisely like calling an FBA warehouse employee a "Big Tech" employee. They might be good jobs in a general sense, but they are not fat turkey jobs from the perspective of politicians like a junior executive making half a million dollars a year in a low cost of living state.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago> Right, it's precisely like calling an FBA warehouse employee a "Big Tech" employee. Amazon hires warehouse employees directly, though, so in a sense they are employees of a Big Tech company even if they’re not doing tech work. The situation in this article would be more like the contracted electricians who work on Amazon warehouse buildings complaining about their electrician employer company and then the journalist trying to pin those complaints on Amazon because that’s where the work was done.
- jschwartzi 5y agoThat would only be a reasonable analogy if the electricians did all their work in one facility for one company. One can argue that Google is the employer in this case because the contractors have never worked for Modis in the same capacity in any other facility. Trade contractors ply their trade for many different clients on different projects. It’s distinguishable from this type of arrangement. The “contractors” in question here have a supervisor at Google, and the pay they receive is from Google via Modis. If Modis didn’t exist to be the contracting party the employees would be indistinguishable from full time employees under Google’s employ. Arguing that the contracting relationship is all that is needed to justify this is like arguing that I can form an LLC to hold my assets and receive my salary to avoid personal income tax.