5 ms·

It is Google so it gets that much publicity which is good for that particular case because it will be investigated and sorted out. Sexual abuse and discriminati

It is Google so it gets that much publicity which is good for that particular case because it will be investigated and sorted out. Sexual abuse and discrimination enablers will be investigated. Good. Too bad for the other large size company where similar things happen which won't get similar publicity and won't ever be investigated. Not working at GOOG, but I don't get the hate in the comments or the idea that it is a google thing. The tough interviews that everyone is very critical about are actually a good edge against that sort of system (recruiting members of your cult). Too bad the process/interviews aren't that hard for contractors?

frob 4y ago
Which other large size company? It sounds like you're referencing an event or issue at of of the other FAAGS--would you care to enlighten us?
- throwawayiionqz 4y ago
  Cisco vs California is one example with discrimination (no sexual abuse enabling here, though). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23697083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23697083
FiloSottile 4y ago
The original link presented a detailed argument for what is Google specific about this, namely that it was enabled by the two tier workforce system. https://twitter.com/alphabetworkers/status/1537396946691772416 https://twitter.com/alphabetworkers/status/15373969466917724...
- prirun 4y ago
  From the Twitter link: "I was a TVC — which stands for “temps, vendors, and contractors,” a designation within Google for workers who aren’t full-time employees and are hired by third parties companies, not by Google itself. We do the same work as full-time Google employees — I worked right alongside them — but we don’t have the same corporate benefits." This is another way to screw workers, allowing large companies to hire "employees" without having to pay benefits or FICA taxes. If Google managers are directing and controlling these contractors as if they were actual Google employees, doesn't this violate IRS rules on independent contractors? For example, if I hire a company to do my video productions, that's fine. But if that company's employees all are required to work in my building, and I supply the desk, chair, computer, and have a employee/manager who directs their daily actions, they are not functioning as independent contractors according to IRS guidelines. In that case, the contractors might be able to sue Google for benefits and past taxes they've had to pay that Google employees don't have to pay.
  - coryrc 4y ago
    TVCs are W-2 employees of a company, with the relevant taxes paid and benefits present.
    - e40 4y ago
      Of "a" company but not Google. It's unclear how the benefits of Google and the other company compare. I'd guess not well.
      - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
        Probably not, but there's no legal issue with a W2 employer directing you to work on the campus of another company whose own employees have better benefits.
  - irrational 4y ago
    Didn’t this already go through the court system long ago because of Microsoft and this is why these kinds of workers can only work for a particular company for 11 months and then have to be off for 3 months before they can get a new contract with the same company?
- lupire 4y ago
  The two-tier system is bad, but it's not at all Google specific. It's extremely common.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

frob 4y ago

Which other large size company? It sounds like you're referencing an event or issue at of of the other FAAGS--would you care to enlighten us?

throwawayiionqz 4y ago
Cisco vs California is one example with discrimination (no sexual abuse enabling here, though). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23697083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23697083

FiloSottile 4y ago

The original link presented a detailed argument for what is Google specific about this, namely that it was enabled by the two tier workforce system. https://twitter.com/alphabetworkers/status/1537396946691772416 https://twitter.com/alphabetworkers/status/15373969466917724...

prirun 4y ago
From the Twitter link: "I was a TVC — which stands for “temps, vendors, and contractors,” a designation within Google for workers who aren’t full-time employees and are hired by third parties companies, not by Google itself. We do the same work as full-time Google employees — I worked right alongside them — but we don’t have the same corporate benefits." This is another way to screw workers, allowing large companies to hire "employees" without having to pay benefits or FICA taxes. If Google managers are directing and controlling these contractors as if they were actual Google employees, doesn't this violate IRS rules on independent contractors? For example, if I hire a company to do my video productions, that's fine. But if that company's employees all are required to work in my building, and I supply the desk, chair, computer, and have a employee/manager who directs their daily actions, they are not functioning as independent contractors according to IRS guidelines. In that case, the contractors might be able to sue Google for benefits and past taxes they've had to pay that Google employees don't have to pay.
- coryrc 4y ago
  TVCs are W-2 employees of a company, with the relevant taxes paid and benefits present.
  - e40 4y ago
    Of "a" company but not Google. It's unclear how the benefits of Google and the other company compare. I'd guess not well.
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      Probably not, but there's no legal issue with a W2 employer directing you to work on the campus of another company whose own employees have better benefits.
- irrational 4y ago
  Didn’t this already go through the court system long ago because of Microsoft and this is why these kinds of workers can only work for a particular company for 11 months and then have to be off for 3 months before they can get a new contract with the same company?
lupire 4y ago
The two-tier system is bad, but it's not at all Google specific. It's extremely common.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]