3 ms·

I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should be happy with their disposable circumstances. As opposed to being annoyed that the conditio

I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should be happy with their disposable circumstances. As opposed to being annoyed that the conditions for a disposable workforce exist in the first place.

idopmstuff 4y ago
There are a ton of valid reasons to have a disposable workforce - seasonal employees, specialists who do work outside of the company's core competencies, temporary employees to fill the roles of those who are out on disability/family leave/what have you, etc. There are totally reasonable needs for these kinds of employees, and if you didn't have contract workers you'd just be hiring them as FTEs and then firing them shortly thereafter. I think it's clearly better for the employee to understand the temporary nature of their job.
- oldstrangers 4y ago
  Again, I objected to his line of reasoning that you shouldn't be able to complain about being seen as a more disposable form of labor vs full time employees. "You signed up for this" kind of rhetoric is just silly. It's ok to express empathy for those let go, you don't have to carefully dissect their life choices that lead them to this point.
  - seymourhersh 4y ago
    If they don’t want to be contractors, which by definition is not permanent employment, why don’t they apply for full time jobs?
    - oldstrangers 4y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQC7iDN36ow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQC7iDN36ow
blindriver 4y ago
You are lying and putting words in my mouth. I never said they should be happy about it. But the reality is that they have a temporary position, not a permanent position and they should accept this reality. They were hired as a temporary worker, not a permanent worker. End of story. There is no confusion here. If they are looking for a permanent position, they should find a job with a permanent position. If those jobs aren't available or they aren't qualified for them... are you saying they deserve a permanent position anyway?
- oldstrangers 4y ago
  "I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should be happy with their disposable circumstances." >You are lying and putting words in my mouth. Ok, lets just use your own words to work through this. >they should accept this reality. How about "I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should just accept this reality." Is that better for you? You're also entirely missing the nuance of this conversation wherein a system exists for Apple to exploit a labor force and avoid the extra costs associated with fulltime employment (healthcare, benefits, etc). In your worldview, this is entirely reasonable and the trillion dollar company exploiting these workers is entirely above reproach. It is in fact the fault of the employees for either being too shortsighted with their contract employment or just not good enough to qualify for things like healthcare. See why that might come across as gross to someone?
  - blindriver 4y ago
    > How about "I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should just accept this reality." Yes, this is better. They need to accept their reality. They can't accept a temporary job and they cry when their temporary job gets cancelled. It's the reality of their situation. They shouldn't be happy about it in the same way that coal miners shouldn't be happy about working in a coal mine, but sometimes that's just how life works out. > a system exists for Apple to exploit a labor force I completely disagree they are being exploited. Some jobs are permanent and some jobs are temporary. That's reality. Do you expect waiters and cab drivers to be full time employees as well? Should M&A consultants working on a project be made permanent employees as well? Should football players be permanent employees? I certainly don't.

idopmstuff 4y ago

There are a ton of valid reasons to have a disposable workforce - seasonal employees, specialists who do work outside of the company's core competencies, temporary employees to fill the roles of those who are out on disability/family leave/what have you, etc. There are totally reasonable needs for these kinds of employees, and if you didn't have contract workers you'd just be hiring them as FTEs and then firing them shortly thereafter. I think it's clearly better for the employee to understand the temporary nature of their job.

oldstrangers 4y ago
Again, I objected to his line of reasoning that you shouldn't be able to complain about being seen as a more disposable form of labor vs full time employees. "You signed up for this" kind of rhetoric is just silly. It's ok to express empathy for those let go, you don't have to carefully dissect their life choices that lead them to this point.
- seymourhersh 4y ago
  If they don’t want to be contractors, which by definition is not permanent employment, why don’t they apply for full time jobs?
  - oldstrangers 4y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQC7iDN36ow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQC7iDN36ow

blindriver 4y ago

You are lying and putting words in my mouth. I never said they should be happy about it. But the reality is that they have a temporary position, not a permanent position and they should accept this reality. They were hired as a temporary worker, not a permanent worker. End of story. There is no confusion here. If they are looking for a permanent position, they should find a job with a permanent position. If those jobs aren't available or they aren't qualified for them... are you saying they deserve a permanent position anyway?

oldstrangers 4y ago
"I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should be happy with their disposable circumstances." >You are lying and putting words in my mouth. Ok, lets just use your own words to work through this. >they should accept this reality. How about "I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should just accept this reality." Is that better for you? You're also entirely missing the nuance of this conversation wherein a system exists for Apple to exploit a labor force and avoid the extra costs associated with fulltime employment (healthcare, benefits, etc). In your worldview, this is entirely reasonable and the trillion dollar company exploiting these workers is entirely above reproach. It is in fact the fault of the employees for either being too shortsighted with their contract employment or just not good enough to qualify for things like healthcare. See why that might come across as gross to someone?
- blindriver 4y ago
  > How about "I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should just accept this reality." Yes, this is better. They need to accept their reality. They can't accept a temporary job and they cry when their temporary job gets cancelled. It's the reality of their situation. They shouldn't be happy about it in the same way that coal miners shouldn't be happy about working in a coal mine, but sometimes that's just how life works out. > a system exists for Apple to exploit a labor force I completely disagree they are being exploited. Some jobs are permanent and some jobs are temporary. That's reality. Do you expect waiters and cab drivers to be full time employees as well? Should M&A consultants working on a project be made permanent employees as well? Should football players be permanent employees? I certainly don't.