5 ms·

I’m not a lawyer, but I have a vague idea about my rights and firing people to hire them as contractors instead is illegal in both jurisdictions I know, France

I’m not a lawyer, but I have a vague idea about my rights and firing people to hire them as contractors instead is illegal in both jurisdictions I know, France and Norway. Firing people to hire contractors instead is risky because you need a reason to fire people. The reason could be economical, but one could easily argue in court that if the company is hiring contractors instead, well, it was not the real reason. The other reason could be personal. The employee is incompetent or toxic, for example, but if you get an offer as a contractor after, it sounds trivial to win a trial too. I know the word is a bit a taboo, but I’m personally in a union, for scientists and engineers, and I would recommend people in USA to start considering thinking about perhaps potentially slowly improving their rights.

whamlastxmas 4y ago
[flagged]
winddude 4y ago
I think that's also illegal in Canada
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Would depend on the province. Canada kinda sits between Europe and USA when it comes to worker rights. You can always fire people without cause, but you would owe them termination and severance pay which positively correlates with (among other things) duration of employment and specialization.
jimnotgym 4y ago
I came here to say the same. In the UK you can't be made redundant if there is other work you could do at the company. Also in the UK contractors are paid a lot more than full time staff!
- OJFord 4y ago
  Are you sure about that? My understanding was that the role is made redundant, not the person; that you can't hire someone else to do what a made-redundant person was just doing (of course it pretty much happens, but on paper/in theory it needs to be different). I don't really see how it makes sense for both to be true. And in your scenario, wouldn't voluntary redundancy get really weird? 'Denied - because you're qualified for a job in a different department. So keep doing your current one or resign.'
  - jimnotgym 4y ago
    When a role is made redundant (in the UK) an employer has a series of steps they have to make. One of which is, if there is another role the employee could do then they have to be offered it. They can refuse of course. In your voluntary redundancy scenario the employee is waving their rights...voluntarily.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Have to be offered it, or just have to be considered for it? As in, if there's a better qualified person available at the same price (or for that matter you're making two roles redundant and either of those people could do this one other role you have open, but you don't need both) do you really have to give it to the otherwise redundant person?
- blibble 4y ago
  > Also in the UK contractors are paid a lot more than full time staff! low level staff maybe the big earners in UK finance are employees contractors don't get a bonus
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Certainly industry dependent. OP is about 'big tech' though, not finance (proper fintech aside I suppose). I think 'contractors are paid more' generally (and in fairness somewhat necessarily) ignores that it's to compensate for other employee benefits. But it's ultimately a kind of pointness/trivial truth - 'the value of holiday and sick leave and job security and life assurance and pension contributions and [...] is non-zero!' - yes, of course it would be.
    - dogma1138 4y ago
      It’s also true in general tech once you get to director or senior manager grade your short and long term incentive plans can be 50% of your BP and your BP isn’t going to be too shabby either. Contractors do get paid more but they don’t earn more at least not anymore after IR35 since they have a tax rate that is over 50% as they are also liable for the 15.5% employer national insurance contributions now. Overall contractors are far cheaper in the UK even at day rates of over £1000 and replacing people that earn high 5 to low six figures. They aren’t paid any bonus, there is no pension contribution there are no benefits and there is no liability for redundancy.
      - jimnotgym 4y ago
        All good points but it really does depend on the industry and the level. I have seen mid level jobs where the contractor is paid twice what the full time staff are, no bonus on either side. Your point about long term incentives is very dependent on company. I wish I had a scheme like that!
        dogma1138 4y ago
        Long term incentives are pretty much stock options plus a bonus “top up” where X% of your bonus for the current year is paid to you again after Y years (usually 2 or 3). Stock options are usually available at most large traded companies, bonus top ups are usually for directors+ or senior managers in FAANG or other large US companies that tend to have more grades than UK ones. Then there are ofc various retention bonuses and allowances, but these tend to be pretty much just a pay increase without the social contributions liabilities to the employer.
celso 4y ago
This is illegal in Portugal. It's also illegal to fire someone based on the termination of a specific company role (assuming the company can do it, but this is another discussion) and then next hire someone else, contractor or not, for that same, or similar, role.
- MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
  Hows that working out for Portugal‘s economy?
  - ttymck 4y ago
    It would be very surprising if you believe labor protections are the root cause of Portugal's economic woes. Can you share how you drew that conclusion?
    - andrei_says_ 4y ago
      Not the person you’re replying to but I’m the US anti-union propaganda’s talking points do include “bad for the economy”. Basically anything that hurts the top 0.1% is presented as bad for the economy. Which probably has a lot to do with how the economy is measured.
      - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
        I wonder if they ever figure out how to stop the emigration from the capitalist hell-hole that is the US to the socialist paradise of Cuba (or pick any South American country if you prefer, most of them are socialist). Its a real problem!
        Daishiman 4y ago
        You're doing the talking points of an 18 year-old who just read some libertarian pamphlet.
        deserialized 4y ago
Consultant32452 4y ago
This is one of those things that's technically illegal in the US, but is selectively enforced when big companies don't donate enough to the mafia. Specifically, the IRS can come after you for incorrectly/falsely classifying an employee as a contractor.
trilbyglens 4y ago
Employees have basically no rights at all in the US. We started the labor movement, and have completely given up all rights over the last 70 years. It's a shame really.
- tasubotadas 4y ago
  Pretty sure you are mistaking rights with benefits.
- jlund-molfese 4y ago
  If you really don’t know about your rights as an employee, you should be aware that US workers have many rights guaranteed by law. Not as much protection as west Europeans, maybe! But the other side of the coin is that it’s so much easier to get hired, or start a business in the US. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers
  - whoknew1122 4y ago
    The question isn't whether there are rights guaranteed by law. It's whether or not those laws are actually applied. That's why it's national news that Amazon was found to have violated labor laws... in a single warehouse in New York.[1] And that's before we get into intentional understaffing and industry capture of the US Department of Labor. https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgdejj/amazon-repeatedly-violated-union-busting-labor-laws-historic-nlrb-complaint-says https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgdejj/amazon-repeatedly-vio...
    - jlund-molfese 4y ago
      Well, now you’re moving the goalposts. I’m not arguing that workers are never mistreated. I would agree, sometimes they are, and that is bad! But it’s overly hyperbolic to say that US employees have no rights at all. They do, just not as many protections as a few other countries. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, I had a legal right to overtime, paid breaks, and unpaid leave and other things. DOL signs were posted at the workplace, as is required, to inform workers about their rights. My employer (Best Buy) followed the law and I appreciated those legal protections, which the employer otherwise probably wouldn’t have given me. This is an anecdote, but is an example of a worker (me) having rights. To be clear, that’s the specific argument I’m making. American workers have some rights, regardless of whether they’re perfect, or perfectly upheld. That’s obvious, isn’t it?
pkrotich 4y ago
Not when it’s at-will employment. You don’t need a reason to fire anyone in most states in US. Only exceptions are protected things like because of gender or race etc - but that is even blurry to prove it. Unions are the only protection but companies do everything to burst unions e.g Starbucks and Amazon.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  In the US at the Federal level the IRS and DOL have specific tests for contractor vs employee. If you hire contractors that are really employees they will come after you for misclassification. This is independent of State laws.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
The US has no such laws or restrictions. The only restrictions for firing in the US are with discrimination of protected classes.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  This isn’t really true. Americans have more rights than they think. It varies a lot, and can be confusing. There’s an ongoing case about how venues like Madison Square Garden are using facial recognition to deny entry to employees of law firms suing them. There are laws in place to protect theater critics. Those laws stem from an idea that it’s unlawful to prevent someone from earning a living/practicing their profession. Many of those older laws are on the books. There are strict anti blacklisting laws in many states.
  - qbasic_forever 4y ago
    Nothing you mentioned has any relevance to an employer firing an employee and rehiring them as a contractor, which is perfectly legal in the US. This actually happened a lot after the ACA/Obamacare law went in effect a decade ago. Many employers were faced with the mandate to provide insurance for full-time employees and decided to fire/downsize those roles and hire independent contractors in their place (which did not need to have healthcare provided by the employer).

whamlastxmas 4y ago

[flagged]

winddude 4y ago

I think that's also illegal in Canada

Scoundreller 4y ago
Would depend on the province. Canada kinda sits between Europe and USA when it comes to worker rights. You can always fire people without cause, but you would owe them termination and severance pay which positively correlates with (among other things) duration of employment and specialization.

jimnotgym 4y ago

I came here to say the same. In the UK you can't be made redundant if there is other work you could do at the company. Also in the UK contractors are paid a lot more than full time staff!

OJFord 4y ago
Are you sure about that? My understanding was that the role is made redundant, not the person; that you can't hire someone else to do what a made-redundant person was just doing (of course it pretty much happens, but on paper/in theory it needs to be different). I don't really see how it makes sense for both to be true. And in your scenario, wouldn't voluntary redundancy get really weird? 'Denied - because you're qualified for a job in a different department. So keep doing your current one or resign.'
- jimnotgym 4y ago
  When a role is made redundant (in the UK) an employer has a series of steps they have to make. One of which is, if there is another role the employee could do then they have to be offered it. They can refuse of course. In your voluntary redundancy scenario the employee is waving their rights...voluntarily.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Have to be offered it, or just have to be considered for it? As in, if there's a better qualified person available at the same price (or for that matter you're making two roles redundant and either of those people could do this one other role you have open, but you don't need both) do you really have to give it to the otherwise redundant person?
blibble 4y ago
> Also in the UK contractors are paid a lot more than full time staff! low level staff maybe the big earners in UK finance are employees contractors don't get a bonus
- OJFord 4y ago
  Certainly industry dependent. OP is about 'big tech' though, not finance (proper fintech aside I suppose). I think 'contractors are paid more' generally (and in fairness somewhat necessarily) ignores that it's to compensate for other employee benefits. But it's ultimately a kind of pointness/trivial truth - 'the value of holiday and sick leave and job security and life assurance and pension contributions and [...] is non-zero!' - yes, of course it would be.
  - dogma1138 4y ago
    It’s also true in general tech once you get to director or senior manager grade your short and long term incentive plans can be 50% of your BP and your BP isn’t going to be too shabby either. Contractors do get paid more but they don’t earn more at least not anymore after IR35 since they have a tax rate that is over 50% as they are also liable for the 15.5% employer national insurance contributions now. Overall contractors are far cheaper in the UK even at day rates of over £1000 and replacing people that earn high 5 to low six figures. They aren’t paid any bonus, there is no pension contribution there are no benefits and there is no liability for redundancy.
    - jimnotgym 4y ago
      All good points but it really does depend on the industry and the level. I have seen mid level jobs where the contractor is paid twice what the full time staff are, no bonus on either side. Your point about long term incentives is very dependent on company. I wish I had a scheme like that!
      - dogma1138 4y ago
        Long term incentives are pretty much stock options plus a bonus “top up” where X% of your bonus for the current year is paid to you again after Y years (usually 2 or 3). Stock options are usually available at most large traded companies, bonus top ups are usually for directors+ or senior managers in FAANG or other large US companies that tend to have more grades than UK ones. Then there are ofc various retention bonuses and allowances, but these tend to be pretty much just a pay increase without the social contributions liabilities to the employer.

celso 4y ago

This is illegal in Portugal. It's also illegal to fire someone based on the termination of a specific company role (assuming the company can do it, but this is another discussion) and then next hire someone else, contractor or not, for that same, or similar, role.

MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
Hows that working out for Portugal‘s economy?
- ttymck 4y ago
  It would be very surprising if you believe labor protections are the root cause of Portugal's economic woes. Can you share how you drew that conclusion?
  - andrei_says_ 4y ago
    Not the person you’re replying to but I’m the US anti-union propaganda’s talking points do include “bad for the economy”. Basically anything that hurts the top 0.1% is presented as bad for the economy. Which probably has a lot to do with how the economy is measured.
    - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
      I wonder if they ever figure out how to stop the emigration from the capitalist hell-hole that is the US to the socialist paradise of Cuba (or pick any South American country if you prefer, most of them are socialist). Its a real problem!
      - Daishiman 4y ago
        You're doing the talking points of an 18 year-old who just read some libertarian pamphlet.
      - deserialized 4y ago

Consultant32452 4y ago

This is one of those things that's technically illegal in the US, but is selectively enforced when big companies don't donate enough to the mafia. Specifically, the IRS can come after you for incorrectly/falsely classifying an employee as a contractor.

trilbyglens 4y ago

Employees have basically no rights at all in the US. We started the labor movement, and have completely given up all rights over the last 70 years. It's a shame really.

tasubotadas 4y ago
Pretty sure you are mistaking rights with benefits.
jlund-molfese 4y ago
If you really don’t know about your rights as an employee, you should be aware that US workers have many rights guaranteed by law. Not as much protection as west Europeans, maybe! But the other side of the coin is that it’s so much easier to get hired, or start a business in the US. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers
- whoknew1122 4y ago
  The question isn't whether there are rights guaranteed by law. It's whether or not those laws are actually applied. That's why it's national news that Amazon was found to have violated labor laws... in a single warehouse in New York.[1] And that's before we get into intentional understaffing and industry capture of the US Department of Labor. https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgdejj/amazon-repeatedly-violated-union-busting-labor-laws-historic-nlrb-complaint-says https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgdejj/amazon-repeatedly-vio...
  - jlund-molfese 4y ago
    Well, now you’re moving the goalposts. I’m not arguing that workers are never mistreated. I would agree, sometimes they are, and that is bad! But it’s overly hyperbolic to say that US employees have no rights at all. They do, just not as many protections as a few other countries. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, I had a legal right to overtime, paid breaks, and unpaid leave and other things. DOL signs were posted at the workplace, as is required, to inform workers about their rights. My employer (Best Buy) followed the law and I appreciated those legal protections, which the employer otherwise probably wouldn’t have given me. This is an anecdote, but is an example of a worker (me) having rights. To be clear, that’s the specific argument I’m making. American workers have some rights, regardless of whether they’re perfect, or perfectly upheld. That’s obvious, isn’t it?

pkrotich 4y ago

Not when it’s at-will employment. You don’t need a reason to fire anyone in most states in US. Only exceptions are protected things like because of gender or race etc - but that is even blurry to prove it. Unions are the only protection but companies do everything to burst unions e.g Starbucks and Amazon.

theGnuMe 4y ago
In the US at the Federal level the IRS and DOL have specific tests for contractor vs employee. If you hire contractors that are really employees they will come after you for misclassification. This is independent of State laws.

qbasic_forever 4y ago

The US has no such laws or restrictions. The only restrictions for firing in the US are with discrimination of protected classes.

pyuser583 4y ago
This isn’t really true. Americans have more rights than they think. It varies a lot, and can be confusing. There’s an ongoing case about how venues like Madison Square Garden are using facial recognition to deny entry to employees of law firms suing them. There are laws in place to protect theater critics. Those laws stem from an idea that it’s unlawful to prevent someone from earning a living/practicing their profession. Many of those older laws are on the books. There are strict anti blacklisting laws in many states.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Nothing you mentioned has any relevance to an employer firing an employee and rehiring them as a contractor, which is perfectly legal in the US. This actually happened a lot after the ACA/Obamacare law went in effect a decade ago. Many employers were faced with the mandate to provide insurance for full-time employees and decided to fire/downsize those roles and hire independent contractors in their place (which did not need to have healthcare provided by the employer).