5 ms·

> Google has more TVCs (temps, vendors, and contractors) than FTEs. By a good margin. Most of these people work 40 hours a week at Google. They do everything fr

> Google has more TVCs (temps, vendors, and contractors) than FTEs. By a good margin. Most of these people work 40 hours a week at Google. They do everything from kitchen work to program management to software engineering. They are often embedded in teams of FTEs and sit side by side with them. Yet Google leadership says that they’re not employees and they shouldn’t be. They don’t do work that’s part of Google’s “core competencies” or is “critical to Google’s mission”. "Contractor" is not a caste. These people are not born into it, they can apply for permanent position whenever they want. Like everybody else. > What a load of horseshit. It’s an excuse to underpay and ignore 55% of your workforce If they can't find better paying job, then that is exactly how much they worth on the job market. It is not like google has a monopoly on "program management to software engineering" jobs in California, right?

hansvm 3y ago
If Google doesn't like the union's terms they can refuse to renew those contracts. If they can't find cheaper, less needy workers then that is exactly how much they're valued on the job market. It's not like those contractors have a monopoly on providing labor to Google.
hackernewds 3y ago
Meritocracy and free market economics. Although "if you don't like it, then leave" is a false dichotomy and no way to run any institution
- Dracophoenix 3y ago
  What makes "if you don't like it, then leave" a false dichotomy? Every free association between or among people is predicated upon a cost-benefit analysis of whether to stay or go.
  - zamnos 3y ago
    because there's a third option - stay but change the situation somehow. But by ignoring that third option, and presenting only two, that's the dichotomy, but one that isn't real, because there's a third way.
    - Dracophoenix 3y ago
      Every individual looks out for his or her self-interest. While you're technically correct, ultimatums are usually uttered when there is no chance either side is willing to change its outlook and where any attempt to compel change will result in being ignored or dismissed. Unless one has leverage, the third option, for all intents and purposes is a bridge to a bottomless pit.
- caskstrength 3y ago
  > Although "if you don't like it, then leave" is a false dichotomy and no way to run any institution It is not "if you don't like it, then leave", it is "if you don't like it, then try to pass same interview for permanent position as everyone else".
EliRivers 3y ago
then that is exactly how much they worth on the job market. The job market is not our god. Life is not some kind of economic art project.
- pg_1234 3y ago
  That's the point of a union - to change the job market. If a company HAS to employ some people and all candidates are unionized, suddenly they're worth what the market will bear.
- EntrePrescott 3y ago
  > The job market is not our god Thank the FSM it isn't. But then again, a god is not what determines the price of any given type of work. That would be not a god but… salary negotiations (at the individual level) and more generally the job market (in the larger statistical view) > Life is not some kind of economic art project. Neither are salaries. Nothing artsy about them. Instead, they are simply determined by the level at which two sides find together in agreement to the exchange of work against money for a price they mutually agree upon. "Job Market" is just the word for the statistical view across all individual such transactions.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    > If they can't find better paying job, then that is exactly how much they worth on the job market. Given that Google et al were found to be colluding to limit job mobility and wages in the tech industry, this is a bit of a rich take. What people are worth and what they can get paid are not synonymous.
    - EntrePrescott 3y ago
      First of all, that line you quote isn't from me. Then: Ugly as that Google thing was, its intent and effect was to prevent competition ("poaching") by a handful of big competitors. Ugly, sure, but that only represented a small fraction of the tech industry. Equating these "Google et al" of that context with the job market of the tech industry is just absurd. That being said, de-facto-cartel behavior like that on the employer side or like unions on the employee side do make the job market somewhat less of a free market. > What people are worth and what they can get paid are not synonymous. Aside from the fact that - again - there was no mention of "worth" in my comment, that sounds like you being triggered at the colloquial shortened use of "someone's worth" for what a person can get paid on the job market, because you conflate that by equivocation with some philosophical, emotional or moral notion of personal "worth" (all of which are subjective btw) and feel indignation at the projected idea that those two totally different things would be equal for some people. Well guess what: they aren't. The job market is not at all about what people are "worth" in those senses but only about what "market worth" not they as persons but their work time has, i.e. for what value they can expect to find someone else who will be consenting to give their money in exchange for that work time. I avoid the term "worth" for precisely that reason: that it tends to trigger by equivocation and thus sidetrack from the rational economic background of the link between individual salaries and the job market, when in reality nobody is arguing that the "market worth" of the work someone is selling would be equal to the (philosophical, societal, or whatever other, let alone financial) "worth" of that person themself. While the former is sometimes colloquially shortened to "someone's market worth", the job market is not about the "worth" of people but about the level at which, statistically, they sell their work time i.e. at which they find someone who consents to pay that much for it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hansvm 3y ago

If Google doesn't like the union's terms they can refuse to renew those contracts. If they can't find cheaper, less needy workers then that is exactly how much they're valued on the job market. It's not like those contractors have a monopoly on providing labor to Google.

hackernewds 3y ago

Meritocracy and free market economics. Although "if you don't like it, then leave" is a false dichotomy and no way to run any institution

Dracophoenix 3y ago
What makes "if you don't like it, then leave" a false dichotomy? Every free association between or among people is predicated upon a cost-benefit analysis of whether to stay or go.
- zamnos 3y ago
  because there's a third option - stay but change the situation somehow. But by ignoring that third option, and presenting only two, that's the dichotomy, but one that isn't real, because there's a third way.
  - Dracophoenix 3y ago
    Every individual looks out for his or her self-interest. While you're technically correct, ultimatums are usually uttered when there is no chance either side is willing to change its outlook and where any attempt to compel change will result in being ignored or dismissed. Unless one has leverage, the third option, for all intents and purposes is a bridge to a bottomless pit.
caskstrength 3y ago
> Although "if you don't like it, then leave" is a false dichotomy and no way to run any institution It is not "if you don't like it, then leave", it is "if you don't like it, then try to pass same interview for permanent position as everyone else".

EliRivers 3y ago

then that is exactly how much they worth on the job market. The job market is not our god. Life is not some kind of economic art project.

pg_1234 3y ago
That's the point of a union - to change the job market. If a company HAS to employ some people and all candidates are unionized, suddenly they're worth what the market will bear.
EntrePrescott 3y ago
> The job market is not our god Thank the FSM it isn't. But then again, a god is not what determines the price of any given type of work. That would be not a god but… salary negotiations (at the individual level) and more generally the job market (in the larger statistical view) > Life is not some kind of economic art project. Neither are salaries. Nothing artsy about them. Instead, they are simply determined by the level at which two sides find together in agreement to the exchange of work against money for a price they mutually agree upon. "Job Market" is just the word for the statistical view across all individual such transactions.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > If they can't find better paying job, then that is exactly how much they worth on the job market. Given that Google et al were found to be colluding to limit job mobility and wages in the tech industry, this is a bit of a rich take. What people are worth and what they can get paid are not synonymous.
  - EntrePrescott 3y ago
    First of all, that line you quote isn't from me. Then: Ugly as that Google thing was, its intent and effect was to prevent competition ("poaching") by a handful of big competitors. Ugly, sure, but that only represented a small fraction of the tech industry. Equating these "Google et al" of that context with the job market of the tech industry is just absurd. That being said, de-facto-cartel behavior like that on the employer side or like unions on the employee side do make the job market somewhat less of a free market. > What people are worth and what they can get paid are not synonymous. Aside from the fact that - again - there was no mention of "worth" in my comment, that sounds like you being triggered at the colloquial shortened use of "someone's worth" for what a person can get paid on the job market, because you conflate that by equivocation with some philosophical, emotional or moral notion of personal "worth" (all of which are subjective btw) and feel indignation at the projected idea that those two totally different things would be equal for some people. Well guess what: they aren't. The job market is not at all about what people are "worth" in those senses but only about what "market worth" not they as persons but their work time has, i.e. for what value they can expect to find someone else who will be consenting to give their money in exchange for that work time. I avoid the term "worth" for precisely that reason: that it tends to trigger by equivocation and thus sidetrack from the rational economic background of the link between individual salaries and the job market, when in reality nobody is arguing that the "market worth" of the work someone is selling would be equal to the (philosophical, societal, or whatever other, let alone financial) "worth" of that person themself. While the former is sometimes colloquially shortened to "someone's market worth", the job market is not about the "worth" of people but about the level at which, statistically, they sell their work time i.e. at which they find someone who consents to pay that much for it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]