5 ms·

For those unaware, these rules are pervasive in the US corporate world, and stem directly from Vizcaino v. Microsoft in 1996. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

by ajross 3y ago

For those unaware, these rules are pervasive in the US corporate world, and stem directly from Vizcaino v. Microsoft in 1996. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp Effectively the fact that an employer treats a temporary employee "the same" as a regular one (i.e. by granting them the same perks) is construed by courts as evidence that they are not temporary. So, if a company wants to hire temp/contractor employees, they just can't do this. It's not a "caste" thing, it's not about deliberate discrimination, it's not about keeping wages low or reducing overhead, and it's absolutely not unique to Google. Blame the courts, basically. It was a terrible decision, for exactly this reason. Its effect is directly contra to its intent. > If you worked with a TVC, you'd get training that felt like you were learning how to own a House Elf: "Remember, never give them clothing or they'll be free! And report them if they ever claim to work for Google." Yes! That's exactly what happens. And it did, to Microsoft, and it was extremely expensive. So no one wants to see the same thing happen to them.

gumby 3y ago
> Blame the courts, basically. No, blame these companies for trying hard to avoid workplace protection.
- ajross 3y ago
  No, it's got nothing to do with workplace protection or wages. The original suit was actually about participation in the stock purchase program (which in the mid-90's was extremely lucrative at MSFT!), something that no contractor would normally expect to get. But because the contractors got free food at the cafe (or whatever), they did. Or rather they got a settlement making up for the stock the courts said they should have been able to get. Basically, the rule per Vizcaino is "Any benefit offered to salaried employees must be offered to temporary ones too unless you deliberately discriminate against them in all your other benefits not related to their job." And yes, that's a stupid rule. But it's the rule, and it's universally enforced at every US employer large enough to have a legal department.
  - svachalek 3y ago
    The game is that the contractors are supposedly not working for the company that they're actually working for. Anything that might break that illusion puts the company at risk of needing to treat them as the actual employees that they are.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    yes, it has everything to do with workplace protection and wages
- hughesjj 3y ago
  Yup, these companies could always just hire outright
  - esafak 3y ago
    So if they want to trim costs and not do that it would be better if they hired no-one? It is the same with undocumented workers. Would it better if they were deported than to be denied benefits afforded to citizens?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - lmm 3y ago
      By that logic it's always fine for companies to get around labour protections. Yes, it would be better if they hired no-one. When your job conditions are beneath human dignity, you don't get to hire people for that job, even if that means your stock price doesn't grow quite as much and GDP is lower this year.
      - esafak 3y ago
        I don't think workers generally agree with you. Certainly in the tech world, it is hard to describe contract work as "beneath human dignity". For blue collar work, I would understand your point.
        lmm 3y ago
        > Certainly in the tech world, it is hard to describe contract work as "beneath human dignity". Realistically in the US the distinction is mainly about whether you have medical coverage. Plenty of people work with no or bad medical coverage because they are some combination of optimistic/greedy/desperate; to assess how humane that is you'd have to look at how they feel about it after getting diagnosed with something that they struggle to get decent treatment for because they weren't an employee.
      - 3y ago
arrosenberg 3y ago
> Blame the courts, basically. It was a terrible decision, for exactly this reason. Its effect is directly contra to its intent. Blame them for enforcing labor law? Why not blame the companies for exploiting labor by misclassifying them to deny benefits?
- ajross 3y ago
  Again, to repeat: the desire in the suit (to prevent employers from inappropriately using temporary labor) was valid. The EFFECT of the suit is exactly the opposite: it's forced employers to performatively discriminate against temps in every way they can find as a way to prevent the kind of finding that hurt MSFT. Thus, it's a bad ruling. I'm all for reform of contractor labor laws, but this decision broke things.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    No one is forcing employers into performative hysterics, it's a reactionary choice by the corporate legal community. MSFT was guilty of what they were accused of. If they don't misclassify workers, they won't lose such a suit.
    - ajross 3y ago
      > No one is forcing employers into performative hysterics, it's a reactionary choice by the corporate legal community. "The rest of the world is wrong, only I know the truth in this thread on a random web forum" is an unpersuasive frame to be arguing from. Corporate legal departments may be inflexible and hidebound, but they surely know this stuff better than you do. No, this is the way it works. If you do what MS did and offer unrestricted perks to your temps, they'll sue you and you'll lose. Period. What you're arguing amounts to "no one should hire temporary labor to work alongside salaried employees". And, OK, that's a position. But if that's what you want then you should make that case and not argue that somehow Viscaino doesn't exist, because it does.
      - pseg134 3y ago
hudsonjr 3y ago
I do think the net result of this wad bad. I remember before this decision, I worked somewhere where people could take longer to be promoted as a temp, maybe even 2 years. I don't know that this was exploitive, it was usually a mix of developing competency and department having budget. If someone left the company, usually someone got immediately promoted out of being a temp. If not that, it was dependent on department budget increase in the next fiscal year. The legal change meant some roles like QA were put on a company switching treadmill.
mistrial9 3y ago
no - the reason the issue went to court in the first place, was MSFT and Apple and others, not hiring (stock, health insurance) and then making contractors "prove themselves" a.k.a. extra overtime, demeaning social situations, lower perks etc
ponector 3y ago
Do you really think that Google should not be blamed that in cutting costs they don't want to provide same benefits for people they lease? If they had a will, they could easily force their vendors to provide same level of benefits. This is happening exactly to cut costs, to keep reported headcount low. There will be no news if Google cut 50000 of such contractors, simply because they are not counted, not treated like a people. Just a resource, leased from another company.

by ajross 3y ago

gumby 3y ago

> Blame the courts, basically. No, blame these companies for trying hard to avoid workplace protection.

ajross 3y ago
No, it's got nothing to do with workplace protection or wages. The original suit was actually about participation in the stock purchase program (which in the mid-90's was extremely lucrative at MSFT!), something that no contractor would normally expect to get. But because the contractors got free food at the cafe (or whatever), they did. Or rather they got a settlement making up for the stock the courts said they should have been able to get. Basically, the rule per Vizcaino is "Any benefit offered to salaried employees must be offered to temporary ones too unless you deliberately discriminate against them in all your other benefits not related to their job." And yes, that's a stupid rule. But it's the rule, and it's universally enforced at every US employer large enough to have a legal department.
- svachalek 3y ago
  The game is that the contractors are supposedly not working for the company that they're actually working for. Anything that might break that illusion puts the company at risk of needing to treat them as the actual employees that they are.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  yes, it has everything to do with workplace protection and wages
hughesjj 3y ago
Yup, these companies could always just hire outright
- esafak 3y ago
  So if they want to trim costs and not do that it would be better if they hired no-one? It is the same with undocumented workers. Would it better if they were deported than to be denied benefits afforded to citizens?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lmm 3y ago
    By that logic it's always fine for companies to get around labour protections. Yes, it would be better if they hired no-one. When your job conditions are beneath human dignity, you don't get to hire people for that job, even if that means your stock price doesn't grow quite as much and GDP is lower this year.
    - esafak 3y ago
      I don't think workers generally agree with you. Certainly in the tech world, it is hard to describe contract work as "beneath human dignity". For blue collar work, I would understand your point.
      - lmm 3y ago
        > Certainly in the tech world, it is hard to describe contract work as "beneath human dignity". Realistically in the US the distinction is mainly about whether you have medical coverage. Plenty of people work with no or bad medical coverage because they are some combination of optimistic/greedy/desperate; to assess how humane that is you'd have to look at how they feel about it after getting diagnosed with something that they struggle to get decent treatment for because they weren't an employee.
    - 3y ago

arrosenberg 3y ago

> Blame the courts, basically. It was a terrible decision, for exactly this reason. Its effect is directly contra to its intent. Blame them for enforcing labor law? Why not blame the companies for exploiting labor by misclassifying them to deny benefits?

ajross 3y ago
Again, to repeat: the desire in the suit (to prevent employers from inappropriately using temporary labor) was valid. The EFFECT of the suit is exactly the opposite: it's forced employers to performatively discriminate against temps in every way they can find as a way to prevent the kind of finding that hurt MSFT. Thus, it's a bad ruling. I'm all for reform of contractor labor laws, but this decision broke things.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  No one is forcing employers into performative hysterics, it's a reactionary choice by the corporate legal community. MSFT was guilty of what they were accused of. If they don't misclassify workers, they won't lose such a suit.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > No one is forcing employers into performative hysterics, it's a reactionary choice by the corporate legal community. "The rest of the world is wrong, only I know the truth in this thread on a random web forum" is an unpersuasive frame to be arguing from. Corporate legal departments may be inflexible and hidebound, but they surely know this stuff better than you do. No, this is the way it works. If you do what MS did and offer unrestricted perks to your temps, they'll sue you and you'll lose. Period. What you're arguing amounts to "no one should hire temporary labor to work alongside salaried employees". And, OK, that's a position. But if that's what you want then you should make that case and not argue that somehow Viscaino doesn't exist, because it does.
    - pseg134 3y ago

hudsonjr 3y ago

I do think the net result of this wad bad. I remember before this decision, I worked somewhere where people could take longer to be promoted as a temp, maybe even 2 years. I don't know that this was exploitive, it was usually a mix of developing competency and department having budget. If someone left the company, usually someone got immediately promoted out of being a temp. If not that, it was dependent on department budget increase in the next fiscal year. The legal change meant some roles like QA were put on a company switching treadmill.

mistrial9 3y ago

no - the reason the issue went to court in the first place, was MSFT and Apple and others, not hiring (stock, health insurance) and then making contractors "prove themselves" a.k.a. extra overtime, demeaning social situations, lower perks etc

ponector 3y ago

Do you really think that Google should not be blamed that in cutting costs they don't want to provide same benefits for people they lease? If they had a will, they could easily force their vendors to provide same level of benefits. This is happening exactly to cut costs, to keep reported headcount low. There will be no news if Google cut 50000 of such contractors, simply because they are not counted, not treated like a people. Just a resource, leased from another company.