7 ms·

Ok but then contractors have the freedom to work whatever hours they want, not show up to the office, and subcontract out their work - right? If so that might b

Ok but then contractors have the freedom to work whatever hours they want, not show up to the office, and subcontract out their work - right? If so that might be more appealing than being an employee

no_wizard 3y ago
Not in practice, because they use a hiring entity to dictate the terms. You're expected to show up on a schedule, do the work etc. much like a FTE, but you're not an FTE. I think some folks have this illusion of software contractors that this is somehow common, it really isn't. The norm is you-are-almost-but-not-quite an employee type work environment, and thats at the better places. I've worked at a place where contractors were treated like they weren't human, basically. Worst equipment, forced to work in an old warehouse that barely passed code to be considered retrofitted for an office, people routine got sick out there because they were exposed to the elements. Not to mention, during fire season (this was California) they were in a building that didn't have a good enough air filtration system, so they were forced to sit in smoke all day, more or less I quit that place pretty quickly, but it was nothing short of terrible
- ethbr1 3y ago
  As a contractor, you are an FTE... just for a different (almost always much worse) company. And that arrangement exists solely so that the company whose work you're actually doing can fire you more easily or avoid legal liability.
  - GreedClarifies 3y ago
    I wish we could somehow get this comment more visibility. Especially the 1st sentence. People that complain about the plights of contractors need to understand the above.
  - JSavageOne 3y ago
    I'm surprised this even legally flies. Seems like the legal equivalent of creating a shell company.
    - lmm 3y ago
      The US loves its purely procedural legal distinctions. Shell companies are often not only legal but encouraged.
    - rewmie 3y ago
      What surprises me the most is how a corporation like Google is incapable of meeting temporary staffing needs internally, by shifting people already on their payroll around projects. It's as if they are just admitting that they are shit at managing projects and workloads and scoping work to the point that they need external help to plug these gaping holes in their load management. How many people do they need to pay to manage this contractor circus? How much effort do they waste sourcing contractors, tracking work assigned to them, treat contractors differently even interns of security processes, and dealing with higher attrition levels? So much waste.
      - eru 3y ago
        Many countries make legal distinctions between direct employees and contractors. Those kinds of regulations are a prime driver for this kind of contracting.
    - adharmad 3y ago
      It is a shell company, except that it is not Google (or its equivalent) who is creating it. It is the Infosys and Cognizants (or other bodyshopping firms) of the world who create this structure to satisfy the demand created by the Googles.
    - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
      I mean classic example are contracting out food service in the corporate cafeteria. You contract the work to some random other company who hire people to do food service or do you want Google or whoever to start hiring cooks themselves? Janitorial staff is also a classic role for this style of employment.
  - eru 3y ago
    > And that arrangement exists solely so that the company whose work you're actually doing can fire you more easily or avoid legal liability. It might mostly exist for that reason, but not 'solely'. Otherwise, there would be no contractors in eg Singapore.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- edgyquant 3y ago
  That’s not legally a contractor then. As someone who has done contracting, both for software and in construction plus has hired them and had to be advised by lawyers around the legality of what makes or breaks a contractor… If you are setting their hours, bossing them around and/or providing equipment they are not a contractor they are an employee. This is the law in 100% of the United States.
  - ponector 3y ago
    How would you call people who are hired by bodyshop(IT service providers like Infosys, Cognizant, Epam) and then leased to Google?
    - vasco 3y ago
      I call them exploited emigrants
  - jasode 3y ago
    >That’s not legally a contractor then. [...] If you are setting their hours, bossing them around and/or providing equipment they are not a contractor they are an employee. There are 2 different uses of "contractor": (1) contractor : official IRS tax classification of 1099 independent contractor (2) "contractor" : a W-2 employee of a "temp agency" or "staffing agency" or "bodyshop" that is sent to a client company (such as Google) needing contingent workers. Adecco[1] is an example of a staffing company that sends people to Google. These temp agencies with workers classified as W-2 employees act as legal cover to "avoid repeating Microsoft lawsuits". From Google's perspective, these Adecco employees are "contractors". If the above working arrangement looks convoluted with the economic inefficiencies of paying for an extra middleman (the temp agencies), it is. But it cleverly avoids the IRS claiming, "Hey Google, your so-called contractors are misclassified and should be employees!" ... and Google can say, "They already are employees! They're Adecco employees!" The "1099 real contractor" is not as common as "fake-contractor-but-really-somebody-elses-W2-employee" ... because the "1099 contractors" won their lawsuit against Microsoft. [1] https://www.adeccousa.com/ https://www.adeccousa.com/
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think the GP's point was that's how it should be. If a company is going to -- for "legal reasons" -- not treat contractors the same way they treat employees, then they should be doing so not only in bad, exclusionary ways, but also in good ways, with the expected perks of being a contractor that FTEs don't get: freedom to set their own hours, work where they want, and subcontract out their work. But no, companies like Google want to have their cake and eat it too: they want a class of workers where they can require of them more or less the exact same things that they require of their employees (and much more easily fire them), but can give them a lot less, and treat them like a second class. That's entirely Google's choice. It does not have to be that way. But they've decided to create this two-class system for their own benefit, not for anyone else's. Also consider that these people are probably often not contractors in the legal sense. They're likely W-2 employees of some sort of staffing agency, who are then placed at Google. Google pays the staffing agency, the staffing agency pays the "contractor" a salary (significantly less than what Google pays the staffing agency), and all is fine... legally, anyway.
  - ssharp 3y ago
    >> Google pays the staffing agency, the staffing agency pays the "contractor" a salary (significantly less than what Google pays the staffing agency), and all is fine... legally, anyway. The staffing agency vig is so high it is practically the same as an FTE.
    - Galacta7 3y ago
      I used to work for a temp agency (clerical, not in tech) and I remember once seeing what my agency was getting paid for me on an hourly basis. Iirc, it was something like 3-4x what I was getting paid hourly. It was kind of sickening tbh. Plus many agencies forbid temps from being hired away without paying an outrageously hire fee to do so. It felt like being an indentured servant in many ways. The only upside was that if you hated the place you worked, you could always ask to be reassigned someplace else. But that's the only major plus I can think of.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
- bozhark 3y ago
  You cannot dictate those terms of a contractor.
BeetleB 3y ago
> Ok but then contractors have the freedom to work whatever hours they want, not show up to the office, and subcontract out their work - right? If so that might be more appealing than being an employee Depends on the agreement. First off, probably 99% of these contractors work for a contracting company, so as a contractor you have no say: You are an employee of (another) company and they'll set the rules. If you're truly independent, then sure - try to make whatever agreement you want with Google.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
secondcoming 3y ago
No, not really.

Ok but then contractors have the freedom to work whatever hours they want, not show up to the office, and subcontract out their work - right? If so that might be more appealing than being an employee

no_wizard 3y ago

Not in practice, because they use a hiring entity to dictate the terms. You're expected to show up on a schedule, do the work etc. much like a FTE, but you're not an FTE. I think some folks have this illusion of software contractors that this is somehow common, it really isn't. The norm is you-are-almost-but-not-quite an employee type work environment, and thats at the better places. I've worked at a place where contractors were treated like they weren't human, basically. Worst equipment, forced to work in an old warehouse that barely passed code to be considered retrofitted for an office, people routine got sick out there because they were exposed to the elements. Not to mention, during fire season (this was California) they were in a building that didn't have a good enough air filtration system, so they were forced to sit in smoke all day, more or less I quit that place pretty quickly, but it was nothing short of terrible

ethbr1 3y ago
As a contractor, you are an FTE... just for a different (almost always much worse) company. And that arrangement exists solely so that the company whose work you're actually doing can fire you more easily or avoid legal liability.
- GreedClarifies 3y ago
  I wish we could somehow get this comment more visibility. Especially the 1st sentence. People that complain about the plights of contractors need to understand the above.
- JSavageOne 3y ago
  I'm surprised this even legally flies. Seems like the legal equivalent of creating a shell company.
  - lmm 3y ago
    The US loves its purely procedural legal distinctions. Shell companies are often not only legal but encouraged.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    What surprises me the most is how a corporation like Google is incapable of meeting temporary staffing needs internally, by shifting people already on their payroll around projects. It's as if they are just admitting that they are shit at managing projects and workloads and scoping work to the point that they need external help to plug these gaping holes in their load management. How many people do they need to pay to manage this contractor circus? How much effort do they waste sourcing contractors, tracking work assigned to them, treat contractors differently even interns of security processes, and dealing with higher attrition levels? So much waste.
    - eru 3y ago
      Many countries make legal distinctions between direct employees and contractors. Those kinds of regulations are a prime driver for this kind of contracting.
  - adharmad 3y ago
    It is a shell company, except that it is not Google (or its equivalent) who is creating it. It is the Infosys and Cognizants (or other bodyshopping firms) of the world who create this structure to satisfy the demand created by the Googles.
  - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    I mean classic example are contracting out food service in the corporate cafeteria. You contract the work to some random other company who hire people to do food service or do you want Google or whoever to start hiring cooks themselves? Janitorial staff is also a classic role for this style of employment.
- eru 3y ago
  > And that arrangement exists solely so that the company whose work you're actually doing can fire you more easily or avoid legal liability. It might mostly exist for that reason, but not 'solely'. Otherwise, there would be no contractors in eg Singapore.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
edgyquant 3y ago
That’s not legally a contractor then. As someone who has done contracting, both for software and in construction plus has hired them and had to be advised by lawyers around the legality of what makes or breaks a contractor… If you are setting their hours, bossing them around and/or providing equipment they are not a contractor they are an employee. This is the law in 100% of the United States.
- ponector 3y ago
  How would you call people who are hired by bodyshop(IT service providers like Infosys, Cognizant, Epam) and then leased to Google?
  - vasco 3y ago
    I call them exploited emigrants
- jasode 3y ago
  >That’s not legally a contractor then. [...] If you are setting their hours, bossing them around and/or providing equipment they are not a contractor they are an employee. There are 2 different uses of "contractor": (1) contractor : official IRS tax classification of 1099 independent contractor (2) "contractor" : a W-2 employee of a "temp agency" or "staffing agency" or "bodyshop" that is sent to a client company (such as Google) needing contingent workers. Adecco[1] is an example of a staffing company that sends people to Google. These temp agencies with workers classified as W-2 employees act as legal cover to "avoid repeating Microsoft lawsuits". From Google's perspective, these Adecco employees are "contractors". If the above working arrangement looks convoluted with the economic inefficiencies of paying for an extra middleman (the temp agencies), it is. But it cleverly avoids the IRS claiming, "Hey Google, your so-called contractors are misclassified and should be employees!" ... and Google can say, "They already are employees! They're Adecco employees!" The "1099 real contractor" is not as common as "fake-contractor-but-really-somebody-elses-W2-employee" ... because the "1099 contractors" won their lawsuit against Microsoft. [1] https://www.adeccousa.com/ https://www.adeccousa.com/
kelnos 3y ago
I think the GP's point was that's how it should be. If a company is going to -- for "legal reasons" -- not treat contractors the same way they treat employees, then they should be doing so not only in bad, exclusionary ways, but also in good ways, with the expected perks of being a contractor that FTEs don't get: freedom to set their own hours, work where they want, and subcontract out their work. But no, companies like Google want to have their cake and eat it too: they want a class of workers where they can require of them more or less the exact same things that they require of their employees (and much more easily fire them), but can give them a lot less, and treat them like a second class. That's entirely Google's choice. It does not have to be that way. But they've decided to create this two-class system for their own benefit, not for anyone else's. Also consider that these people are probably often not contractors in the legal sense. They're likely W-2 employees of some sort of staffing agency, who are then placed at Google. Google pays the staffing agency, the staffing agency pays the "contractor" a salary (significantly less than what Google pays the staffing agency), and all is fine... legally, anyway.
- ssharp 3y ago
  >> Google pays the staffing agency, the staffing agency pays the "contractor" a salary (significantly less than what Google pays the staffing agency), and all is fine... legally, anyway. The staffing agency vig is so high it is practically the same as an FTE.
  - Galacta7 3y ago
    I used to work for a temp agency (clerical, not in tech) and I remember once seeing what my agency was getting paid for me on an hourly basis. Iirc, it was something like 3-4x what I was getting paid hourly. It was kind of sickening tbh. Plus many agencies forbid temps from being hired away without paying an outrageously hire fee to do so. It felt like being an indentured servant in many ways. The only upside was that if you hated the place you worked, you could always ask to be reassigned someplace else. But that's the only major plus I can think of.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
bozhark 3y ago
You cannot dictate those terms of a contractor.

BeetleB 3y ago

> Ok but then contractors have the freedom to work whatever hours they want, not show up to the office, and subcontract out their work - right? If so that might be more appealing than being an employee Depends on the agreement. First off, probably 99% of these contractors work for a contracting company, so as a contractor you have no say: You are an employee of (another) company and they'll set the rules. If you're truly independent, then sure - try to make whatever agreement you want with Google.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

secondcoming 3y ago

No, not really.