5 ms·

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.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  That's quite different - Google contracts for a service to be provided and takes no interest in managing janitors and cooks individually. The red badgers sound like they're being given individual instructions but denied employee protection.
  - chii 3y ago
    but looking at it from a top down perspective, it does seem like google treats these contractors no better than the janitors and cooks. So i dont think you can say it's different merely because the nature of the work is not the same.
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      Google doesn't treat janitors any way. They treat the building services company. They do treat the contract programmers a certain way.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Two different kind of outsourcing contracts. And red badgers, unless they are freelancers, have employee protection. Just not from Google, or any other company using subcontracting agencies for that matter.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  The difference between a legitimate third party service and these ought-to-be-illegal body shop arrangements is whether Google is paying for a specific service—e.g. clean offices—or people that they boss around.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > or do you want Google or whoever to start hiring cooks themselves? Yes? Whats wrong with hiring a cook if you need to cook?
  - lazide 3y ago

lmm 3y ago

The US loves its purely procedural legal distinctions. Shell companies are often not only legal but encouraged.

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.

whatshisface 3y ago
That's quite different - Google contracts for a service to be provided and takes no interest in managing janitors and cooks individually. The red badgers sound like they're being given individual instructions but denied employee protection.
- chii 3y ago
  but looking at it from a top down perspective, it does seem like google treats these contractors no better than the janitors and cooks. So i dont think you can say it's different merely because the nature of the work is not the same.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    Google doesn't treat janitors any way. They treat the building services company. They do treat the contract programmers a certain way.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Two different kind of outsourcing contracts. And red badgers, unless they are freelancers, have employee protection. Just not from Google, or any other company using subcontracting agencies for that matter.
bradleyjg 3y ago
The difference between a legitimate third party service and these ought-to-be-illegal body shop arrangements is whether Google is paying for a specific service—e.g. clean offices—or people that they boss around.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> or do you want Google or whoever to start hiring cooks themselves? Yes? Whats wrong with hiring a cook if you need to cook?
- lazide 3y ago