3 ms·

This isn't printer ink, this is somebody working for you full time who you don't want to call an employee because it's cheaper not to. The idea is that if you

This isn't printer ink, this is somebody working for you full time who you don't want to call an employee because it's cheaper not to. The idea is that if you treat somebody like an employee, they're an employee, and that idea was allowed to be hollowed out. If companies participate in certain shunning rituals they're allowed to keep those same cheap employees. The purpose of the ruling wasn't to allow companies to operate in an identical way with identical costs, just meaner. It's not even a perverse incentive resulting from the ruling. It's that we've decided that only superficial, administrative features define an employment relationship, and so long as those rituals are adhered to, the fact that you work full time completely under the control of someone for years on end is not sufficient. There's no limit to the indirection, you may not have ever met your "actual" employer. This is not an accidental outcome, this is an efficient outcome. It could be ended by government, but for the people who pay the people who work in government, it's ideal.

shadowgovt 3y ago
> The idea is that if you treat somebody like an employee, they're an employee, and that idea was allowed to be hollowed out. Other way around. The status quo was that you could treat a contractor like an employee in everything but pay and benefits (like healthcare), and they were still a contractor. A court ruling decreed that was no longer the case, so now for companies to have contractors at all they must draw a bright-line demarcation in perks between FTEs and TVCs. A line that is frequently dehumanizing, because dehumanizing is visible and easy to argue in a court of law. Anyone who predicted any other outcome was naive, and those of us who want this silly pageant to end should be agitating for a law that functionally bans contracting.
barrkel 3y ago
Contractors are not normally cheaper than employees. All the overheads of an employee need to be paid for in the contract, plus profit, so if it comes out less than an employee, something isn't right. Contractors offer flexibility. Contractors can be engaged and disengaged without labour law complications.

shadowgovt 3y ago

> The idea is that if you treat somebody like an employee, they're an employee, and that idea was allowed to be hollowed out. Other way around. The status quo was that you could treat a contractor like an employee in everything but pay and benefits (like healthcare), and they were still a contractor. A court ruling decreed that was no longer the case, so now for companies to have contractors at all they must draw a bright-line demarcation in perks between FTEs and TVCs. A line that is frequently dehumanizing, because dehumanizing is visible and easy to argue in a court of law. Anyone who predicted any other outcome was naive, and those of us who want this silly pageant to end should be agitating for a law that functionally bans contracting.

barrkel 3y ago

Contractors are not normally cheaper than employees. All the overheads of an employee need to be paid for in the contract, plus profit, so if it comes out less than an employee, something isn't right. Contractors offer flexibility. Contractors can be engaged and disengaged without labour law complications.