78 ms·

That lack of benefits is legally mandated, thanks to some high-profile court cases. It isn't that Google or other companies simply don't want to give those kind

That lack of benefits is legally mandated, thanks to some high-profile court cases. It isn't that Google or other companies simply don't want to give those kinds of perks to contractors; no manager I've worked with has ever begrudged the cost of these kinds of perks and many were just as annoyed that they couldn't give them to contractors. And it isn't that they want to classify those perks as "compensation" and somehow bill the contractor for them. It's that if you give those kinds of benefits to a contractor, they can be involuntarily retroactively reclassified as an employee. Before that legal precedent existed, many companies were a lot more free about sharing those kinds of fun perks (social events, apparel, stickers, fun things that don't have a substantial cost) with contractors. I would love to go back to a world in which companies could freely do that and thought nothing of it. And in that world, if some company arbitrarily denied those kinds of perks to contractors I'd agree that that was the company being unpleasant for no good reason. If you want to complain about companies using contractors in places where you think they should be using employees, by all means do. There are certainly cases where companies use contractors where they should be using employees, and for that matter vice versa. There are also cases where contractors are a better choice (e.g. variable/uncertain needs over time, employees of third-party companies that don't want to be employees). But if you accept that there are any valid reasons to have contractors and not just employees, the legal requirements that you can't give benefits to contractors are legal requirements imposed on the company, not arbitrary indignities invented by the company.

WalterBright 3y ago
Back in the Olden Days, I worked at Boeing as a salaried engineer. We worked alongside a small army of contractors. The contractors didn't get any benefits, and could be let go with no notice, but had 50% higher pay than the directs. (It turns out that the value of the benefits package was about 50% of the pay.) The directs were happy to be directs, and the contractors were happy to be contractors. I don't know why people have been so eager to upset this reasonable arrangement.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  To be clear, I hope that anyone who is a contractor and wants to be an employee has the opportunity to be an employee, either for that company or some other company. And, employee or contractor, I'd like to see everyone treated well, and I wish there weren't legal restrictions that prevented companies from doing that. What I don't want to see is contractors who are happy being contractors being forced to become employees, as a side effect of trying to help contractors who do want to be employees. Let's not throw out the entire concept of contracting, please.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    The concept of Contracting is dead in California and has been for 20 years. State law and unfortunate court rulings mean that the only realistic way to “contract“ is as a w-2 employee of a business to business Job Shops that skim 50% off the top. I always wanted to be a contractor, but it made me sick to watch my Job Shop make $100 per hour off work for being a legal middle-man
    - lokar 3y ago
      You mean in tech? I have a contractor coming over to install something in my house next week. Totally normal and legal.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Mostly in tech, That person likely isnt a contractor, but either small businesses or an employee of one, selling a service. If they were an independent contractor working for you, you would be giving them a 1099. I know musicians who now have to deal with 100+ W-2s each year for each performance and gig they played because it is illegal for them to be hired as a contractor. If a community symphony wants to hire a violinist for 2 hours, they have to document them as an employee, file employee taxes, track sick pay, ect. It is brutal on both ends.
- hansvm 3y ago
FireBeyond 3y ago
You may want to explore the world of permatemps where MSFT, et al, absolutely, and viciously exploited contractors on revolving short term contracts (When I was at MSFT, I knew of multiple people - who would have loved to been FTEs for a variety of reasons - who had been there for over a decade on revolving six month contracts). Those high profile cases came about because it was a way for those companies to absolutely dodge ancillary TC costs of employees. To me, a lot of the black and white, "Okay, fine, zero other benefits" was a punitive response to the permatemp lawsuits.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > You may want to explore the world of permatemps where MSFT, et al, absolutely, and viciously exploited contractors on revolving short term contracts (When I was at MSFT, I knew of multiple people - who would have loved to been FTEs for a variety of reasons - who had been there for over a decade on revolving six month contracts). I realize some companies do this. It sounds like Google may be one of them. On the other hand, some companies did and still do regularly convert contractors into regular employees, and conversely many do use short-term contracts for needs that are actually short-term. > To me, a lot of the black and white, "Okay, fine, zero other benefits" was a punitive response to the permatemp lawsuits. I think calling it "punitive" is imputing a malign motive that doesn't exist. There's legal precedent that giving contractors any of the same benefits as employees can lead to them being reclassified as employees, so companies stopped giving contractors benefits.

WalterBright 3y ago

Back in the Olden Days, I worked at Boeing as a salaried engineer. We worked alongside a small army of contractors. The contractors didn't get any benefits, and could be let go with no notice, but had 50% higher pay than the directs. (It turns out that the value of the benefits package was about 50% of the pay.) The directs were happy to be directs, and the contractors were happy to be contractors. I don't know why people have been so eager to upset this reasonable arrangement.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
To be clear, I hope that anyone who is a contractor and wants to be an employee has the opportunity to be an employee, either for that company or some other company. And, employee or contractor, I'd like to see everyone treated well, and I wish there weren't legal restrictions that prevented companies from doing that. What I don't want to see is contractors who are happy being contractors being forced to become employees, as a side effect of trying to help contractors who do want to be employees. Let's not throw out the entire concept of contracting, please.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The concept of Contracting is dead in California and has been for 20 years. State law and unfortunate court rulings mean that the only realistic way to “contract“ is as a w-2 employee of a business to business Job Shops that skim 50% off the top. I always wanted to be a contractor, but it made me sick to watch my Job Shop make $100 per hour off work for being a legal middle-man
  - lokar 3y ago
    You mean in tech? I have a contractor coming over to install something in my house next week. Totally normal and legal.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Mostly in tech, That person likely isnt a contractor, but either small businesses or an employee of one, selling a service. If they were an independent contractor working for you, you would be giving them a 1099. I know musicians who now have to deal with 100+ W-2s each year for each performance and gig they played because it is illegal for them to be hired as a contractor. If a community symphony wants to hire a violinist for 2 hours, they have to document them as an employee, file employee taxes, track sick pay, ect. It is brutal on both ends.
hansvm 3y ago

FireBeyond 3y ago

You may want to explore the world of permatemps where MSFT, et al, absolutely, and viciously exploited contractors on revolving short term contracts (When I was at MSFT, I knew of multiple people - who would have loved to been FTEs for a variety of reasons - who had been there for over a decade on revolving six month contracts). Those high profile cases came about because it was a way for those companies to absolutely dodge ancillary TC costs of employees. To me, a lot of the black and white, "Okay, fine, zero other benefits" was a punitive response to the permatemp lawsuits.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
> You may want to explore the world of permatemps where MSFT, et al, absolutely, and viciously exploited contractors on revolving short term contracts (When I was at MSFT, I knew of multiple people - who would have loved to been FTEs for a variety of reasons - who had been there for over a decade on revolving six month contracts). I realize some companies do this. It sounds like Google may be one of them. On the other hand, some companies did and still do regularly convert contractors into regular employees, and conversely many do use short-term contracts for needs that are actually short-term. > To me, a lot of the black and white, "Okay, fine, zero other benefits" was a punitive response to the permatemp lawsuits. I think calling it "punitive" is imputing a malign motive that doesn't exist. There's legal precedent that giving contractors any of the same benefits as employees can lead to them being reclassified as employees, so companies stopped giving contractors benefits.