7 ms·

I think this is a good move. I understand the tax incentives/accounting behind it, but I still feel it's kind of shady to hire "contractors" for positions that

I think this is a good move. I understand the tax incentives/accounting behind it, but I still feel it's kind of shady to hire "contractors" for positions that are indefinite. I think contractors should be for the time you need a bunch of hands or brains to get something done for a few months, but using contractors for years on end is just abuse of the system and demeaning for the person. Who do you think is going to be more loyal and do a better job with your security, someone who always feels like an outsider, or someone who is protecting "their" own company?

sidcool 12y ago
That exactly was my first thought...'What's in it for Google?'. Not doubting their good intentions, but whenever any corporate portrays an altruistic thing, it rings the skeptic bell in my head. Good move Google.
- bostik 12y ago
  I don't understand the downvote, because I can easily think of non-altruistic reasons for this move. 1) I have no doubt Google already tracks their contractors' staff turnover. Every industry has institutional knowledge, and if staff turnover is high, not enough of the knowledge gets transferred. If the prestige of being a Googler is enough to counter that trend, it may be well worth a lot more than the monetary cost. 2) Assuming the detail about "gbus" access is true, the security guards traveling on the buses will have personal incentives for keeping them safer. 3) This move may attract the kinds of people Google wants for their physical security. (Related to point #1.) So while Google may well be riding the social awareness wave for PR purposes, there are bound to be real corporate reasons behind the move too.
  - wavegeek 12y ago
    You might find it also makes their stats look better ie % African American employees. Don't be evil.* *Unless it's profitable.
- Alex3917 12y ago
  Avoiding lawsuits for racial discrimination.
  - frostmatthew 12y ago
    If you're suggesting what I think you are (that they're doing this for a bump in their diversity numbers) it should be noted their diversity report[1] breaks it down by tech and non-tech. [1] http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech
    - 001sky 12y ago
      non-tech black = 3% black national % of security guards = 20% every little bit helps I guess
- ufmace 12y ago
  Part of the reason may be a PR thing - they want to improve their image so that there are less people, say, protesting their busses and employees.
- 001sky 12y ago
  This is a cheap way to buy "token minority positions" and increase the appearance of diversity. Its a smart, if somewhat cynical move. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/the-workforce-is-even-more-divided-by-race-than-you-think/281175/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/the-work... "Blacks, who make up just 11 percent of the workforce, account for more than a third of home health aides and about 25 percent of both security guards and bus drivers—rather low paying jobs."
enneff 12y ago
I guess part of the rationale for using contractors for, say, kitchen workers is that you can use a consulting firm with expertise in catering, rather than having to develop that expertise in-house.
- vanadium 12y ago
  Or you could just hire a single person with domain expertise as a consultant for a given time to staff the group and end up with a presumably high-quality in-house kitchen staff from the start. The consultant moves onto their next gig after making sure the pieces fit as intended. This is a pretty common use case for the better consultants out there.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Or just buy a catering company. Annual profits in the billions leaves a company with no shortage of options.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - ubershmekel 12y ago
    I have to assume certain companies want to stay focused. This has many ramifications. E.g. if you're unhappy with the guards/cooks/cleaning - replacing that entire part of the organization is as easy as the contract makes it. If that operation is in-house - replacing employees, reforming, finding the talent to do that is much harder than window shopping for a competing third party to take over. Should a water company have an in-house pipe factory? Should a game dev company have in-house hardware fabrication? Should a food factory have an in-house plastic packaging factory? These questions don't have a clear answer in my opinion.
    - vanadium 12y ago
      It was a hypothetical and tangential case based on the parent comment, so let's get back to the original context where there is a more clear-cut conclusion. When it comes to security, the accountability dynamic between personal investment in outcomes and the inherent detachment as an employee of a third party is a bit different than kitchen work, and significantly more important. This arrangement works to the benefit of both Google and those responsible for securing the company.
xorcist 12y ago
Common sense suggests that this way should be cheaper, too. The contractor is often twice as expensive as their salary, so if you want them for an extended period of time it would make economic sense for a rational actor to hire directly. This is however offset by economic realities, where two equal cost may have a very different impact of valuation. So it does make economic sense to pay more for a cost that is not counted as a fixed cost of doing business on the accounting sheets.
- walshemj 12y ago
  err these are minimum wage security guards employed by a contractor not self employed contractors in their own right
  - cpwright 12y ago
    And the contracting company certainly takes a cut of every hour Google is paying for. Assuming the security guards get the same benefits as other Googlers (and they should), I would expect that Google saves very little money, or maybe even spends more; but the guards themselves should have a much more valuable pay package without the security company skimming off the top [I don't begrudge the security company, but it does seem a nicer overall solution in this case to cut out the middle man].
ownagefool 12y ago
I guess that depends on location. Personally, in the UK, I wouldn't dream of being a perm employee. Contract is the only way you can hire me. You can't really say a company is deemening me by holding on to me as long as possible.
- JCole 12y ago
  What are the advantages of contract work in the UK?
  - bad_user 12y ago
    Probably less taxes.
    - gaius 12y ago
      Yes it is a nationwide scandal, in IT, media, even the civil service and the BBC. If it looks like an employee and quacks like an employee then it should be taxed like an employee.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - Nursie 12y ago
        No it is not a scandal and no I am not an employee. I have no expectation of ongoing work. I come in, I get going fast, I work efficiently and smartly and I leave when the project is done. Very different ballgame to permanent employment. Permanent work also pays really badly as a rule.
        Joeboy 12y ago
        As long as "when the project is done" is a reasonable length of time (ie. weeks or months, not years) then I'd say you're not quacking like an employee. I don't think working efficiently and smartly is a good criterion for judging whether or not you quack like an employee.
tehwebguy 12y ago
They aren't using the independent contractor tax option (1099) to pay individuals, they are contracting a company that has employees. This position would never pass as a 1099
tn13 12y ago
- Who do you think is going to be more loyal I think the person who knows for sure that he will be fired for not doing his job properly will be more loyal. I don't think it is a wise decision for any company to employ security guards as they own employees. It makes much more sense to let a third company specialized in security recruit, train and contract guards to Google. Is Google in a better position to do background verification, recruit, train and maintain large number of security guards ? Is is a good way to spend their profits ? The answer might be yes or not but it has nothing to do with "demeaning for the person" and other rhetorical reasons.

sidcool 12y ago

That exactly was my first thought...'What's in it for Google?'. Not doubting their good intentions, but whenever any corporate portrays an altruistic thing, it rings the skeptic bell in my head. Good move Google.

bostik 12y ago
I don't understand the downvote, because I can easily think of non-altruistic reasons for this move. 1) I have no doubt Google already tracks their contractors' staff turnover. Every industry has institutional knowledge, and if staff turnover is high, not enough of the knowledge gets transferred. If the prestige of being a Googler is enough to counter that trend, it may be well worth a lot more than the monetary cost. 2) Assuming the detail about "gbus" access is true, the security guards traveling on the buses will have personal incentives for keeping them safer. 3) This move may attract the kinds of people Google wants for their physical security. (Related to point #1.) So while Google may well be riding the social awareness wave for PR purposes, there are bound to be real corporate reasons behind the move too.
- wavegeek 12y ago
  You might find it also makes their stats look better ie % African American employees. Don't be evil.* *Unless it's profitable.
Alex3917 12y ago
Avoiding lawsuits for racial discrimination.
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  If you're suggesting what I think you are (that they're doing this for a bump in their diversity numbers) it should be noted their diversity report[1] breaks it down by tech and non-tech. [1] http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech
  - 001sky 12y ago
    non-tech black = 3% black national % of security guards = 20% every little bit helps I guess
ufmace 12y ago
Part of the reason may be a PR thing - they want to improve their image so that there are less people, say, protesting their busses and employees.
001sky 12y ago
This is a cheap way to buy "token minority positions" and increase the appearance of diversity. Its a smart, if somewhat cynical move. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/the-workforce-is-even-more-divided-by-race-than-you-think/281175/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/the-work... "Blacks, who make up just 11 percent of the workforce, account for more than a third of home health aides and about 25 percent of both security guards and bus drivers—rather low paying jobs."

enneff 12y ago

I guess part of the rationale for using contractors for, say, kitchen workers is that you can use a consulting firm with expertise in catering, rather than having to develop that expertise in-house.

vanadium 12y ago
Or you could just hire a single person with domain expertise as a consultant for a given time to staff the group and end up with a presumably high-quality in-house kitchen staff from the start. The consultant moves onto their next gig after making sure the pieces fit as intended. This is a pretty common use case for the better consultants out there.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  Or just buy a catering company. Annual profits in the billions leaves a company with no shortage of options.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- ubershmekel 12y ago
  I have to assume certain companies want to stay focused. This has many ramifications. E.g. if you're unhappy with the guards/cooks/cleaning - replacing that entire part of the organization is as easy as the contract makes it. If that operation is in-house - replacing employees, reforming, finding the talent to do that is much harder than window shopping for a competing third party to take over. Should a water company have an in-house pipe factory? Should a game dev company have in-house hardware fabrication? Should a food factory have an in-house plastic packaging factory? These questions don't have a clear answer in my opinion.
  - vanadium 12y ago
    It was a hypothetical and tangential case based on the parent comment, so let's get back to the original context where there is a more clear-cut conclusion. When it comes to security, the accountability dynamic between personal investment in outcomes and the inherent detachment as an employee of a third party is a bit different than kitchen work, and significantly more important. This arrangement works to the benefit of both Google and those responsible for securing the company.

xorcist 12y ago

Common sense suggests that this way should be cheaper, too. The contractor is often twice as expensive as their salary, so if you want them for an extended period of time it would make economic sense for a rational actor to hire directly. This is however offset by economic realities, where two equal cost may have a very different impact of valuation. So it does make economic sense to pay more for a cost that is not counted as a fixed cost of doing business on the accounting sheets.

walshemj 12y ago
err these are minimum wage security guards employed by a contractor not self employed contractors in their own right
- cpwright 12y ago
  And the contracting company certainly takes a cut of every hour Google is paying for. Assuming the security guards get the same benefits as other Googlers (and they should), I would expect that Google saves very little money, or maybe even spends more; but the guards themselves should have a much more valuable pay package without the security company skimming off the top [I don't begrudge the security company, but it does seem a nicer overall solution in this case to cut out the middle man].

ownagefool 12y ago

I guess that depends on location. Personally, in the UK, I wouldn't dream of being a perm employee. Contract is the only way you can hire me. You can't really say a company is deemening me by holding on to me as long as possible.

JCole 12y ago
What are the advantages of contract work in the UK?
- bad_user 12y ago
  Probably less taxes.
  - gaius 12y ago
    Yes it is a nationwide scandal, in IT, media, even the civil service and the BBC. If it looks like an employee and quacks like an employee then it should be taxed like an employee.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nursie 12y ago
      No it is not a scandal and no I am not an employee. I have no expectation of ongoing work. I come in, I get going fast, I work efficiently and smartly and I leave when the project is done. Very different ballgame to permanent employment. Permanent work also pays really badly as a rule.
      - Joeboy 12y ago
        As long as "when the project is done" is a reasonable length of time (ie. weeks or months, not years) then I'd say you're not quacking like an employee. I don't think working efficiently and smartly is a good criterion for judging whether or not you quack like an employee.

tehwebguy 12y ago

They aren't using the independent contractor tax option (1099) to pay individuals, they are contracting a company that has employees. This position would never pass as a 1099

tn13 12y ago

- Who do you think is going to be more loyal I think the person who knows for sure that he will be fired for not doing his job properly will be more loyal. I don't think it is a wise decision for any company to employ security guards as they own employees. It makes much more sense to let a third company specialized in security recruit, train and contract guards to Google. Is Google in a better position to do background verification, recruit, train and maintain large number of security guards ? Is is a good way to spend their profits ? The answer might be yes or not but it has nothing to do with "demeaning for the person" and other rhetorical reasons.