3 ms·
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 peri
by 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 agoerr these are minimum wage security guards employed by a contractor not self employed contractors in their own right
- cpwright 12y agoAnd 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].