7 ms·

This really isn't that outrageous, at most of the F500 companies I've consulted at they all have massive contractor workforces (including consultants) that don'

This really isn't that outrageous, at most of the F500 companies I've consulted at they all have massive contractor workforces (including consultants) that don't have the same benefits as anyone else and are generally treated like second-class citizens. News like this that directs outrage at a specific company is just clickbait bullshit written by an amateur who doesn't understand how the broader workforce operates.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago
A lot of us don't like "how the broader workforce operates", and since Google is basically a monopolist/oligpolist, they make a fine target.
- mondoshawan 8y ago
  They're the wrong target, though. If you don't like it, fix the laws!
  - miketery 8y ago
    Fixing laws starts with awareness. This is it, were more aware and discussing as a result.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrhurst 8y ago
      Obviously you got to be quite and not complain and then magically fix the laws. Quitely. Shhh.
      - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
        Because obviously sending polite petitions to change.org is how class struggle works /s.
    - gambler 8y ago
      The article doesn't make you aware of the industry norms around Temps/Contractors, or reasons behind those norms. It just presents a bunch of factoids and insinuates ill intent. Believe me, I'm not writing this because I like Google or the way IT hiring works right now. I'm writing this because I dislike bad journalism. Many of the things the article complains about are entirely normal practices if you have contractors/temps. In fact, you can get legally punished if you don't do some of those things. The real question is why there are so many of CVTs (nearly half) at Google.
CPLX 8y ago
The concepts of commonplace and outrageous are not exclusive to one another.
tboyd47 8y ago
Agreed. Not to mention the fact that companies do this to protect themselves from what happened to Microsoft [0], not out of some evil desire to create an underclass of workers. [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-treat-c/dont-treat-contractors-like-employees-idUSTRE53063S20090401 https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-...
asveikau 8y ago
I have worked at such companies too. But I must state: "Everybody does it" doesn't make it not outrageous. Every F500 company does it because they're cowards who don't want to pay the full cost of labor. Let's not praise cowardly behavior or make excuses for them.
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
This is exactly right. I think what we're seeing in tech broadly is that a lot of idealistic people with great intentions are starting to run into the "real world" outputs of business and law without fully groking what is behind it. All they see is this person is treated different than that person and want to fix an apparent inequity. Thats commendable to some degree and we need that as a voice if there is something that should be changed, but I think better informed, more experienced people should put the brakes on this stuff becoming overblown. Otherwise we risk real concerns being ignored because people see crying Wolf too often.
- lovich 8y ago
  Is it crying wolf? Treating people as lesser so that you can make more money is generally considered ethically bad, even if its legally ok. The fact that fortune 500 companies, who are already not acting ethically or morally, engage in this activity does not mean that its incorrect for people to want to stop it
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    It's incorrect to characterize this as "treating people as lesser" in a blanket fashion by virtue of their work agreement. In some cases that might be the sentiment, in others it might not be. I think the primary disconnect here is that Google's amenities and benefits look lavish when compared to a subcontracted companies, but Google is held to the same rules as other companies with less lavish benefits. So for example let's say I work for company x and we have normal corporate benefits. If we take a consulting contract with a small company or startup with no employee benefits, our 401k and health care benefits look great in comparison. So I don't care if I don't get a swag bag after a good production push. If the same company contracts with Google, then the 401k and health look paltry in comparison. So it seems like people want different rules for these major companies, which is not how the law works.
    - lovich 8y ago
      The primary disconnect is that the group of people in this thread who think it is fine, seem to think that the contractors are all software engineers who are in demand enough to have actual good arrangements with their contracting firms, and would pass a smell test for being an actual contractor. It would be difficult to find a problem with this arrangement as both sides are gaining a benefit beyond earning just enough to live The majority of the contractors at the large tech firms are all the low paid jobs that aren't in software like custodial staff, cafeteria workers, physical security guards, etc. For those contractors, the contracting firm is effectively a legal fiction to say they aren't employees of a company like google even when they go to work their every day, take orders from google management, and they are usually let go by the contracting firm once google stops employing them. The contracting firms get around costs for layoffs by just closing up shop and reopening under a new LLC or other entity. The fact that these people are being treated as lesser by the rich tech firms, solely for the benefit of rich tech firms, is what is making people upset at this arrangement
pesmhey 8y ago
Given the undercurrent of class warfare in today's politics and economics, it makes some sense that this is news. By the way, you do yourself no favors: This really isn't that outrageous are generally treated like second-class citizens I think I understand the sentiment here, that in the context of the workforce, it's ethical to treat people in certain roles like second-class citizens because they'd ideally be able to transition from full-time to contractor, and vice versa, based on their needs. Or maybe I'm wrong here, you tell me. But one thing is certain: step outside of yourself for a minute, and read those two comments in series. You really don't think there will be outrage when people are treated like second-class citizens? Like, ever? It seems to be a human constant, across history, that people don't like to be treated as lesser-than, and will muster up a lot of outrage if they are. I mean, to be really honest, I feel like I'm trying to convince you that the sky is blue.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  The problem here is characterizing people as "second class citizens" as a blanket statement based on their work arrangement. For all you know the subcontractor gives way better work arrangements and benefits than they would get as a Google FTE. It may not be likely in the specific case of Google but it's unknown. For example, maybe I don't want to move to CA full time and I'd rather have some other benefit that Google doesn't have, like a flexible living or work arrangement. So the contract company has those perks, and I only do the Google contract for 4 months. Why should I prefer Google benefits over that? That's not a second class citizen. Because Google is required to abide by the same contract law as every other company they have to abide in the same way. So it's just wrong to characterize it that way and you can't have a different set of laws for Google than you have for every other company.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    You're right -- if the discussion were about a "typical" large corporation. But this is Google, the company that was not supposed to be typical, wasn't supposed to engage in penny-pinching corporate bean counting, wasn't supposed to reward a perpetrator of sexual harassment -- wasn't supposed to be "evil." Google is a standard-bearer for the leading edge, prosperous, tech economy. It's the heart of the sector that is supposed to be saving us, creating abundant high-paying jobs for the people. It's the company of glorious benefits, 10% projects and enlightened employees. And California, that bright and shining star of democracy, that leading-edge progressive state, has pinned its hopes for the future (and its tax revenue and employment growth) on the likes of Google. Google is the one corporate monopoly we can all love. But cracks are appearing. More and more we see that Google is a hell of a lot like a typical corporation. Our hopes for a prosperous enlightened, well-employed, tax-revenue rich future are dashed against the rocks of common corporate reality. And it's ugly. That's the story here.
dgudkov 8y ago
>they all have massive contractor workforces (including consultants) that don't have the same benefits as anyone else I can't tell for many F500 companies, but IT contractors in large Canadian banks in Toronto are typically paid at a significantly higher hourly rate (sometimes 70-100% higher) than equivalent FTEs. It outweighs the lack of FTE benefits up to the point where some FTEs deliberately switch to contracting. I guess the labor market here has been able to balance demand/supply and pricing.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

A lot of us don't like "how the broader workforce operates", and since Google is basically a monopolist/oligpolist, they make a fine target.

mondoshawan 8y ago
They're the wrong target, though. If you don't like it, fix the laws!
- miketery 8y ago
  Fixing laws starts with awareness. This is it, were more aware and discussing as a result.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrhurst 8y ago
    Obviously you got to be quite and not complain and then magically fix the laws. Quitely. Shhh.
    - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
      Because obviously sending polite petitions to change.org is how class struggle works /s.
  - gambler 8y ago
    The article doesn't make you aware of the industry norms around Temps/Contractors, or reasons behind those norms. It just presents a bunch of factoids and insinuates ill intent. Believe me, I'm not writing this because I like Google or the way IT hiring works right now. I'm writing this because I dislike bad journalism. Many of the things the article complains about are entirely normal practices if you have contractors/temps. In fact, you can get legally punished if you don't do some of those things. The real question is why there are so many of CVTs (nearly half) at Google.

CPLX 8y ago

The concepts of commonplace and outrageous are not exclusive to one another.

tboyd47 8y ago

Agreed. Not to mention the fact that companies do this to protect themselves from what happened to Microsoft [0], not out of some evil desire to create an underclass of workers. [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-treat-c/dont-treat-contractors-like-employees-idUSTRE53063S20090401 https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-...

asveikau 8y ago

I have worked at such companies too. But I must state: "Everybody does it" doesn't make it not outrageous. Every F500 company does it because they're cowards who don't want to pay the full cost of labor. Let's not praise cowardly behavior or make excuses for them.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

This is exactly right. I think what we're seeing in tech broadly is that a lot of idealistic people with great intentions are starting to run into the "real world" outputs of business and law without fully groking what is behind it. All they see is this person is treated different than that person and want to fix an apparent inequity. Thats commendable to some degree and we need that as a voice if there is something that should be changed, but I think better informed, more experienced people should put the brakes on this stuff becoming overblown. Otherwise we risk real concerns being ignored because people see crying Wolf too often.

lovich 8y ago
Is it crying wolf? Treating people as lesser so that you can make more money is generally considered ethically bad, even if its legally ok. The fact that fortune 500 companies, who are already not acting ethically or morally, engage in this activity does not mean that its incorrect for people to want to stop it
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  It's incorrect to characterize this as "treating people as lesser" in a blanket fashion by virtue of their work agreement. In some cases that might be the sentiment, in others it might not be. I think the primary disconnect here is that Google's amenities and benefits look lavish when compared to a subcontracted companies, but Google is held to the same rules as other companies with less lavish benefits. So for example let's say I work for company x and we have normal corporate benefits. If we take a consulting contract with a small company or startup with no employee benefits, our 401k and health care benefits look great in comparison. So I don't care if I don't get a swag bag after a good production push. If the same company contracts with Google, then the 401k and health look paltry in comparison. So it seems like people want different rules for these major companies, which is not how the law works.
  - lovich 8y ago
    The primary disconnect is that the group of people in this thread who think it is fine, seem to think that the contractors are all software engineers who are in demand enough to have actual good arrangements with their contracting firms, and would pass a smell test for being an actual contractor. It would be difficult to find a problem with this arrangement as both sides are gaining a benefit beyond earning just enough to live The majority of the contractors at the large tech firms are all the low paid jobs that aren't in software like custodial staff, cafeteria workers, physical security guards, etc. For those contractors, the contracting firm is effectively a legal fiction to say they aren't employees of a company like google even when they go to work their every day, take orders from google management, and they are usually let go by the contracting firm once google stops employing them. The contracting firms get around costs for layoffs by just closing up shop and reopening under a new LLC or other entity. The fact that these people are being treated as lesser by the rich tech firms, solely for the benefit of rich tech firms, is what is making people upset at this arrangement

pesmhey 8y ago

Given the undercurrent of class warfare in today's politics and economics, it makes some sense that this is news. By the way, you do yourself no favors: This really isn't that outrageous are generally treated like second-class citizens I think I understand the sentiment here, that in the context of the workforce, it's ethical to treat people in certain roles like second-class citizens because they'd ideally be able to transition from full-time to contractor, and vice versa, based on their needs. Or maybe I'm wrong here, you tell me. But one thing is certain: step outside of yourself for a minute, and read those two comments in series. You really don't think there will be outrage when people are treated like second-class citizens? Like, ever? It seems to be a human constant, across history, that people don't like to be treated as lesser-than, and will muster up a lot of outrage if they are. I mean, to be really honest, I feel like I'm trying to convince you that the sky is blue.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
The problem here is characterizing people as "second class citizens" as a blanket statement based on their work arrangement. For all you know the subcontractor gives way better work arrangements and benefits than they would get as a Google FTE. It may not be likely in the specific case of Google but it's unknown. For example, maybe I don't want to move to CA full time and I'd rather have some other benefit that Google doesn't have, like a flexible living or work arrangement. So the contract company has those perks, and I only do the Google contract for 4 months. Why should I prefer Google benefits over that? That's not a second class citizen. Because Google is required to abide by the same contract law as every other company they have to abide in the same way. So it's just wrong to characterize it that way and you can't have a different set of laws for Google than you have for every other company.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  You're right -- if the discussion were about a "typical" large corporation. But this is Google, the company that was not supposed to be typical, wasn't supposed to engage in penny-pinching corporate bean counting, wasn't supposed to reward a perpetrator of sexual harassment -- wasn't supposed to be "evil." Google is a standard-bearer for the leading edge, prosperous, tech economy. It's the heart of the sector that is supposed to be saving us, creating abundant high-paying jobs for the people. It's the company of glorious benefits, 10% projects and enlightened employees. And California, that bright and shining star of democracy, that leading-edge progressive state, has pinned its hopes for the future (and its tax revenue and employment growth) on the likes of Google. Google is the one corporate monopoly we can all love. But cracks are appearing. More and more we see that Google is a hell of a lot like a typical corporation. Our hopes for a prosperous enlightened, well-employed, tax-revenue rich future are dashed against the rocks of common corporate reality. And it's ugly. That's the story here.

dgudkov 8y ago

>they all have massive contractor workforces (including consultants) that don't have the same benefits as anyone else I can't tell for many F500 companies, but IT contractors in large Canadian banks in Toronto are typically paid at a significantly higher hourly rate (sometimes 70-100% higher) than equivalent FTEs. It outweighs the lack of FTE benefits up to the point where some FTEs deliberately switch to contracting. I guess the labor market here has been able to balance demand/supply and pricing.