No RIF'd Employees Need Apply For Microsoft External Staff Jobs For 6 Months 282
theodp (442580) writes So, what does Microsoft do for an encore after laying off 18,000 employees with a hilariously bad memo? Issue another bad memo — Changes to Microsoft Network and Building Access for External Staff — "to introduce a new policy [retroactive to July 1] that will better protect our Microsoft IP and confidential information." How so? "The policy change affects [only] US-based external staff (including Agency Temporaries, Vendors and Business Guests)," Microsoft adds, "and limits their access to Microsoft buildings and the Microsoft corporate network to a period of 18 months, with a required six-month break before access may be granted again." Suppose Microsoft feels that's where the NSA went wrong with Edward Snowden? And if any soon-to-be-terminated Microsoft employees hope to latch on to a job with a Microsoft external vendor to keep their income flowing, they best think again. "Any Microsoft employee who separated from Microsoft on or after July 1, 2014," the kick-em-while-they're-down memo explains, "will be required to take a minimum 6-month break from access between the day the employee separates from Microsoft and the date when the former employee may begin an assignment as an External Staff performing services for Microsoft."
Likely not just to prevent leaks, but also to prevent any contractors from being reclassified as employees.
I read that as RFID (Score:3, Insightful)
And wondered was M$ chipping their employees now
laying off...but needs more H-1B's (Score:5, Insightful)
For those needing another reason not to purchase Microsoft products...they just fired 18,000 people but are lobbying the government for an ever increasing number of wage slaves from India and other countries. They can hire these poor saps at lower salaries, bully them into working long hours for no additional pay (it's that bad 'ol offshore middleman that's blamed for the sweatshop hours) while backhanding profits to cronies in these offshore companies. Meanwhile, they whine that they can't find any qualified local staff. Actually, they just can't find local staff willing to work for third world salaries while living with first world expenses and taxes. Just say no.
Re:This is just a repeat (Score:5, Insightful)
* Omitted from congressional declaration
Re:This is just a repeat (Score:5, Insightful)
Stephen Elop... (Score:5, Insightful)
...seems to be a great reason not to work for MS. He and Microsoft took one of the finest companies in the world, turned it inside out, and devoured it like a panic-stricken predator conscious that the end of the path it was on was in sight. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the acquisition of Nokia only bought time. When you rip open the goose that lays the golden eggs, it stops working.
Re:This is just a repeat (Score:2, Insightful)
Because you just got kicked to the curb and now you can't find work elsewhere?
Re:This is just a repeat (Score:5, Insightful)
...the people who were laid off could not apply for 5 months.
Why would you apply to work for the same company that just kicked you to the curb? I'd tell 'em to go to hell.
Never let pride get in the way of sound business sense. If my options were working the grill at Arbies or Microsoft, the next words out of my mouth would be "Yes Mr Balmer, laying off all us slackers really taught us a lesson sir. Would you like me to buff all your golf clubs now?"
Re:This is just a repeat (Score:0, Insightful)
You think you even have the option of working at Arby's? The manager will laugh in your face before telling you to get the fuck out.
Re:Not about leaks (Score:4, Insightful)
It's simple, you hire people to do the jobs that need getting done.
We, the employees are largely to blame though. I work with a lot of contractors that love their flexibility and how great it is... until the market takes a crap on their heads. Tech workers need to stop pretending like they'll be 18 forever. I know when things get bad you can hide in the basement and play wow until they pick back up, but really? Wouldn't it be better to just work a normal job and not have to screw around like that?
Re:laying off...but needs more H-1B's (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, at least when all work is outsorced or automated away, there wont be anyone to actually buy the products. but plenty of desperate people with no income and a nice rich Redmond to loot...
Re:laying off...but needs more H-1B's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:laying off...but needs more H-1B's (Score:4, Insightful)
This is simple business 101, and there's no reason to take it personally. Of course Microsoft is going to do what's best for Microsoft. They do not owe you a job, or a 6-figure paycheck.
...and we don't owe Microsoft our patronage - it works both ways, which is what GP was calling out.
Re:This is just a repeat (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft employees aren't good at anything but being Microsoft employees. They're just not qualified to do anything else.
That's funny... but I doubt it's true. Many MS employees provides support or work on projects for other companies... And they will surely be in demand, you're basically giving up highly qualified Microsoft experts.
While I personally, would like to avoid touching Microsoft services and products, let's just admit they are a giant, and other companies will continue to rely on Microsoft products. Just, think of the all the share-point plugins and what not...
Re:This is just a repeat (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on, as much as Microsoft has ticked me off for 3+ decades, I don't want to see Google with a monopoly either. MS kind of keeps them in check.
So let's compromise, and watch MS get punched in the face a few times, okay 50 times, but not knocked out, just wobbly.
Re:Question for someone with Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the state steps in on contractor-vs-employee issues, they have no authority to do anything to you-the-contractor. They can only punish the company by making them retroactively pay your portion of payroll taxes. "Labor regulator" doesn't actually mean they regulate the laborers, it means they regulate employers. You can negotiate any contract you damned well want - Whether the employer can get away with it? Not your problem, so sleep well, friend! Worst case, you end up owing 10k less in taxes. How awful, right?
If you really want to worry about it, you can either work through a contracting agency (aka "give them a cut"), or just make sure you having more than one client at a time, and the whole issue becomes moot. This only comes up when you contract directly with a single client for long stretches. FWIW, my employer actually has a standing agreement with a local outsourcing agency for exactly this purpose - If we need someone back for a few weeks, they sign up with the token shell-temp-agency and get "placed" with us. I honestly don't know how well that arrangement would hold up in court, but again, who cares - not the contractors who have the potential to get screwed here.
None of that relates to the present situation, however - Microsoft's layoff memo spells it out pretty clearly: "We expect to focus phone production mainly in Hanoi, with some production to continue in Beijing and Dongguan. We plan to shift other Microsoft manufacturing and repair operations to Manaus and Reynosa respectively, and start a phased exit from Komaron, Hungary". Microsoft has too many highly paid Western workers, and needs more 3rd-world slaves. Simple as that, really.