Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Except for the contractors. (Score 1) 340

...both contractors and FTEs can be considered second-tier based on their capabilities

Except that FTE's have the full protections and benefits of the main entity employing them, with the typical ability to plan for years at a time. On the other hand, contractors typically do not receive the full protections and benefits of FTE's - as the main purposes of contract/agency arrangements are to dodge those costs and view the covered individuals as a problem.

And everyone without their head up their ass knows they always have multiple masters, regardless of how far up the food chain they are.

Typically, the average FTE answers to internal/external entities to the mission, vision, and direction of the company itself - a single master. The contractor/agency worker has multiple sets - the agency and the client(s) - that do not always coincide with one another.

A skilled contractor is never treated as a second-tier person. In my company for instance we have two contractors who are highly fought over resources by our project managers.

Such individuals understand their value and have the rare option to not go as a regular entity. For most people, they're lucky if they have the former.

Want to make that route more attractive? Make it a strict option to do anything less than FTE, with no penalty or skill restriction.

Comment Jackson Lewis/Mgmt Associates != IT (Score 1) 340

You don't have to have most of the employees leave. You publicly fire the organizers and 20% of all those you can identify as being involved in the union. The rest will fall in line.

That in turn shows the weakness of the "secret" ballot for such elections - it's effectively "secret only if no".

In addition, that would trigger an exodus of the remaining good help. The best conclusion would result in the company gaining a "employer of last resort" reputation amongst the IT community while the worst conclusion would end the company by sheer incompetence.

Comment It's not great to dehumanize. (Score 2) 340

And from a business perspective, it's great to be able to "turn on" and "turn off" resources without paying unemployment and without spending 17 hours interviewing candidates over three months. Instead the new person is there-- next week.

Unless you're the resource, which experiences the worst of the benefit-dodging and the least stability of work with the expectations of a regular FTE.

It only shows the need for agency labor, much less Infosys types, to DIAF and to be nuked from orbit.

Comment The problems of a contractor. (Score 1) 340

They did replace low skill positions (like computer operators) because they gained economies of scale (one operator could work on 12 companies). But they did not replace programmers or analysts.

Except that such individuals are usually treated with disrespect for being a contractor.

Comment Not going to happen. (Score 1) 225

We are fighting the powerful forces of economics here. India has a massive surplus of highly trained and educated work force. That's their export. H1B is a tiny tiny little window.

Then build up India to stand for itself, instead of cribbing off the notes of developed countries.

People really think implementing a newer version of the "Asian/Indian exclusion act" is going to solve the problem. "If we restrict the Indians from coming here, my job will be safe" mentality.

If that's what you call a complete rollback to 1940's era immigration law, then it's worth a try. Besides, nothing excludes them if they become full-fledged citizens.

Guest workers got us into this mess, getting rid of them will help get us out of it. It would also serve as test of alignment to one's country - the wheat will stay and hire citizens within the US, the chaff will die out or run away to some hellhole.

The middle class will blossom because lots of startups and small businesses will benefit from cheap Indian labor.

You mean small businesses like this one?

No thank you, but startups (and other parts of the on-demand economy) are too unstable in terms of stability, compensation, and long-term planning. Even the worst days of Fukushima would be more stable than the best days of a startup.

Make the whole thing simple and not so exploitative

Adopt Australia's approach of a points system and a consistent approach of enforcement - but omit any guest worker program.

Comment Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides. (Score 1) 166

To services like Uber, a minimal inspection package is still too much. They prefer a special deal that makes them the taxi company.
I couldn't parse this, care to elaborate, please?

Uber wants to be no different than the taxi services. A vendor-neutral process would create too much competition.

The insurance Uber cars have here is approximately the double of those the cabs have.

On the other hand, the UberX service has drivers with closer-to-standard insurance packages.

Yeah, the jury is still out on the whole "sharing economy" thing. I agree there is the potential to a whole lot of abuse; but I think work over-regulation is not without its maladies, too.

The "sharing economy" is just the Aspen Institute's sugar coating of the worst in work arrangements.

Comment Re:Step 6) Uber/Lyft loses, Government wins. (Score 1) 166

Credit card processors and banks are very vulnerable in that respect. They would be quite able to create, fund and blend account numbers for obfuscating the actual source. At this point, usability has left town with business viability not far behind.

Comment Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides. (Score 2) 166

That's still too much for Uber/UberX. Their business model is derived solely from insufficiently insured cars and misclassified workers.

To services like Uber, a minimal inspection package is still too much. They prefer a special deal that makes them the taxi company.

"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid" -- the artificial person, from _Aliens_