Google Training Document Reveals How Temps, Vendors, and Contractors Are Treated (theguardian.com) 136
"An internal Google training document exposed by The Guardian reveals how the company instructs employees on how to treat temps, vendors, and contractors (TVCs)," writes Slashdot reader Garabito. "This includes: 'not to reward certain workers with perks like T-shirts, invite them to all-hands meetings, or allow them to engage in professional development training.'" From the report: "Working with TVCs and Googlers is different," the training documentation, titled the The ABCs of TVCs, explains. "Our policies exist because TVC working arrangements can carry significant risks." The risks Google appears to be most concerned about include standard insider threats, like leaks of proprietary information, but also -- and especially -- the risk of being found to be a joint employer, a legal designation which could be exceedingly costly for Google in terms of benefits.
Google's treatment of TVCs has come under increased scrutiny by the company's full-time employees (FTEs) amid a nascent labor movement at the company, which has seen workers speak out about both their own working conditions and the morality of the work they perform. American companies have long turned to temps and subcontractors to plug holes and perform specialized tasks, but Google achieved a dubious distinction this year when Bloomberg reported that in early 2018, the company did not directly employ a majority of its own workforce. According to a current employee with access to the figures, of approximately 170,000 people around the world who now work at Google, 50.05% are FTEs. The rest, 49.95%, are TVCs. The report notes that "the two-tier system has complicated labor activism at Google." On November 1st, after 20,000 workers joined a global walkout, "the company quickly gave in to one of the protesters' demands by ending forced arbitration in cases of sexual harassment -- but only for FTEs."
Google's treatment of TVCs has come under increased scrutiny by the company's full-time employees (FTEs) amid a nascent labor movement at the company, which has seen workers speak out about both their own working conditions and the morality of the work they perform. American companies have long turned to temps and subcontractors to plug holes and perform specialized tasks, but Google achieved a dubious distinction this year when Bloomberg reported that in early 2018, the company did not directly employ a majority of its own workforce. According to a current employee with access to the figures, of approximately 170,000 people around the world who now work at Google, 50.05% are FTEs. The rest, 49.95%, are TVCs. The report notes that "the two-tier system has complicated labor activism at Google." On November 1st, after 20,000 workers joined a global walkout, "the company quickly gave in to one of the protesters' demands by ending forced arbitration in cases of sexual harassment -- but only for FTEs."
Executive Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Badly.
Re: (Score:1)
It's completely standard. Any time I have ever worked as a contractor, all interaction with the organisation or agency was strictly business.
For what I "lost" in perks and meetings, I more than made up for in money.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, snowflake.
Re: (Score:1)
Says the person who thinks anyone will care if he leaves Slashdot. Oh my god! What will anyone do?!?!?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee, let me see .. of what possible interest would it be to the tech industry to hear the employee/contractor dynamic of one of the largest tech companies on the planet?
Maybe you're right, maybe a web site frequented by people in the tech industry have no interest whatsoever in the working conditions in the industry.
Or, you know, you're a fucking idiot.
No, it's become a haven for whiny
Re:Sadly, the law requires this (Score:5, Funny)
And in California, those risks are very real, and the labor board enforces the law with great zeal. (Not that they give a damn about workers, but they sure to love to crap all over employers to justify their jobs. Which happens to work out for employees, at least part of the time.)
Re: (Score:1)
Somebody that obsessed with homosexuality obviously has something to hide, mostly from himself. Somebody should tell him it's OK to be gay these days. He could get married and everything, if only he could find the man of his dreams (who could stand to be in the same room with him without puking).
Re:Sadly, the law requires this (Score:5, Informative)
You can read up on co-employment here:
https://aquent.com/blog/managi... [aquent.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The hard factual discussion is this.
At what point does a "temp" worker become permanent? 20 years? 10 years? 5 years? 1 year? 6 Months? Arguably, temp-to-hire contracts are all 3 months, so beyond that, they are an "employee".
How much does the Janitorial, Helpdesk, Building Maintenance, Cafeteria Cooks, and Security people help the company "bottom line"? Management might say things like "they are not in our vertical", the observation being, hiring 10 more janitors is unlikely to improve company reven
Re: (Score:1)
I am well aware of the legal definition of Bankruptcy, Here's the Black's Law Reference:
https://thelawdictionary.org/insolvency/
"The condition of a person who is insolvent; inability to pay one’s debts; lack of means to pay one’s debts."
Is not a paycheck, to an employee, for services rendered, a payment of a debt? When a company goes through bankrupcy, what is the order inwhich debtors are paid? Who's at the top?
Furthermore, can a company not accrue unpaid liabilities should they fail to pay e
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately this is the general 'unfair' complaint.
Corporations are often 'unfair' in some manner. Making a profit is described by some as 'unfair'. Self-interest is similarly 'unfair'.
Where I work the contingent labor policy changed years ago and discourages apparent permanent employment of temporary or contingent workers. But...
These contingent workers cannot receive some rewards or incentives.
They may be included in team or all-hands meetings, but not in corporate town halls or strategy meetings.
They gene
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
May I point out that tou are _allowed_ to do things for them? You are also _allowed_ to hire them as employees and provide other benefits. Your company _elects_ not to do so. Please, let's be very careful about what the law _allows_.
Re:Sadly, the law requires this (Score:5, Interesting)
May I point out that tou are _allowed_ to do things for them? You are also _allowed_ to hire them as employees and provide other benefits.
The point is that if you choose to do certain things for them then the law will decide that you have chosen to hire them as employees. If you don't want to hire them as employees then you must not do certain things for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I urge that we be clear that it's not that the law prevents the behavior. Avoiding consequences prevents the behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I urge that we be clear that it's not that the law prevents the behavior. Avoiding consequences prevents the behavior.
But said consequences are a result of the law, so it is relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant? Absolutely. To claim that " I am not allowed by law to give them certain kinds of feedback or give them swag", however, is a factually incorrect. I'm afraid that it's a kind of confusion I encounter frequently, where partners or colleagues claim that some technological feat is impossible, but it's quite possible. It's merely forbidden by policy.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's kinda like when Harry tricked Lucius into giving Dobby a sock?
Re: (Score:2)
So it's kinda like when Harry tricked Lucius into giving Dobby a sock?
With the rather significant difference that TVCs aren't slaves, unlike Malfoy house elves.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are obviously a distinctly lower class of (OMG no not really in a legally binding sense) employee.
Equally, there seems to be a great fear that were you to accidentally give one of them a pair of Google socks, their status would become elevated.
My little throw away joke seems to have you decidedly defensive...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the spirit of accuracy, I do not mean to imply that the temps are actually from a race of elves or that the first class employees are actually able to perform magic. Also, Google is not, in fact a school where children learn to perform acts of magic. It is not run by a wizard who posesses the most powerful and potentially dangerous wand known who is thought to be hundreds of years old.
None of those implications seemed to bother you, but "just to be accurate" I thought I'd mention them.
Re:Sadly, the law requires this (Score:5, Insightful)
I manage 30+ of what the article calls "TVCs"
Why on earth do you manage 30+ TVCs? Do you manage 30+ employees? If not, why not? TVCs are meant to fill temporary holes. It certainly sounds like your company (assuming you're only managing 30+ TVCs which I find likely) is dodging various labor laws and the costs and obligations associated with FTEs. Which merely implies that the laws and regulations aren't properly set up to promote employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Encouraging and empowering your employees to excel, develop, and take on new, more fulfilling, and more rewarding roles. and watching them move on to those new roles, really sucks. Really, really. You have to hire new employees to train up, empower, and encourage to develop their careers, leaving you and making room for a new crop.
Live is 'unfair'.
ps- where I work we have regular career development activities, encouraging entry-level team members to take the leap and become leaders. That causes turnov
Re: (Score:3)
Some companies use contractors heavily because it allows them to grow and scale more rapidly than with a permanent employment base. This is fairly normal for consultancy firms that deal with a lot of high value, quick turn around contracts; for example they'll deal with say, 6 month contracts to build A in language and tech stack B. The first month might be requirements, design, and planning, followed by 4 months of dev, and 1 month of UAT and delivery. They only need to scale up in language B for 4 months,
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that I have worked at a couple of consultancies as well as at several Fortune 100 companies, I can tell you that if you're running your projects the way you describe, you're already in for failure. You hire a group of consultants with its own team leader. The leader handles managing his team, you manage the project. That's the only way you're going to have any success with 30 consultants under 1 FTE manager.
The more common scenario for what was described is abuse of the TVC by using them as em
Re: (Score:2)
Your claimed experience and hence appeal to authority doesn't mask over the fact your argument is fundamentally broken by way of the fact that you're effectively arguing consultancies couldn't work like that (even though they do; it's your assumptions that are the problem) because no one could manage 30 people and succeed, and yet that in abusive companies someone somehow can manage 30 people and succeed.
If you can't see how broken your argument is, then I don't know what to tell you. You're creating a fals
Re: (Score:1)
Your claimed experience and hence appeal to authority doesn't mask over the fact your argument is fundamentally broken by way of the fact that you're effectively arguing consultancies couldn't work like that (even though they do; it's your assumptions that are the problem) because no one could manage 30 people and succeed, and yet that in abusive companies someone somehow can manage 30 people and succeed.
I stated no one can manage 30 TVCs and succeed. There's a major difference there. At least, if the TVCs are really TVCs and not being abused. Which was the point of my post on this topic. I've run and been part of teams of employees, TVCs and mixed teams on both sides. I can tell you what does and does not work in general. I will also note here there's almost always exceptions to absolute statements. Your one off experience to the contrary is just that - an exception (provided it's true in the first place)
Re: (Score:2)
That's an awful lot of words to simply say "I think I'll continue making myself look stupid, rather than accept that it's possible for more than one person to have a point in a discussion", you could've saved yourself an awful lot of time.
You're still making way too many assumptions to possibly be able to reach the conclusion you have. Your talk of contractor salaries and other issues are so entirely localised, and yet you have absolutely no clue where this person even works, much less what the local market
Re: (Score:1)
That's an awful lot of words to simply say "I think I'll continue making myself look stupid, rather than accept that it's possible for more than one person to have a point in a discussion", you could've saved yourself an awful lot of time.
Apparently you have reading comprehension challenges?
You're still making way too many assumptions to possibly be able to reach the conclusion you have.
I only made a single assumption - that he's solely and directly in charge of 30+ TVCs with no TVC group leaders. Which was implied in his post. I questioned whether he had any FTEs. I doubted he had any FTEs based on personal experiences. This was merely a tangential question/opinion with little immediate bearing to the core topic. Had he responded, it would have served as a reinforcement or softening point to the TVC topic.
I tried using short sentences
Re: (Score:2)
"Apparently you have reading comprehension challenges?"
That's a really original thing to say on Slashdot and surely automatically wins any argument. I've never heard it before. Did you think it up all by yourself?
"I tried using short sentences throughout with a single point per sentence for clarity to aid in your apparent reading comprehension challenges. Tip: resorting to insults doesn't help your argument nor mean you're "winning". It does indicate that you have no arguments to offer."
So by posting an ins
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is managing 30 developers on three different projects they probably aren't managing them well. Span of control and all that.
Unless, of course, someone else is actually managing the teams all you do is signing timesheets.
This is nothing new. (Score:2)
I manage 30+ of what the article calls "TVCs"
Why on earth do you manage 30+ TVCs? Do you manage 30+ employees? If not, why not? TVCs are meant to fill temporary holes. It certainly sounds like your company (assuming you're only managing 30+ TVCs which I find likely) is dodging various labor laws and the costs and obligations associated with FTEs. Which merely implies that the laws and regulations aren't properly set up to promote employment.
This isn't odd at all, and "temporary" is a relative term. I used to work for one of the largest US banks. I managed testing teams, and at one time had more than 30 contractors that made up bout 90% of my team. That was the way it worked there. At one point, there were contractors that had been there 5+ years, then the rules changed. You got 2 years, then you could come back after 6 months off. At least how it worked for me, I was in a testing organization and we worked on lots of different projects.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't odd at all, and "temporary" is a relative term. I used to work for one of the largest US banks. I managed testing teams, and at one time had more than 30 contractors that made up bout 90% of my team. That was the way it worked there. At one point, there were contractors that had been there 5+ years, then the rules changed. You got 2 years, then you could come back after 6 months off. At least how it worked for me, I was in a testing organization and we worked on lots of different projects.
What you're describing there is the root of the laws against abusing TVC workers. Anyone in a job for 5+ years is, for all intents and purposes, FTE. I'd make the argument that 2 years is FTE. That you're willing to hold to the rules and dump them for 6 months until you can get another 2 years out of them only indicates how badly that particular company is violating the spirit of the law.
If a project came along and needed testing done, I had to be able to spin up a team of 5-10 people within a couple of weeks. Hiring contractors or using some of the big contracting houses (on/off/near shore) was what we did.
That is a valid use of TVCs - short term, well-defined task that needs people that you don't have in house. Perfect.
When there were budget cuts, usually once or twice a year, contractors were the first to go.
And t
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't odd at all, and "temporary" is a relative term. I used to work for one of the largest US banks. I managed testing teams, and at one time had more than 30 contractors that made up bout 90% of my team. That was the way it worked there. At one point, there were contractors that had been there 5+ years, then the rules changed. You got 2 years, then you could come back after 6 months off. At least how it worked for me, I was in a testing organization and we worked on lots of different projects.
What you're describing there is the root of the laws against abusing TVC workers. Anyone in a job for 5+ years is, for all intents and purposes, FTE. I'd make the argument that 2 years is FTE. That you're willing to hold to the rules and dump them for 6 months until you can get another 2 years out of them only indicates how badly that particular company is violating the spirit of the law.
Well, let me clarify. The 5+ years is how it used to be, probably 10 years ago. Then it switched to 2 years (maybe 18 months). After that, you had to leave and could not come back, even as a contractor, for 6 months. There was never anything close to a guarantee that you would come back. Besides who could sit out 6 months? I can assure you that the bank i worked for took those laws VERY seriously.
When there were budget cuts, usually once or twice a year, contractors were the first to go.
And this occurrence is a red flag that you're incorrectly using TVCs. You hired them for a temporary job indicating said job was funded for a limited time. They should go when the work is completed. If you're using them as employees, that's the only way this happens.
Well, when there were budget cuts usually projects had to get cancelled/postponed. So it was all on the u
Thankfully, the law requires this (Score:2)
I can't fault a company for following the law.
You can fault them for taking what are essentially regular full-time positions and engaging in hand-waving to avoid the obligations of employing them.
Some fraction of those workers are actually engaged in short-term contracted work; some fraction desire to be contractors rather than regular full-time employees. Most, however, are just working as contractors because it was the job they could get.
Am I missing something? (Score:2)
1) The two numbers add up to 100%. So, there's presumably no other category that isn't mentioned.
2) The first number is greater than the second.
How then is that *not* a majority, albeit a slight one?
Re: (Score:1)
That original report was from earlier in 2018. The current numbers show that it has swung back toward FTEs from TVCs.
Corporations are Spoiled People (Score:1)
Microsoft got into hot water for abusing temps years ago. Apparently they didn't punish Microsoft hard enough to send a message to other similar orgs.
Re:Corporations are Spoiled People (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But if half the workers in your buildings are "temps" (per article stat), then they are probably doing something similar to what MS did: hire temps to do employee-ish things without having to provide them employee obligations.
Do you know any stats of the average stay of a Google temp?
Re: Corporations are Spoiled People (Score:1)
Not sure about Temps, but for Vendors and Contractors it may be anything from 6 months to a decade.
It depends on role and organizetion.
I have been in the engineering team for 3 years.
Re: Corporations are Spoiled People (Score:5, Insightful)
The way contractors are treated at all these tech companies including Google is exactly a result of what happened to Microsoft and how it was punished. They did not make a distinction between how employees and contractors were treated which got them in hot water for not offering equivalent benefits and perks (like stock).
The acronym used to be TICs (Score:4, Interesting)
They used to be Temps, Interns and Contractors (TICs) but that had an obvious negative sound and it was less well know. It was mostly used to poke fun of people (usually friends but not always) and was only a few docs. It was changed to (a) not sound so bad and (b) separate interns from The Others because interns were thought to have actual value. I think the terminology changed some time around 2005 or 2006. Around the same time, a special group of temps had their badges changed to be brown (they became "Brown Badgers" in all conversation) and weren't allowed on the main campus. There was an incident with a chef and one of these folks hoarding food to take home.
Google has never cared about non engineering staff. (There are expectations, yes.) After Wayne Rosing departed, those feelings became more pronounced. This is who they have always been but now there are large enough masses of unhappy people to do something noticeable. (This is far from the first time but previously these things stayed inside and were handled differently.)
Re: The acronym used to be TICs (Score:1)
TVC are doing all kinds of jobs, including QA and engineering.
I have been in an engineer role for 3 years. Some of the folks in QA have been around since 2010.
Re: (Score:3)
Better to call them what they are in reality, DWFs, the disposable work force eww Alphabet is really the alphabet of douche baggery, probably work through the entire Alphabet, for each element of douche baggery as in A is for Arsholes who turn workers into disposable labour etc, etc.
These separations are forced by the IRS (Score:1)
This is done so that Google doesn't fall into the trap that Microsoft did in the 80's which forced the IRS to develop a set of rules and draw a line on the separation that must be maintained legally to be defined as an independent contractor. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Massa ALWAYS been good to us, why would we need labor laws and unions!
Author never worked for a large company (Score:1, Interesting)
Author never worked for a large company... or is just trying to stir-up negativity among people who never have.
If you've ever worked for a large company, you would have seen a presentation of "how to treat contractors (etc)" around orientation time, and probably once a year after that. This is normal for a US-based company - there's nothing unusual or strange about Google having such a presentation, and there's also nothing unusual about the stipulations therein.
(Yes, these companies are perhaps not actual
Re: (Score:2)
Currently work for a $60bn one, and before that worked for a $14bn one. One is a pure software company, the other was 'tin wrapped software'.
Never heard of such a presentation. Never had any training like this. Can't imagine how, in the real world, it would work since employees rarely discuss whether their employment status with others, especially outside of the immediate team they work in.
Not just corporations doing this (Score:3, Interesting)
I work at a public university in the US. I've been both a permanent and, later, a temporary employee. I've seen the same type of thing, where my employer treats permanent and temporary employees very differently, even when the job duties are the same. Temporary employees don't get any paid holidays, so they're required to use vacation leave or be unpaid. An arbitrary decision was made to close the university for the national day of mourning last week on Wednesday. For permanent employees, it was treated like a permanent holiday. For me, I had to burn vacation leave. The university goes to some length to limit the benefits that can be paid to temporary employees, not unlike what Google is doing here.
It's not like temporary employees don't work as hard as permanent employees. The university also has a policy that temporary employees can be terminated immediately for any reason or, presumably, no reason at all. This means that when my boss engages in some very unprofessional behavior, reporting it carries the risk that I could be terminated because I spoke up. It doesn't matter that I'd be right that his behavior is unreasonable, I could be terminated for reporting it. This opens the door to a lot of abuses and, yes, I've seen them, and been on the receiving end of some of this unprofessional behavior.
The biggest thing #metoo got wrong is being just about taking down powerful men who abused their position to harass women. Any time there's a massive power differential, where subordinates don't feel they can speak up without retaliation, those abuses will happen. I've seen it happen to others, including graduate students threatened with having their visas revoked if they didn't work well in excess of 40 hours per week. I've seen faculty who frequently were nasty to female graduate students working for them, who often left meetings crying because of how nasty their advisor was. I've seen outright racism tolerated and the department refuse to do a thing.
Why am I still there? I'm working on leaving, and trying to make sure I land in a good situation next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Temp workers low the pay and benefits of everybody (Score:1)
But damn, if IT folks aren't the most stuck up I've ever met. I think it comes from talking to people who can barely t
Re:Temp workers low the pay and benefits of everyb (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why that would help you negotiate. Negotiation involves understanding your value and having the confidence to ask for it. Confidence is a personal trait unconnected to math ability. And knowing your value is hard for almost everyone.
Re:Temp workers low the pay and benefits of everyb (Score:4, Interesting)
because they can always dangle the threat of turning you into a temp when you get too uppity. Crap like this is why workers Unionized and why companies spend a small fortune demonizing Unions.
You need to be choosier on who you work for. I used to work in a union environment and it was a nightmare. Office politics out the wazoo. I still have friends there and all they talk about is how a third of their coworkers are incompetent and un-fireable, and how it's generally impossible to get anything fix or improved. The people who are lousy at their job get promoted so competent people can fill in the positions that actually do work.
I now work for a medium-sized IT company and, basically, have complete control over how I do my job. Everyone helps each other. If I need any additional resources I get them. I can work from home when I want to, unless there are meetings, which are rare. There are zero office politics, nobody is gunning for anyone else's job. Best of all, my boss, his boss, and HIS boss are all ex-programmers and IT guys. I can walk into any of their offices with any kind of problem and they'll try to get it fixed.
I'm sure such an environment could exist under unions, but I think unionization stems from a bad work environment to begin with. It certainly doesn't seem to help.
Re: Temp workers low the pay and benefits of every (Score:1)
There is no reason why unions should make people unfireable, and in most of the Western world it does not. One third incompetent sounds unlikely, though. Office politics... that happens almost everywhere, unions or not, because it is a function of people.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason why unions should make people unfireable,
In the union situation I was involved with, you weren't promoted based on ability. You were promoted based on how long you've been there, and, more importantly, who you suck up to. Your career path was entirely dependent on the union reps liking you. There were shenanigans you wouldn't believe.
One manager was sleeping around with her subordinates. Her uncle was the union rep (which is how it was theorized she got her job in the first place as she didn't really know what she was doing.) When the *clear* viol
mod this up (Score:3)
As long as there is compliance with the labour laws. Anything above is moral policing. And the thing about moral is - there are too many standards.
Why would anyone want to offer career development advices or perks to "vendors" and "contractors"? Their primary employer is either themselves or another company. There's absolutely no point spending on them resources designed for internal growth.
Dumb non-tech article (Score:1)
So Google is just like every large company on the planet? Who would have thought it.
The more things change (Score:3)
OMG! Google has hit peak Microsoft! Lol!
Re:The more things change (Score:4, Interesting)
* Used to be hip, no dull corporate - check
* A bubble of cult-like culture - check
* Lack of innovation since their one-trick pony - check
* Abusive monopoly power, including antitrust lawsuits - check
* Too much money for their own good - check
* Too big to fade away - check
To be fair, those would also fit many other large corporations. A noticeable difference between Google and Microsoft is that Google has miraculously managed to hold on to their badge of cool-place-to-work, despite all the bad press over the last years. Microsoft never managed to rid themselves of the stigma of shit software and computer crashes and viruses.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft never managed to rid themselves of the stigma of shit software and computer crashes and viruses.
Google is developing the same legacy, since every product they create gets crapped up more and more until it sucks and then they abandon it. The only products which have really stood the test of time have been search and gmail, and maybe Earth. They also haven't managed to kill Drive yet in spite of their best efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
* Used to be hip, no dull corporate - check
* Lack of innovation since their one-trick pony - check
Well neither of those are true. Microsoft was never hip, and Google has kept producing lots of innovative stuff (Maps/Street View, Android, Gmail, Chrome, computational photography etc.)
There is a lot wrong with Google, but the similarities only go so far.
Re: (Score:2)
They bought Android & Google Maps. What's innovative about gmail, apart from the shit UI?
Google today (Score:1)
Re: Google today (Score:1)
I thought it was "Don't! Be evil"
It's not just Google doing this (Score:1)
I worked at IBM. Almost the same policies there. What I had heard was that at one time IBM treated contractors more like regular employees, but then some of the contractors sued. Those contractors claimed that since they were being treated the same as regular employees, then they should receive benefits like regular employees.
Also, IBM used to report the number of employees they had in the US. But for the past several years, as I saw US jobs being moved overseas, IBM stopped reporting how many US employ
I donâ(TM)t want to be a full time employee (Score:1)
I work as an independent IT contractor in the UK and I would never want to be part of the payroll at the companies that I work for.
Being off the payroll means I get far more flexibility in the hours and days I work, which gives me a much better life/work balance and the time to follow my other interests. In a normal year I work around 180 days.
I have also escaped corporate politics and the bullshit that goes with it.
So please donâ(TM)t feel sorry for me, I donâ(TM)t want any wage slave t-shirt and
I worked somewhere like that ... (Score:3)
I worked somewhere like that ... for three months.
They had a gym/workout center ... in the basement of the building where most of us IT contractors were. I was shown it on my welcome tour, but told that I couldn't use it.
A department was really happy with what I did for them (with their website) so they invited me to a department picnic ... then their secretary called me back sheepishly to un-invite me; said she that wasn't allowed to invite me after all because I was a contractor.
I left in three months because the commute sucked, but the silly and frankly childish stuff like that didn't hurt when making the decision to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked at a large company that make networking equipment. I was a "contractor" for way to many years. When a permanent position came up, I was allowed to "interview" for it. I was told that I was not smart enough to work there (after taking the initiative to fix there completely broken test automation system).
I was gone by the next week, but I still kick myself for waiting around so long on continued promises of a permanent position. Particularly galling was the senior engineer's snide remarks that co
Relevant Blade Runner 2049 quote (Score:2)
"Every leap of civilization was built off the back of a disposable workforce. We lost our stomach for slaves. Unless... engineered. And I can only make so many." - Niander Wallace
Kind of hilarious... (Score:2)
"not to reward certain workers with perks like T-shirts, invite them to all-hands meetings, or allow them to engage in professional development training."
A) Working for a large contracting firm on a government agency contract - includes all of the above
B) Having also been a sub-contractor for said contracting firm, when such - included all of the above
PS - I work for one of the largest IT contractors in the world, which was formerly a part of one of the largest companies in the world, on a project for one o
Re: (Score:2)
I'd actually argue not being invited to all-hands meetings would be a perk. And I've got enough t-shirts, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
But does the company you work for get paid enough to afford those things. Or, are you required to work 9to5, with no vacation or health benefits, at a rate that gives you just slightly less salary than the full-time employees.
Temps (Score:1)
Temp is short for temperamental - which is why they can't get full time employment.
Or... (Score:3, Informative)
So what's the problem? (Score:2)
The blurb even spells it out: contractors and others don't get full benefits of employment, any more than any joe on the street would, not being full employees.
What's the issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, the post you replied to, and the post it replied to, were obviously from the same troll. Who you fed.
Re: (Score:2)
And fools still swallow the bare hook, time and time again. Just because it's always been a troll doesn't make it less a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that any form of freedom requires absolutely no restriction although perhaps true in a very literal interpretation isn't actually very helpful in practical situations.