Lesser Google employees to be switched to hourly wages

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: HotChic
You forgot one of the most important arguments against this statement: "Corporations of all sizes love to put workers who are legitimately employees as independent contractors"

Companies can get in SERIOUS legal trouble for keeping contractors and treating them like employees (term of employment, expectations same as those of employees, giving them employee type perks like bonus and company events, etc.) Microsoft went through a huge lawsuit and lost on this. It got all the tech type companies all jumpy about contractors and they barely keep them long enough to get to know their names now.

The original statement was talking about going the other way - no source deductions, no pensions, no notice, no minimum wage requirements (not always a specific problem, granted), but paying people like 'employees' not contractors. It works best on low-skill, low-education employees who like being paid 'almost cash'.

And yes, you can get in a lot of trouble for it.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: HotChic
You forgot one of the most important arguments against this statement: "Corporations of all sizes love to put workers who are legitimately employees as independent contractors"

Companies can get in SERIOUS legal trouble for keeping contractors and treating them like employees (term of employment, expectations same as those of employees, giving them employee type perks like bonus and company events, etc.) Microsoft went through a huge lawsuit and lost on this. It got all the tech type companies all jumpy about contractors and they barely keep them long enough to get to know their names now.

The original statement was talking about going the other way - no source deductions, no pensions, no notice, no minimum wage requirements (not always a specific problem, granted), but paying people like 'employees' not contractors. It works best on low-skill, low-education employees who like being paid 'almost cash'.

And yes, you can get in a lot of trouble for it.

Yeah, I was responding to AlienCraft instead of the OP.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: Babbles
Per Fortune magazine Google was the number one place to work at this past year. I now wonder if that will hold true for the next year.

Google's benefits are kickass. They may be a demanding workplace, but the type of people that are attracted to a company like that are usually up for it. And at least they try to compensate for that instead of just sucking the lifeblood of their employees and pretending they aren't doing it, like some other places.

Some rather obvious points in describing 'the best' employer to work for . . .

Exactly - pointing out that an exempt/non-exempt change isn't likely to change it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: HotChic
You forgot one of the most important arguments against this statement: "Corporations of all sizes love to put workers who are legitimately employees as independent contractors"

Companies can get in SERIOUS legal trouble for keeping contractors and treating them like employees (term of employment, expectations same as those of employees, giving them employee type perks like bonus and company events, etc.) Microsoft went through a huge lawsuit and lost on this. It got all the tech type companies all jumpy about contractors and they barely keep them long enough to get to know their names now.

The original statement was talking about going the other way - no source deductions, no pensions, no notice, no minimum wage requirements (not always a specific problem, granted), but paying people like 'employees' not contractors. It works best on low-skill, low-education employees who like being paid 'almost cash'.

And yes, you can get in a lot of trouble for it.

Yeah, I was responding to AlienCraft instead of the OP.

AlienCraft's post is confusing. What he is talking about from personal experience is being a contractor because either the company didn't want to commit, or (esp in larger companies) having him as a contractor helped some director in board meetings when he had to give FTE numbers.

No company really wants contractors like that, they just kind of happen (short term specialized skill sets are a totally different story).

When he's talking about 'companies love', there's only one kind of 'contractor' a company loves. One that works for the same hourly wage as their employees, but enjoys none of the benefits.

There's even a middle ground where employees are actually 'consultants' but have to take three weeks off once a year. But they're paid in lieu of benefits. This is simply to prevent them from becoming tied to the pension plan, building seniority, etc. From what I've seen, it's most common in governments, where the optics of your FTE numbers are key, because millions of people are watching.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: HotChic
You forgot one of the most important arguments against this statement: "Corporations of all sizes love to put workers who are legitimately employees as independent contractors"

Companies can get in SERIOUS legal trouble for keeping contractors and treating them like employees (term of employment, expectations same as those of employees, giving them employee type perks like bonus and company events, etc.) Microsoft went through a huge lawsuit and lost on this. It got all the tech type companies all jumpy about contractors and they barely keep them long enough to get to know their names now.

I could have sworn I mentioned that, but it seems I was confusing yesterday's /. thread where I mentioned the MS lawsuit. They bled together.

Excellent spot.

ZV