[njstraub608]

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.

[pesmhey]

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.

[Kalium]

You're absolutely right. It's wildly unethical to treat people as second-class citizens for no reason at all. This just might not be a scenario where there is no reason.

There's actually a rather complex wrinkle here. Failing to treat contractors as sufficiently different from employees can incur liability as if they are employees. This is not speculation, and has bitten large software companies - https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-...

In order to treat contractors as equal with employees, any company would have to essentially make them employees. While I'm absolutely certain this would be better for many people! I'm also certain that some would wind up unemployed. Not to mention that some people prefer contracting for their own reasons.

Perhaps there's cause for a careful examination of some subtlety here?

[AndrewKemendo]

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.

[AndrewKemendo]

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]

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

[tboyd47]

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-...

[CPLX]

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

[asveikau]

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.

[dgudkov]

>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]

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]

They're the wrong target, though. If you don't like it, fix the laws!