I understand the tax incentives/accounting behind it, but I still feel it's kind of shady to hire "contractors" for positions that are indefinite. I think contractors should be for the time you need a bunch of hands or brains to get something done for a few months, but using contractors for years on end is just abuse of the system and demeaning for the person.
Who do you think is going to be more loyal and do a better job with your security, someone who always feels like an outsider, or someone who is protecting "their" own company?
I guess part of the rationale for using contractors for, say, kitchen workers is that you can use a consulting firm with expertise in catering, rather than having to develop that expertise in-house.
I think the person who knows for sure that he will be fired for not doing his job properly will be more loyal.
I don't think it is a wise decision for any company to employ security guards as they own employees. It makes much more sense to let a third company specialized in security recruit, train and contract guards to Google. Is Google in a better position to do background verification, recruit, train and maintain large number of security guards ? Is is a good way to spend their profits ? The answer might be yes or not but it has nothing to do with "demeaning for the person" and other rhetorical reasons.
That exactly was my first thought...'What's in it for Google?'. Not doubting their good intentions, but whenever any corporate portrays an altruistic thing, it rings the skeptic bell in my head.
Common sense suggests that this way should be cheaper, too. The contractor is often twice as expensive as their salary, so if you want them for an extended period of time it would make economic sense for a rational actor to hire directly.
This is however offset by economic realities, where two equal cost may have a very different impact of valuation. So it does make economic sense to pay more for a cost that is not counted as a fixed cost of doing business on the accounting sheets.
Note - that this sort of thing usually lasts while a company is profitable. Once things get tight (if they do), then everything is back on the table, and Security Guards, Cleaners, Kitchen Staff, Groundskeepers - basically anybody who doesn't have proprietary knowledge, training, or skills is replaced with a contractor.
I remember when my University (SFU) fired all their cleaning staff - some of whom had been working their for 20+ years and replaced them with contractors (who (ironically?) actually did a much better job for a lot less money) - students went on a mini strike, but, at the same time, the University was being forced to raise tuition to cover the bills - so they were trying to find every way they could save money possible.
This isn't always the case. Zappos had always hired people to prepare breakfast and dinner and then flipped and used a contractor for food prep and service when they moved to their new HQ in downtown Las Vegas. Zappos is definitely not tight on money and is very well run (from what I could tell).
It all depends on the contract for the cleaning staff.
Around here the university did the opposite, they ended all cleaning contracts and hired their own staff with better pay. Costs went down, quality went up.
The problem was that due to idiotic (EU?) competition laws the maximum length for a cleaning contract was 2 years with a 1 year extension. So the firms worked kinda OK for the first 2 years and fucked around for the extension year since they wouldn't get renewed anyway. Quality went to shit, no one did the basic work of re-waxing the floors "the next contractor will do it" etc.
It's interesting to me that Google is doing this. I was at Microsoft when they decided receptionists weren't a core competency they wanted. They kept tightening up when was - as an STE at the time, you could see that role was not going to make the cut. I was at MSN as an SDET when the last STEs were laid off and rehired as contractors. I was back at Microsoft when they decided SDETs weren't core; we were all converted to SDEs or hired back as STE contractors.
It gives them more control over who they hire, it makes it harder (if not impossible) for the SEIU from unionize them, assuming they have to sign the employment agreement it allows them to install surveillance on any of their computers, and it will probably make for a much better experience for employees.
One of the saddest things they did during my time there was switch the TechStop folks from employees to contractors and that was, in my opinion of course, a huge mistake. Having these folks be contractors totally changed the dynamic with respect to the other employees.
The big opportunity here is to hire and train people who actually care about "Google security", versus people who care about wearing a uniform and applying for real cop jobs. Sorry if I'm going back to my blue-collar days, but I've never met a security guard who really took his job seriously. They're there mostly for show and they recognize that.
"allows them to install surveillance on any of their computers"
I've never heard about this. Google makes employees install surveillance software on all computers, personal and work, for the duration of their employment contract?
Having worked as a contractor for Google, my impression is that they consider being an employee at Google as a brand in and by itself.
My contract stated several times that I was not a Googler, and I was not hired by Google and I was not allowed to say "I work for Google"and if I start a company I am definitely not allowed to send out a press release saying "Ex-googler makes new start-up to solve ..."
Well, saying that you "worked for google as a programmer" sounds a bit more impressive than you "worked for google as a cleaner", because google is a tech company. It is all about public image, so if you are a programmer then it is pretty natural your contract is stating that there is notable difference between you and, say, Sebastian Thrun in the sense of your importance for google. It doesn't seem to be necessary to say that some security guard's role in google wasn't like one of Sebastian Thrun, so why not?
Google still employs the contractor industry like most of the big tech firms in the bay area, and I'm not talking about just as cooking staff or temps.
My guess is they flipped on making security guards FTEs simply because it's been an isolated PR issue:
Seriously? That's frankly ridiculous. Performing tasks for someone in exchange for payment seems to me like a reasonable use case for the verb "work", no matter whether your status is employee, contractor, moonlighter, intern, teenager looking for pocket money, etc. It seems impressive to me that they would feel entitled to forbid you from saying so.
That's because Microsoft cocked up big time a long time back and lost a big case over disguised employment aka permatractors that set employment law precedent.
> The August think tank report found that the median hourly wage is $14 an hour for security guards in Santa Clara County – home to Google and scores of other tech companies. By contrast, the median wage for software developers is roughly $63 an hour.
Obviously - $14/hour is quite low and there's a certain increased level of security that comes with paying guards more (it won't be so easily for them to consider alternative income sources), but does anyone really think that that gap needs to be closed completely? I think they'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that a security guards warrants equal pay with a software developer.
The value of software development is the multiplicative application of innovation / creation. Security guarding will never have that (without adjacent technological innovation.)
I worked as a contractor at Google last year as a software engineer. All of the people I interacted with who were non technical contractors, like security guards, office supplies, etc. seemed to have a great attitude and acted like they appreciated their jobs. Same comment applies to almost all of the technical contractors I met.
Unless companies need to lock in key employees, using contractors makes a lot of sense, and with the affordable health care act, one of the big reasons for wanting to be an employee vanishes. I have worked as an independent consultant for 15+ years, so I am biased in favor of flexible working arrangements.
BTW, I hope the current contracted security guards get some preference in being hired as employees.
Security "contractors" are not the same as real contractors. They are themselves employees of a different 3rd party company that "hires" them to the paying customer for a (usually much) bigger bill than the contractor's wage. The flexibility from the point of view of the customer is that they can let go such "contractor" on a wimp and expect to have a replacement lined up in a short time if needed. The 3rd party company probably manages this by swapping its employees from one customer to another, at least in the short term.
Strategically speaking, the reasons for resorting to this type of arrangement range from the legitimate (you really don't care about developing the core competencies required by the position in-house) to the borderline fraudulent (you want to hide a big fixed cost in your accounting books and make it pass as a variable cost, so your company's finances look healthier than they really are).
This wasn't mentioned in the article but this will also mean they can ride the shuttle for free (the IRS considers this a benefit with some specified dollar amount). I'm glad the security guards won't have to choose between driving or paying the "gbus fare".
The article says "more than 200 security guards". Any clue about how this compare to the number of security guards working as contractors for Google? I'm curious about whether "Security Guards" in the title means "all security guards", or "a small proportion of security guards, as an experiment".
I see many comments here be like "security is important for google, so paying guards more is a wise move". That isn't really true. If you want to keep something safe the real question isn't if your employee wants to abuse you, but if he can. Security is about being sure that damage that can be made by every single person you entrusted with access to something is reasonably low. Because if somebody can blow you up, him being your own employee and not a contractor, or paying him nice wage doesn't guarantee enough. Consider Snowden.
Now about wages. I'm not sure why I'm saying such obvious things on HN, but there's some visible ignorance in comments on that topic. Developers aren't paid more than cleaners because being developer is somehow better by itself. Wages are dictated by market, so the question is if you can find somebody who can do the same work while being paid less. Of course I don't know what specific purpose will serve these security guys hired by google, but if we're talking about something like sitting all day long watching nobody enters using other tools than his NFC card then answer is definitely yes, finding a guy who can do that is easier than finding a guy who can write efficient js or something like that.
I do think that hiring your own security staff is convenient (and I'm a bit surprised it wasn't the case before — I suppose it isn't like they are founding their own Blackwater), but it doesn't seem to be as important as some journalists are implying and sure it isn't about social equality.
> If you want to keep something safe the real question isn't if your employee wants to abuse you, but if he can.
This assumes that 100% safeguarding is something that you are 100% capable of doing. If Google had that, they may not even need security guards (hyperbole).
> Consider Snowden
In the case of Snowden, we know that he attempted to raise the issue internally. Many argue that Snowden actually did serve his drive and oath comparatively to Manning.
Drive goes into these aspects that inspire people. It suggests that autonomy and purpose matter much more than pay - and Google having greater control over this could certainly help control.
Coincidentally until this week I never saw the security people in the lift (we share a building). This week I have seen them many times inside and outside wearing Google Security logoed shirts.
Given the importance of security and worry over theft of intellectual property by accessing servers on-site, etc., I am really surprised that hi-tech firms (Google, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, ...) don't hire their own security. Also, for people that store data on Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon servers, I'd want security to be vetted by the firm (Google, etc.) that is accountable for providing the secure service.
Incidentally, this also holds true for hospitals, etc. that have secure medical data.
All these companies have security teams (not network security). Most of them are retired cops, retired detectives, sometimes these companies hire local cops for big bucks as their VP of security. But they also hire managers of security for local sites.
But at the bottom level, they have contracted out to Securitas, Guardsmark, SIS Security, etc.
Patrolling, monitoring cameras from a central site, checking locks of all doors, badging, etc--all these have been contracted out.
Hospitals are better in this aspect: they hire full timers for the bottom layer, and they also keep contract security firms. Stanford hospital is a good example: they have 70% full time security guards, and 30% is contracted out.
I am very glad to hear this, google employs (or ahem contracts) some very good security personnel. I do wonder though if the current security personnel will be converted to full employees or if they will be sent back to the contracting company ...
I am fairly certain that the median salary for engineers at Google is (much) more than that. If you count bonuses and RSUs, the pay package for new graduates in 2014/15 is already more than $130k.
Hmm? This doesn't seem impossible at all at Google. My last job in Seattle as a Data Scientist was approaching that in salary alone, and I'm not good enough to work at Google. Those who are should make about that much.
Doubtful.[1] California has limited exemptions for overtime that can't simply be avoided by paying salary. Even a significant number of 'IT professionals' should be paid overtime. [2]
[+] [-] JeremyMorgan|11 years ago|reply
I understand the tax incentives/accounting behind it, but I still feel it's kind of shady to hire "contractors" for positions that are indefinite. I think contractors should be for the time you need a bunch of hands or brains to get something done for a few months, but using contractors for years on end is just abuse of the system and demeaning for the person.
Who do you think is going to be more loyal and do a better job with your security, someone who always feels like an outsider, or someone who is protecting "their" own company?
[+] [-] enneff|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehwebguy|11 years ago|reply
This position would never pass as a 1099
[+] [-] tn13|11 years ago|reply
I think the person who knows for sure that he will be fired for not doing his job properly will be more loyal.
I don't think it is a wise decision for any company to employ security guards as they own employees. It makes much more sense to let a third company specialized in security recruit, train and contract guards to Google. Is Google in a better position to do background verification, recruit, train and maintain large number of security guards ? Is is a good way to spend their profits ? The answer might be yes or not but it has nothing to do with "demeaning for the person" and other rhetorical reasons.
[+] [-] ownagefool|11 years ago|reply
You can't really say a company is deemening me by holding on to me as long as possible.
[+] [-] sidcool|11 years ago|reply
Good move Google.
[+] [-] xorcist|11 years ago|reply
This is however offset by economic realities, where two equal cost may have a very different impact of valuation. So it does make economic sense to pay more for a cost that is not counted as a fixed cost of doing business on the accounting sheets.
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
I remember when my University (SFU) fired all their cleaning staff - some of whom had been working their for 20+ years and replaced them with contractors (who (ironically?) actually did a much better job for a lot less money) - students went on a mini strike, but, at the same time, the University was being forced to raise tuition to cover the bills - so they were trying to find every way they could save money possible.
[+] [-] rodly|11 years ago|reply
Perhaps they're just an outlier though.
[+] [-] theshrike79|11 years ago|reply
Around here the university did the opposite, they ended all cleaning contracts and hired their own staff with better pay. Costs went down, quality went up.
The problem was that due to idiotic (EU?) competition laws the maximum length for a cleaning contract was 2 years with a 1 year extension. So the firms worked kinda OK for the first 2 years and fucked around for the extension year since they wouldn't get renewed anyway. Quality went to shit, no one did the basic work of re-waxing the floors "the next contractor will do it" etc.
[+] [-] RyJones|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atmosx|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
One of the saddest things they did during my time there was switch the TechStop folks from employees to contractors and that was, in my opinion of course, a huge mistake. Having these folks be contractors totally changed the dynamic with respect to the other employees.
[+] [-] flomo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burnte|11 years ago|reply
I've never heard about this. Google makes employees install surveillance software on all computers, personal and work, for the duration of their employment contract?
[+] [-] wodenokoto|11 years ago|reply
Having worked as a contractor for Google, my impression is that they consider being an employee at Google as a brand in and by itself.
My contract stated several times that I was not a Googler, and I was not hired by Google and I was not allowed to say "I work for Google"and if I start a company I am definitely not allowed to send out a press release saying "Ex-googler makes new start-up to solve ..."
[+] [-] krick|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bduerst|11 years ago|reply
My guess is they flipped on making security guards FTEs simply because it's been an isolated PR issue:
http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-security-guards-prote...
[+] [-] a3_nm|11 years ago|reply
Seriously? That's frankly ridiculous. Performing tasks for someone in exchange for payment seems to me like a reasonable use case for the verb "work", no matter whether your status is employee, contractor, moonlighter, intern, teenager looking for pocket money, etc. It seems impressive to me that they would feel entitled to forbid you from saying so.
[+] [-] walshemj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rohit89|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelrunyon|11 years ago|reply
Obviously - $14/hour is quite low and there's a certain increased level of security that comes with paying guards more (it won't be so easily for them to consider alternative income sources), but does anyone really think that that gap needs to be closed completely? I think they'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that a security guards warrants equal pay with a software developer.
[+] [-] mentat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walshemj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tedks|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|11 years ago|reply
Unless companies need to lock in key employees, using contractors makes a lot of sense, and with the affordable health care act, one of the big reasons for wanting to be an employee vanishes. I have worked as an independent consultant for 15+ years, so I am biased in favor of flexible working arrangements.
BTW, I hope the current contracted security guards get some preference in being hired as employees.
[+] [-] crpatino|11 years ago|reply
Strategically speaking, the reasons for resorting to this type of arrangement range from the legitimate (you really don't care about developing the core competencies required by the position in-house) to the borderline fraudulent (you want to hide a big fixed cost in your accounting books and make it pass as a variable cost, so your company's finances look healthier than they really are).
[+] [-] boulos|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3_nm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krick|11 years ago|reply
Now about wages. I'm not sure why I'm saying such obvious things on HN, but there's some visible ignorance in comments on that topic. Developers aren't paid more than cleaners because being developer is somehow better by itself. Wages are dictated by market, so the question is if you can find somebody who can do the same work while being paid less. Of course I don't know what specific purpose will serve these security guys hired by google, but if we're talking about something like sitting all day long watching nobody enters using other tools than his NFC card then answer is definitely yes, finding a guy who can do that is easier than finding a guy who can write efficient js or something like that.
I do think that hiring your own security staff is convenient (and I'm a bit surprised it wasn't the case before — I suppose it isn't like they are founding their own Blackwater), but it doesn't seem to be as important as some journalists are implying and sure it isn't about social equality.
[+] [-] smileysteve|11 years ago|reply
This assumes that 100% safeguarding is something that you are 100% capable of doing. If Google had that, they may not even need security guards (hyperbole).
> Consider Snowden
In the case of Snowden, we know that he attempted to raise the issue internally. Many argue that Snowden actually did serve his drive and oath comparatively to Manning.
Drive goes into these aspects that inspire people. It suggests that autonomy and purpose matter much more than pay - and Google having greater control over this could certainly help control.
[+] [-] mianos|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidf18|11 years ago|reply
Incidentally, this also holds true for hospitals, etc. that have secure medical data.
[+] [-] raincom|11 years ago|reply
But at the bottom level, they have contracted out to Securitas, Guardsmark, SIS Security, etc.
Patrolling, monitoring cameras from a central site, checking locks of all doors, badging, etc--all these have been contracted out.
Hospitals are better in this aspect: they hire full timers for the bottom layer, and they also keep contract security firms. Stanford hospital is a good example: they have 70% full time security guards, and 30% is contracted out.
[+] [-] usernamepc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgalt212|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephkern|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billpg|11 years ago|reply
(b'dom ksh)
[+] [-] choppaface|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephkern|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frankchn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icelancer|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelnos|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scottlocklin|11 years ago|reply
Vote it down if you like: it's the obvious reason Google is hiring its security guards.
[+] [-] rasengan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilentDirge|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flomo|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_overtimeexemptions.htm [2] https://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/ComputerSoftware.pdf
[+] [-] walshemj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imswapnil|11 years ago|reply