[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?

[pesmhey]

It's definitely complex. Thanks for the link to Microsoft's trouble in this area. It seems somewhat similar, based on this line:

Microsoft’s problem was that it failed to treat them like ICs — that is, like people running their own independent businesses. Instead, Microsoft integrated the workers into its workforce: They often worked on teams along with regular employees, sharing the same supervisors, performing identical functions and working the same core hours. Because Microsoft required that they work on site, they received admittance card keys, office equipment and supplies from the company.

From the information made public in the grievance letter, it seems that a significant portion of Google's TVCs (their name for ICs) would fall into this bin - workers doing the same work at a different level of compensation.

It'll be interesting to see this unfold as time goes on. People were out for blood even back in the 90s, and Bill Gates didn't even set out to create a walled garden for Ivy leaguers (and Stanford). Seems like Google may find itself at the forefront of another national conversation, this time about the growing class divide.

[Kalium]

It definitely seems like a different name for the same arrangement at first blush!

Looking at it a bit, Google is using a different structure than Microsoft did. Microsoft had direct contracts with ICs. Google has contracts with vendors or contracting agencies, and TVCs are employees or contractors with those companies. I realize this seems like a distinction without difference, but in legal terms I suspect it's probably very different.

It's certainly a common arrangement for a company to have a series of teams that they contract out to other companies. I know some people in Sofia who make locally-spectacular wages doing this that they would struggle to access other ways.

As for a "conversation", I'd rather Teh Grauniad had no part of it. You can't have a conversation if you're wearing earplugs and using a megaphone, and that's really their MO.

[pesmhey]

Totally agree, that distinction will be important. Personally, I think it’s a distinction in letter and not in spirit.

Had to look up Teh Grauniad, thanks for the laugh!

[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.

[HillaryBriss]

You're right -- if the discussion were about a "typical" large corporation.

But this is Google, the company that was not supposed to be typical, wasn't supposed to engage in penny-pinching corporate bean counting, wasn't supposed to reward a perpetrator of sexual harassment -- wasn't supposed to be "evil."

Google is a standard-bearer for the leading edge, prosperous, tech economy. It's the heart of the sector that is supposed to be saving us, creating abundant high-paying jobs for the people. It's the company of glorious benefits, 10% projects and enlightened employees. And California, that bright and shining star of democracy, that leading-edge progressive state, has pinned its hopes for the future (and its tax revenue and employment growth) on the likes of Google. Google is the one corporate monopoly we can all love.

But cracks are appearing. More and more we see that Google is a hell of a lot like a typical corporation. Our hopes for a prosperous enlightened, well-employed, tax-revenue rich future are dashed against the rocks of common corporate reality. And it's ugly.

That's the story here.

[CydeWeys]

> 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.

This is pretty much never the case, and certainly isn't the case here. This hypothesis strains credulity.

[pesmhey]

Yeah, I agree with your sentiment. Also, this is absolutely correct in the context of this conversation:

you can't have a different set of laws for Google than you have for every other company.

While I agree with the sentiment, the reality is a bit different. This issue seems to be prompted mostly by contractors who are doing the same work for less pay, basically. Like, sure, in a walkout, you’re going to get a lot of support staff, cleaning staff, etc., but in the day-to-day, it seems like this issue has been made into a big deal because you might have a team of 15 people, where 8 are contractors, doing the same work, and being payed less. This helps the company’s bottom line immensely, where you don’t have to give equity to half of the people doing real work.

Again, I get your sentiment, but I don’t think that it captures the reality of what goes on.

[Latteland]

You don't have to move to cali to work for google, and no one is getting better pay as a contractor at google or probably anywhere else, no one has better benefits. It would be shocking if this was the case.