|
|
|
|
|
|
by pesmhey
2748 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.