[taurath]

The right thing for the company to do would be to hire people as employees, but it appears that worker protections are too strong for them to want to financially.

Universal healthcare/dental/paid leave would allow for companies who’s employees currently are the only receivers of these “benefits” to not require companies to hold onto people so long.

Worker protections are supposed to be so that catastrophic job loss is less catastrophic and companies can’t just arbitrarily decide they need 20000 people one month and 0 the next. But we should definitely look into a better deal for the workers and give companies less power over their livelihood.

[dcolkitt]

Employee-status may come with certain benefits, but it also comes with many drawbacks and burdens for the employee.

For me, and probably many on this board, the biggest risk is "works-for-hire". Under US law, contractors have strong legal protections of their own intellectual protection. Whereas it's much easier for a W-2 employer to claim IP made in personal time.

I don't really care about healthcare of unemployment insurance. I'm well compensated enough that I can buy my own high-deductible insurance and have more than enough assets to feed myself between jobs. Forcing freelancers into W-2 status is just another example of the government screwing people over "for their own good".

[RHSeeger]

> Forcing freelancers into W-2 status is just another example of the government screwing people over "for their own good".

It's the government screwing _some_ people over for the good of everyone else, where it's presumed that "good of everyone else" is worth more to society than what is lost by those that get screwed over by it.

At least, that's generally the intent.

[thereisnospork]

Considering that the people it was supposed to help are being fired every 2 years for 6 months I'd say the governments plan to help some people hasn't and caught people like the GP in the crossfire. Quelle surprise.

[yaml-ops-guy]

I’m very glad we’re only screwing over “some” people, good to have that cleared up, thank you for that...it’s still an abominable practice to put any amount of laborers through.

[RHSeeger]

Are you of the belief that there are a set of policies/laws that result in everyone being happy and nobody being screwed over? Such a thing is not realistic. Every system of laws results in some people suffering for the benefit of others. The better law system result in less suffering for more benefit.

[threatofrain]

Government policy is inherently concerned with those kinds of moral tradeoffs. Vaccines and lockdowns naturally pose such questions.

[walshemj]

Its more having a fake second class worker which benefits massively the employer and not real self employed people.

[syshum]

Ahh the old "Greater Good", the most evil phrase in the English Language

Anyone attempting to do anything for "the greater good" should be viewed with suspicion and disrespect as most at best what they are attempting to do no matter the intent will fail and harm more people than it will help

At worst is it just a shield to cover their immoral actions, or thirst for power

Every person that values freedom, individuality, and prosperity should reject any policy or law that is based on a "greater good" narrative

[Goronmon]

Every person that values freedom, individuality, and prosperity should reject any policy or law that is based on a "greater good" narrative

So pretty much all laws and policies? Anarchy doesn't seem that sustainable.

[mstipetic]

I don’t understand why all the staunch libertarians just don’t move to a favela or some other similar place where they can enjoy absolute freedoms

[dantheman]

Why don't people that want all these new things move to where they already exist?

[syshum]

In Response to this common statement we have 2 video responses

You Can Always Leave ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s )

Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg )

[throwaways885]

> Every person that values freedom, individuality, and prosperity should reject any policy or law that is based on a "greater good" narrative

Curious what you think about COVID lockdowns then

[syshum]

Should be very clear, I oppose government mandated lock downs.

[0xEFF]

Seems selfish. Lockdowns reduce deaths.

Edit: I don’t mean to call anyone names, genuinely interested in understanding if you’re concerned about being perceived as selfish and if so how you reconcile the tension?

[SiempreViernes]

What do you think about defence spending?

[newacct583]

> Employee-status may come with certain benefits, but it also comes with many drawbacks and burdens for the employee.

Not to the employees in question. Clearly the frame and interview content of the linked article is that these employees WANT to be permanent employees. But they're not allowed to be because their employer wants the flexibility to terminate them at any time. The fact that the two year contract exists is just a side effect.

Yes, there are real people who want to do contract work. They exist, though it's relatively rare and clustered in careers (software is one) where short term work makes sense. But that's not who we're talking about here. These are datacenter maintenance folks, they want steady work.

And off topic, but:

> I don't really care about healthcare of unemployment insurance.

This is something only ever said by young people who have never been sick (or had a family member suffer from) with a career-threatening condition. Yes, in your 20's it sounds like self-insurance is totally doable. Wait until you have four dependents or until you need to arrange for a parents' surprise retirement.

[taurath]

I'll second that. I know many people stuck in the Microsoft forever-contractor hell (QA, Project Management, etc) and all of them want to be employees. They've worked there longer than most current employees in their area. They get 40-50% of what Microsoft pays for them taken by their consulting agency who has a contract with MS legal, so the only way to get hired for their positions is through that company.

Its a huge financial burden for them to have to take these 6 months off. The worst part is since they're all "contract ended" so regularly, Microsoft can just say they're not reopening for many req's and many people who were waiting their 6 months to be up so they could go back are suddenly having to look for a totally different job.

[gkop]

Or, your state could protect W-2 employees’ IP developed on personal time and equipment, as California does. You are barking up the wrong tree.

[ketamine__]

> Whereas it's much easier for a W-2 employer to claim IP made in personal time.

I've heard this mentioned a lot but how often does it happen and how much of a risk is it? Employees developing IP in personal time doesn't seem like it would be that common.

[hirsin]

"This project happens to be owned by Google" is common for a reason.

[ketamine__]

I don't understand your response.

[Larrikin]

As a Google employee, Google owns everything you make even in your free time unless you go through some kind of process. Never worked there so don't know the details but have had it confirmed from other Google engineers.

Some other companies got this idea as well, but it's usually very easy to get that removed from an offer.

[GuB-42]

There is no single way of doing contract work. And the kind of thing Google does provide very little benefit to the contractor vs an employee.

I don't know how it is in the US but we have the same issues in France.

The law is called "délit de marchandage" and what it means, essentially, is that a contractor is treated like an employee but without the benefits of an employee.

The idea of the law is that contract work is fine, but the contractor has to stay independent. For example, if I want to have an Indian do the work for me, that's my right as a contractor, my only obligation is to deliver what we agreed upon in the contract. Obviously, it is not always practical, I may want to hire a consultant for a specific task because I don't have the expertise and it is not worth hiring someone for just that one task. That's where the 2 years rule comes from. If I have to hire a consultant, full time, for 2 years, then it is not just a mission anymore and I need to hire an employee.

[908B64B197]

Part of the problem in France is that it seems firing underperforming employees is almost impossible (multi-year process)

[GuB-42]

Yes, it can be very difficult.

But for it to be a multi-year process, it has to be an exceptional situation. Often involving court battles, unions, etc... In practice, most employees don't want to stay in a company where they are unwanted, they may try to negotiate a bonus but rarely fight to the bitter end. But sometimes, it happens, and it is one of the things small employers fear the most.

Getting fired can actually be a good deal for the employee because he will get unemployment benefits after that, whereas if you quit, you won't.

But generally, you are right by saying that in France having an employee is a big commitment for a company, plus, large companies often have unions.

[908B64B197]

Sounds like that legislation doesn't work at all for startups.

[GuB-42]

Startups have some benefits to compensate. Less legal obligations, less taxes, and sometimes subsidies.

[dannyw]

Some people, like the grandparent or me, don't want to be employees.

[Retric]

The difference between a contractor and an employee isn’t arbitrarily. Basically, if you’re using company equipment, following the companies schedule, and don’t have a clear task with a clear finishing condition then you’re an employee.

Finding someone to fill in for a secretary on maternity leave is fine, but open ended contacts on their equipment and schedule without some specific task is just opening them up to lose another lawsuit.

[taurath]

By that metric almost every contractor I've ever worked with should be an employee. Which I sort of agree with. But you can come up with "well defined project's" when its really "staff-aug".

[taurath]

I also wouldn't want to be an employee. I work best in short monthly bursts with legitimate breaks in between. I'm working on setting it up so I can do that as an experienced consultant/freelancer.

The job market is pretty different though for full time employees - one part of which is the insane contractor usage at big companies with money. Microsoft is still like 50% contractors, and in this area if you have "contractor for a bigco" attached to your resume I'd estimate you'll be talked to by far fewer recruiters, and then offered less lucrative work. Also as others have stated you'll have up to 60% of what the company pays for your work taken by the contracting agency especially if they do "management" for their workforce.

Then benefits are a real thing. I have some healthcare needs which require me to have consistent insurance that isn't going to force me to other providers just because I switch. Retirement investing without a 401k is basically all cash since the roth and regular IRA limit is so low. I'm still figuring out how that will work, whether I should incorporate as a consultant so I can provide a 401k to myself, or just not bother with it and just invest.

[infinite8s]

You don't need to incorporate - you can open a sole 401k plan at Vanguard as an LLC.

[danaris]

And it's fine to be a contractor—as long as that's genuinely and meaningfully what you are.

If you're contracting out your services to only one company, and they have primary say over when and how you work[1], then that's not a genuine "contractor" relationship; you're an employee that they're taking advantage of by paying less and not providing benefits to.

If you really do want to be a contractor, who sells their services to many companies, sets their own hours, and has primary control over their tasks and such, then by all means do so. But please don't try to make things worse for the vast majority who do not want these things by advocating for stripping away protections from people who are being abusively and illegally misclassified as contractors.

[1] I don't recall offhand all the various specific aspects of a job that define whether you're logically a contractor or an employee, but I do remember that it's basically "if your livelihood depends entirely on one company paying you, and/or they have near-total control over how you do your work, you're an employee, whatever the paperwork says".

[ryanschneider]

RE: [1] this is somewhat dated but a “contractor” friend used this “twenty factor” list to determine her “employer” was acting questionably maybe ten years ago: https://www.lakeshoreacct.com/blog/what-irs-20-factor-test

The site says the IRS no longer uses it but it’s still generally a good rule of thumb. And yes I recognize the irony that both her and her employer used the terms contractor and employer when describing their relationship.

[coryking]

The IRS has very clear guidelines on the difference between contractor and employee:

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...