[throwaway189262]

Let us remember that big tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook generally have 49.9% of their employees contractors.

Why nearly 50%? Because that the highest amount you can have without additional liability. If they could get away with it, far more than 50% would be contractors.

The gig loophole benefits only super rich corporations. It's crazy to see so many people defending it. The sole purpose is undermining a century of worker protections.

Technology has made it easy to tweak jobs just enough so they fall under contractor status. When these laws were written nobody could imagine systems where work is reassigned in seconds. The rules about flexible schedules etc we made for a different time.

I've driven for rideshare. It's not like freelancing at all. You can't turn down rides. Can't set your prices. Can't choose your clients. Can't do your own advertising. You can only drive certain models and years of cars. There's rules about modifications you can do and how you treat customers. You have little to no control once you "sign on". It's a regular job with flexible hours

[whoknew1122]

100% percent of the reason I didn't go work 'for' Microsoft was that I'd be a temp-to-possibly-hire contractor. And from the former contractors I'd talked to (one recommended by the recruiter!), it was clear contractors were treated like second-class citizens by Microsoft. From what I was told, contractors couldn't participate in networking events or even get free food employees got because Microsoft was sued for misclassifying workers.

So instead of reforming their business model they just switched to a model where they made clear contractors were contractors--by treating them like trash. Fuck that.

[valdiorn]

this is not isolated to microsoft, or the US. Everywhere I've worked, the contractors we've had have been treated like second class citizens. The smart ones even insist on it.

Why? Because if they are allowed to enjoy the amenities of a normal staff member (free snacks, invite to company events, etc.) they run the risk of being classed as employees... which is bad news for everybody, not just the company. If you as a contractor are found to be incorrectly classified, that can mean a massive accounting headache, loss of tax benefits, possibly being required to enroll in a union, and lots more.

I've worked in Iceland and the UK, for 5 different companies, each one employing lots of contractors. All of them avoid these benefits for said reason. You can read up on IR35 if you want to know more about the UK rules (although it's been recently revamped making contracting a lot less appealing).

[throwaway189262]

I have also never heard of a contractor for big tech being hired full time. Ever.

[jameslk]

> Let us remember that big tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook generally have 49.9% of their employees contractors.

These are not the same type of contractors as 1099 contractors such as gig workers. Contractors at these big companies are usually employees of a staffing agency. They don't get sweet tech company benefits, but they are generally employees and have nothing to do with gig workers.

> Why nearly 50%? Because that the highest amount you can have without additional liability. If they could get away with it, far more than 50% would be contractors.

Which liability are you referring to? I've never heard of this and would love to look up what you're referring to, but you aren't being specific.

[throwaway189262]

I heard it years ago, can't find a source either. I believe it was something related to a court case. Some legal argument that could apply if total employees was over 50% contractors.