| > Only the very senior management are employees. In that case, maybe the senior management should stop referring to the other people as "employees" then. And, if being an employee is such a bad deal, why would senior management choose to be employees rather than "independent contractors". > But there are lots of long-serving staff who are basically employees. There's no such thing as "basically employees" (or indeed "staff" who aren't employees) they're either "actually independent contractors" or "employees intentionally & exploitatively miscategorized as independent contractors"). > You earn more as a contractor. That's certainly what the management want people to think, for sure. But if being an employee isn't even a possibility it's conveniently pretty hard to know if that's actually the case. > You simply couldn't run a business if you had to have a consistent set of people over time. Perhaps that means it's actually a "hobby" or a "charity" rather than a business then? And, regardless, that just means you hire people as employees on fixed term contracts, not that you get to miscategorize them & get the law changed to make it "legal". None of this is about a better deal for the people doing the work--it's entirely possible for a fully loaded employee cost to be 2x salary so if the company can get the workers to accept 1.5x salary & shift risk to them, well, that's just a great deal for the company, isn't it. Especially in an industry with an unending supply of creative people willing to be ground up in the process of doing what they love. Perhaps we should take a lesson from what happened to the dinosaurs that worked as "independent contractors" for oil industry... |