HP Contract Workers Sue For Recognition 603
manganese4 writes "The Idaho Statesman is carrying the story of 33 local Boise HP contract workers suing HP. They claim that they were expected to perform at the same level of expectations as HP workers and thus should be given the rights and privileges of HP workers. HP claims the suit is without merit." From the article: "The suit seeks to represent 3,000 workers in Boise and elsewhere in the company and could involve as much as $300 million, according to the complaint."
Easily Fixed (Score:1, Insightful)
HP just has to force every permanent employee to drink and finish a can of beer, juice or water at the end of the day, and contractors are exempted from this ridiculous rule.
They're right, this has no merit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, I have never heard of anything like this before. Temp agencies hire employees, charge the companies their employees work at, and then pay (and give benefits if applicable) to their employees from that.
Since when are you owed money/benefits from a company you really don't directly work for?
More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:2, Insightful)
That ain't how contracts work (Score:4, Insightful)
This is dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it any surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this any surprise? If the government makes you pay a higher tax for full-time employees, then this discourages hiring full-time employees. The same with imposition of benefits for such employees: it is the government providing a disincentive for hiring the kind of employees that would get these benefits.
Is it any surprise that the companies are responding to economic pressure from the government NOT to hire regular full-time workers?
Re:I never understood.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, actually there are some who do that. It's the same at the local level, where some lawyers pay interns to stand at the local police station photocopying accident forms.
not that HP doesn't deserve, but that's not my point.
So this person voluntarily entered into a contract with HP (well, with a subcontractor of HP), with the understanding that she would be paid X dollars in exchange for Y hours work, with no additional compensation expected on either side. Fast forward a couple years and now we're supposed to let her renegotiate the contract BACKDATED TO THE START because she's changed her mind? Screw that, it's called a learning experience, next time take a FT job, not a contract.
Assholes (Score:1, Insightful)
I remember the fallout from the AOL/Microsoft temp lawsuits. Companies started to restrict the ways a consultant could interact with their employees and dramatically restricted the things you could and could not do in your day to day dealings with everyone inside the company, therefore making it difficult to do your job.
Some of the restrictions and "rules" were down right retarded. I won't even bother mentioning them. The relationships with permanent employees (often in the same friggin' project) were strained and sometimes became akward. "Relationship advisors" were brought in to explain to us why we couldn't do this-or-the-other. I could care less about the "let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya" crap, but LET ME DO MY JOB FERSSAKES. You're effin' paying for it anyway.
These assholes should be counter-sued by HP and taken to pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison for this frivolous bullshit. YOU'RE A CONTRACT WORKER FOR THE LOVE OF ZOD!! What part of that do they not understand? But noooo, HP is going to settle for nine gazillion dollars and those of us who can deal with reality will be fucked for another four years until this fades from the memory of managers everywhere.
Cripes these things piss me off.
We recently ditched our contractors (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the only contracts we do are short term, IF AT ALL. We now hire consulting companies who bring a solution with them. This can be the same as having 2 or 3 contracters but it avoids the legal issue of whom do these people actually work for.
Too many courts are more than willing to jump on the side of the plantiffs. Combine that with lottery minded juries and the system is ripe for squeezing.
A contract is a contract. I cannot ever recall being forced to actually work for a company I did not choose to. The suits are usually the recourse of people who did nothing to protect their marketability.
Re:No Merit (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything is not political, believe it or not.
Want their cake and eat it too (Score:1, Insightful)
Working at a company, getting a package, and then coming back to work there for a higher contract salary is an old-school trick that has been around for years. The plaintiff took advantage of it, and then now wants to get benefits for something they dont deserve.
I hope they lose and I hope these people never find work again in the industry.
I wish people would stop doing this. (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't even begin to describe how many times I have to sign in contracts that I realize I am not an employee of my customer.
I Am being paid a significant premium for the instability of contracting, almost 50%. To think that I could go back over the years and figure out cases where I might have made more money being an in-house employee and then suing just those, is simply ridiculous.
To try to convince my customers I will never EVER have basis to sue them, I do the following:
1) I sign contracts explicitly stating (several times) that I realize I am not and never will become an employee regardless of how long I work there, what I do, for the manner in which I do it.
2) I sign away any right to collect any significant damages if I where to sue anyways.
3) I sub-contract through a recruiting agency, where I sign another set of contracts saying the same thing but to indemnify the recruiting company.
4) I have my Own 1 man C-Corporation who signs the contracting agreement. I myself am not even doing work (technically) for the customer.
5) My Corporation, uses ADP Payroll services to pay it's employees (my) who are all Salaried and their pay not dependant on what company I might do the work for. I myself am a salaried W2 employee of my own C-corp.
Even with all these precautions, I STILL have trouble allaying the fears of potential customers that I can possibly be mistakes to be an employee of my customer.
Lawsuits like this make my life hell and cost me the money of potential customers who are afraid of them.
Re:About freaking time! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why contractors generally get payed significantly more than employees, because they have to buy things the employees get `for free' (including some level of job security).
If Compaq/HP contractors weren't getting payed sufficiantly more than employees to cover this kind of thing then they should have walked away from the job en-mass. At that point either HP finds they didn't need the contractors anyway, they increase the money or they start hireing lots more employees.
Re:contracting at Apple (Score:1, Insightful)
You're lucky they didn't reconsider the wisdom of their new hire, but maybe they appreciated you anal-retentiveness.
Re:This makes it harder for the (Score:4, Insightful)
They get worked long term in order to avoid giving said benefits, and a small, SMALL minority will ever get changed to full time.
If you were in the situation, you'd know how bad it is. This isn't a cut and dried "you're contractor, so you abide by the contract", it's more, "the majority of our workforce is temp so we can treat them like crap and get away with it".
Of course the contracting companies play along and take their cut too. The whole thing, legal or not, deserves that someone get strung up.
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:4, Insightful)
No shit...hell, after those contractors sued MS years back...its been bad enough trying to get companies to hire you as a 1099 contractor...
This is going to do nothing but make it even harder....I find it is damned near impossible to get anyone to do a straight 1009 to an individual. You can get around it by incorporating yourself, and doing it corp to corp...
Anyway, this sucks...if they wanted to be direct employees...do that. But, don't go in as a contractor, show your ass, sue...and f*ck it up for the rest of us that enjoy the $$'s, and freedom of contracting...
asshats....
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:3, Insightful)
they're abusing perma-temps by not giving them full benefits and protections.
Re:I never understood.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I never understood.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Where the slime is (Score:5, Insightful)
There are legitimate reasons to use contractors. Like when you temporarily need a few extra people at crunch time. Or there's a specialized task that it makes sense to outsource.
But a lot of contractors are doing jobs that are really part of the permanent organizational structure, often working side by side with permanent employees who do the same work. Technically, they're temporary people who work for themselves or for a "job shop". But their contracts are often extended for years, and the person who supervises them and decides they ongoing future works for the company, not the job shop.
I've never quite understood why companies "hire" so many non-employees. My best guess is that inept managers can't figure out how to justify the head count they need to get the job done, but somehow manage to get "temporary" funding for contractors.
Being that kind of long-term contractor can be maddening. There may be campus facilities, like a gym, that you're not allowed to use. There will certainly be bennies -- matched 401Ks, stock options, tuition reimbursements -- that you won't be eligible for. And then there are the intangibles...
I once worked for a year as a contractor helping clean up a doc set. (The guy who replaced me in this "temporary" job is still there -- 6 years later!) My work helped earn my writing team an award for "improved documentation." Some of the improvements cited were done at my initiative. But because I was a contractor, I wasn't even invited to the ceremony.
A lawyer who helps defend people against this kind of abuse is not "slimy". He's simply helping people defend their rights.
Re:They're right, this has no merit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About freaking time! (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, in regard to that pay, does it matter how it's paid? I can either pay you 50k a year plus benefits, for arguments sake lets say those benefits total 10k; or I can pay you 60k a year straight, which generally is why contract employees get paid more. In either case, in a "BAD" market, total compensation will generally decrese.
As for HP abusing the situation, I suppose you are referring to them generally decreasing pay because of the "BAD" employment market. I wonder though, when there is a "GOOD" employment market (which is really "BAD" for employers, while your "BAD" employment market is "GOOD" for employers) do you consider yourself to have "abused the situation" by taking higher wages? Not a personal attack, but most people only look at this thing one way. When the market is in favor of employers, they are "abusing the situation", when the market is in favor of employees, suddenly everyone becomes a libertarian/capitalist.
Re:About freaking time! (Score:4, Insightful)
I turned down a pretty respectable full time job where I'm working because I'm making substantially more as a contractor. I've been a contractor for over 2 years at the same place. I don't get any benefits through my employer. However, when I was expected to work 60-80 hours a week for well over a year, I got paid for all of those hours. Many companies hire full time employees to make them work 50-80 hours a week after negotiating a 40 hour/week salary. Now I work 40 hours a week and can take days off to even out the long days just to ensure the budget isn't blown like last year.
Contractor vs full time is a choice you have to make for yourself. They both have their good and bad sides, you just have to know what's important to you and play the system.
This just in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Who's suing whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
First, let me say that I have been an HP supporter for many years, but my support has waned through the Carly years.
I subscribe to the point of view that HP likely has violated the law and is simply using these contractors as a way to avoid having regular employees on the rolls. It may or may not be less expensive to have contractors rather than employees doing the work. It most certainly is more flexible since contractors can be let go for no reason at all and with little recourse or potential fallout. It does keep headcount low which is a favorite with financial types.
I suspect many of these contractors took the contract many months or years ago with little expectation that it would continue this long. They've likley received no pay raises in that time and are feeling a bit mistreated. I'm an independent contractor and I understand their feelings. Where else in Boise does an IT contractor find work?
My main concern here is why isn't the DOJ or DOL prosecuting this suit? Seems to me questions of employee vs. contractor are settled via federal law and the feds ought to be pursuing alleged abuses, not the individual contractors.
Re:Will this hurt Gulfstream? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11542
Re:I never understood.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but these "large corporations" of which you speak are competitors. They're not in collusion with each other (for the most part), because the ones competeing over the same workers usually provide the same services and/or products and would like to see each other fail for that reason.
There's not some grand conspiracy on the part of corporate America to keep traditional W2 jobs from existing. There are simply many valid reason from a financial standpoint to contract employment when possible. If you want to start pointing fingers over companies contracting instead of hiring, point them at the US tax code and employment laws. The US gov't set the rules of the game. These large corporations are just playing the game to their maximum advantage.
Re:Is it any surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what's the problem? You negotiate your bill rate to allow you to pay your own insurance. Go to www.realrates.com. For example...Oracle DBA's and programmers...MAKING %55-$125.hr. If you can't pay your own insurance out of that kind of money...you've got serious budgeting problems...
Crybabies my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
So I tell you what
So people try to organize labor unions, like at Wal-Mart, or they try to get full time jobs, like at H-P, in order to get that health care. And guess what? Wal-Mart closes stores rather than deal with unions. H-P hires contractors to do the same work so they can avoid having to pay for health care.
You know, life sucks, but it doesn't have to suck that bad. That's why I applaud lawsuits like this, and consider those lawyers top grade on the morals scale, or at least they have better morals than the politicians and their corporate rulers who don't miss a chance to stick it to people who work for a living.
Re:I never understood.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you've seen the contract and it says that Loser X will work N hours for $P pay? And Loser X worked N hours for $P pay? If thats true, then the suit really is baseless. But take a look at the behavior of the electronics industry with respect to its contractors recently: We have EA, for example, who worked people for 60-80+ hours a week, which was by contract (expected overtime), then at the end of the project said, "Yeah, I know we usually let you comp all that overtime after a project is done, but I think we'll just take our overtime back this time and not give you any time off or any extra pay, and assign you to new projects". Hardly "fair" "legal" or "by the contract" by any stretch of the imagination.
So the way I see it, there MIGHT be merit to the case. They could be working these contract workers overtime with no overtime pay or comp time, they could be assigning them jobs above and beyond their contractual role, if they're hourly they could be forcing them to "touch up" their time sheets, or any number of other abusive things. They may have been told the positions were contract-to-hire. Work for us 3 months and we'll hire you as soon as possible (4 years ago). The subcontractor may have misrepresented themselves as HP, rather than as a subcontractor. They may have gone for years unwilling to rock the boat thanks to the shitty economy.
Or it might just be a bunch of whiny brats who decided they wanted to be FTE's after all. They got themselves a fancy lawyer and figured that what they couldn't get from the HR department they'd take from the company's hide.
Either way, we'll see the truth when it comes out in the courts.
Time to remove Exempt Status for Tech Workers (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually worked in a similar capacity with HP (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:4, Insightful)
But why???? Look, even full time employees have no such thing as job security anymore. So, why NOT contract? You make sure and bill out enough to cover your own insurance...
You really get no benefits such as job security, respect, loyalty in a direct position anymore. It just isn't there. If you're not getting the benefits of that...they why would you not want to contract...make the bigger bucks...get tax breaks...and make enough to pay your own insurance.
Frankly, I hate it that the IRS is trying to make it so hard to NOT be able to do this...
Re:an endless supply of people to be exploited (Score:3, Insightful)
If there are, then HP is overpaying it's employees, and it should be HP shareholders taking HP to court.
Re:About freaking time! (Score:3, Insightful)
If we got higher wage then I wouldnt complain. my guess is the Boise people started out as lower paid compaq contractors who where use to seeing people get badged, but got screwed.(like the rest of us contractors) when the merger happened.
Re:Where the slime is (Score:4, Insightful)
It's right there in the article - if they're non-employees, the company saves a bundle by not having to pay them benefits, pensions, vacation time, etc. But here's the irony - many contractors were willing to put up with this, because as contractors, they had more freedom. The problem is that these companies hire "contractors," and treat them like regular employees. Now they lose the both the freedom, AND the benefits/perks- the company effectively gets a lot more work for a lot less money.
Re:I never understood.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can look here [idahobizhelp.org] for some information on how Idaho figures out if someone is an employee or a contractor.
Company's also like to classify people as "exempt" to avoid paying overtime -- but again, it doesn't matter whether the employer calls someone exempt or not -- it all depends on whether or not someone can meet the criteria of being exempt.
If these people really meet the definition of contractors, and are just now complaining, then the hell with them. But if they are really employees, well, that's why we have labor and employment laws.
I'm pretty much a free-market type of guy, but unfortunately you just can't put an employer and an employee on equal footing as far as bargaining power is concerned -- the employee almost always needs a job more than an employer needs to hire that particular individual -- so we have labor and employment laws to keep the employers from completely screwing their employees...
Been there, on both sides. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, as for the benefits... you usually get healthcare, 401k, etc. from the consulting company you work for, not the company you are assigned to. You agreed to that when you signed the contract... And most consultants get paid overtime, while FT employees don't. (at least they did 3 years ago when I was a contractor).
Short of it is... You agreed to the contract. If you don't like it, you can quit and get a different job. End of story.
Re:They're right, this has no merit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Contractors aren't the problem here (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets go back a step... While it is true that lawsuits like these make the contracting business less-fair to contractors, I think there is a deeper injustice here in the first place.
Why doesn't it enter into the discussion that the company wants (and needs) your expertise permanently on a full-time basis, but doesn't want to pay the freight on the perks they give to permanent employees? Why is this inherent cheapness allowed to slide by as "acceptable?" The company is getting all of the benefits of a FTE without cost of benefits and accounting for taxes witheld. In olden times, we called this "Having your cake and eating it too."
Perhaps we should be cracking down on employers who are using FTContractors in place of FTEmployees to dodge their responsibilities under the tax code instead of blaming people who are simply seeking legal protection under existing law. If the law itself is the problem, lets have a discussion about the merits of changing it.
Now I understand my companies policy (Score:4, Insightful)
To those that disagree many contract companies will pay you no benefits and they are not required to disclose any of the details of what they get for your work before you are paid. For all you know is that the company could be charging 45 a hour for your work but paying you 20 a hour claiming the extra 25 a hours is for health, vacation and all that but not providing it to you.
And where I have worked contractors are treated like second class employees, they're not invited to employee functions and other team building events which I disagree with as it hurts the group as a whole making your contractors feel like insiders. Companies that promote these actions should be compelled to invite their contractors to functions. You may end up with more satisfied workers as a whole.
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to "contrant" with IBM (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason IBM used us was becasue you can get rid of contractors without offically getting rid of employees.
Looks a lot better when you say IBM has stopped contracting outside expertise for chip X production then saying Today, IBM announced it will fire 500 people.
It is all PR crap.
The level of ignorance here is astounding. (Score:5, Insightful)
How many posters have said "They signed a contract! They're contractors! Screw 'em!"? Those posters are idiots. With the notable exception of just a couple of posters, the ignorance here amazes me.
For those of you who want some idea what's real and what's hot air being blown by a bunch of no-nothing nerds who think their world-view should inform every business relationship in the country, listen up. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU'VE SIGNED A CONTRACT. IT DOES NOT MATTER (much) WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS.
You can sign a contract to work for a big corp wherein you swear a thousand times that you're not an employee and you'll never seek employee benefits and you're not entitled to them and you'll never sue. You and your new bosses can sing from the mountaintops for a month that you are not an employee. And none of that matters.
Employees are defined by law, not by some silly piece of paper drawn up by the legal department at MegaCorp. If you meet certain criteria, you are an employee. It doesn't matter if you and your bosses agree differently. It doesn't matter what the contract says. If you meet the criteria, you ARE an employee. Period. And if you ARE an employee and your employer is treating you different from other employees (by, for example, referring to you as a contractor and not giving you benefits), then you've got a reason to sue.
Those criteria are found on this form. [irs.gov] Read it and learn something and quit spouting off about stuff when (most of) you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
PS - What really amazes me is how many of you guys are posting "I'm a contractor and..." stories. Reading your posts makes it crystal clear that you often haven't a clue what the definition of "independent contractor" is. And you're making your living as one?!? The mind boggles. It really does.
4 words (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people are afraid to be contractors, because of a mythical notion called "job security." They think that if the economy suddenly collapses their company will protect them while contractors starve. These people don't get out enough.
If you do a little arithmetic you will find that the amount you get paid over an FTE employee far exceeds the dollar value of the gym, paid vacation, insurance etc. If that's not the case you are with the wrong agency. Forget the award ceremony and take yourself out to dinner every time you deposit a paycheck. By being a contractor you are beating the system. Don't let the system convince you otherwise.
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internal Revenue Services uses a list of 20 criteria to help determine a worker's status, but Kaupins said those criteria come down to three main points: Does the employer have control over where you work, what time you work and what you work with?
These employees had requirements that should not have been imposed on contractors. They had all the restrictions of salaried employees, but none of the associated benefits. And that's wrong, especially because HP pays less in taxes for each contract employee.
Re:4 words (Score:4, Insightful)
1) I get paid more to be a contractor.
2) I get fewer benefits
3) I make enough in cash to go out and buy those same benefits and still ahve more money.
4) I just don't deal with politics. When stuff hits the fan I go to my dumb guns and say "huh? I'm just a contractor."
5) I have a much more varied and interesting job variety.
6) I have just as much job security as permanent. Probably moreso because my network being a contractor is much wider and I can jump jobs at the drop of a hat.
7) I can pretty much take time off whenever I want... I just finish off a project and don't get another for a bit. This has allowed me to do outside projects, take extended vacations and even start a side company.
Contracting has been very good to me. Sure, I'm treated pretty much just like an employee at my host company, and I prefer it that way... until the politics start, then I make it very clear I don't work there.
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They're right, this has no merit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, because of a lawsuit similar to the one we're discussing right now contractors are only allowed to work for 360 days at MS. Then they have a MANDATORY 90 day break from work at MS. Of course you can always go get another job somewhere else.
Basically in my view... I feel like the contractors who have sued in the past have screwed ME.
They signed up for a contract, and they were treated like part of the team (a bonus) but didn't get other bennies like stock options and health club memberships. After being there for a while they felt like they weren't getting what they should have, most likely regret from not getting those stock options back when MS stock was splitting once every few years.
So as a result of their greed, my contracts at MS are limited. This wasn't a law by the way, it was Microsoft attempting to mitigate or eliminate future lawsuits.
So the next headline could be, HP contractors sue, screwing all future HP contractors.
This may show up as contract length limitations. This may show up as substantial decreases in contracts that were in key roles... believe it or not some people do need an enterprise level architect for a few months at a time. This mgith also end up prohibiting contractors from coming along on company activities (release party, etc.) where as before they might have been invited or perhaps their team snuck them in.
All bad things. Unless you want contractors to be inhuman workerbees. Granted, some people want that, but as an employer I wouldn't want that even from a contractor.
~foooo
How many people have that option? (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't always have a lot of choices in this world. That doesn't make it right for those that do have choices to stick it to those who don't. Those who have choices should take advantage of their skills by doing better, not by taking advantage of those who are less well endowed with brains and luck.
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing that can keep a company from hiring mostly temporary workers except for the state laws or rules governing workers. In HP's case, the employee should have known from the start whether they were temporary or permanent and under what conditions they would be terminated. (They probably did not know though!)
I started my present position as a temporary worker. I knew from the start that my position would exist only as long as funds were available. I later was hired as a permanent employee, but my job responsibilities did not change at all.
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:3, Insightful)
Contractors get paid more than FTEs. That's a fact, unless they the contractor is inept or stupid. When I contracted, I got paid more. The reason for this is that a) you're expected to bring a high level of expertise to the job, often MORE than employees and b) you're expected to make enough money to cover your own benefits.
You still report to people, that's called "a job" -- you will ALWAYS report to someone. FTEs report to their manager, Contractors report to their customer -- which may be middle management or a company president.
If you don't like it, then find work as an employee, and not a contractor.
Re:Where the slime is (Score:1, Insightful)
A) It's not just about your "negotiating skills" because nowadays the clients are setting the billing rates in a "take it or leave it" fashion. Nevermind your experience, or "job fit" qualifications. You could've INVENTED the technology they're using, and they will STILL try to jerk you around for rates.
B) Even though the "Dot-bust" has receded for the most part. People still have this mentality that there TRULY ARE that many "SKILLED" software engineers out there. Hey, here's a clue, there aren't. Just because you might've taught yourself javascript in HS doesn't exactly mean you can write maintainable code. Sure, go ahead and flame this, but tough the truth hurts.
C) Outsourcing ( according to a recent Gartner Group study ) is now just about as expensive for companies as having a similarly skilled local employee. Guess why ? Because, it was only a matter of time before the truth that most company's can't manage a project to save their life, and of course all the optimistic estimates went out the window once reality set in.
So please....don't try to convince me either way. These folks could have a case that has merit. They might not, the point is that if HP weren't the LSOS's that they are, they probably wouldn't have gotten into this situation in the first place. Of course, this is all coming out after Ms. Carly's "you don't have the right to have a job" departure. In this country, the fact is, that if you can't find a good job, there ain't no such thing as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Forget about buying your kids everything the want ( that's an excuse outsourcers like to throw at Americans, thinking that we'll be humbled ), you try paying for medical insurance today for reasonable coverage. Then we'll talk.
Long-term contractor here (Score:2, Insightful)
It's even dumber than that (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, guess what. Even if they get the IRS to reclassify them as employees, all these "employees" are entitled to is to have HP withhold their income taxes for them. That is the purpose of the guidelines. To determine HP's tax liability. For more information, please see IRS Form SS-8: Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding [irs.gov]. In it, you will find the infamous "20 questions" for determining whether or not your contractor is really a contractor for income tax purposes.
The IRS couldn't give two shits if you give your employees benefits or not as long as you withhold their income taxes.
Re:How many people have that option? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's a choice between that and forcing your average
Our culture only operates if it has a disenfranchized underclass. Try to raise that bar, and you doom your own children to living in squalor alongside them. People are ultimately too smart to be that altruistic, and too dumb to listen to real solutions until it's nearly too late (like poor Bucky Fuller).
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason we put up with what companies dictate (in terms of pay and benefits) is generally because we don't have the muscle to push companies while they can push us (this is the original reason unions came into existance). But let's face it, we need each other (companies need people to work for them, and people need to work for companies). But when one side seeks to change the relationship to maximize their profit, why are we all surprised when the other side tries to push back. Some of you think the position of the contractors in this case is unethical. But can you tell me that corporations are always ethical when money is involved? If you say yes, I call bullshit. Everyone, people and corporations alike are all as ethical as they have to be when money is involved (or not as ethical as they can get away with).
Anyway, I say let them get as much as they can out of HP. Same goes for anyone else in that position. At least until some long term loyalty to employees is shown again.
Re:More reasons for Outsourcing (Score:2, Insightful)
I doubt it is that cut-and-dry. Which was the chicken and which was the egg could be a PhD thesis. The companies wouldn't be as bad if the shareholders weren't suing them, and if the market wasn't so flighty. They could be more generous if competition wasn't as brutal (to attract a consumer market that demands the lowest price at the cost of EVERYTHING else.)
It's supposed to be symbiosis
Yeah. It's the prisoner's dilemma again. If we worked together, we'd all be better off. Because we're all trying to screw each other for our own benefit, we all lose. Those with ethics often end up worst off. Ain't it fun?
Some of you think the position of the contractors in this case is unethical. But can you tell me that corporations are always ethical when money is involved?
Hell no. But Slashdot spends a lot of time pointing out every instance they can find of unethical corporations, so I think we've got that covered. Also, I don't see companies trying to retroactively classify employees as exempt and demanding their overtime pay back. They don't suddenly tell you you've been contract labor for the last two years, and you owe them for your benefits. They try real hard to write the contracts in their favor, but then they usually live up to their side of the contract. There are plenty of times that companies do evil things, but in this case it looks (from my very limitted viewpoint) like the employees are in the wrong, even if they are more correct legally.
I am a classrep on this law suit (Score:2, Insightful)
I am a class rep on this lawsuit (Score:2, Insightful)
1.) It is not really a choice to be a contractor or not in boise. Hp makes the economy go round here so they get away with whatever they want. They hire "contractors" to do the job not perm employees. To get in as an HP employee takes an act of congress most of the time. I am not a contractor by choice and neither are most of my associates
2.)I did not sign any contract and I do not get an i99 form. I do not have more freedom than a regular employee as a matter of fact it is the other way around.
3.)I do not get paid more money than a regular employee. There have been a lot of layoffs and plant shutdowns in the last few years and that makes the job market very difficult. Because of that the "company" I work for and HP know they can treat us how ever they want.
4.) Contract workers in my area have no uniouns, rights, and Idaho have almost no labor laws except what they have to adopt from the federal goverment. Do you start to see the picture I am painting?
5.) We are not temp workers, we were not hired for a special project. I work in the research and developement department at HP. I have been there for years and at the site for years. I work next to HP people doing the same job in the same building but get nothing.
6.) They tell you when you get hired that you are going to get a,b,c and d. Then they take away b, c, and d and a being your wages get cut. As a contractor there is no negotiation on this.
7.) I don't get raises because HP says there is a wage freeze. I don't get promoted because there is a position freeze. If I am contracted then how does HP get to command what I make, what my hours are, what I work on, how I do my job. Does this sound like a contracted worker to you? I live in a town that if you are an average joe trying to support your family and live your life this is your option. It is not right and it needs to change. HP and the "company" I work for are taking advantage of a bad economy and a right to work state.
We know that are negative outcomes to this but it has gotten so bad that when is enough enough. I am one of you another daddy, husband, techy trying to make it in the world. When do we as workers get to stand up and say enough is enough. If you disagree fine but but it with a generic informed view of the situation. Thank you for all the support to those who have given it.
Re:Not accurate... (Score:2, Insightful)
1.) They have to report when they have a major layoff of regular employees but "contracted" they are obligated to do nothing. Then they do not have to watch their stock drop.
2.) They can as HP did last quarter lay off as many contactors as they want to show larger profit on the 4th quarter. Since they do not have to tell anyone it all appears to be profit and makes the stock go up.
I watched a lot of good men and women loose their jobs last quarter. Some of them have been working in my department for 6 years plus. There was no notice, no severance, no thank you for your hard work. Just turn your badge in at the security desk and goodbye. This breaks my heart. These are hard working Americans who are trying to do their best, help make a company strive and then boom gone. If we signed contracts and negotiated our wages then maybe this would not be as bad but in the environment of Boise you work for HP and it is just another company that signs your checks (after taking a very large chunk).
Re:20-year contractor speaks, so LISTEN, DAMMIT! (Score:4, Insightful)