Temp Troops of High-Tech

A submitter sends in this story about temp work in Silicon Valley, from the point of view of the temp. Compare almost the same story written from the point of view of Amazon.com's management.

Comments

Another side

[smaughster]

The most scary thing about reading such articles is that I always have a feeling that it will end up being fiction, having a happy ending, yet finding out that these things really happen, even in civilised countries.

high tech also means low tech

[Reinout]

There is mention in the beginning of the article about it being strange to have so much non-hightech work in such a hightech-area. That's not so strange if you think about it. The whole ecommerce thing is about selling stuff. The stuff that gets sold normally can't be send over the internet, so you need FedEx, the postal service, etc. What they're missing out on letters that get send, they're gaining in packages...

And the high-tech (?) printers and so also in the end need packaging, sending, assembling. You can automate some parts, but...

When you read a story like this, it just keeps reminding me of early 20th century conditions that made socialists movements all too understandable... Some people just don't seem to care. Or not to be allowed to care by some system...

Reinout

Re:high tech also means low tech

[spencerogden]

But what is it about ecommerce which means your plant has to be near your headquarters? Assuming your headquarters are in Silicon Valley why would you put a production plant in an area where real estate and labor costs were so high? It seems it is because of the location that both workers and managers have to go to extremes.

The world economy.

[Sobrique]

The world economy has always been built upon the backs of a 'disposable' workforce.
Let's face it, paying minimum wage to people is cheaper than automating a production line (and of course, they can argue that they are providing valuable jobs).
It's heavy handed and unethical (IHMO) but companies (with a _few_ limited exceptions) are only interested in the bottom line.
I've done the temping thing for a while, and there was certainly variety (like I'd be in a different job every week), but you are also treated as little more than 'an extra body'. They can get another one easily enough, so they can get you to work, trample on you, and if you go replace you in a day.
(Much happier now I'm working full time doing 'skilled' rather than manual labour. Least this way I get a month's notice before being told to walk)

Re:The world economy.

[mip]

Capitalist economies require a pool of unemployed workers to allow for continued growth. Full employment is bad news for such a system. Read this page for further details.

On unemployment it says that it is a necessary condition for a capitalist system, as long as it doesn't get too high - it is upto the individual to find employment and change their status. Capitalism is economic individualism.

Should society look after the people or should the people look after themselves? I think, as in all things, balance is required.

Re:The world economy.

[hawk]

That's overstated. Think of the alternative: zero unemployment means that noone is training for better jobs between jobs. No social mobility. You can't change employment. It all comes down to *why* people are unemployed.

hawk

Re:The world economy.

[sql*kitten]

Let's face it, paying minimum wage to people is cheaper than automating a production line (and of course, they can argue that they are providing valuable jobs).

There are plenty of people who believe capitalism can do no right, to wit:

• They're automating the factories, driving workers out of their jobs!
  
• They're employing workers to do menial repetitive tasks better left to machines!
  

The fact is, even in the developed world, there are lots of jobs that don't require anything more than repetition. Another fact is, the most you can earn is the economic value you produce, minus the cost of doing business. Third, the seller sets the price no more or no less than the buyer - for a transaction to take place, there must be mutual agreement.

I've done the temping thing for a while, and there was certainly variety (like I'd be in a different job every week), but you are also treated as little more than 'an extra body'

Well, that's what you are, an extra pair of hands to do the work. You show up, you do the job, you get paid, you go home. A lot of work is necessary, but very simple, and varies in demand - look at the Amazon story about seasonal rush. The alternative is to have very slow service during peak times, and/or high prices during the slow season, to support an idle workforce.

It's heavy handed and unethical (IHMO) but companies (with a _few_ limited exceptions) are only interested in the bottom line.


The market - the customers, you and I - have indicated by our behavior as market participants, that we want good prices and fast service. The only way to do this is with a flexible workforce.

Another point made in the article was that many temps come from countries where there is no economy to speak of. Many Westerners are spoilt; a bad job and a little money is much, much better than no job and no money.

Re:The world economy.

[benedict]

That's true. For low-skill work, the power
balance is generally in employers' favor.

It's been interesting to watch the balance tip
back towards employers in high-tech fields in the
last few months. It's still pretty good for
workers, but not as good as it was just a year and
a half ago.

As bad as that is...

[f00zbll]

I've heard horror stories from friends. One in particular has to do with foriegn programmers who are brought in with work visas. The hiring company holds both the visa and their passport. The programmers are threaten that if they don't work 12hrs a day, they'll be sent back. Typically, the programmers are paid 1/4-1/2 the wages of a citizen. High tech is not immuned to slave labor practices and mentality. The whole idea of staying with a company for 50-60 years doesn't exist anymore. Although some companies use it as a selling point in their recruiting, most companies have a policy that dedicate the opposite. Now more than ever, intelligence is necessary for steady employment.

Re:As bad as that is...

[sql*kitten]

One in particular has to do with foriegn programmers who are brought in with work visas. The hiring company holds both the visa and their passport. The programmers are threaten that if they don't work 12hrs a day, they'll be sent back. Typically, the programmers are paid 1/4-1/2 the wages of a citizen.

Yeah, I've heard these stories too, and they're mostly from foreigners-are-stealing-our-jobs and unionize-programming types. For a start, it's illegal to pay an H1B holder much less than an American doing the same job (either 90% or 75%, I can't remember offhand). H1B visas are bound to a company, true, but it is possible to transfer a visa between companies, and L1 visas require that you've worked for the company overseas for at least a year, unlikely if they treat their people badly. Finally, I don't believe that passports could be held. I've lived and worked in the US (I'm British) and frequently needed to present ID (for example, going into a bar, getting on a plane, etc) and I can tell you, you can't do much in the US without some form of ID, most Americans use their driving licences, and if you don't have one, you need your passport.

A picture of everyday business in America

[buckeyeguy]

I worked a few awful temp jobs shortly after getting out of college (back when 'entry level' stuff didn't exist in IT), so I can sympathize with the narrator of the Silicon Valley story.

But at the same time, this story happens in thousands of businesses around the country, every day of the year. The pay is low, the work is tedious, and the management oppressive and degrading. Where I work now, the fulfillment center is the major part of our company... supply-chain services, as it is being touted nowadays. It's the 'new economy' that was made so much around the start of 2000... but it's still the same old labor-intensive machine. So, IMHO, there's really little news to see here, for those of us who have worked outside the cubicle.

And temp agencies? Don't even get me started...

Temping.

[saintlupus]

Speaking as a former "contract employee" for the good people of Verizon, it's a lot like being the world's most low-class whore. You get passed around from job to job like a dirty sock, and eventually booted out onto the street with a keyboard print on your forehead from spending so long bent over your desk.

On the up side, at least I'm not bitter.

--saint

Is government really obsolete?

[Denito]

One of the most common sentiments on slashdot is how backwards governments are and how technology makes them obsolete.

But you see something like this-- maybe things like workplace safety standards are still important...
With all the libertarian sentiment here on /., its easy to forget the role that wired or not, there might still be an important role for gov...

No Respect

[Hates]

Reading an article like this does nothing but make me feel quite weak and ill. Thinking that people in a country like the USA are treated like nothing more then a pair of hands really really bothers me.

I read sooo many articles written by these company CEO's or whatever, telling the reader how they are now customer focused and how great they are doing, but the honest truth is they treat their employees as if they aren't human.

Companies need to learn that it's their work force that makes them what they are. I'm sure they believe they are being effictive by getting rid of "bad" workers who complain and want better standards, but have they ever really just taken a step back and wondered how much BETTER production would be if they were to treat their workers with respect and give them the security they need and desire?!?

compare the two? your kidding right?

[bdavenport]

so in the first, we have a full on temp agency with no company employees working on site, workers are being manipulated, silenced and fired...essentially sounds like a terrible work environment.

in the second (amazon), you have 7.5% of the work force as temp workers, with no mention of abuse, forced silence, etc.

and you want us to draw a comparision from the 1st to the 2nd?

flame all you want, but what is it with /.ers and amazon? i am not holding amazon out as mother teresa of corporations, but having 3700 full time employees out of 4000 - that says to me that amazon at least gets it a little. sure, during xmas amazon is trying to squeeze every ounce of work out of its employees, but no where in that article does it mention abuse.

what an unfair comparion...you ire should be directed at HP if you ask me.

Re:That's Life

[fmaxwell]

Not everybody can both live where they want to live and have the ideal job. If there aren't any decent jobs available in your area... news flash... you may have to move.

That's right! To hell with your family that lives in the area. If you mother's cancer kills her while you're 2,000 miles away, so what? You'll be living where the good jobs are.

You need a clue. Some people have family ties, kids that they don't want to yank out of school and away from their friends, and other circumstances that make becoming a nomad to chase jobs around the country impossible.

That's just the way it is. Reality bites...

So no one should have a social conscience or work to improve the realities of life? Maybe Jonas Salk should have just said "People get polio. Reality bites" and then moved on...

Been There

[ScumBiker]

Having been a temp worker in Florida, back in the early '80s, I can really sympathize with the article. It totally sucks not knowing if you can even pay the rent, much less eat. I was working at a pc board plant. Something like 80% of the workers were temp. Everybody was scared of getting shitcanned. The pay was terrible and the managers/supervisors constantly screamed and threatened people. Lovely environment, in other words. Thank managed to pull myself out of that morass and moved forward.

All I can say to people that are trying to live on temp work is, get to school! Somehow, anyhow. I don't care if it's tech school for one semester. Even that little bit of knowledge can help. Also, learn English. Learn how to speak it so that even slow midwestern people like me can understand you. I know it's challenging to the extreme, but my ancestors came here and had to do the same thing. BTW, I'm *not* trying to flame or be prejudiced here, I'm simply trying to state facts. Please read and judge accordingly.

Re:Been There

[markmoss]

If your english is not so good, then someone 'fluent' in it is going to assume you are not as clever.

No, but if I cannot understand what you are saying, on most jobs it doesn't matter if you are clever. I cannot tell if you understood the instructions, you'll have trouble telling me about problems that arise, and how are you going to communicate with fellow employees or the public? For office jobs (most of the good jobs), communication is critical. For sales and other public-contact jobs, many large American companies do hire people whose English is unintelligible to me, but there is considerable risk of losing customers who get asked "do you want flies with that", or note that United Airline's employees in Korea speak much better English than their employees in San Francisco.

For lousy jobs, speaking English matters less, but there are not so many of those jobs as there used to be. When my Dad ran a cherry farm, the best pickers tended to be migrant families with very little English -- just hand them the buckets and ladder and point to their row of trees. But this job has been done by machine for 30 years now. Or if I was hiring a ditchdigger, I could pick up the shovel and _show_ you what to do. But I can rent a trenching machine that does the work of several men for less than hiring one, so that job is pretty much gone, unless you can demonstrate that you can run the machine or work together with the machine operator. (And if the whole crew speaks Spanish, that's fine as long as one man speaks English too. Since he's the one I can explain the job to, he'll be the foreman and paid more...)

First impression

[inerte]

Editor asked to compare. I read and saw:

Raj talks about people. He cites a lot of names, feelings, relationships. It's constructed around what people are feeling about a situation, the actions that they are seeing and their reactions;

And Amazon's Management talks about numbers. It quotes lots of statistics, managers, and 'market condition'. It's constructed around what people are analysing about a situation, the actions that they are taking and the reactions.

It's classical from a literature perspective. And IMHO, I prefer much more Raj's point of view.

But maybe I am a misplaced human on a capitalist society ;-)

Re:First impression

[jht]

You're spot-on, but there's a catch:

Raj knows his co-worker/fellow temps. He forms relationships with them. But there's only a small group (relatively) that he works with. He doesn't know most of the other temps, nor does he know the workers on the other shifts, nor most of the full-timers, or anyone at their other facilities.

He might know _of_ them, but to Raj they aren't part of his world. If something happens to them, it won't really register on his radar screen because he no personal connection with them. This is important - it's part of why the management at HP (or Amazon) can easily deal with cutting workers to boost profits. These workers aren't part of their world. They're just statistics on a P&L sheet. They don't have a direct relationship with the people their fates depend on.

Is this necessarily bad? I'm not sure. I think depersonalization is a necessary evil to go with growth - people only have room for x amount of connections in their own "personal network". managers can only handle a certain number of direct reports on average before things become inefficient (not enough time to maintain the connections or devote enough attention to each person). That's where middle management, sub-groups, and smaller organizational units come into play - to preserve as much of that as possible.

The largest company I've worked for (where I am now) employs 152 people directly. But for the last two years we've also been a part of a much larger "virtual" organization (through a pool with several other insurance companies of equivalent or larger size). Once we leave the cozy confines of my 152-person location, a lot of these issues come into play - decisions have been made that affected people that probably would have been made differently in a smaller company.

That's not all bad here, though. We've formed a lot of official and quasi-official working groups within the combined organization that are as small as possible - the objective being to try whenever feasible to keep decisions from happening in a vacuum and to preserve the personal aspect of working together as much as one can. Has it been perfect? Of course not. But it hasn't been too bad either, thankfully.

In the end, people need to be aware that they are ultimately responsible for their own fates. Raj can go work elsewhere, or go to another part of the country, or learn a skill that will allow him to escape the permatemping world. Or he can settle for what he has now. Some of his co-workers, sadly, will never do better - perhaps a few of them are handling the most they are capable of. As another poster to this thread said when quoting Judge Smails (the reference was from Caddyshack, BTW), "The world needs ditch-diggers, too". But most can eventually go as far as their skills will take them, provided they make sure that the skills they have are always needed enough to ensure relatively high-paying work.

Being a human and a capitalist aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. But the bigger the organization, the tougher it is. People also get torn between their connections to others and their own fates - it's tough for the manager of a temporary workforce to form any lasting attachment to their workers when your own job may depend on being able to dicipline and/or terminate workers on the instructions of the people your own job depends on.

If you're the person in those shoes, and you feel uncomfortable with it, then I'd definitely say you're human.

Re:compare the two? your kidding right?

[Sobrique]

Ummm. No, that's not what it says:
Amazon's warehouses employed only 4,000 temps and 3,700 full-time employees
So by my book that's 52%
In 2000 that number looks more like 62%...

NO LOGO

[why-is-it]

The tactics described in this article here are very similar to the ones the large brands use on contract workers in the export zones in SE Asia. Naomi Klein describes it at length in her book NO LOGO.

Strange that these same management techniques which work so well on the poor and uneducated overseas are now being used domestically.

Re:Overworked, underpaid, essential... Uh. No.

[Tim C]

Overworked? Impossible - he's paid hourly.


So by that logic, it would be okay to fire a person if they couldn't keep up with a 20-hour working day?

You're confusing overworked with underpaid. "Overworked" means "having more work than you can be reasonably expected to complete in the time available". It has nothing to do with how much you're paid, or whether you're paid hourly or not.

Cheers,

Tim

The alternative

[slow_flight]

Ok, so it looks like the consensus here is that these poor folks are being used and abused, and Big Business just doesn't care.

What's the alternative? Pay them $20 and hour and let them come and go as they please, or stop the line whenever they want to chat about their weekend? How willing are you to pay $500 for a printer that currently costs $125?

If this story was about HP automating the box line and putting some number of temp workers out on the street, or moving the work to Mexico where the labor costs are even lower, would that be better?

Temp work exists for a reason. I have done temp work myself. My view of it was work I could get at the drop of a hat, and quit the same way. If you need to work for 3 weeks, are you going to take a job somewhere knowing full well you're only going to be there 3 weeks? Yes, there are perma-temps, and there are inarguably strong financial incentives on the part of the company to staff in that manner, but the cold, hard reality is that this is the kind of migrant labor these workers chose. Granted, they probably didn't have a whole lot of options to choose from, but it's not like some recruiter painted a rosy picture of temp-Nirvana to these people. They made a fully-informed decision to accept the work, and given the angst shown over being laid-off, seemed to appreciate that they had work at all.

Re:The alternative

[SubtleNuance]

What's the alternative? Pay them $20 and hour and let them come and go as they please, or stop the line whenever they want to chat about their weekend? How willing are you to pay $500 for a printer that currently costs $125?

I knew it was only a matter of time until this albatross argument arrived. You are flatly out to lunch.

According to this articleMrs.Fiorina made $69.4 Million Dollars last year, further, according to this blurb at hp.com in 2000 hp had 88,000 employees.

So, 6,9400,000 / 88,000 == $788.63. Our kind friends in the article, working for HP's bottom line, "pull in around $1000" per month.

For all the "wealth" created by HP, a single person, the CEO earns 75% of a month salary for EVERY EMPLOYEE* .

What is it that Carly Fiorina does that affords her such phenomenal wealth and security? Why is she afforded the kind of kingly existence of comfort and un-imaginable security while those who MAKE THE WEALTH are forced to earn a pittance with zero security. Remember, it is not only the low wages that people have to contend with but the risk of being instantly unemployed without provocation.

I cannot fully explain the rage I feel at this situation, it exists all around us (and the world) -- this is the reality of Capitalism -- left unchanged it is guaranteed to get worse.

The world is in an uncomfortable place at the moment, out of control and heading in the absolutely wrong direction.. and most people of conscience recognize change is necessary. Sweeping, fundamental changes to the economic systems we employ.

Without a democratic solution to economic problems, (economically) powerless people will eventually revolt. It is not a debate of *if* but when, history has proven this -- and we are destined to allow it to repeat. Sad, very very sad.

Interesting Reading: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

So, explain now, what does paying equitable salary have to do with the choice you mentioned? It is simply a non-issue.

*i recognize that temps are not included in the 88k number, and therefore would be a smaller portion of Mrs.Fiorina's salary... but it really has no bearing on the concept.

Also, im not surprised at the complete lack of understanding of the reality of this situation displayed in this forum. People have been so overwhelmed by the rhetoric and dogma of Capitalism, Freedom and America that they are absolutely blind to the massive problems with the present system -- and our ability to build a better alternative for everyone.

Re:The alternative

[crucini]

In a few decades, when nanotech and AI mature, a new social contract will have to be drawn up to account for an economy of abundance...

You are quite optimistic. People whose profits are based on scarcity will not welcome abundance. If we draw a lesson from the RIAA/MPAA/Napster situation, the technologies you mention will be killed in their infancy, or shackled with restrictions to avoid competing with any existing industry. Worse, I think that nanotech and AI will be the basis of the most airtight tyranny the world has ever seen. AI solves the problem behind 1984 - who watches all the telescreens?

When the internet was gaining momentum, many people believed that the existing powers would foolishly stand by while the net made them irrelevant. The last few years have shown how wrong that view was. Having noticed the internet and the threat it represents, the establishment has reacted with a massive counterattack, including the DMCA and perhaps SSSCA. (And I think asymmetrical and capped broadband are part of that counterattack).

It's possible that the time has passed when technological change could change society. The entrenched powers are too aware of the process of technological development, and too heavily involved in controlling that development, to allow themselves to be unhorsed by a new threat. They will see the new threats on the horizon before the ordinary people do.

Workers already have the power!

[anomaly]

Low wage jobs can be unpleasant. The managers there frequently have no training in how to work with people. Production oriented jobs like the one described in the article are often focused on keeping the line moving.

And yet, these people choose to work there for $8 an hour. This is their choice. They also opt to live in one of the most expensive places in the world. This too is a choice.

Before you pound on me for being heartless, it may be important to note that I have passed through that place, as well. I come from a poor family in an economically depressed area.

I have worked as a laborer doing back-breaking work by the sweat of my brow. I have also worked in mall jobs that were production oriented. "No talking! You're here to work, not have fun!" I have worked in food service as a busboy and waiter for long hours and late nights.

It was my experience in those places that motivated me to get my education. Without those jobs, I would not have chosen to finish school.

People can go to school, even while working a low-wage job. I did it, my parents did it in their 40's, and YOU can do it, too.

If it's too expensive where you live, MOVE to somewhere cheaper. Don't want to move? Be creative, find a way to make it work. Don't want to do that? Then accept the fact that you will work that kind of job for the rest of your days.

The future is in your hands. Repeat after me: "If it's to be, it's up to me. If it's to be, it's up to me. If it's to be....."

Re:Workers already have the power!

[anomaly]

With all due respect, I'm no superman, and you wouldn't have to be superman to do it either.

I went to school with some brilliant people, but I also went to school with some folks who weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, either.

For example, my senior year I was in an all-out run for head of one class against a man who was a laid-off coal miner.

Nice guy, but on his best day, he had an average IQ. On his BEST day. One thing this guy had was a work ethic. He put in more hours than could be counted to make up for his lack of mental capacity, and it paid off in spades! This guy was the top of his classes because of the sweat equity.

If Carl could succeed in school, anyone could. He was a hard worker with a family. Certainly he and his family made huge sacrifices to get him through college, but that was his choice, too.

I've heard that Henry Ford said something to the effect of "If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right."

Let's inspire people to achieve rather than focus on limitations. Let's help people choose to make a better way for themselves rather than stay stuck in the mire.

Re:Workers already have the power!

[DohDamit]

Buddy, we've lived the same life. Same path through the shithole jobs, same type of jobs even.

But.

You had the hope that you could escape. So did I. That's why I went to school, that's why I'm doing well now. I know too many people who don't have that hope. I have no idea how I had it....but I did.

There is an alternative to this situation. Oddly, it struck me when I was working one of these shit jobs. On one occasion, we had six people working a shift at the fastfood place. Five managers, and me. Man, we fucking flew. Work was easy, no one was stressed, and it actually didn't suck. Next shift, next day, thirteen people, one of em a manager. Nothing was going anywhere, chaos ruled, and life sucked. I know damn well the managers were earning about 50% more than the employees. The idea that I drew from this was as follows: open up a fastfood joint, hire 50% of the people, pay at management rates. Advertise this fact to the MANAGERS at the other shops. They could earn their pay and have LESS responsibility? I asked my managers then if they would jump. To the man(and woman) they all said yes.

Respect for your employees empowers them, especially if they have nothing else going for them. Thus, I put the onus on the employer to show respect for the individual.

Everyone has to work. Not everyone has to work for an asshole.

Re:Workers already have the power!

[haruharaharu]

This reminds me of a woman I have heard of; she has an IQ of around 75 and a PHD. People ask her how she could possible do that with such a low IQ. "It just takes longer."

There's always a trade-off...

[adubey]

On one hand, having a sucky job is not so good... on the other hand, as one of the temps points out, you can't have better conditions without unions. One of the sad facts of life is there is a positive correlation between union membership and higher unemployment.

Unfortunately, there's a trade-off between good working conditions and having work at all. In Europe, the population chose to have better working conditions, by voting for left-of-center governments. In the US, the population chose to decrease the power of unions and have more jobs, by continually voting for right-of-center governments.

Re:I don't get it.

[FileNotFound]

"leader of the free world"

You're just as free to horribly fail in life as you are to be wildly sucessful in it.

Thats what freedom is. Nobody will be there to help you up if you fall on your face. You're free to bang your head on the wall for the rest of your life. Your free to work your ass of to find a better wall. But you don't have to. I don't have to help you find a better wall. Nobody does.

One way to make the most of a bad situation

[twocents]

There is one benefit to working temp jobs that I would suggest anyone take full advantage of - read the internal postings.

I temped in Chicago for one year during the tech boom period, and had no trouble interviewing for system support and programming work, and eventually landed one. The cool thing about this method was that I would just jot the info down while in the break room and call the next day.

While employers are looking for education / experience, they are also very well aware that some guru with ten years of background might not contribute that much more than "the temp fellow that has a decent resume, everyone seems to like, and seems to know how to brew coffee instead of leaving it for the next person to do." Or at least that is the angle I would take if I was not the guru. I just always thought of the temp work as rent payers and a good way to scope out companies I might like to work for.

I wonder if temping at an HP corporate office would have yielded a different tale?

I've worked for companies like this

[buckrogers]

when I first dropped out of college because I ran out of money to finish my degree.

I was a temp worker, and was only given part time work so that they didn't have to pay me any benifits. I had to work 3 part time jobs and was also an officer in the Army National Guard in order to make just enough to support my family.

A union worker decided that he would cuss me out for no reason and I told him to fuck off. He ran off and lied about the incident and got me fired, the little coward.

After working for a year in shit jobs I finally got a break laying network cabling and doing help desk and support and I never looked back. I am currently a self taught programmer and make a great salary.

But even then I got laid off my Disney after working for them for just a few months, when they began downsizing go.com.

I lost my job while the executives got paid about $50,000,000 in bonuses and stock options. _My_ stock options. So even at a professional level you can be screwed over.

Of course I got 2 job offers in less than a week, during the height of the recession, so no big deal. But it was depressing to get laid off. And in my book being laid off without ever intending to hire you back is just fired.

The most important thing to remember is that the fuedal system was _not_ slavery. Sure, the serf had responsibilites to the lord and had to work hard, but the lord also had responsibilities back to the serf. The lord had to provide for the workers like you would your prize animals. And the church kept a strict eye on the behavior of the lords to ensure that they maintained law and order in the area.

The lord just couldn't arbitrarily throw someone off the land, because there was no replacement workers, even a lazy drunken lout was better than no lout at all. A lord that kept abusing his people would have to answer to the church and might even be excomunicated and exiled himself.

When capitalism replaced fuedalism the CEO became the fuedal lord, but the CEO no longer has any responsiblity to the workers and has to answer to nobody for their treatment of the workers. The unions formed in response to long hours of labor with little pay and the constant threat of being fired. The same reason that these people in the story have to face everyday.

I used to be against unions, because I had been brainwashed by the propaganda that unions were causing the US to be less competitive. But then I looked into the matter and found out that union shops are every bit as competitive as non union shops and that dollar for dollar they produce as many goods as non union shops. Mainly because in union shops you had long periods of employment that allow people to get good at their jobs.

The reason that companies go with lower paid inexperienced workers is because even though it is more expensive in the long run for the company, it allows the executives to make a lot more money for themselves individually, in the short run.

Ford paid his workers enough money to buy a model-T. I doubt that most of the workers in these third world countries could buy a pair of sneakers or jeans at full price. I doubt that the workers at the company in the story could have afforded to buy one of the printers that they were packing up. Sad really.

If we don't support the right for everyone to have a living wage that lets people get ahead, who will buy the things that we are making in the future. and if noone buys the things that we are making, how long do you expect to keep your job?

I think that it is time for high tech workers to form a union and protect our rights. We should also make sure that the workers in foreign subsidiaries of the companies that we work for get paid the same as we do. The the US will have someone to sell our stuff to overseas and we can reduce our huge foreign debt that we have every year.

The role of management

[syphax]

There's a variable not much discussed here- good vs. bad management.

For my work, I've spent time observing warehouses for a number of different companies. The nature of the work varied little across the facilities that I've seen, but the cultures varied dramatically- workers in some facilities hated life, and in others were fulfilled and happy (of course, I am dramatically simplifying here).

The difference? Whether management viewed and treated their employees like robots, or like experts who knew the job better than they (the management) did. In the latter case, management could and would call on floor workers to help improve business processes, making the company more efficient- and guess what, one benefit of increased efficiency is that you can pay a higher wage (and will, because you want to retain your trained workers).

I realize that this sounds like a fairy tale, but I have seen it and it's real. It's the exception rather than the rule b/c it's hard to manage with this philosophy, and requires something that few managers have- humility.

For an example of what I'm talking about, read about Paul O'Neill's days at Alcoa (Jan 13th article in the NY Times Magazine- apparently not free online). For the theory, read about W. Edwards Deming, or the book Lean Thinking.

Deplorable. We need communism NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

i can't believe someone in Silicon Valley makes an hourly wage. we should split up all wages equally. except for open source programmers, and maybe any other tech workers who are "cool". they should make more. much more.

Re: Temp jobs are not minimum wage

[penguin_dance]

At least as far as this article is concerned, the workers here were being paid well over minimum wage at $8 an hour. Yes with CA's cost of living that pay sucks, but it's the cost of living in CA. When I last checked, jobs in California didn't pay much more than they do where I live, but the cost of living was 2.5 to 3X of here.

Depending on your skills, one of the advantages of temping (of which I've done quite a bit of) is that you can LEAVE or be reassigned to another job if you hate it. Or you know you'll be out of there soon. Sometimes, I thanked my lucky stars that I didn't work somewhere permanently! At least you got to see it from the inside first! Yeah, it's work without the benefits, but also without the commitment on your part too.

I liked the variety of temping. How you're treated can depend on the atmosphere of the company, but it depends on your attitude too. I was amazed at the number of employers that would put up with sloppy work or chronically late (really late) temps.

One thing I did gain from temp work was walking into different situations and a broader background.

Re:Why capitalism isn't evil,and unions sometimes

[jeff13]

I hate to say it, but I can't think of any easy way out of this problem

Create employment law that protects the worker, the industry, and the community? Just a thought...

Business practices will always aim for the bottom line in a capitalist economy. In the past, we had created law to protect workers after we learned that companies will exploit people even onto death. What has happened to those laws in the past 20 years? Things changed...

"Greed is all right, by the way . . . I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself." Ivan F. Boesky, U.S. financier. Commencement Address, 18 May 1986, School of Business Administration, University of California, Berkeley. Boesky's words were later picked up in Oliver Stone's film, Wall Street (1987), spoken by Gordon Gecko. Boesky himself was later convicted of conspiring to file false documents with the federal government, involving insider trading violations, and agreed to pay $100 million in fines and illicit profits.

I'm Floored...

[MajesticFiles]

I've been a Recruiter/Staffer in the industry for 5 years now, and I am shocked at both the article and the responses to it. I'm shocked at the article because someone actually had the huevos to write it (and did a great job of it!) and shocked at the responses because of their (mostly) lack of blind Temp agency bashing.

IMHO, there is always a time to say "enough". It's just different for everyone, and they must have the balls to do it.

For Temp agencies, they must be able to turn away that business, and that money, when their temps are being treated badly. This is a very hard thing to do when your Parent company is demanding sales numbers be met.

For the workers, they must be able to sacrifice the easy job (as in easy to get and quit) and put long days and nights into education to qualify for higher paying and permanent work. This is also hard, when you can't feed your kids.

Finally, the Company must be able to lower profits and raise expenses by hiring high quality, permanent employees at or above market rate. Again...not easy to do, especially when profit are low.

Every agency, company and worker has done this at some time in my career. My agency has walked from business and paid for it, sometimes for years. But we did it knowing that we would come out ahead in the end (there is a reason my agency is NOT the one in this article) but in the meantime, things are harder, not easier.

Until one of the three parties in this plant says enough...it will be an embarrasment for all.

Pride and Bitterness

[jamesmartinluther]

"But I quickly learn that the engine of the new economy is fueled by methods and labor practices more commonly associated with the old industrial era.

I saw this writer in a television documentary on public television a few months ago. He struck me as bitter about the success of others and overly prideful of his own mechanical labor.

Simply put, those closer to the implementation of the thoughts of others are paid less.

Raj Jayadev's paid contribution to the company is to mechanically assembles designs. The engineers are paid more than he is for the designs and assembly instructions. The designers of the business process are paid even more. None of these groups should be prideful of their own contribution, and none should covet the pay nor power that others have.

He is lower on the decision chain and he should not be so bitter about that. While his strategy of organized complaining and "unionizing" may help a group of workers with pay and conditions, I would argue that self improvement (and group improvement) help a lot more.

That's why we need unions

[Wesley Everest]

Third, the seller sets the price no more or no less than the buyer - for a transaction to take place, there must be mutual agreement.

This is true if both sides have an equal need to reach an agreement and both sides are equally informed about the value of the work. And of course there would need to be equal negotiating skill.

Obviously someone who desparately needs a job is in a worse individual bargaining position than a company that has 500 employees doing the same work and wants to hire 1 more. While negotiating, the individual can walk away if wages or conditions aren't good enough, but the consequences are great -- possible eviction, children without healthcare, etc. But if the company refuses the individual's final offer, then the company is understaffed by less than 1%. That might mildly affect the morale and profitability of the company, but it obviously wouldn't be desparate. And the fact is, the one with the most ability to walk away from a bad offer is in a powerful position.

As for knowledge, it is difficult for an individual to learn the true value of their labor. While it is possible, most people aren't aware of what they are worth. And if you undervalue yourself, you are in a worse bargaining position. Imagine buying a used car, thinking the car is worth $5000 more than the salesman knows it's really worth - you will clearly pay more than you might have with more accurate information, just as if you knew the value and the salesman undervalued it by $1000 you'd end up with a bargain. And if a lot of people looking for a similar position undervalue themselves or are desparate, then suddenly your value goes down, even if you have accurate knowledge and are not desparate.

And, of course, negotiation is a skill -- if you've only negotiated three or four times for a salary, you won't be as skilled as someone that has done it a dozen times, or someone whose job it is to be a good negotiator.

This all adds up to most people being in a situation where it is not an agreement between equals. And this lowers the value of all of our labor, since we are only as valuable as someone that might be used to replace us.

So, that leads to the question -- how can we best increase our value, so that we are on an equal footing when reaching an agreement with an employer, or even tip the scale in our favor? For one, we need to ensure that the employer is more desparate than we are -- if refusing an agreement might put us on the street, then it would be best if the employer would risk going out of business if they refuse. We need to make sure that not only do we as individuals know what we are worth, but we need to make sure that all others that do similar work know their value. And we need to make sure that others have the skills needed to stand up for themselves. And to tip things even more in our favor, we need to lessen the risk of standing up for ourselves -- if one person stands up, the employer risks little by getting rid of them, but if we stand up together for issues we have in common, we have less risk and the employer has more.

Now, when I say we need unions, I mean it is in our best interests to organize together as I described above. We certainly don't need corrupt union officials or unions that spend our money on even more corrupt politicians.

But there are a lot of other options -- you can form an independent union, and make it as democratic and decentralized as you like, or you can find an existing union to your liking (there is a broad range both within and outside the AFL-CIO).

Personally, I recommend the IWW -- a union long known for being the most democratic and least bureaucratic of unions, with a constitution that forbids any entanglement with political parties.

hrmm..

[poemofatic]

It's not a simple as you make it sound.

If your goal is to switch places with "ana" in the article and yell at some other sop, then go get a degree in management, work hard, and maybe one day you will get to hold the whip.

If your goal is to improve the lot of people in general, then address the systematic incentives in our economy for these sweatshops. Atleast minimize them. Maybe change the playing field so that these types of parasitic business models are punished.

Why parastic? Well, these temp workers are not going to be buying a lot of printers. The idea of the worker who can afford his own model-T is sustainable. Having a horde of disposable temps who make stuff that only a shrinking middle class can buy is parasitic.

What are the incentives for these sweatshops?

the above hidden cost is not paid.

The big 5 accounting firms have successfully lobbied the SEC to not require reforms in reporting compensation packages. This allows management to pay themselves more, because this pay is hidden from shareholders. This (along with LBOs and management sitting on each others' boards) is a big source in shifting money from supervised to supervisory employees (total labor costs have remained constant). This can be addressed with accounting reforms.

The laws on the books protecting the rights of workers to communicate and organized are not enforced. Scared, disorganized employees are then confronted with organized management which is confident it can break the laws with impunity.

make the true owners (hp in this case) legally responsible for how their employees are treated. Let defacto employees == legal employees. Again, this is a shell game which we let the big boys play to avoid responsibility and bad p.r.

the article contains an example of clearly an illegal firing. This was done for political purposes and without cause. The employee can no go to unemployment and uncle sam foots the bill. Companies who want this kind of "flexibility" should then pay for it by paying much higher unemployment insurance. Companies who don't engage in these practices will have lower costs.

Not paying someone's paycheck is illegal. How about some enforcement on that.

Immigration reform. If you come here you can work for anyone. Companies who decide to use the INS as their personal manpower recruiter should then pay some of the INS's budget, no? While those who don't shouldn't pay this cost.

openness. No secret meetings, no policies of "we can't tell you if a list exists, and if it does, wether your name is on it." Documents relating to your employment should be accessible to you. More inspectors, more news coverage. HP, Amazon, IBM, know the power of goodwill in the marketplace.

There's nothing wrong or shameful with washing dishes, carrying boxes, loading packages, or seasonal employment. It's possible to treat these employees well, have everything above board, and enforce their rights. Many countries manage to do it, and it's more a matter of political power and organization which prevents it happening here. Remember, there is nothing inherently more indispensible or rare in another kind of seasonal work: the business consultant. But the latter has powerful (non-"market") institutions which protect his interests: academia, networks of friends, cultural prestige, congressional lobbyists. These interests tweak the business climate to support him.

Just think:

You want to shut down a plant, but can cover your ass if some fancy name consultant recommends it. Guaranteed income for Anderson Consulting!
Or

A ceo (say for Cisco) gets stock options. If the business goes up, he gets 700 million, if it goes down he pays..nothing. The utility function doesn't dip below the x-axis. That's called, in economics, a "moral hazard".

These examples are due to institutional policies which benefit these two groups. Nothing at all to do with working hard, free markets, or improving yourself. Everything to do with culture, the legal system, accounting rules, and business practices. In short -- power. And there are ways for dishwashers and assembly workers to be powerful, too. Not artificial ways, but natural ones, since everyone needs/wants dishwashers and loaders. Poeple have to be forced into hiring lawyers and consultants. Simple power of the vote, of organizing, of information can be enough to make the life of the seasonal worker much better.

Gloves

[Kris_J]

These workers need gloves tough enough to protect their hands from paper cuts, but thin and slightly tacky, so they can open the plastic bags

Just cut the ends of the gloves' fingers off -- you only need the fine control at the finger tips. Seriously, how hard is it to "innovate" this last step?