Microsoft Caste System

Ericka writes "Computer Source Magazine recently published an article on Microsoft's treatment of its contractors. According to some temps, the work environment for these folks has taken a downturn since the resolution of the permatemp suit."

Comments

Re:and???

[meloneg]

Contract programmers get a considerably better rate and overtime pay... They also are a bit more secure as they have a signed contract for X hours, which is legally actionable if not met...
The best I've ever had a contract stipulate is a month's notice of termination. I've never seen a true fixed length contract. The ones with fixed length always have an easy out. Not much different from "at will" employment. They just have to claim you weren't doing the work right, or they don't need it done anymore.
Project-based contracts have some implication of stability, but most of these require a company between you and the client. If they don't like you, they'll force the company to take you off the project.

Re:dash notation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm been both a blue and an orange badge.

a- == temp employee
v- == vendor
t- == intern

Seems that this article has a few omissions.

[wjsteele]

First of all... I am a blue badge. And anything I say is MY point of view.

But... I was a contracter in a previous life... and I worked for a company who outsourced me to other companies. My benefits came from the company I worked for... not the client companies.

Secondly, the hours I worked were defined by my contract that bound me to my employer... not the client ocmpany.

Thirdly, the unemployement benefits are NOT funded by the government as the article states. Companies pay into a fund that is used to pay these employees who are out of work. It's like an insurance fund, but it's required. Now... it is also up to the contractors employer to keep them busy... they know exactly when they will be let go by MS so it's not like it's a suprise or anything. If the contractors employer decides to lay them off, then it goes against their (not Microsoft's) unemployment account.

Oh... and finally, the v- or a- or t- simply means that someone is a vendor, admin or intern. I've never heard the term "Dash Trash" in all my years at MS.

Bill

Re:It's happening at other corporations, as well

[Dausha]

Disadvantages of Union Representation

In brief, the disadvantages of unions are:

1. The loss of individuality. When a union is certified as the exclusive employee representative in a workplace, employees become members of an overall bargaining unit in which the majority rules. The ruling majority may not be sympathetic with each individual's specific employment needs or aspirations.
2. The cost to employees. Most collective bargaining agreements require all employees to support the union financially as a condition of their continued employment.
3. Exclusive representation. This power carries with it a duty of fair representation that requires the union to negotiate fairly on behalf of all employees in the "bargaining unit," whether they are union members or not.

"One last disadvantage to union membership is that members can be fined or otherwise disciplined by their union for engaging in activities, which, in the union's opinion, are 'unbecoming' of union members or which violate the union's constitution and by-laws. . . ."

Re:This article is BS

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

As usual, another completely uninformed opinion on slashdot.

Here is a little history for you.

1. Microsoft forces a number of employees to switch to contract positions as a means of reducing cost of benefits. Essentially these people are forced into a paycut through a change in employment method. It is either accept this change in status or lose your job. Back in the early 90s when this happened, there wasn't much of a job market to speak of so these people bent over and took it.

2. Microsoft continues to treat these former employees exactly how they were treated before their switch to contractor status. Except not pay them benefits. Same responsibilities, same employer-imposed restrictions.

3. The IRS comes along and says, "these people do not satisfy the 20 questions rule for distinguishing between contractors and employees." This ruling is largely the result of Microsoft treating these contractors exactly the same way before and after the switch from employee to contractor status.

4. The IRS says, since they are employees, Microsoft must now pay back-taxes on FICA and Medicare. This is double-dipping by the IRS because the contractors have already paid those taxes and they won't get them back, but that is the way the law works. Plus, now Microsoft has to start to satisfy the 20 questions rule.

5. The contractors that have now been officially reclassified as employees by the US government say, "If I was an employee, where are my benefits?" In particular, 401K and profit-sharing - the internet bubble was really starting to bulge and the money involved was enough to retire on for a lot of them. They go to court as the infamous permatemp lawsuit and they win a very clearcut case.

So, all this grumbling about how the contractors screwed themselves is baloney. MS tried to screw some employees, the IRS busted their ass and MS started obeying the rules, meanwhile the screwed employees got what the benefits they were entitled to in the first place.

Meanwhile the entire industry over-reacts and instead of being content to satisfy a majority of the 20 questions, most big companies want to get as close to 100% coverage as possible. Part of the problem here is that the IRS doesn't spell out what the minimum requirement is, that is left up to their discretion on a case by case basis. But the other side of the problem is corporate conservatism where they would rather shoot themselves in the foot than try to put together a reasonable policy.

...Somebody who has never worked as a contractor

[hlh_nospam]

They also are a bit more secure as they have a signed contract for X hours, which is legally actionable if not met...


You have just demonstrated that you have never actually been a contractor. Nobody who has ever worked as a contractor would make such a statement.

Contractors are generally hired to stabilize the work force, so that perms don't have to be hired or fired as often. I have spent more than half of my career as a contractor, and I have never had a contract with a guaranteed number of hours.

Also, the times that I have been dismissed early from a contract have usually been with no warning at all, due to the action of someone who has never met me and has no idea of what I do. It is typical in a really large defense contractor that the 3rd VP in charge of left-handed paperclips will wake up one morning and discover that there are (*gasp*) contractors in his organization, and issue an edict to get rid of all of them. About 6 months later, when it becomes obvious that the work isn't getting done, the lower-level managers start bringing them in again.

And then there are some employers that want their cake and eat it, too, like (a now-defunct telecom company)-- they fired me after less than 2 weeks because I wouldn't work unpaid overtime as a contractor. The amount of 'warning' I got was that my badge stopped working, and I had to threaten to call the police to get my personal items back from my (former) desk. I knew then that they were in deep trouble, and they have since been in the news, featured for being caught doing some creative accounting. Shortly after my experience, I discovered that I had been the 4th contractor in that position in less than 3 months.

Since that experience, I have been more careful about what companies I contract with, and I have 'fired' more than one of my clients at the first sign of dishonesty -- also without notice. The door swings both ways.

Word to the wise: A company that screws its employees (including contractors), its vendors, or its customers will eventually screw all three -- plus its investors. It's part of a general mindset in which the folks running the company think it's ok to screw people.

IBM is guilty of the same treament

[StyleChief]

Contractors at IBM are not even allowed to talk to their own managers. They must communicate through their contracting firm. The badges are different, the e-mail addresses are different, they are not allowed to go to group functions, including their own department's meetings. Like many Very Large Corporations of America, they treat valuable and important workers as if they were third class citizens in a caste system. We have the legal system and the greed of lawyers to thank for this (not to mention the folks that worked at IBM as contractors and decided to sue the hand that fed them).