Slashdot Mirror
HP Contract Workers Sue For Recognition
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."
they were expected to perform at the same level of expectations as HP workers
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.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Well, if they dont win there are always plenty of other options.
robust and bustling economy my ass...
I never understood how these things work: Do some lawyers wake up in the morning and decide, "Hey! I need a new pool. Hmmmm, I think I sue HP today. Now, let's find a reason.".
That's really how it looks, and it would make me feel slimy to take part in something like that.
not that HP doesn't deserve, but that's not my point.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Contract! That should be enough information right there.
This is nothing new. It seems that at some point or another, all contractors suddenly feel that they are no longer contractors but rather employees. With entitlement no less.
The case is without merit but, not without precedence.
How fast will HP be closing their operations
in Boise?
Jennifer Miller of Nampa is one of the plaintiffs. Miller said she was employed by HP in Boise from 1989 to 1995, when she took a severance package and left the company. She returned later in 1995 as a contract worker and worked at HP until March 9. Part of the time she was a contract employee through Veritest and Manpower Professional. Her jobs included testing software for HP printers.
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?
Thank you, you have given HP and other big companies more reasons to outsource.
The protest will die down as soon as the contractors are offered HP's "4 30-lbs sacks of potatoes" bonus offered to the regular Idaho employees as a holiday bonus.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I'm pulling for these guys. Companies tend to have the nasty habit of using what they call contractors to get out of paying taxes and benifits that they really should be. If you go to the IRS website and look up the rules which are used to determine whether someone is an employee or contractor it's clear that rules are being broken.
I've had my share of contract and full-time work, and I guess I'm kinda weird, because I actually read my contract. If it doesn't say I get benefits, I don't expect benefits, If it says I will, I expect benefits. Am I going to be getting a 1099 or a W2 at the end of the year? Because one is typical of a contract employee and the other is a regular employee. Regular employees typically get benefits, and the company pays the taxes. Contract employees pay their own taxes and benefits.
I am sorry but I have done contract work for over 10 years and this pisses me off. They may work at HP but they work for either their contract agency or for themselves. I didn't sue Pixar when I worked there because they decided not to put contractors in the credits. I don't expect the company I am working at to provide me with health benefits and stock options, I should get those through the agency who pays me.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Later Apple did hire me as an employee. At that point since I believed that I was an employee, pursuant to the previously signed statement I wrote a notice and tried to deliver it to Apple's legal department. They seemed completely flummoxed as to why I was notifying them that I was an employee.
My contract just disappeared....
"No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
My wife and I each spent a stint with Compaq (became HP while she still worked there) and they play this game all the time. They work everyone the same, but 'badge' employees actually get vacation, 401k, etc.
It wasn't right then, and if it's still going on, good for them for suing. I knew people that had worked there for YEARS and never got 'badged'. No vacation time (although you could occassionally get time off without pay) and rarely, if ever would you get any kind of incentive or pay increase. You'd also usually get let go without warning, and the contractors would play a game of saying that you're still employed with the contracting agency, thus not entitled to unemployment benefits (which, at least under Colorado law is not true. I managed to get benefits).
Anyway, it's about time.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
The IRS rules on this are quite specific and, IIRC, Microsoft lost a huge case on this in the early 90's for hiring contractors that were, in essence, 2nd class employees.
From the article:
Huntley's lawsuit cites all 20 criteria and claims that in every case HP treats contract workers as employees.
Among them:
Does the worker have assistants whom the company supervises and pays?
Does the company furnish tools, materials and other equipment sufficient to show control?
Is the worker required to devote substantially full time to the company?
Kaupins advises companies to check with the IRS if they have any questions about contract workers vs. employees, because companies can be held liable for back taxes if worker status changes from contractor to employee.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
This crap just makes life harder for us contractors who understand the meaning of the paper we sign. I've had contracts that were terminated simply because the company had to adopt a policy of limiting how long a contractor can work for them, so as not to confuse a contractor with "permanent" employees. What's next? A class-action lawsuit by employees who discover that their cow-orkers are all earning a few bucks more than they are?
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?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If HP loses this suit will it delay future HP purchases of Gulf Stream 5's?
Whats funny to me is that when Microsoft got sued for much the same reasons the response here was very much against the Redmond Giant. Now thats its another company the attitudes seem to have shifted against the contract workers. This is also a reason I will never again do temp work. I'd rather fish uneaten burgers out of the Burger King dumpster.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The case doesn't look cut-and-dried, but only because the article doesn't mention whether the employees actually signed an employment contract, or whether the contract was between HP and the hiring company.
It seems to me that the status quo was in accordance with the terms of the contract -- if those terms were not equitable, then the workers shouldn't have signed up to work under its conditions. If the terms weren't equitable, but the workers really wanted the work... then I guess the terms were equitable enough.
As for expectations vs. pay, fair doesn't enter into it. If I hire ten people to work for me for $100/hr., and another ten people to work for me for $50/hr., and levy the same requirements on them, then the second group may be upset... but they were the ones who agreed to the deal. If they don't like it, they can quit, and I'll find someone else.
Speaking of which, I've got several openings at my company, and we pay just under $50/hr. Anyone interested?
Back when I did contract work, I always had to go through a large agency because:
I wasn't on the preferred vendor list
I needed to have more than five employees working at my company
I needed to be incorporated - not much of a problem. My accountant did it for me for $75.
When I asked why the hoops, I was told about IRS rules. When I pinned them on it they confessed that it was because they were afraid of what happened in the article happening to them. As a result, I earned 40% less because of people like the above.
Hello, when you work for a contract company, you are treated differently: usually paid more then the regular employees.
Sorry about the rant.
Probably soon. This suit encourages HP to do without such employees.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Frankly, this may well make life more difficult for those of us who act as contract consultants. They pulled this stuff on Microsoft a few years back, and as a consequence contractors don't GET to stay there for extended periods, they are essentially kicked out and forced to find other employment after a rather short amount of time (a year or eighteen months or something?). I worry about what this means to the rest of the industry.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
they were expected to perform at the same level of expectations as HP workers
:D
Given the performance of HP workers, they haven't been ask much...
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.
and I know of a few friends who lost their jobs contracting. All of it was because of lawsuits like this. We did give most of them the chance to become full time employees but a few decided to strike out on their own.
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Another way of saying employee that I don't pay health insurance or taxes on. I know plenty of people that are in this situation, they work just as a regular employee but have to collect their own taxes and pay for own health costs. I know it is easy to say that nobody is making them take the contract but you do what you have to do to survive. Contracting, like outsourcing, is just another way for corporations to cut the bottom line and quite frankly most contractors don't meet the IRS definition of a contractor.
How is this in any way political? It's a bunch of temps who think they've been treated badly. That's it.
Everything is not political, believe it or not.
This is pretty typical...
:thu:
I'm sure that many of us here (myself included) have worked as a contractor, side-by-side with full-time direct staff, doing the same thing with the same expectations, yet at a fraction of the $$ and benefits.
Jobs like that are just a stepping stone. Get the experience and move on.
do() || do_not();
That's why they pay you a lot more in salary than they would if you were an employee in the same position. Contractors get salaries, employees get "packages" consisting of salary (which is usually a lot less than for contractors) and benefits (for which contractors are not eligible). So, are you ready for pay cuts?
In Amerika, contractors pay even more tax than regular employees. Employers, in Amerika, are forced to subsidize employees taxes by paying a payroll tax. Contractors are regarded as self-employed by the IRS and must therefore pay their own payroll tax.
A $40,000 job in Amerika will likely be taxed $11,200 in total.
An employee would pay $5,600 income tax and the employer would pay $5,600 payroll tax.
But, a contractor pays $11,200 income tax.
All numbers are estimated approximations. Your taxes may differ. I don't give a fuck what you think or paid! STFU FOAD YHBT
I'll certainly be watching this one!
I'm in the UK and I've been a contractor at a big IT company for over 3 years now. Still no sign of getting my contract converted to a permanent one to the company I work in. Not as many days holidays as badged employees. No pension plan. Lately I have been told that I have reached the top wage I can get in my current position and the temp agency policy is no bonuses. ("But you're doing a great job! Fantastic!").
When I signed the contract it seemed that you stayed as a temp for 1 to 2 years before getting a contract with the actual company.
So yeah I totally understand the frustration of those guys.
And the whole contractor thing is only getting more and more common.
Contract workers make 50%+ more than salaried employees due to the fact that benefits, etc, do not need to be paid. So they want to get the higher wages, and then get all the benefits? BS.
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.
Lost a suit similar to this some years ago, I believe in New York state. They owed a lot of contractors lots of benefit and vacation pay. The court ruled they had muddled the relationship.
Basically, if you treat a contractor as an employee, the IRS wants you to pay the payroll taxes. And if via the IRS you become an employee, then depending on where you are they may need to supply you with thier regular benefits.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Hey, this lawsuit is just like the one I'm bringing against /.! I was a "common-law" moderator, and they took my mod rights away! I was expected to perform on the same level as the moderators, but without receiving the same benefits!
:p
Ooh, you guys are gonna pay me $$$ restitution!
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
Big companies use contractors because they are cheaper than full time w/benefits employees. Saves them money so they can have a better bottom line.
The IRS, in an attempt to keep some of their tax money, has created a set of rules defining "real" employee criteria. Otherwise, large corps would fire the FTEs and contract them back, saving tons on taxes and benefits.
Sounds like HP has pushed their contracting policy far enough that someone has noticed and decided to cash in on it.
Bad for HP. Good for those of us who would like to have a real job with benefits. Great for the lawyer who will probably make more than anybody.
----
Yea, yea, I know a sig goes here.
If a employer has a normal employee, then the company is responsible for a portion of the Medicare taxes. If the employee is a contractor (ie, no withholding taken and given a 1099-MISC), then the employee is responsible for paying these taxes. It is generally referred to as the self-employment tax.
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
As a consultant / contractor of 12 years, lawsuits like this make my life much more difficult.
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.
Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
The reason I incorparated was to go "corp to corp" with the agency. This allowed me to get a 20% increase in my rate since I was handling the tax shit.
I worked for a huge HP spinoff company as a DBA for about 2 weeks. From what I saw, about 50% or more of their workforce were contracts from temp agencies. I was hired for a 1yr "project", but when I got there, there was nothing "project" about the job. It was just a DBA operations role that had been in existence for years. I took the job because I had been looking for 4 mos and couldn't find a permenant position with benifits. They paid about half what I had made in the past, with NO benifits. I finally found another perm job and left.
I'm torn. If this is what it takes for us to stay competitive then so be it. But lets be honest about what is really going on...Its a way for companies to maintain staff while not paying benifits.
Carly got the boot.
My company is actually doing a lot of work with HP services - and ever since HP lawyers learned about the existence of so-called 1000hr rule we have drastically changed how we cooperate. No more permanent contractors, no more cross-company project management, reporting, etc.. Also, my own company is no longer hiring contractors itself. Back in '90s we've had a lot of 'lifetime contractors' which worked pretty much as everyone, but without vacation or the benefits (for a higher wage, though). Now they are all mostly gone or employed on a regular basis. When we consider sourcing we need to comply to 1000hr rule for contractors - if they would be in the project for more than 1000 hours they, apparently, could demand permanent employment. Since my company is among Fortune top 20 and tops most of other benchmarks I would guess we have good lawyers and this rule is indeed enforcable.
She worked for HP, left, then came back as a temp worker for another company that does work for HP, and expects HP to give her benifits. She is not and HP employee, she is a Temp. This has no base what so ever.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
While colloquially classified as "contractors," these individuals were not contract employees. They were full-time employees (W-2) of the contracting company, who in turn had a contract with the customer to provide a staffing service. The contract was with their employer -- not the employee directly.
The contractor vs. employee argument only comes into play when you're talking about true-blue contractors who work for a flat rate under a 1099, not W2 employees.
This was the situation in the famous Microsoft contractor vs. employee case. Contrary to common belief, the contractors were not the instigators in that case. It was the IRS who audited Microsoft and determined that they had incorrectly classified people as independant contractors as opposed to employees, and was therefore liable for back employment taxes (which, by the way, are paid if you're a W2 employee of a contracting company). The contractors then picked it up from there and demanded that, since the IRS classified them as employees, they were due the benefits give to full-time employees.
In my humble, and non-lawyerish opinion, this case is entirely without merit. They were employees of the contracting company, and were given a benefit package that they agreed upon by becoming employees.
Good summary of the law at Findlaw
They probably have a good case.
Around here (BC, Canada) an employee is one who
For labour relations and tax reasons some employers try to put employees on the books as consultants or contractors, but their financial auditors (it's not GAAP), revenue canada auditors (it may be tax evasion), and the labour relations board smack them down pretty fast.
(std disclaimer: IANAL, IANAA, if you need a lawyer or accountant, get a real one)
It USED to be in the US that people were hired as "contractors" , paid directly without any withholding from their pay, and were responsible for paying their own taxes (and additional self-employment "social security" tax).
The IRS and state tax authorities got wise to this a LONG time ago - when I was a wee lad and no one, at least in California gets hired as a "1099" anymore (named after the tax form the hiring company reports your income on) unless you have a bundle of proof you are your own incorporated, have business insurance or a bond, or otherwise legal-tax-paying entity.
These gutless ambulance-chasing whiners in Idaho almost certainly were employees of a temp agency, which duly reported their income and withheld their taxes as employees of the temp agencies, not HP.
A lot of these temp agencies now offer benefits anyway. But then this is in Idaho, not California. Up there can't you just take an underperforming employee out in the desert and shoot 'em cowboy-style? In California you at least have to file and Environmental Impact Statement before you do that.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
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.
The guidline for what constitutes a 'contract' employee is determined by state laws. Useally very specifically.
The idea of 'contract' employee is you work to create a very spific thing, by a specific date.
You can:
1) Work where you want
2) When you want
3) wearing what you want.
4) the ability to hire your own employees to do the job
If you get responsibilities beyond that, your an employee
If you are told to work specific time, your an employee
If you have to adhear to a dress code, your an employee.
As always see A lawyer who specializes in this area whenever you are getting a new contract.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If the news story is accurate, these workers are not the same as if you or I worked as an independent contractor. According to the story, these workers were employees of staffing companies. The staffing companies were the contractors. They are no more entitled to be HP employees than the guy who drives around the lawnmower for a landscaping company deserves to be the direct employee of the landscaper's customer.
There are laws intended to protect individual workers from being treated like contractors instead of employees. A company can't simply hire people on a 1099 basis instead of a W-2 and duck all sorts of taxes and liabilities. The law provides for a set of tests to distinguish a true independent contractor from these situations. But the plaintiffs in this suit appear to be getting a W-2 from their employers, the staffing companies.
HP & Agilent terminated most of their IT departments and rehired them through an agency.
So HP deserves everything they get from this lawsuit. The previous posts about these guys
being asses and wrecking it for all other contractors, well, they don't know the real story. HP is as guilty as
Microsoft in this case.
Twenty years ago, I would have wanted recognition for working for HP. Now, I think the FULL TIME employees should sue HP for the right to say hey really work for McDonald's.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
The real question is whether the contracting agency could be considered as a tax evasion tactic on the part of HP.
My understanding of this mess is as follows.
Only in that case would a 1099 contractor become a statutory employee to HP. Otherwise, a 1099 contractor to the contracting company gets reclassified as an employee of the contracting company and then HP is off the hook.
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
HP announced layoffs today in its Boise Idaho facility, affecting approximately 3000 contract workers. Spokeswoman Debra Cartwright was quoted as saying, "Why should we hire American's and their god-damned lawsuits?! We'll outsource this crap and save a ton of money on the tax breaks W gives us!"
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
1. When you're a contractor, your contracting company is paid a lot for your services, more than a normal employee would be paid.
2. If you want benefits, your contracting company should offer it, and you get it from them.
3. Holy crap, you're hired on at a place and they actually expect you to work? You mean consultants don't get to just sit around all day with their thumbs up their ass, mouth off, and do nothing (which is what I saw when I was a consultant fresh out of college, wondering just wtf was going on in the workforce.)
4. Because they expected you to actually work, now you're suing them?
5. As a contractor, I bet you got overtime.
6. As a contractor, I bet you could call into work whenever you wanted without reason.
7. As a contractor, I bet you tried to do as little work as possible.
8. As a contractor, I bet you got more vacation. Maybe not through Manpower, I don't know their policies, so this might not be true.
9. When I was a consultant, the client paid the company $80 / hour for me. Did I see all of that? Hell no. Go sue your consulting company for the money you lost out on.
This is such a load, it just makes me mad. HP should counter-sue for the contractors' hours that were spent doing jack-shit.
Yeah, this isn't the way the law works.
Although people are allowed to enter into contracts freely, the law trumps contracts. We have a law against slavery, for instance, so you can't sell yourself into slavery, even if you entered into the contract freely.
If the contract terms were not permissible by law, then they are legally speaking entitled to remedies. That may strike you as dumb, but it's the law. "Activist" judges are those that do what makes sense to them regardless of the law.
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.
If it is a payment that employees receive, it counts as a wage.
"When a company rehires it's own employee's through another company they avoid paying the benefits. No healthcare - No pension. That saves a whole lot o cash"
This behavior is a natural result of the government or others mandating benefits. The situation strongly encourages the company to avoid hiring such workers.
"As for the government's role - by ignoring the "perfectly legal" measures used by companies to save expenses they encourage the "race to the bottom"."
What is wrong with the government ignoring it when companies do what the government encourages them to do?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I read a lot of comments from the field about how it's all about their contract and what's in it. And that's not really the issue here. Simply stating in a contract that a person is not an employee but a contractor doesn't make it so, even if both parties agree. What does matter however is the set of expectations the contracting party puts on the contracted one. Myself I'm a swimming coach and the club I worked for treated me very much like an employee while paying me like a contractor, I chose not to pursue legal action because it's a very small community we coaches travel in, and suing a non-profit childrens organization doesn't sit well with anyone. Instead I just jumped ship and got a better job elsewhere. Anyway, my research led me here: Employee vs. Independant Contractor Enjoy
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.
Or the company just hires more people who are willing to work in the same situation that all the quitting contractors worked under; there's an endless supply of people willing to be exploited. After all, being exploited still can pay the bills. Sometimes it looks like a good deal, even if in reality the company is taking advantage of them, it's hard often for the low-level employee or contractor to see what they should be getting. That's really the point of this lawsuit, I would think. Other than a court order, there's not really any way to leverage HP into changing anything, they can just swap in different contractors; one of the advantages of having people on easily disposable contracts like this.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Exactly. This is what happens with the government passes regulations which strongly encourage the company NOT to have regular full-time employees (or they will pay a lot more for them)
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
http://www.washtech.org/news/courts/display.php?ID _Content=58
MS I believe lost all it's appeals but has still been delaying payment... need to check up on that. I know some of the plaintiffs. Last I heard they still hadn't received their checks.
Judge: Contractors Were Common-Law Employees of Microsoft
A U.S. District Court judge ruled Wednesday that workers employed as independent contractors, and then subsequently forced to work through temporary agencies, were in fact common law employees of Microsoft while working at the company between 1987 and 1990. The ruling in the class action Vizcaino v. Microsoft lawsuit also clarified which workers would likely be part of the class, but left open the possibility that potential class members not covered under this case could be a part of future litigation.
continued in the link
. This sig unintentionally left blank. I meant to put something here, but I'm busy.
Some of us perfer to work in these conditions- we get a little more cash in which we can create a benefits package which suits us personally.
Contractors sueing the places of employment are jeopardizing these relationships. In 2004, the state of Mass created a law defining many independant contractors are regular employees- despite what their contracts may say. This means that the contractors may be entitiled to benefits retroactively in 2004. This sort of legislation will jeopardize contractors who are happy with the arragements as they now stand.
The lawyer got 1/2 of that amount. IOW, for less than a month worth or work, they got 1/2 a million. That is why lawyers jump all over this. Which also explains why employers hire outside of the USA.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As someone who has worked by choice as a contractor for most of the past 20 years, I wish the people involved in these lawsuits would just STFU. You make more money than fulltime employees, realistically you have about the same degree of job security, and if you really want a fulltime job you have the same chance to get one as anybody else. These whining lawsuits just make the environment more difficult for the rest of us.
On the one hand, the Big Business In Bed With Government mentality that runs this country wants to avoid any type of national health care. They insist that is a job for the private sector. They shut down Medicaid, medicare, any chance at national health plans. "See," they say, "your employer should provide that. It is not a proper job for government."
... have you ever shopped for an individual health plan? Good god almighty that is expensive! You know how much less it costs when a company buys it for their employees? I swear it stinks. It's as if individuals are subsidizing businesses. It really stinks.
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.
Infuriate left and right
With shrinking wages and long long hours isn't it time to start getting overtime? If you not a manager managing people your a worker. Has long as your bosses can work you like a dog for 60 hours weeks then they won't hire anyone else to take the load. The threat of Overtime for tech workers will help put more of your colleagues to work.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
In 96-97, I worked in a similar capacity as these plaintiffs did, for Manpower Technical, on a week to week contract with HP. All along, the dividing line between employees and contractors was that if HP did not hire you permanently, you would be removed from the contract within two years. While true HP employees did get benefits and vacations, I never saw a HP employee to be happily working that 50th or 60th hour in a week, on the other hand, I was earning big $$ in OT. When it came time to accept or reject an offer from HP for permanent emploment, I believe that even with a generous valuation of the HP benefits, I was still going to take over a 20% cut in compensation. I passed, now have a permanent salaried job elsewhere, and was happy with my HP time, and happy with my decision to pass on permanent employment too.
It is getting more difficult to get contract jobs because companies are starting to fear us (contractors/consultants). Because of these people and people like them I am forced to go through "preferred vendors" as middle men to get jobs.
I hope they loose. I hope HP does not punish its other contractors for this. What part of "CONTRACTor" do they not understand?
www.thejulingtoncreekplantaion.com
I worked for a contracting company @ HP in Boise. Issue here is that the people who are suing(Adecco, VeriTest, Manpower) are not contractors. They are employees of their respective companies. The companies(Adecco, VeriTest, Manpower) pay the paychecks, the employees just happen to work at an HP building. The story would be different if these people were independent contractors, contracted directly to HP, but they're not. Not to mention, the people quoted in the article no longer work for any of those companies... I'm wondering why they left employment in the first place. -Phixxr
ungggghhhh
My point is essentially HP takes advantage of their contract workers. Often these workers have no negotiating power, e.g., they are not professional but do more manual jobs such as actually build and box the printers, computers, etc. Is it right for HP to exploit the situation to their advantange?
In a pure democracy, yes. But we are far from a pure democracy. Essentially these lawsuits get at what is good business vs. the larger society issues.
I lived near many HP plants (in the bay area) and routinely saw HP milk each "contractor" for all they were worth. IMHO, HP treats contractors essentially as employees without a voice, and thus the de-factor receivers of any shafting that needs to be done.
It wasn't right then, and if it's still going on, good for them for suing.
While I usually root for labor rights, this is just silly. You have a contract. They promised you nothing, and you agreed to it. Turn it down if you don't like it. Negotate a better deal. Unionize if you want collective barganing. But don't sue, because you agreed to work under the contract.
contractors would play a game of saying that you're still employed with the contracting agency, thus not entitled to unemployment benefits.
Now here is something to call the feds and sue over. This would be fraud, and I'm sure that the police or the feds would like to hear about this sort of thing.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Hey, they signed the contract, and agreed to the assignment... I've been there twice before, on both sides, and if you agree to the contract, you agree to it. Plain and simple.
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.
Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
As a contractor, I don't get 50% more than a remotely reasonable salary. It's just not true.
Actually, I think more companies bend those IRS definitions of "contractors" than you might realize.
A big offender? Most courier/delivery services. They often use only "contractors" to run all their deliveries - even though at first glance, this might seem impossible. (If the people are driving cars you own, and taking deliveries "on call" for you, then that would seem to immediately make them your "employees" rather than "contractors".)
To comply with the IRS rules of "contractors" though, they do such things as rent the cars out to the drivers (with compensation built into their pay to cover the rental costs), and instead of telling a specific driver to do a given delivery run, they simply get on the radio and "offer" the jobs to the drivers.
As a long time consultant, I -used- to be able to negotiate contracts directly with clients. Now, largely because of litigation such as this, all large companies exclusively use large "preferred vendor" body shops. (Which apparently agree to indemnify the company against such claims).. so now we have to sub-contract with one of these "preferred vendors", who takes a substantial cut.
So, please don't save us any more... the only affect of these lawsuits has been to -restrict- the ability for those who wish to do contract work to do so.
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.
Tough day? How about a free Mac mini?
Why do people fucking whine when they don't get their god-damned way? No one is even entitled to a fucking job, let alone being "treated fair". HP should offshore all positions, and let anyone that is poor to either run their own business, or fucking die, after all, it's a dog eat dog world where only the fittest should survive, not the fucking worthless which is the fucking poor , all they do is leech from society, not fucking contribute.
_ _
http://www.coloradogold.com/
_______________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is a
vote to abolish the constitution itself.
Morally they may be right, but legally what they're entitled to is spelled out in the contract they signed. If they agreed to do the same work and accept less, they should do that. The time to fix this is contract-renewal time.
"But that's the terms HP offered!" Well, what was your counteroffer?
The sentiment then is the same as now. These people signed a contract, and their beef is with the contracting agency. This smells of ambulance chasing all the way.
Go crawl back in your hole in Redmond, Bill.
D
Our company will let go any contractor that is not hired within 6 months and that is a rule of HR though sometimes people slip through the cracks I've seen it enforced.
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.
You are a contract employee. What about the word contract confuses these people? A third party company hired you, they are responsible for your benefits and vacations, etc. They offer them. When I was a contractor working at HP, they were always very careful to make the distinction. We were not expected to attend meetings unless it directly affected our jobs. We made all our vacation requests through our company representative who then cleared it with the supervisor of the area we worked in to make sure it did not impact them adversely. Our evaluations and raises were administered through the contracting company. Our paychecks came from the contracting company. So this woman they talked to, she worked at HP and took the fatty severence. Now she's back as a contract employee and the harsh reality of having to build up things like vacation is hitting her. Wahhh... sob sob. So many of the HP employees I have met over the years are spoiled and unworldly when it comes to employment. This isn't the first time they've been sued. I think they settled out of court while I was a contract employee and then adopted the 18 month rule. You couldn't be assigned to HP longer than 18 months. So I had to leave and be unemployed for 3 months then come back. BTW, I had all the benefits that HP employees had except for profit sharing. Albeit, they weren't as good. Medical was more expensive. Even when they had their picnic, we had our own. Not as flashy but hey... they tried.
Karma, We don't need no stinkin' karma!
I'm doing this as an anonymous coward because I am currently in a contract with a large cellular phone company in the Midwest.
Basically, I am at the end of my contract life here because I'm closing on a year as a contractor. They have a corporate policy that requires them to either hire or let go of a contractor after 12 months regardless of merit or competency. Especially coders, as *ALL* coding is to be off-shored. This policy has led them to hire some of the most non-competent droolers for permanent position while letting go of, well, myself in a couple weeks due to that technicality. All of my managers here specifically requested that a position be found for me but due to not hiring for any coder type positions, it is unlikely. And since they just went through their umpteenth restructure/reorg since I started here the managers who make these decisions haven't worked with me enough to feel comfortable going out on a limb for that position. I understand my role here is as a contractor but I think that if this is the standard method for hiring used by large corporations now, I can understand why they think they need to outsource all of their work. There is no concept of a meritocracy and yet they can't understand why their projects are all over budget and don't meet their needs. They WON'T hire professionals.
I think this suit is a symptom of a larger problem than just some people who can't read a contract. This is part of the problem that companies have no real desire to create any better of a product than they can get away with selling and no desire to retain a competent workforce. Even though today Moto has pretty much sent the entire division to "team building" workshops there is not one iota of a clue as to why the IT product here stinks. Any attempt to make a quality product causes backlash from the offshore teams as they are freaking clueless and the in-house team because they don't want to be held to any sort of standard. It's like working in a dream world, there are meetings all day every day for planning and reviewing but when there is any responsibility it becomes a nightmare. I have ideas as to how this all could be fixed but they are all rooted in responsibility and the desire to do a good job, and I have no idea how to change people to that methodology when their methodology let's them take a day off to run around a conference room shouting like the idiots they are.
As far as being a contractor versus employee for these large companies goes. I have to come in at a specific time and leave at a specific time. I need to make myself available for any meetings they hold and on the weekends or after-hours as needed. I do not get paid overtime. I do not get any benefits. And I have a higher standard of quality than the existing personnel. I am also expected to train them on my custom development when my year is up. I also found out the average salary is almost the same as my hourly rate when average for a standard workweek. I am not eligible for the training that is provided by Motorola. Now, since I am full-time and have the same responsibilities as an employee, how am I supposed to drum up additional business? How can I be competitive when I have to pay for my own training? When I subtract the cost for my healthcare from my salary I end up WAY below their averaged rate. And after a year I am on my ass and am not eligible to continue working because of some bureaucratic rule? Yet they won't hire me because they want to send all of their coding work to India. Please tell me how I am not an employee but a contractor? And why shouldn't I be compensated in a like manner.
Until someone realizes, "Hey WTF we are wasting our money on these jokers!". Then actually try to find a way to retain actual talent using real-world perks, like, oh, maybe healthcare, security, recognition of merit and a reasonable salary. And a way to fire these jokers without having to go through a mountain of paperwork only to be sued this is never going to go away. These probl
From TFA, it seems clear that one of the issues is whether or not HP was (illegally) abusing the contracting as a way to get full-time employees without paying full-time benefits and taxes.
What isn't clear are the terms of the contract. Were they compensated for the lack of benefits? Even if so, did the contract violate any laws? We don't have any of these details, so it's certainly hard to say.
And even if they did have a contract (and I'd assume they did), that doesn't mean that it was a valid contract. If a company hired me as a contractor and had a clause requiring that I don't vote in Presidential elections, certainly that clause wouldn't be valid. Even if I had gone along with the clause for a few years before learning that it wasn't legal, it wouldn't have been legal. And within the statute of limitations, I'd have every right to sue for it when I learned that what had been stipulated was illegal.
So, let the judicial process do its work. If there are no merits, it'll be tossed, and contract law will be a little more precise in the future with the precedent. If there is merit, then it will benefit all contract workers out there (at least in the long term) by making their rights clearer, and it'll benefit all taxpayers as HP would better pull its own weight in paying for defense, highways, etc. -- Paul
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
.
When HP merged with Compaq, I was working for
Compaq as a contract worker and all employees e-mail addresses were
changed to the new hp addresses (remember 'the New HP')
all contract workers recieved addresses like 'name@non-hp.com'.
Interal policies stipulate a 12 month hire or fire
for contract workers yet was never invoked.
They had people working under contract for over seven years!
That's right! Stick it to 'em!
This company has been one of the worst offenders, treating its employees and contractors like slaves on a Roman galley, while they sit in their togas enjoying grapes fed to them by beautiful blonde women. I mean the CEOs are making millions and millions while their employees are only able to buy a nice car and a nice house and send their kids to a nice college. It isn't fair!
I hate corporations. I mean, all the do is sit around and hire people and pay them good money to perform services and make goods, which they turn around and sell for decent prices! I mean, who do they think they are? If I want good products and the latest toys at a good price, why do I have to go to evil corporations to get them? And why do they make obscene profits on my willingness to buy and their employees willingness to work! Is there any justice in the world? Somewhere, somehow, Bushitler and Cheney are involved in this. I smell Rove behind the curtains.
We should just ban corporations and everything like them. If you want something, you shouldn't be able to go buy it from someone else, unless that person is going to be selling it at a loss. Make it yourself, dangit! And you shouldn't be able to work with other people, even if you pay them. That's not right! What are we, slaves, to be paid for our valuable labor? And you shouldn't be able to sign a contract saying you will provide services to a corporation in exchange for money. If you want money so bad, why don't you just make your own?
In the meantime, let's file frivolous lawsuits against the best corporations around and make them spend their hard-earned cash defending themselves from lunatics like myself. It's only fair!
DOWN WITH CAPITALISM! CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL! SO IS BUSHITLER!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I contracted with IBM for 3 years then got laid off. I was exactly as you describe above.
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.
Fine. Don't become a contractor. Get a full-time job or go out an start your own company where you can hire contractors and treat them however you like.
Now shut up and go away.
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. 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.
Look at the war in Iraq - unless you are holding a weapon you are probably a contractor. Hell even some of the security forces are contactors.
I have spent most of my career as either a contractor to the government and now as a contractor to a major fortune 500 company.
Contractors are good for business - and while I dont like it myself I have to take the job to pay the bills.
I think suits like this just hurt the contractors - one company I know mandates contractors have 30 days off between contracts. Its hard to go for 30 days with no pay, but this way they feel they can prove your not an employee.
Apply for a job.
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.
Just great. This usually just ends up screwing over those of us who *want* to contract. I've been doing it for a while and get a fair price for my services, but I and many others end up suffering under policies designed to prevent these types of lawsuits. E.g. - Many companies now have a maximum period of time that you can contract before they must terminate your contract. This means that you basically need to get laid off every six (or nine or twelve) months and take a three month break (or more) before you can work for them again. This happened after the Microsoft lawsuit.
I sympathize with the plight of some of those other contractors, but the bottom line is that you need to negotiate your pay rate, and it should be in excess of what an equiavalent employee would make in order to mitigate your additional risk, lack of benefits, lack of stock options, and time out of work. When you consider these factors, it becomes apparent why contract rates are from 50-100% higher than an equivalent salary position.
If you've done a poor job negotiating your contract terms, blame yourself or your contracting agency, not the company for which you work.
According to TFA, these are employees of other firms. Makes a huge difference . . .
hawk
If HP is found guilty then they are not the only ones who will go down for this. BellSouth is very guilty of this. At one point they fired most of their full time IT and development staff and hired Accenture to do most of their IT and development work. Here's the catch, Accenture went and hired all of the same people who were "fired". The same people who had been working the same job for five to fifteen years went right back to work at the same place sitting at the same desk. The only difference is they started getting their paychecks from a different company. Oh, and the other difference is, Accenture did not pay any overtime. Of course some people used the transition to their advantage and made use of their new employer but the whole thing seemed like a somewhat shady tax evasion thing. This happened during the tech bubble burst so people were happy just to have a job. It did seem insane to some people because now BellSouth was paying two to five times as much per resource. I figured it was a big shuffling of the corporate books. I did wonder how legal it was though. This case with HP could prove to be interesting......
dumb bitch
This only hurts contractors in the long run.
Point 1: You work for a contracting company. They farm you out, assign you as a contractor to a third party. If you have problems with benefits or such -- take it up with you employer not the company your employer is taking a check from and the company you provide service to.
Point 2: Refer to point 1.
I have many contractors who have no desire to become employees. Yet my company is scared to let us keep these people because of stupid lawsuits like this one.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Most of these people probably worked through a managed service contract (as I do) where they were hired by a 3rd party (Addecco, Perot System, Manpower Professional, Volt.. you know the neames) to provide a whole packaged 'service'
through the company who has the contract with HP. The way this works is supposed to ba a Black Box solution. The comany tells the vendor through a defined management chain what they want, and the vendor tells it's employees "here is what the company wants us to do". However, sometimes groups or managers hate to go through these channels, and try to provide direction directly to the employee of the vendor who is in this black box. I work for a group that does things right, and I enjoy my work and my co-workers. I get paid more than many FT company empoyees, I am not salaried, so OT is OT. I have decent benefits (not as good, but decent). Some firms let the company directly manage it's employees, have crappy benefits, but ups th epay slightly to try to keep them around. There have been some managed service contracts terminated recently to in-source/off-shore services, and I am sure these people are ones who worked for the vendors who let company emplyees tell them what to do, and are now possibly justified in their complaint. I just hope this doesn't screw it up for those of us who are in a good position as a 'non-employee'
I needed the job, so I contracted through a firm with a local employer as a programmer.
In one way, it was a good experience. While my contract ended, the employer stated they'd want me back for another project, and even hire me. The new project doesn't start for a few months though.
On the negative. My pay was $32/hr. Because of laws in Minnesota, contractors are not eligible for most UI ( Maybe 1-3 months at most ).
Also, the contracting house doesn't offer health care, and after maybe 3 months, does offer a 401k. Undoubtably they were charging $40-45/hr, and pocketing the difference...
Excuse me, but next time I'll take the $8/hr, and buy my own insurance and sock the money into my own 401k, or save it to cover 'downtime' that contracting incurs. Except for a 401k option after 3 months, there were no other benes...
And the contracting firm hasn't exactly been calling me with new leads to interview at...
At least Union halls actively seek work for you, and you get some UI help from them for having paid your dues.
In one of the clients I worked for, they gave contractors literally 2'X4' desks to work while every other employee at any level in that company had 5 times bigger desk space. This company never invited contractors for company christmas parties and even didn't bothered to set them up with their private voice mail. They wouldn't be invited to participate in meetings that are critical to the project and would be notified later of only outcomes of the meetings. The contractors won't be even invited in to project success parties while the fact was that it was just those contractors and only them who actually wrote any code to build the project. If project is running behind the contractors would be asked to drop their plans and work in weekends at Friday 4 PM and often asked to work late to meet deadlines. They will be even forced regularly to cancel their planned vacations without sufficient notice. When project would end the company will inform them in the morning that it was their last day! The employees, mostly managers, would have completely different life styles of frequent parting at company's cost, vacationing and useless meetings. The contractors were just worker robots without any feelings or need for social interaction with their collegues, they weren't humans. They had a view that contractors can be treated as worst as they want to because they had higher pay rates and legally only few rights. This is inspite of the fact they were the ONLY contributor in actually building the product.
Hello you were hired as contract workers..
Idiots!
I'd Fire every last one of them!
It's nonsense like this that causes retarded rules like the one causing me to leave my current contract.
Bottom line, if you sign up to do the job, then do it, and move on. Don't sue because you're jealous. That just ruins it for the rest of us.
I've been working at hp for a good amount of time and prior to that, compaq. For the duration of this period it has been common practice to hire contractors and keep them on a revolving contract.
In New Zealand, a law change came in to prevent this sort of thing so people can be recognised as full time employees. So they found a loophole. This loophole works by hiring someone through an agency and keep them on a yearly contract (which i have heard is going to change to less). The reason for this i have observed is twofold.
1. Cheaper. They don't pay them any more than regular staff. In fact they get paid by the hour with a max of 7.5 hours a day. no benefits. no overtime (which no staff is really eligable for unless there is a really good business case)
2. Beauraucracy. HP is so full of rubbish processes defined by an inefficient management chain. An example of this is: if someone leaves, we cannot hire a replacement for that person. Work will get shoved around or if it is really desperate for a worker, it will not hire a full time person, rather go through the agency so it doesn't appear so critical on the books.
Our contractors get such a hard time here and it's just going to get worse. When hp first merged with compaq, all contractors were going to get @non.hp.com email addresses. This didn't come to light due to up internal uproar. However I heard that this might come into effect again.
Another apartheid style example is one of access to employee resources. If you are permanent, you get access to a resource called "books online 24/7". This is a library full of technical books that you can read as much of as you wish. If you are a contractor, then you get completely denied.
I really hope the people suing our company win. It's high time our selfish managers feel some pressure over their apartheid style actions towards hard working staff. It has completely killed hp's culture which is unanimously agreed that is now non-existant.
I notice you say, "when I worked in USA" and mention negotiating a better contract. This implies that you have a lot more choices than most people. Not everyone has as many skills or is as smart as you. Are we supposed to let the average IQ Wal-Mart worker just get sick and die?
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.
Infuriate left and right
you know if there is a limited amount of jobs people don't relly have a ficticious choice about whether or not they are contract or full time employees. in more rural areas this is even more true. hp and every other company does this to avoid paying insurance, vacation, etc. that and it is easier to hire and fire people.(unemployment benefits). this is done in other shops also. maybe in some more white collar enviroments a contractor has more freedom and can make a good amount of money. for someone putting together a computer or working in a wharehouse this isn't the case. we're talking 9-10 an hour for a contracter if hourly or alot of hours with no overtime. i wish people would stfu about this contracter thing. they're basically full time employees in most cases getting screwed by a company.
"May contain nuts".
Why argue for these people getting the same benefits as permanent employee's? Contractors are paid more than an employee because they don't get these benefits! Many people choose to be contractors because they feel that the extra cash in the hand is worth more than the company benefits offered to permanent employees. If this case was successful, the next case would be "HP get's sued by employee's for underpaying it staff...". I mean really, what's the point of being a permanent employee if you can contract instead, get more money, and still get the same benefits?
Hiring IT people on as 'contractors' is the equivilent to renting workers from manpower. It was recently disclosed that manpower temp agency is one of the largest (if not the largest) employer in America. This is just a way for jerk wad employers to circumvent America's labor laws and devalue people's work. How many people do you know that now make less for doing more?, even in a professional field like IT, just because they have to compete with 'scab' workers who have turned to these rip-off deals out of desperation. In the long run this hurts everyone of course, even the pigs in their lofty gated communities. I applaud the HP contractors and hope they are able to set a precidence. I believe that the IT community as a whole has gotten a raw deal. Any other skilled service industry is unionized. Not that unions are perfect but they at least provide a voice for skilled people handed unfair deals and a decision to either eat crap or starve to death.
... has stockholders to appease. Every week Wall Street Analysts compare your company with others for the amount profit or revenue per employee, amount of benefits, etc.; there are many other metrics; some are weird but are still measurable.
Funding comes easily for "temporary" help.
I saw a top ten pharmaceutical company management *shrink* under that kind of pressure.
Be smart; say No to contract work unless you really thrive that way.
I have worked for HP as a contractor before as well, and I didn't like some of the ways they treated their temps. It felt like a caste system. (It's been abolished in India, why not reintroduce it in corporate America!)
One of the relatively minor things that bothered me was that temps weren't invited to the annual HP picnic. Not that it was any big deal not to go, but it's like being told "go away, you're not one of us." I'm glad to hear you took their advice and went away.
Regardless of whether the case has any legal merit, creating an environment where a group of people who do a large part of the work doesn't feel like a part of the company is a lousy way to run a business.
So you are telling me that if I hired a contractor via a temp company, outside agency or independent contract that expectations of work for those personnel should be less than actual employees? Give me a break. If these people have an issue with the contract and terms they accepted then it is no ones fault but their own.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
Jennifer Miller of Nampa is one of the plaintiffs. Miller said she was employed by HP in Boise from 1989 to 1995, when she took a severance package and left the company. She returned later in 1995 as a contract worker and worked at HP until March 9. Part of the time she was a contract employee through Veritest and Manpower Professional. Her jobs included testing software for HP printers.
... as an HP employee, but didn't get the same benefits as HP employees. That is not right."
Miller said she faced the "same expectations
So she only worked a couple of months as a contractor? Sounds like a contract employee to me, not a perma-temp. Granted, she is only one of the plaintiff's, but it's also the only story really explained in the article.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Contractor or not,
Do your homework to see what Business can and will do given the opportunity. And, what Employees will do in reverse.
Lives were literally given on both sides and it took a long time to arrive where we are at; don't be naive about the whole thing with a simpleton view. The American Dream, however you define it, is at stake.
I have been a long-term sub-contractor for 6 years. I work for a company that outsourced their IT staff to a well-known IT solution provider and I work for them as a sub-contractor. Sounds confusing? Yes, it is. I really don't know who my "boss" is. Is it the supervisor from the company that issues my paycheck, the company that I currently perform services for, or the managers of the company that I receive 'orders' from? Believe me, being a contractor is not fun, because you're basically treated as a "temporary" resource without any chance of climbing the corporate ladder, and have to endure arbitrary pay cuts or incompetent managers who just happen to have forgotten to renew your contract, but at the same time, I have outlived many of my "full employee" collegues. Well, I don't consider 6 years as a "temporary" employment, but nonetheless I am lucky, because I survived a great number of layoff rounds, where generally only employees got the pink slip and not the contractors. I also do not have access to stock options, certain benefits and i am usually overlooked when it comes to corporate gatherings or internal meetings, but I do have a lot more responsibility than some of my "employee" counterparts. However, that is usually made up with more $$$ in my pocket, but, believe me, I'd much rather be "part of the family" than always the exception. It can be extremely difficult at times, especially, if you basically work for three companies and sometimes get conflicting orders from the various parties and can never really 'bond' with anyone, because for you are just a 'resource', but basically perform the exact same work and more tha n your employee worker bees.
From my experience, contractors get paid quite a bit more than a permanent employee doing the same work and also have to work significantly less (i.e. if a contractor works overtime, it's _always_ paid...permanents not so lucky). The reason for this premium is because they don't get the same rights as perms. Compare these guys wages to the perms and I think you'll see that it's up to double the standard perm hourly rate. Want rights...then give back that fat contractors wage...what, you want both...ok, screw you, you're contract is terminated :)
Or not. Government efforts that unnecessarily discourage employment still end up discouraging employment. The results include such things as massive reductions in the number of employees, increased automation, outsourcing, or even moving the entire company to a place where government regulations do not discourage employment.
"The ineffectivenes of regulation is due in large part to the wishywashiness of government regulators, not a de facto result of regulation per se."
So what do we need? Regulators in jackboots and sharkskin coats enforcing a police state? Anything to prevent companies from trying to serve their customers and workers despite burdensome regulations that discourage this?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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. 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.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
So.....how are those anal warts?
You should have given up and sent the notice to them via return receipt registered mail, and let them panic about it.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
For more information (as well as the list of 20 criteria), please see IRS Form SS-8: Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding .
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Now the article does not go into great detail.. so I can not make a firm stance. However.. as it stands I would side 100% with HP. These 33 retards signed a contract with an outside company to work there, they get paychecks from this company not HP. I have done contract work for about 7 years.. you take the crappy contracts along with the good ones. The last contract I worked on for a little over a year. I worked just as hard and as many hours as my co-workers. Does that entitle me to their benefits vacation etc?? hell no. I made 50-60% more money an hour then each of them.. I made more money then my supervisor. Why should I be entitled to the same benefits they had? This same crap happened to Microsoft a few years back as well. Its absurd, If I were HP, the contractors would be let go right now lawsuit or not. I hope these 33 employees get stuck with the lawyer costs after they lose the suit. Maybe thne other contract retards will not bother to get this idea.
But any contractor will tell you these people have a legitimate beef.
Nope. I've done plenty of contracting, and I see no real beef here. Just mad cow disease.
There are legitimate reasons to use contractors.
Sorry, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what HP's reasons were. These contractors, allegedly adults, allegedly professional, allegedly educated, allegedly rational, went in with their eyes wide open (if not, whose fault was that?) and signed the contract. It is a gross moral failure on their part to now try to use the courts to change the rules, to try to force their desires and wills on HP. It's a stickup, pure and simple.
If you don't like the terms, don't contract! It's that simple. If the only other option is starving to death, that's one thing. But there's always other options. Many people either don't look for other options, or don't like the ones they see, so they say there aren't any.
I contracted at IBM at the tail end of the time when contractors were a life form below even co-ops and interns, where if a contractor entered a break area, the IBM employees had to leave so as not to fraternize. I contracted at a high tech startup during the dot com time, where the only differences between me and an employees were that I had no stock options and couldn't be in meetings where finances were discussed. In both cases I busted my butt for my customer and got paid what I'd agreed on, and both sides were happy.
On the face of it, these contractors appear to have decided it's OK to mug and rape your customer. I have a real problem with that.
If you want to effect change, work on the laws through the Congress, and work through professional associations, networking, whatever, to get companies to do things differently. Form a union, whatever.
What are the likely outcomes of what these people are doing?
1) More offshore outsourcing, screwing over potential contractors in the US.
2) Companies will revert to treating contractors like scum, instead of part of the team and as human beings.
I submit that both of these results suck, unless you're an offshore contractor.
For those of you out there telling temporary workers to "just get a full time job..." Some of us temporary people can't find a full time job no matter how hard we try.
I have been working as a temporary employee for a year and a half now. This was the only job that I could find at the time. I have been applying for evey job that I think I even remotely qualify for ever since and have only had a couple of interviews.
I work for the National Guard in a certain state that I won't mention for now. I was hired on as an temporary indefinite employee to start. In that capacity I had full benefits etc. I was in that position about a month and then my employer decided that they hired too many indefinite temps and offered some of us Active Duty. (same money, different pots... its the government) I am an officer and it only made sense to take the Active Duty appointment. Higher pay (about $10,000 more per year), completely free healthcare, etc. When the Active Duty appointment ended (a year later), they were only too happy to hire me back on as a temporary employee again... But only temporary, not indefinite. A true temporary employee has no benefits at all. This is where I am now, and my "contract" is good through the end of September.
That will make almost two years doing the same job, sitting in the same chair in front of the same computer. My co-workers are the same. I am paid at the same rate as them and expected to follow the same rules. But, I get no benefits and to go out and purchase my own would surely cost more than what my co-workers are paying.
The IRS has established a 20-point checklist the can be used as a guideline in determining whether or not a contractor can legally be paid on a 1099. This checklist helps determine who has the "right of control." Does the employer have control or the "right of control" over the individual's performance of the job and how the individual accomplishes the job? The greater the control exercised over the terms and conditions of employment, the greater the chance that the controlling entity will be held to be the employer. The right to control (not the act itself) determines the status as an independent contractor or employee. The 20-point checklist is only a guideline, it does not guarantee that a person is correctly classified. There is no one single homogenous definition of the term "employee." Most agencies and courts typically look to the totality of the circumstances and balance the factors to determine whether a worker is an employee.
Following are the 20-points that have been established:
1. Must the individual take instructions from your management staff regarding when, where, and how work is to be done?
2. Does the individual receive training from your company?
3. Is the success or continuation of your business somewhat dependent on the type of service provided by the individual?
4. Must the individual personally perform the contracted services?
5. Have you hired, supervised, or paid individuals to assist the worker in completing the project stated in the contract?
6. Is there a continuing relationship between your company and the individual?
7. Must the individual work set hours?
8. Is the individual required to work full time at your company?
9. Is the work performed on company premises?
10. Is the individual required to follow a set sequence or routine in the performance of his work?
11. Must the individual give you reports regarding his/her work?
12. Is the individual paid by the hour, week, or month?
13. Do you reimburse the individual for business/travel expenses?
14. Do you supply the individual with needed tools or materials?
15. Have you made a significant investment in facilities used by the individual to perform services?
16. Is the individual free from suffering a loss or realizing a profit based on his work?
17. Does the individual only perform services for your company?
18. Does the individual limit the availability of his services to the general public?
19. Do you have the right to discharge the individual?
20. May the individual terminate his services at any time?
In addition, the IRS generally holds that any employment that goes longer than 12 months is grounds for a W2.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV but I do work for a Human Resources Outsourcing firm.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
Contractor benefits depend on the contract company. Contractors may make more or less than HP employees in the same position, but we pay the contract company a premium price for the contractor. A contractor may be royally screwed by the Used Car Salesman of the contracting industry. Other contractors work for the Cadillacs of the contracting industry; they get premium pay (more than HP employees in the same jobs) and some benefits like vacation days and insurance. That hourly premium is intended to help compensate for cruddier benefits, by the way.
HP chooses from which company to use contractors, so maybe we shouldn't go to the Used Car guys. But we have to use contingent workers to compete in the marketplace, keep the cost of our products competitive, and still have enough profit to finance a few corporate bonuses. Otherwise, it'll all go over to India or Singapore and we'll all be unemployed. (Oh, but wait, then we'd sue India and Singapore for unemployment pay).
If the contractors win this case against HP, I think employees should countersue to demand reimbursement of any wage premium paid to the contractors in the suit (retroactive to the start date of their employment, of course) to bolster our severance packages when HP reduces overall headcount to offset the cost of the lawsuit in order to meet Wall Street expectations of our quarterly EPS.
If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right. (Adapted from Henry Ford)
I'm currently working on HP's site through Adecco Technical for going on three years now. Never once have I been laid off, or been treated in any way other than a FTE. I recieve a W2. When I first arrived in boise I applied with Manpower, and I was told through them that every so often (9 months i believe?) There was a mandatory layoff of several months, due to being hired as an "contract employee" With adecco I have seen no such thing. However, On a day to day basis I work around HP engineers and the like. us "adecco's" are treated as sub-class citizens, as we are not allowed to use HP's facilites, such as the gym, pool, or even the basketball courts outside. We do not recieve sick time or vacation time and are expected to work on holidays with no extra pay. OT is rare. And I do not see "contract" employees on site making all that much money, in comparison to a full blooded HP employee. Theres a reason we're reffered to as "adecco's". I'm not part of the class action, but I am very curious to watch it play out, because I'm sure my life will change because of it.
Folks, let me tell you about the Contracting world of HP. It SUCKS! First they bring you in, and once they have you theres no escape. The Server & Storage division is going completely down the tubes. Cutting HP employees left and right, then bringing in contractors to fill these voids. BUT, at HALF the pay! I think HP's motto shouldn't be HP, Invent; it should be HP, You Get Nothing and Like It!
Contracts now are being sold to other contractors because HP doesnt want to pay, and then those Contracting companies come in and slash pays to the point where you can make more money working at WAL-MART!! And if you dont accept the terms, no matter how important or needed you are, your kicked to the curb. Contracting/Temp Agencies are one of the WORST things anyone could have come up with. Very very shady companies!
That's just stupid. Firstly, they couldn't make them do this. Secondly, what the hell has drinking a can of beer, juice or water at the end of the day got to do with work?!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Folks, let me tell you about the Contracting world of HP. It SUCKS! First they bring you in, and once they have you theres no escape. The Server & Storage division is going completely down the tubes. Cutting HP employees left and right, then bringing in contractors to fill these voids. BUT, at HALF the pay! I think HP's motto shouldn't be HP, Invent; it should be HP, You Get Nothing and Like It!
Contracts now are being sold to other contractors because HP doesnt want to pay, and then those Contracting companies come in and slash pays to the point where you can make more money working at WAL-MART!! And if you dont accept the terms, no matter how important or needed you are, your kicked to the curb. Contracting/Temp Agencies are one of the WORST things anyone could have come up with. Very very shady companies!
For more information on who is an employee and who is a contractor, see IRS Publication 15-A.
I am one of the "contractors" that are named on this suit. I am also a class rep on the commity that makes me one of the first 33 you read in the article. That being said I need to exsplain a few things, at least in boise, id. 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.
Dinnertime at the Simpsons.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
I am one of the "contractors" that are named on this suit. I am also a class rep on the commity that makes me one of the first 33 you read in the article. That being said I need to exsplain a few things, at least in boise, id.
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.
I've been all around the map in this respect, contractor under various conditions, employee for same company, doing roughly equivalent work as when I was a contractor, to doing 'skill assessments' and selecting contractors.
The most raw compensation I have ever been able to achieve has been as an independent contractor, *however*, that is less than 1% of the contractor population, and I've only been able to pull it off when the company is in desperate need for short term help and is willing to accept my request to not involve a contracting company (it is a lot of administrative headache for a company to deal with any significant quantity of independent contractors). By that same token, they are either seeking to actually bother to employ by 6 months to secure better the services, or the need is truly passed and in 6 months, they are glad to terminate the headache of an independent contractor... Yes, independent contractors can make out like bandits, but almost always for short periods of time.
Now, most all significant corporations will *refuse* to deal with *any* independent contractors due to the administrative headache, and will limit things to no more than a small handful of contracting agencies. Now these contracting agencies are nothing more than leaches on the contractors that save the client company administrative overhead. As someone who does selections, I know, for example, that the company pays ~27/hour for a particular type of contractor, and after the agency sucks the blood out of it, it turns to 17/hour, without any benefits, the 10/hour is to pay for their people to search monster for resumes and collate the charges to the company, and, of course, to pad very happy executives who have the *cushiest* job in the freaking world. At the same time, a mob of contractors under a single contracting agency is pretty easy to manage, and the incentive for dismissing and/or employing is greatly reduced, so while these positions tend to be more stable, you are also stuck with 0 chance of advancement, unless you become a more executive leach withing the company, which can only happen for those that aren't purely technical.
Employment has been my favorite, a fair share less than the raw compensation of independent contracting, but the tax headaches, the insurance headaches, retirement savings, and all the administrative aspects of it are annoying, and during the whole time you know the clock is ticking before the position in front of you is going to evaporate make things unpleasant. Employment at a stable company with somewhat better than decent compensation has been very very comfortable. The agency contractors get the worst of all worlds, and to even think they are enviable is laughable.
I see a lot of people saying that they made this choice on their own, but it doesn't dismiss the fact that something fairly unethical is going on with the typical contracting arrangement. Employers abuse the system to have a flexible, disposable workforce that they don't have to pay as much tax on, but offer decent raw compensation amounts in exchange. However, by restricting the criteria for entry to require bloodsucking agencies, they enable the worst perpetrators to do what they do. Contractors may technically have a choice, but as more and more companies use more and more contractors, those opportunities are so few and far between.
I hate seeing the company officially treat contractors like shit in order to reduce their perceived legal liability, but even more I hate the agencies that suck up to ~40% of a contractors pay for their overhead without providing benefits, when you know damn well their responsibilities could be carried out at a greatly reduced rate.
I really applaud your stance. I think, however, that HP (and the other 'client' corporations) are enablers for the contracting agencies to be leeches, but the real bastards are those taking nearly half off the top just to manage your damn timesheets. I've been a contractor at a company, and managed to turn things around and do contractor selection as an employee and see the pre-agency pay rates, I could not believe how much money was being paid, and how much was taken out without so much as a single benefit to explain the loss.
Something about the whole institution needs to change.
"Miller said she was employed by HP in Boise from 1989 to 1995, when she took a severance package and left the company. She returned later in 1995 as a contract worker and worked at HP until March 9. Part of the time she was a contract employee through Veritest and Manpower Professional. Her jobs included testing software for HP printers.""
Something about this sounds wierd. Every employer I know of has had a strict time limit on length of contract: ChipZilla's is one year, with a minumum of 6 months off the payroll before you can be recontracted. A series of contracts doesn't equal a permanent employment.
"you often haven't a clue what the definition of "independent contractor" is. And you're making your living as one?
Uh ... my employer is the agency who finds the job, witholds income and social security taxes and offers benefits. They have a contract with MegaCorp to locate, qualify, and provide them with one tech writer with certain skills for XX an hour. Agency bills MegaCorp, I get paychecks and W2s from the agency.
A truly independent contractor finds their own jobs, negotiates their own contracts, and takes care of the billing and taxes and crap. They usually provide their own equipment, set their own hours, etc.
They also exist to serve the workers and customers. They must satisfy these two other groups or they will not succeed.
"The best means to maximise this is to pay your employees the least and charge the customers the most."
And the want to be paid more, or to pay less. However, if the employee is paid for less than the value of the work, the employee will leave and the company will fail. (Companies also fail if the workers are paid way above the value of the work: see the factories that die due to union wage demands that have no relation to value of work and money available). If the customer is overcharged, he will go elsewhere (and the company will fail). The company must serve them in order to succeed.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The difference in treatment is because of lawsuits like this.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Another reason would be that people working for the company through contracting firms do not count as "headcount" for purposes of EEOC reports.
So you need some people with specific skills and experience who happen to be in -no- "protected class" and you don't want your EEOC hiring stats and salary averages to look skewed, you bring them on board through a third party. The contracting firm may also be located in a different geographic location with different demographics - the criteria for proving discrimation is by looking at the composition of the local employment pool of the employer's location. The subcontractor is an employee of the contractor, not the client.
Even if the subcontractor gets sued at some point for employment discrimination, they don't have the "deep pockets" of a large corporation and act as a legal buffer.
IANAL-BIUTBAIC
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
Check out Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. v. Ratcliff, 141 F.3d 1405, 1409-10 (10th Cir. 1998). After a bunch of news carriers were reclassified by the IRS as common law employees, they sued to be included in the company's retirement plan. The carriers got their asses handed to them by the Tenth Circuit Court, however, because they signed agreements stating that they understood that were not employees and were not entitled to benefits. Same thing happened in Trombetta v. Cragin Fed. Bank for Savings Employee Stock Ownership Plan, 102 F.3d 1435, 1438-39 (7th Cir. 1996) to a bunch of loan originators.
The only reason the IRS makes it so easy to reclassify contractors as employees is that they get more money that way! Employment and benefits law are not concerned with who the IRS thinks is really an employee for tax calculation purposes.
The fact is, even if these contractors can convince the IRS that they are employees of HP, all that will entitle them to is to get their income taxes withheld by HP. And wouldn't that be a huge victory for the little guy?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
2. Microsoft's benefit plan eligibility rules specifically referenced the IRS guidelines regarding who is eligible to participate and who is not.
Because Microsoft already conceeded that these folks were employees, they were not later allowed to argue that they were contractors (see legal concept of "estoppel"). And since they defined benefits eligibility based on the IRS rules, they were basically hosed. (But even with all that, Microsoft won round 1 but lost on appeal.)
I should hope that HP has learned their lesson from what happened to Microsoft in '96-'97 and revised their benefits plan language to exclude these contractors/employees/whatevers. Even on the offchance that they learned nothing from Microsoft's well-publicized defeat, HP is still probably fine since they never officially conceeded that these contractors were HP employees.
I have to side with HP on this one. This suit has no merit.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I agree with you, you are probably an employee and not a contractor by IRS rules. Unfortunately, all that entitles you to is to have your income taxes withheld. It does not entitle you to any HP benefits because benefits law and tax law are different.
For more information, please see my previous post on the subject that points out to two similar cases were lost by the contractors/employees/whatevers.
Also, since I'm sure your lawyers are telling you all about how Microsoft lost a similar case back in '96-'97, please see a different previous post about why Microsoft lost and why HP is going to win this one.
Anyhow, the best of luck with everything. I know the market is tough out there, but hang in there!
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
What really amazes me is how many idiot armchair attorneys there are here in slashdot who don't have the first fucking clue what they are talking about. I think some of my favorites are the ones who say, "Oh, yeah, go head and sign that contract, it's not enforceable, anyway." Well guess what, it often is enforceable. The Courts look at a number of different criteria to decide what is and is not enforceable and they often tend toward what is written in the contract. Courts will not interfere with a "meeting of the minds" without a good reason, so you'd better not sign something you disagree with, hoping to get unfavorable items stricken in court should a dispute arise.
You are a particularly funny example because you are so hostile toward those who correctly surmised that the contractors are not entitled to benefits since they signed away their rights before starting work. I sincerely hope that readers are more inclined to heed the case law from the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts than the mindless pontification of some misinformed IRS employee.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Also, FYI, SEPs are better than 401Ks. And you can take your tuition reimbursements and shove 'em. Good contractors make enough in a week to pay for a semester of college. Don't get me started about a gym membership.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Hopefully you didn't waste too much time reading irrelevant tax code. I hate tax code.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I hope this turns out well for those workers. I don't have a huge amount of contracting experience, but I had one contract with a clear project where I played a clear role and where there was a clear completion to the project. At another contract, I had no specific role other than that of an employee; so, I worked as an employee, doing numerous things and even going above and beyond my duties to make overtures at getting hired "for real." Needless to say when I got a letter saying that my contract was to be terminated in 3 months, I felt a bit slighted.
Seems to me that companies should use contractors for SPECIFIC PROJECTS, not as a way to cheaply hire what amount to regular employees. I believe the US federal government already works under this type of guideline... It only makes sense. A win for the HP employees would be a win for a much-needed new type of information labor movement.
The CA Tax authorities cracked down before the feds did, back in the mid-90s when a lot of the contractors were dodging their state taxes. YMMV may vary in other states with less agressive tax authorities, no state tax, or states with no money to enforce tax laws.
Right now California is in the latter category, and tax-dodging is on the upswing. Just like the goold old days, co-workers are starting to brag about how they have established out of state residency to dodge their state taxes.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic
The government should be involved because the governments laws have been broken.
The question is not if we were working for another company. But if those companies were involved in illegal activity that we were adversely effected by.
You say it is a matter of greed when you in fact have very little information on this case.
Most of the posts on this forum in fact are stating that contractors make more money... This is not true in this situation but this is not even the point of the lawsuit.
Why would we go through the trouble of a lawsuit that we may walk away from with a couple grand if we are lucky?
There is a huge problem gaining momentum in the United States.
How many people do you know that have been excessed.
How many families destroyed due to the movement.
What problems have been caused by NAFTA or by globalizing the economy.
I will not even pretend to know all of the answers.
But this is what I see.
1) The United State is feeling huge economic strains from NAFTA and from globalization.
2) People all over the place are being forced into minimum wage jobs due to companies trying to cut the bottom line. Those same companies are reporting record profits to the stockholders. And some are breaking the law to accomplish this.
4) The rich just keep getting richer by cutting the bottom line at the expense of the American worker.
5) Wage freezes and Layoffs are not only happening to the non-contract workers. They are happening to everyone.
The government has put laws in place to help protect workers from corporations. In this situation we believe that these laws have been broken. As you can see in the article linked at the top of this post. Destruction of evidence was ordered. To me that looks really suspicious in itself. But there is more to it than just that.
We can only hope to institute a change for the better but the future in not in our hands.
We believe that what HP has done is illegal and they should be accountable for that.Almost everyone I knew in high tech at the time, contractor or otherwise, thought that the contractors suing MS was both stupid and, at best, unethical (if not an outright breach of contract).
At the time, I had very deep ties into the contractor community, being off and on one, myself, and the suit pissed me off as much as it did anyone. It was the opposite of the professional conduct we all strove for.
I don't usually post to front page, or even YRO articles (what the crap is this doing in YRO?) but this article directly affects me.
Readers of my journal will note that I work at the Boise HP plant as a contractor. I actually worked with Jennifer Miller for all of my nearly 3 years on a managed-service contract. The "managed service" part is what HP calls the people they don't want to give employee status, but they don't want to have to lay off for 90 days after 2 years of work (like all the rest of the ETW classified contract workers, due to either state or internal policy). In other words,
Please read the article. The person in question worked directly with HP employees and made critical business decisions. She was a test lead. They say "this is a problem, fix it" for all sorts of products that pass through the QA test lab. She worked odd hours (along with the test teams she supervised) at the request of HP project managers, not at the request of her contract manager, who had nothing to do with the daily functions and responsibilities of her position.
There are many other engineers and managers in our group and across the rest of the site, that are hired as contractors instead of direct hire employees because HP makes the position open only to contractors, yet these positions do the same work as employees. Some times, the contract manager is in charge of, or directs the activities of, HP employee engineers as well as other contract workers.
Don't be too quick to dismiss the case as a bunch of whiny, greedy, under-qualified contractors too stupid to negotiate work as employees. HP does not provide the option. Their guidelines from the division level on down require a specific ratio of contracts to employees so that costs can be reduced, irregardless of the job responsibilities involved. I have personally witnessed HP managers articulating their quota goals for this ratio, though I can't off hand remember the exact figure (something like 3:1).
The situation in Boise is such that hundreds of employees were laid off on Carly's watch so that cost cutting could be implemented. These same positions were not eliminated. They were contracted out, in many cases to the same person so that HP could pay them less, eliminate all benefits, and reduce head count. HP no longer had hundreds of employees per team. They had a few dozen, with a large contract "resource" pool.
According to the article, many of the guidelines provided by the IRS have been violated routinely by HP. My contract company provides $0 of the tools, materials and other equipment necessary for my job. We all have HP administrative assistants responsible for ordering these materials and other office related supplies. We are required, or strongly urged, to work the schedule necessary to meet our project's deadlines. OT is paid, if approved, otherwise the contractor is free to leave when their hours are completed.
HP has been walking the legal line for years, but the problem is they are walking on the wrong side, and hoping that the fear of Wipro India is enough to keep the sheep (employees) and the lambs (contractors) scared of the big bad outsourcing wolf.
jason
In case no one else say it, the same paper also published an article describing a case brought by an HP Employee before the class-action suit was announced because of a demotion and pay cut because the employee stood up against the contracting policies at HP. I'll quote interesting bits...
Former project manager Mike McClendon alleges he was demoted and had his pay grade reduced after warning HP executives that by classifying long-time workers as contractors the company was risking an Internal Revenue Service investigation and a possible multimillion dollar lawsuit.
McClendon's lawsuit claimed that a presentation by HP senior counsel Mark DeMeester during the October 2003 meeting made it "apparent to those assembled that HP was violating the law in a manner that was virtually identical to the Microsoft case."
In the suit, McClendon claims that points made by DeMeester indicated that HP was following in Microsoft's footsteps by:
Having contractors supervised by HP managers.
Integrating contractors into the HP team.
Having contractors perform the same work as permanent HP employees.
Having contractors do the same job for as much as two years.
Using contractors for work critical to the delivery of core HP products.
McClendon alleged that those present at the meeting were ordered to destroy any written notes or erase notes taken on laptops. He said they were told that "without a 'paper path' it would be difficult for a lawsuit to be decided against HP."
McClendon alleges HP has ordered him not to discuss the suit, and he has declined do so beyond what is in the suit. He is asking the court to lift that gag order.
This isn't just something that the greedy contractors are worrying about.
jason
But you are going to lose this one. See my other comments in this story for more details. Basically, even if the IRS reclassifies you as employees, as long as HP doesn't conceed that you are employees, there is a mountain of case law that says you are not employees under benefits law. Tax law has nothing to do with benefits law, as long as HP worded their benefits plan documentation correctly. I would be shocked if they did not use the correct legal language after Microsoft lost their high-profile case.
All HP has to conceed is that they owe taxes because of a disagreement with the IRS. Or even if they do wind up conceeding that you are employees, if their plan docs exclude you correctly, you'll still lose.
And furthermore, even if you do manage to win, I hope you haven't spent the money yet. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp. was filed in 1992. It is now 2005. Guess how many people have gotten paid so far? One. The lawer representing the class. Maybe the class will be paid something.... someday.... really soon now.... maybe...
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
You and I are in full agreement that the HP contractors can probably get the IRS to reclassify them as HP employees. I know the tax code, and the group of contractors meet many of the 20 IRS guidelines on who is an employee. But here is where you are going to have to concentrate now. Ready for it? Are you sure you're ready?
The IRS reclassifying the contractors as employees does not entitle the employees/contractors/whatevers to HP benefits. I repeat. The IRS reclassing the contractors as HP employees does not mean they get HP bennies.
Was that clear enough? I mean, it's funny. In that article you linked do, look at this choice quote:
You see? The silly newspaper is making the same mistake that you are! This Professor Kaupins guy has it right. If the IRS reclasses those contractors, HP is gonna owe a boatload of back taxes. But then the idiot reporter transitions straight into HP benefits as though the IRS gets to decide who gets HP bennies. This is not the case! The IRS has no say in the matter. To get bennies, the contractors must prove under benefits law, not tax law, that they are HP employees.I wish them/you/whatever the best of luck in doing so. You are very probably not HP employees under benefits law, even though you very probably are HP employees under tax law.
Have I made that point clear enough?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent