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."

Comments

About freaking time!

[numbski]

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.

They can't just call them "contractors"

[winkydink]

to avoid paying benefits, etc...

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.

Re:They're right, this has no merit...

[gstoddart]

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?

In this case, the contractors are claiming that for all intents-and-purposes, they functioned more like actual employeed than a contractor. They're use IRS defintions to back their case.

If the company can have you classed as a contractor, they save mondo money on not paying you benefits. They're saying they did the same work in the same office and effectively get discriminated against.

As I recall, a similar situation used to (does?) exist at Microsoft -- people could stay as contractors for years in the same position. They got none of the perks and benefits, and were effectively second-class citizens (or so I've heard, I've never even been to Washington State).

These people are trying to get themselves recognized as being actual employees, or at least equivelant.

Cheers

Not quite

[temojen]

Around here (BC, Canada) an employee is one who

1. works on an employers site,
2. uses the employer's tools,
3. works hours set by the employer, and
4. is supervised by other employees of the employer,
5. or any combination of 2 or 3 of the above.

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)

Re:I never understood..

[Anonymous Coward]

Employment law supercedes contracts quite often. you can't contract for something that is illegal, and it is illegal to treat people in certain ways, even if they agree to it in writing.

If the employment terms can't pass certain tests that distinguish them (the contractors) from the regular employees, then regardless of contract, they are employees and deserve the same benefits that a regular employee enjoys.

If it was simply a contract dispute, you'd have a point. If the argument is that the contract is illegal, or meritless in certain areas, then you don't. And without seeing the contract, and the full text of the labor laws of Idaho, speaking from knowledge based on osmosis from your wife is slightly ill-advised.

Re:I never understood..

[Macadamizer]

So this person voluntarily entered into a contract with HP (well, with a subcontractor of HP), with the understanding that she would be paid X dollars in exchange for Y hours work, with no additional compensation expected on either side. Fast forward a couple years and now we're supposed to let her renegotiate the contract BACKDATED TO THE START because she's changed her mind?

But a contract isn't valid if it requires a law to be broken. And in all states in the U.S., you can't just call someone a contractor and have that be the end of it -- every state has there own checklist of what is a contractor and what isn't. Just because you have someone sign a contract saying they are a "contractor" doesn't mean that contract is valid -- they actually have to meet the test to be a contractor.

It's like the whole exempt versus non-exempt worker -- employers like to classify workers as exempt, so they don't have to pay them overtime. But the laws don't let the employer decide who gets overtime and who doesn't -- there are a set of rules that define what the duties of an exmpt employee are, and if an employee doesn't meet that test, then classifying them as exempt is against the law, and any contract specifying otherwise is void.

Now, who knows if these contractors who are suing meet the Idaho definition of contractor or not -- but the whole idea that a contract is the be-all-end-all is incorrect.