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."
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.
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 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
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
If there are, then HP is overpaying it's employees, and it should be HP shareholders taking HP to court.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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......
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.
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
These stupid fuckers are screwing all the other people in this country who make their living as temps, or more importantly, as in-place consultants.
No, the losing defendants are. If they had no cause of action, the plaintiffs wouldn't file. If the cases had no merit, they'd be dismissed. Blame the abusers of the contractors, not the abused contractors.
Some of the restrictions and "rules" were down right retarded. I won't even bother mentioning them.
Of course not. You haven't got the goods. This is just hot air.
The relationships with permanent employees (often in the same friggin' project) were strained and sometimes became akward.
No shit. They knew what was up. Your presence was a threat from management. "We don't really need permanent employees."
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.
You're a contractor. You think management is wasting your time, but you are getting paid for it. What's the fuss? Come in, do what you're assigned, get a check, go home. What's the frickin' problem? Did you own stock in the company or something? What skin is it off your nose if management wants to be - in your opinion - inefficient? Did they contract your services as an efficiency expert?
YOU'RE A CONTRACT WORKER FOR THE LOVE OF ZOD!!
Not if the contract is used to get around labor laws, you aren't.
Edith Keeler Must Die
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.
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
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.
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.
Just to add a tidbit when a major company hires a "flexible" workforce they are also accomplishing a few other things.
1.) They have to report when they have a major layoff of regular employees but "contracted" they are obligated to do nothing. Then they do not have to watch their stock drop.
2.) They can as HP did last quarter lay off as many contactors as they want to show larger profit on the 4th quarter. Since they do not have to tell anyone it all appears to be profit and makes the stock go up.
I watched a lot of good men and women loose their jobs last quarter. Some of them have been working in my department for 6 years plus. There was no notice, no severance, no thank you for your hard work. Just turn your badge in at the security desk and goodbye. This breaks my heart. These are hard working Americans who are trying to do their best, help make a company strive and then boom gone. If we signed contracts and negotiated our wages then maybe this would not be as bad but in the environment of Boise you work for HP and it is just another company that signs your checks (after taking a very large chunk).
"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.
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