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."
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?
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
You hit the nail on the head -- it doesn't matter if a company calls someone a contractor or not -- they are a contractor if they meet certain criteria, otherwise they are employees.
You can look here for some information on how Idaho figures out if someone is an employee or a contractor.
Company's also like to classify people as "exempt" to avoid paying overtime -- but again, it doesn't matter whether the employer calls someone exempt or not -- it all depends on whether or not someone can meet the criteria of being exempt.
If these people really meet the definition of contractors, and are just now complaining, then the hell with them. But if they are really employees, well, that's why we have labor and employment laws.
I'm pretty much a free-market type of guy, but unfortunately you just can't put an employer and an employee on equal footing as far as bargaining power is concerned -- the employee almost always needs a job more than an employer needs to hire that particular individual -- so we have labor and employment laws to keep the employers from completely screwing their employees...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
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.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
No, nobody's being abused.
I was a contractor for ten years, and I've been a full-time employee for the last 12. As a contractor, I understood that I got an hour's pay for an hour's work. Period. I arranged my own vacation, insurance, and everything else that employees get as benefits. It was my job to ensure that my billing rate was high enough that I earned a good living after paying all those expenses, and I did. I earned a VERY good living, usually a lot better than my employee counterparts.
I quit contracting because I got tired of doing the lowest-level scut work that nobody else wanted, and now I earn a good living as an employee, but I have no illusions about loyalty or job security.
If I was abused by anybody, it was by the contract houses, who skimmed (or tried to, at least) an excessive amount of my raw billing rate as pure profit for them. Needless to say, when I found a contract house that treated me like I might actually know how the business works, I stuck with them.