Slashdot Mirror
No RIF'd Employees Need Apply For Microsoft External Staff Jobs For 6 Months
theodp (442580) writes So, what does Microsoft do for an encore after laying off 18,000 employees with a hilariously bad memo? Issue another bad memo — Changes to Microsoft Network and Building Access for External Staff — "to introduce a new policy [retroactive to July 1] that will better protect our Microsoft IP and confidential information." How so? "The policy change affects [only] US-based external staff (including Agency Temporaries, Vendors and Business Guests)," Microsoft adds, "and limits their access to Microsoft buildings and the Microsoft corporate network to a period of 18 months, with a required six-month break before access may be granted again." Suppose Microsoft feels that's where the NSA went wrong with Edward Snowden? And if any soon-to-be-terminated Microsoft employees hope to latch on to a job with a Microsoft external vendor to keep their income flowing, they best think again. "Any Microsoft employee who separated from Microsoft on or after July 1, 2014," the kick-em-while-they're-down memo explains, "will be required to take a minimum 6-month break from access between the day the employee separates from Microsoft and the date when the former employee may begin an assignment as an External Staff performing services for Microsoft."
Likely not just to prevent leaks, but also to prevent any contractors from being reclassified as employees.
This is a repeat of 2k9. They laid us off scheduled the 4th of July, but we were removed from our posts on 4th of May, and our access revoked. And while they hired the same number of people immediately the people who were laid off could not apply for 5 months.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I am a contractor (green badge) at Intel, and I have to abide by the same policy. 18 months on, six months off. It's no big deal.
In fact, I kind of like it. I know when my "use by" date is, and I can't negotiate it, so I don't get too comfortable. Not that I don't like working at Intel, I do, but I try never to get too comfortable as a contractor.
Contractors and "perma-temps" are causing massive state audits as the state-level employment agencies are trying to prevent businesses from reclassifying their workforce in a way that avoids paying the unemployment insurance tax. My company's policy is to put any temps through a huge number of documentation loopholes proving that they are getting work from multiple clients, preventing them for working for longer than 11 months straight (with a 3 month break), and anyone who leaves is not allowed to consult or perform any work for at least 12 months.
This is just insane. If the goal is top keep people employed, then the state and feds should be removing barriers to employment (and keep people off the unemployment rolls), not causing both the company and the employee headaches and forcing "break times". Are we in France now?
Oh, you mean where companies have been illegally classifying permanent employees as temporary? That bit?
Sounds like it's time to outlaw rehire time delays like this, since the scumbags found a loophole.
Or perhaps the solution is to simply outlaw temporary hiring for any company over a certain size, say 200 employees or so.
the way nokia handled plenty of contracting was that they were used just so that they didn't need to give them nokia perks when put off from the project(laying off).
I should know. When applying for a job(got tipped off to "call this guy" who told me to contact another guy) I went straight to interview with the company contracting on behalf of the company I would be "working" for(2 layers deep subcontracting from day 0 of that gig, makes no real sense except from the eventual layoffing perks viewpoint - and for screwing over the unions since both the layer 1 subcon company and nokia were doing some layoffs). every day while there we walked roughly 100 meters to daily meeting at the very nearby Nokia offices - and Nokia people greenlighted me to work on the project, the "interview" was a joke because it was with two guys who would not be making the decision, and Nokia was used for getting the local equivalent of secret service background check done(which really just is a check for criminal record but they make it sound fancier). so why didn't Nokia hire me directly, they knew I was on the job market, they knew I was uncontracted at that point in time? well, for easier layoffs and so that some good buddy guys could get to shave my pay on two layers.
oh and the whole Nokia crap from ms was solely and only to keep windows phone alive! that was their ONLY interest in the company and in insertion of Elop. and now they're killing the nokia X to keep windows phone alive(selling at all) since customers are liking nokia X more, as if people were choosing nokia x because it's nokia and would go for windows phone in the same 80 bucks category.
if you don't know what Nokia X is, it's a 80 bucks dualcore android phone available in asia, africa etc markets.
and the now laid off people in Finland in practice can go work whoever the fuck they want after they get laid off, prob is maybe 10% of them actually have usable skills and mindset... but their ex-nokia bosses aren't going to care for shit who they go work for and what "secrets" they take with them(there's no secrets to take with them so..).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
They're doing it to protect themselves from lawsuits. Not so much from disgruntled employees, but from the labor regulators.
I quit an employer about a year ago, and they needed some help. I was happy to help as a one-off contract. I got paid as much (or more!) on contract as I did when I was an employee, and that's after taking into account SS taxes. Some months later, the labor regulators in my state came down on me like a ton of bricks looking for some excuse to reclassify me as employee in order to try and fuck over my former employer. This was a case where I left on good terms and took the contract only because I didn't want to see my replacement suffer unnecessarily. They weren't fucking me over, I charged the fuckers a fair rate and helped some friends out, had a good time for a few weeks, and made a few bucks in the process.
That said, Microsoft has been a bad actor when it comes to having contractors work as employees, but in not having to pay employee benefits and (which is the part the labor regulators care about) unemployment insurance taxes.
And that said, I'm still fucking pissed that my state labor regulator basically told me I wasn't a contractor and had no right to negotiate a contract like that, and basically scared me into not being able to help them in the future. Fuck Microsoft sideways for its past history of misclassifying employees as 1099s, but fuck my state regulator even harder for making it impossible for me to help my friends as my old boss struggles to keep an old startup afloat.
The only reason any of this is problem is that we continue to stupidly tie benefits and retirement to employment. Nobody, especially higher ups, wants to have that conversation in this country.
If being a full time employee simply meant you work more hours than a part time employee and had nothing else associated with it, a good number of people would be better off having two or three part time jobs. Less burn out, more job mobility,and in particular less immediate consequences to getting fired or laid off from a particular job. THAT is the reason big employers are against a national or single payer insurance system and why they demonize the very notion of national retirement benefits even though those things would reduce their costs. They would reduce their power even more, and they just can't have that.