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.
Not sure what blocking re-employment has to do with leaks. If anything driving people to other companies is likely to cause MORE leaks.
This is almost certainly about eliminating the risk of contingent workforce being classified as employees. My own employer does the same thing, though it does not bar long-term relationships as long as the company doesn't interview individual workers. That is, if we hire Fred to help out with something, then Fred is gone in two years and must take a break. On the other hand, if we hire Acme janitorial to clean our trash and they send over Fred then he can work for years, but we don't get a veto on who they send/etc.
I have mixed feelings. On one hand it does make things harder on those who end up having to move on. On the other hand, before the policy we used to have a LOT of people who would be dragged along in a contract position with the elusive promise of a hire that would take years to happen. The policy forces managers to act if they don't want to lose somebody.
For those needing another reason not to purchase Microsoft products...they just fired 18,000 people but are lobbying the government for an ever increasing number of wage slaves from India and other countries. They can hire these poor saps at lower salaries, bully them into working long hours for no additional pay (it's that bad 'ol offshore middleman that's blamed for the sweatshop hours) while backhanding profits to cronies in these offshore companies. Meanwhile, they whine that they can't find any qualified local staff. Actually, they just can't find local staff willing to work for third world salaries while living with first world expenses and taxes. Just say no.
Grandma's still got a chance of being raped if those frat boys are drunk enough and high enough.
... Which pretty much explains every 'Enterprise IT' purchasing decision ever.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Specifically, states like California are now trying to reclassify temporary employees as permanent in order to collect additional tax revenue. This happened with Apple before, and they also now have a 6 month rule. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Microsoft is particularly sensitive to the issue, given that it was a lawsuit against them that triggered the whole idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
So this has nothing to do with the laid off employees (unless they are laying off contractors first, which is pretty common, if they can).
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.