The fact that some companies are (mis)using it that way doesn't mean that it was created with that (mis)use in mind. The loopholes need to be closed, or rules enforced (or changed) to limit the undesired uses, and promote the desired ones (i.e. bringing in highly skilled workers to fill in critical positions).
They aren't "misusing" it at all. Those loopholes were put there intentionally. It's pretty cute that you think the industries that bought the H-1B program somehow were only doing it for honorable reasons.
Well of course. Industry couldn't use the program to displace US workers as long as the H-1 visa was still only for temporary workers. That is exactly why they got the temporary part of the H-1 visa removed.
None of those "facts" can be used to determine who is a contractor and whom is an part-time or full-time employee.
Sure they can. I suggest you read up on California law because the factors stated in the summary are very much what are used to determine if someone is an employee or a contractor.
There's nothing crap in my post. One would be an idiot to think that Disney won't try again to layoff these workers in the future. Your entire rant seems predicated on something I never explicitly stated or even implied.
With that reasoning, if I drive for multiple services, who is responsible for providing benefits? All 6 different applications, er. companies? A combination of all?
Depends on which companies you'd be classified as an employee of them and what the terms of the benefits are in your resulting employment contract. Possibly none if you aren't considered an employee.
Unfortunately, this is not as cut and dry as you believe.
I never said anything was cut-and-dry. I in fact stated the opposite as opposed to the AC GP which tried to claim the situation was cut-and-dry just because they owned their own cars. It's an entirely subjective decision based on many factors.
The majority of uber drivers also drive for different services.
Which doesn't mean you can't be classified as an employee of one or all of those companies. There are plenty of people with multiple jobs and they are all still considered employees of each of the companies they work for.
It's not really that crazy when you consider their gross revenue of 10 billion, absurd profit margin (all they do I run an app, right?) and massive potential to expand into new markets.
Uber doesn't make $10 billion in revenue. You must have read a story from last year where it was projected that they may have $10 billion in revenue in 2015. No one actually knows what their revenue is but an investor stated just a few months ago that they were briefed it would be in the $2 billion range:
Part of that confidence stems from Uber’s impressive sales growth, which the company sees accelerating this year. Uber recently told some investors that it forecasts net revenue, or the amount it keeps after paying out drivers, of more than $2 billion this year, according to a person who was briefed on the matter
The venture capitalists and others trying to prop up the current tech bubble. They haven't yet had enough time to cash out while leaving everyone else holding the bag of shit.
Whether or not an employee owns the vehicle has no bearing on being a contractor or not. That's as silly as saying "Sales people for [company x] own their own vehicles so they should be contractors".
What determines the difference between an employee and contractor is how much control the company asserts over the person.
Corporations never treated employees that way. I suggest you re-read about how corporations used to treat workers in the late 1800s through the mid 1900s. Almost no one was being treated as value-adding assets. If H1-Bs existed in the 50s and 60s they would have used them just as much as they try to today.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not at all designed to do that.
Sure it was.
The fact that some companies are (mis)using it that way doesn't mean that it was created with that (mis)use in mind. The loopholes need to be closed, or rules enforced (or changed) to limit the undesired uses, and promote the desired ones (i.e. bringing in highly skilled workers to fill in critical positions).
They aren't "misusing" it at all. Those loopholes were put there intentionally. It's pretty cute that you think the industries that bought the H-1B program somehow were only doing it for honorable reasons.
Facebook forces you to use your real name.
They do? I know people with numerous secondary accounts that don't use a real name of anyone. And those accounts have been around for years and years.
Well of course. Industry couldn't use the program to displace US workers as long as the H-1 visa was still only for temporary workers. That is exactly why they got the temporary part of the H-1 visa removed.
Obviously that should have been tax *refund*.
willingly?
Yep. I've never once had the IRS do anything but send my tax return even faster than their estimated time after filing my return.
so you forget all that business about tax returns, turbo tax, accountants. That's not willing.
So because you have to file a tax return that means they don't willingly give you the refund? That logic doesn't follow.
It's on Slashdot because the editor decided to post it.
You and your silly "facts". How dare you try to bring those into his narrative.
I've never seen a government that ever willingly gives you your money back.
Really? The US government willingly gives back tax refunds to many millions of people every year.
This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it.
Slashdot has been posting non-tech stories for more than a decade now. Get over yourself.
It's pretty obvious. Someone wanted ad impressions for their site.
None of those "facts" can be used to determine who is a contractor and whom is an part-time or full-time employee.
Sure they can. I suggest you read up on California law because the factors stated in the summary are very much what are used to determine if someone is an employee or a contractor.
No uproar over IBM outsourcing? Have you been living under a rock?
Might, but you'll probably lose a substantial amount to your legal costs.
There's nothing crap in my post. One would be an idiot to think that Disney won't try again to layoff these workers in the future. Your entire rant seems predicated on something I never explicitly stated or even implied.
But unions are evil and communistic. How dare you!
Whether or not an employee owns the vehicle has no bearing on being a contractor or not.
Should be amended to say "has no bearing in and of itself" because whether or not you own your vehicle can be a factor but is not a sole factor.
With that reasoning, if I drive for multiple services, who is responsible for providing benefits? All 6 different applications, er. companies? A combination of all?
Depends on which companies you'd be classified as an employee of them and what the terms of the benefits are in your resulting employment contract. Possibly none if you aren't considered an employee.
Unfortunately, this is not as cut and dry as you believe.
I never said anything was cut-and-dry. I in fact stated the opposite as opposed to the AC GP which tried to claim the situation was cut-and-dry just because they owned their own cars. It's an entirely subjective decision based on many factors.
The majority of uber drivers also drive for different services.
Which doesn't mean you can't be classified as an employee of one or all of those companies. There are plenty of people with multiple jobs and they are all still considered employees of each of the companies they work for.
It's not really that crazy when you consider their gross revenue of 10 billion, absurd profit margin (all they do I run an app, right?) and massive potential to expand into new markets.
Uber doesn't make $10 billion in revenue. You must have read a story from last year where it was projected that they may have $10 billion in revenue in 2015. No one actually knows what their revenue is but an investor stated just a few months ago that they were briefed it would be in the $2 billion range:
Part of that confidence stems from Uber’s impressive sales growth, which the company sees accelerating this year. Uber recently told some investors that it forecasts net revenue, or the amount it keeps after paying out drivers, of more than $2 billion this year, according to a person who was briefed on the matter
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/20...
How are they wrong exactly? You disliking their decision does not make it wrong.
This decision doesn't outlaw a single thing.
The venture capitalists and others trying to prop up the current tech bubble. They haven't yet had enough time to cash out while leaving everyone else holding the bag of shit.
Whether or not an employee owns the vehicle has no bearing on being a contractor or not. That's as silly as saying "Sales people for [company x] own their own vehicles so they should be contractors".
What determines the difference between an employee and contractor is how much control the company asserts over the person.
So anyone working there with any common sense at all should have been interviewing weeks ago.
FTFY.
The "temporary" part of the H-1 visa was eliminated decades ago.
Corporations never treated employees that way. I suggest you re-read about how corporations used to treat workers in the late 1800s through the mid 1900s. Almost no one was being treated as value-adding assets. If H1-Bs existed in the 50s and 60s they would have used them just as much as they try to today.