There is already a general discussion around employees vs. contractors in the American economy. Showing a large, profitable technology company doing the same bolsters the case that this is a systemic problem.

Also, the article mentions that “high-tech companies have long promoted the idea that they are egalitarian, idyllic workplaces. And Google, perhaps more than any other, has represented that image, with a reputation for enviable salaries and benefits and lavish perks.“

This forced firms to then hire third party vendors who in turn 1099ed the "workers" to work at company X, including google.

Should we force every company to be vertically integrated and directly employ everyone who works at one of their facilities? It's just a ridiculous complaint.

Now, if they took the entire recruiting work for that team and gave it to the outsourcing agency who did the job from their Florida office, it wouldn't be a problem. They could also do what Apple does and host all the contractors in a separate building with no contact with Apple employees https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-11/apple-bla... but the optics of that isn't great either.

By having large numbers of contractors, Google could have their egalitarian, idyllic workplace, but have a non-egalitarian 2 tier system, with distinctly 2nd class workers.

The reality is that people don't operate in a purely communal/egalitarian fashion. Nor are people purely hierarchical. There is always some degree of hierarchy, and some degree of communal existence. The larger the group, the more hierarchy is necessary. However, even in the sort of magical feeling hippie-dippy gathering of artists, there are still community leaders. There is still some kind of functioning hierarchy, or things just don't get done. (I have some personal experience in this area.)

I think the problems in such systems come about when people are in denial about their hierarchy, their meritocracy, and the consequences of not fitting in. If people have to pretend their hierarchy doesn't exist, and everything's just running on love and understanding, then people who violate the rules and norms still need to be punished. Often the hierarchy remains disguised by characterizing violators as fundamentally bad or selfish people. By abandoning consciousness of one's rules and hierarchy, one risks nonsensical, outsized, or downright unjust consequences being meted out by the group. Basically, it's a recipe for groupthink to take over and the abandonment of principles.

So instead of the average Google compensation being $144,652 (https://www.infoworld.com/article/3304439/man-or-myth-the-3-...), it could be 30-50% lower if you account for contractors.

But an average Google compensation of $80,000 (for example) wouldn't be a good recruiting tool.

You just described a systemic issue with SV companies replacing FTE with contractors, then ask why someone would write an article about that?

How many companies should the article have included to not be considered a "hit piece"? Or do you just consider any article about one company a "hit piece"?

These articles always get it wrong by completely failing to distinguish who exactly the TVCs are. They'll interview a less common white collar contractor but then use numbers for total contractors. A decisive majority of the actual white collar workers are FTEs.

The only contractors I work with, and not too closely at that, are the tier one support people for our product in the Philippines. And then there's some web developers, designers, and project managers who work for a web design firm, but their job seems pretty cushy so I wouldn't include them in this conversation.

Every company uses agencies for all sorts of things: recruiting, marketing etc..

But when you bring people in house, if they're working 'in' your company ... then almost universally they are 'employees'.

These are not 'security guards' or 'cleaners' who exist almost outside the scope of the work, they're very much within it.

If you're in HR at a bank on Wall Street, doing 'recruiting' - odds are you work for the company, not a contractor.

It's very rare to see a large tech firm contract directly with an individual employee, and it would be incredibly rare to see it happen with a lower paid position. I've never seen it personally.

Quite a few of the people I've interacted with were contractors. You can sometimes tell from their email signature even if the email address is @bank.com.

The NYT article is talking about 121000 contractors.

Either Google has 121000 white-collar contractors, or the article also talks about blue-collar jobs.

Because almost any other entity could claim it's economic pressure and financial reality.

Google is sitting on Fort Knox, they're one of the most cash flush companies in thew world ... and they can't be bothered to actually hire people.

At the last G event, Sundar brought out this hyperbolic weeping montage about how their AI helps poor people in India 'read' the cooking directions on food labels, even when they are illiterate (i.e. AI text to voice).

It was gushy and pulled hard on heartstrings.

Well then why can't they just hire people and treat them as human equals?

It's beyond hypocritical.

With a little bit of cynicism, it's understandable from a business perspective - hey, it's money.

But what irks me is the elements of 'social justice' coming out of these entities while they're blind to the very social ills that they are driving.

People wonder why we have inequality, or 'housing affordability' etc. - well - this is it.

Folks in the Valley seems to be stoked to solve big problems and work on 'AI' - while kind of ignorant to the fact there are trailer parks all over the Valley. Which is mind blowing.

What you're saying is, essentially, if a company is making a lot of money, then they should give that money to their employees. But the purpose of a company isn't to hire or pay people, it's to generate a return for your investors.

The problems come about when the dispersal of wealth and power are faked. (No real power is dispersed.)

It's a big economic disadvantage. Your property depreciates rapidly. Meanwhile, you're still paying rent, and it's easier to get evicted.

What do you propose to replace them with?

How about communities of low cost housing, which allow for lower income people to build equity and which are somehow distinct enough to preclude co-option by well heeled tech employees? Maybe some kind of intentional community with such goals built into its charter?

Homes.

Because this article is about Google. Why doesn't every book or article cover every subject, all the time?

Google is a major, global brand, widely-recognized as one of the "best places to work". Seems like a good focus of investigation to me.

>This article strikes me as a Google hit piece.

You can't talk about anything anymore without it being a "hit piece", or "fake news", or an "attack", or "astroturfing", or written by "paid shills". I guess people are more comfortable when they can simply dismiss any topic they disagree with.

Companies which never had that kind of image don’t get dispelling stories.

The second part is the painful irony of his positioning himself as a Man of Science Protecting The Enlightment Against Dogma!!! but what he wrote was a poorly-edited (and don't forget, what finally leaked was presumably better after the several rounds of editing prior to it being published) rehash of traditional reactionary arguments for biological determinism with only a few references to peer-reviewed literature, with little discussion or signs of familiarity with their fields, and instead relying mostly on links to broad Wikipedia pages and conservative blogs. Note how much work it was simply to summarize his claims clearly enough to evaluate them in https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boot... — that's the most point-by-point examination I've seen and it's considerably longer than the original.

On its own failing to perform at the level of a good student essay would be embarrassing but given the topic and how quick he was to cast this as political oppression while taking as little responsibility as possible for his own actions, I think it warrants the use of “tantrum”.

1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/federal-labor-bo...

Its troubling to see this immediate rush to claim persecution and victimhood by those who have power.

Try and imagine having the ability to be concerned with the plight of disposable labor in the modern economy and yet still (gasp) capable of noticing and commenting on other facets of the situation, like how the press chooses to frame their coverage: that's what's happening here.

Those who are actually concerned with the plight of disposable labour will have little issue with the press having the same concerns.

I'm sure it is. Good thing nobody here is claiming that (I'm certainly not).

My comment was about the fact that your upthread comment is a complaint about someone discussing any other facet of the issue than focusing on the power dynamic between the employer and the employed. Not everyone is afflicted with this obsession to the point that they're unable to see anything in the world but through this single lens.

Just because it's common doesn't mean it's okay.