After they won their right to unionize, they were eventually laid off because Microsoft required fewer bug testers for their dwindling Windows Mobile app store and their agency, Lionbridge, couldn't find additional work for them.
> In documents obtained via FOIA request, the union provided updates from management in the fall of 2016 about pending assignments that it said showed no substantial decline in workload.
The number of apps is 1/8th what it used to be. That's significant.
"the union provided updates from management in the fall of 2016 about pending assignments that it said showed no substantial decline in workload."
In 2014 there was 1.1m.
In a 2017 memo there was only 13 percent of the 1.1m.
So while there was probably testing to be done, MS probably decided that there was no point in testing stuff as it was winding down the windows mobile stuff anyway.
Do you think there's something special about QA for Windows Mobile that makes them unhireable for other QA jobs?
This sort of argument is disingenuous at best. Unless Lionbridge suddenly left the software development business and stopped hiring developers and testers, it is not possible to assume that these employees were fired just because the company went out of business.
This may be _especially_ true if those contractors were demanding a certain salary that is infeasible in LionBridge's market.
Heck, before Microsoft, Lionsbridge primarily contracted out to Nokia.
It's an independent company, that worked in an industry that consolidated around two parties---Android and iOS---and LionsBridge didn't have a significant part in either of those.
They simply bet on the wrong players.
Not good enough. The quality of benefits from Lionbridge or similar companies is much worse than the benefits offered by Microsoft. Microsoft is getting a tax break (they don't pay FICA on health insurance or certain other benefit-based employee compensation) dependent on making those benefits available to all employees; they need to hold up their end of that deal instead of scamming taxpayers by using subcontracting loopholes.
That’s not how W2 contracting works.
LionsBridge is paying FICA, the contractors are considered LionsBridge employees. LionsBridge is passing the cost on to Microsoft. Microsoft is not saving money on FICA.
Not necessarily in this case, but full time employees overindex on the value of company provided benefits. It’s just another part of your compensation. You can get health insurance on the open market, without depending on your employer. You have to set your hourly rate high enough to compensate.
I’ve done W2 contracting, I made damn sure that my hourly rate was high enough to cover the absence of benefits, the lack of paid time off, etc.
In the case of W2 contracting, you can usually buy insurance through your consulting company - full price, pretax. If you are a 1099 contractor you can buy insurance through the exchange and it’s tax deductible.
You have evidence of that?
It's a scam. Nothing stops companies from providing different quality levels of insurance to different types of employees; they just have to pay payroll taxes on that compensation. But they've managed to have it both ways -- they're getting the tax break while failing to hold up their end of the deal. The law needs to be retroactively changed to close this loophole and retroactively assess companies FICA tax, interest, and non-payment penalties on the full value of their health insurance, retirement, and other FICA-free benefits if they didn't really make it available to all employees. The result would be a huge tax bill for Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, and everyone else.
Also, Microsoft and other companies need to be on the hook as joint employers, like the union was trying to do. The union was almost certain to win on that at the NLRB under a Democratic administration. There was no hope under a Republican NLRB. In addition to joint employment in the collective bargaining context, we need legislation to implement a very broad, unified joint employment standard (ABC test + Browning-Ferris indirect/potential control) across all federal employment laws, including tax, wage and hour, anti-discrimination, and workplace safety laws. Subcontracting should not be a "get out of jail free" card; every employer in a joint employer scenario should be jointly and severally liable for everything, regardless of their knowledge of the wrongdoing. (Otherwise, you get the "what, we're only paying the contractor $5/hour but we had no idea the contractor was paying its employees less than minimum wage!" issue.)
The last time I was looking for a job, I wanted to contract because everytime I do, I make more money all in. The people I know contracting as QAs were making a killing - they get paid every hour they work and made more than enough to take vacations - most of them did - pay insurance out of pocket, etc.
Full time salaried work and “the benefits” for most of corporate America is not all it’s cracked up to be.
Microsoft used to employ janitors directly in its early days, many of them eventually became millionaires. Microsoft and most other American companies decided to outsource non-core work in the late 90s.
On-site contractors are subject to many rules in order to maintain their status, including length of employment, choice of tools, and so on. Offsite...well, that is just treated as company to company transactions right?
Also, condoning grift is unbelievably short-sighted. A fraction of people are badly taken advantage of or get trapped in bad situations, and when you allow that to happen around you, you are also condoning the <I>violence that inevitably ensues those situations and the violence that becomes a part of the local community, of which you may be a target</I>.