Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewKemendo | Hacker News Reader

Well written and succinct. I especially like the nod to professional consultants.

I'm not quite sure why these stories keep coming up, given the vast amount of literature available describing why and how contracting, with it's bifurcated pay and benefits systems, can and is mutually beneficial to the organizations.

In fact the #1 thread, as of this writing, is about freelancing and has dozens of comments from freelancers.

One possible explanation for the frequency of the topic, is that it's not the structure of contracting that people are rejecting, but rather the wide disparity between the size, pay and benefits of the contractor vs the contractee. Nobody complains if Bain takes a contract with Apple, as both have good pay and benefits. Similarly nobody complains about the freelancer working for [megacorp] because the freelancer is independent and an owner. However, increase the wealth gap between the companies and now you have a story.

View on HN

If I had to guess it’s because these companies are straddling the line between socially aware company (to attract this conscientious minded employee) and the realities of doing business (core competencies and flexibility when things go south). Given the above a small percentage of employees feel an obligation to look after the subcontracted workers, etc. and want to bring it up as an issue in the next election cycle.

I doubt you’ll see this attitude at GM (despite unions) or Archer Daniels Midland, etc., because they don’t try to play both sides as much.

Agreed.

If you take a progressive social stance like the tech companies seem to like to do, with LGBT rights for example, then you're opening yourself up to criticism when you behave like a regular corporation in a place where you might not have taken a social stance, with the labor movement for example.

What is the phrase for being penalized for trying to help insufficiently. That resentment it generates in the people who weren't helped.

This image of the protective tent failing to cover everyone is the best representation I've seen:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12884861/t...

Is it that they are helping insufficiently, or that they are using this as a strategy for making money and showing their true colors by engaging in it only to the extent they make money? It is easier to support someone whose intentions are to help despite an imperfect execution than it is to support someone whose intention is to fake helpfulness only to the extent it beneficial to them, even when both result in people being helped.

That image comes from an article about how efforts to help people, eg expand healthcare coverage, still generate a backlash. The theory being that people not helped (or fall thru the cracks) become resentful.

Tangentially: Young me was all-or-nothing, and hated compromise. Middle aged me grew to appreciate incrementalism. Older me is rediscovering my inner ultimatist.

Hostage negotiator Chris Voss' prescription for successful negotiations is "Never split the difference." After witnessing the backlash to every progressive reform, I'm VERY open to adopting Voss' worldview.

Basically, I've adopted a "Leave no one behind." worldview.

That's a great image, thanks for linking it.

I'm not aware of a term that means what you describe, perhaps it would be tied-in somehow with arguments about "equity vs equality."

The problem is caused by the IRS and HMRC having secondary effects that make employers do this - whether every subcontractor sound be a subcontractor an employee is a different issue.

There are arguments on both sides eg a Freelance Director of Photography is not going to want to be taxed as an employee.

There's a parallel story concerning the subset of government contractors that essentially exist as staffing agencies, with two differences: - The process for landing a contract is opaque, favoring huge companies.

- The government has no bottom line to maintain, contractor value-add is not easily quantified.

So the big staffing agencies largely just "fill seats," and the individual contractor's growth potential is limited, because they realistically can't fill the seat any better on day 365 than they could on day one-- most "senior" positions are literally basis seniority and only seniority.

This because GS rates cant pay the going rate for cyber skills for example.

Its also to stop the IRS going after the employer and contractor for disguised employment which happened to Microsoft a few years back.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com