Wow. Just wow. The sense of entitlement and self-righteousness is just mind blowing.
How is this any different than having guards and janitors that work odd hours? You think they get all the Google perks that software engineers get?
Google might be evil. They certainly aren't pure of heart and all that. But there's nothing in this ten minute monotone "expose" that really gives any legitimate concern.
Simply making an accusation or insinuation doesn't in itself warrant exploration of something. Insinuations about anyone can be made by anyone and they don't all deserve a response or an investigation. This guy has no particular credibility and with is particular attitude, under the particular circumstances and with the distinct lack of . . . anything . . . that he has to back up his concerns . . . falls into the category of "not worth the time".
Now, if some employees come out tomorrow -- even under anonymity -- and start sharing the tales of terrible treatment to some SF Chronicle reporter or something, then you might have something.
The article failed to mention that there are shifts throughout the entire day. There's lots of books to scan!
Does he realize that it's illegal to treat contractors exactly like employees?
Does he realize that if Google started giving contractors exactly the same treatment, they could get in big trouble with the IRS and other regulatory groups, have the contractors retroactively declared employees, be forced to withhold payroll taxes on their behalf, pay big fines?
He seems to be shocked, shocked that Google acts...the way every other tech firm acts, and for the same reasons.
I thought the main point was that they weren't treated like other contractors like the author was (red badges)?
The point is purely practical, not so much legal. When employees are on salary, it's worth doing whatever you can to make it convenient for them to stick around and stay longer. Providing perks such as free food helps with that - it helps get more work hours out of people for a given salary. The perks are in some way a substitute for extra salary, and likely to save the company money in the long run. Especially perks that save employees time, like letting them start work on the bus during their commute or letting them have meals right on campus so they don't lose time driving elsewhere.
Whereas hourly employees get paid for each specific hour they work so there's little benefit to encouraging them to stick around longer than they would otherwise be inclined. In fact, you generally want to discourage hourly workers from doing any overtime, since you'd have to pay them time-and-a-half.
My company requires that employees not speak with the press unless they are granted direct permission to do so and that they should, instead, refer them to an internal rep who will speak with them. That is not censorship. That is my company looking out for their best interests so that some dumb ass like me doesn't say something stupid that misrepresents them. My company also has the right to tell me to watch my crude language while working for them and not to dress like I'm attending a beach party.
There are already whistle-blower laws and protections to address what you are referring to, which is the exposition of unethical or illegal business practices by an employee.