You want 401k match and other nice benefits? Then become a full-time employee somewhere. You like more flexibility and independence, given the trade-offs? Then go with independent contracting.
This is not the case. Companies need permanent staff for: - deciding strategy, at various levels - deciding who's worth bringing on board - managing internal and external staff - cost (permanent contractors cost a lot) - being part of corporate memory, which can be handed over in a notice period of a month or two or three, but not in the week it takes for a contractor to offboard
I don't think this is the case for low-supply, high-skill labor (ex: doctors, engineers, etc.) as well as certain low-supply trades (HVAC, welders, etc.) Then bargaining power can properly counteract any such forces.
By money spent, the AMA is the nation’s third largest lobbying organization of the last 20 years, behind only the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors. [1]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/09/03/the-doct...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/06/why-we...
Edit for word choice
There is already excess demand for skilled software engineers and if you don’t like how your company is treating you, there are many others from which to choose.
I’m not opposed to people organizing for whatever purpose they think is best. I am opposed to people being forced to pay a tithe to unions in order to work in their field.
I don’t see unions as making my life in software engineering better at all and, given that, I’m naturally opposed to paying 1% of my earnings to a group that I don’t think will help. If others see it differently, they’re welcome to form one; I’m not “so opposed” that I’ll picket outside their workplace to interfere with them.
Most engineers seeking security for their future would be much better off increasing their 401(k) deferral (or other savings) rate by 1% rather than sending that money to a union.
Steel is out. So are auto workers.
It could be that one of the most prominent of the FAANGs is actually supporting things like this [0] under the threat of their lower paid warehouse workers unionizing. But also consider that Google is also going after its tech people who were involved in Unionizing and recently investigated an AI ethicsist [1].
I think its clear, most SWE have it (too?) good with amazing salaries and benefits to placate them into indifference or apathy on the matter and go to great lengths to keep them in an infantile servile cocoon/echo-chamber while at work, all while they create these abominations on privacy, free speech and the Human psyche while much of the rest of the World's working class/Industries suffer with under or unemployment altogether, so why risk it?
Especially since so much of the labour is through H1 visas who can control and dictate the terms of their employment with the simple decision to terminate them and leave them out in the cold rather easily.
It's concerning that even Tesla has been so anti-Union if I'm honest, and speaking as someone who has been in the Auto Industry, mainly German, most of it is highly unionized outside of the US.
It was the Big 3's fault for being complacent and relaxed about innovation that made it non-competitive and was highlighted in 2008 financial crises how bad it had gotten.
I'm not in favour of Unions unless as an absolute last resort, as in the case with FAANGs devouring of the Market share and its consolidation of the competition. I personally think having Unions only made the situation in 2008 worse for the Big 3 due to wide spread corruption and incompetence from the executive board, design, and engineering departments: but the core of the problem with US car manufacturers is with having a mediocre product in comparison to the rest of the World, rather than it solely being a union based Industry and thus a sure failure.
That much is clear and had been the case outside of pick up trucks since the 70s as Japan, Germany and now Korea have eaten the US' lunch (marketshare) in total national and international deliveries/sales YoY and DoD.
In the end it didn't stop Ford from still offering union based jobs, declining a bailout and they simply deciding to stop making cars now and focused on their stronger selling trucks, SUV products and some EV stuff, some of which is still in the works. They also had a massive marketing push for their Mustang and GT line up in Motorsports that made it rather successful. Though I think GM had more success with its relaunch of the Charger.
I wouldn't buy any of it myself, but I commend their efforts and still it shows that the 'Unions are the source of all evil' that many Tech based conglomerates push is not true, especially for Mega Corps like Amazon and Google who have severe and outright horrible labour problems.
0: https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpkad/amazon-launches-anti-...
1: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/21/margaret-mitchell-google-inv...
While I do appreciate that from their perspective it makes sense, it is also true that if we don't fight to protect workers, all jobs will go this way. That's actually why what an up-thread comment said is a great idea. If we decouple important things like healthcare from employment, then everyone gets important quality of life care without employers having to restrict benefits. If we do not fight for ourselves, we will end up in a situation where most people cannot access the basic necessities of life. Already in the US millions of Americans are without healthcare.
Doctors, I know, have powerful unions and associations. Very, very, powerful.
Now, whether things like healthcare and retirement should be linked to employment in the first place, is a real and valid question. But currently it is, and the distinction between "employee" and "contractor" seems bogus in a lot of cases.
I'm in the US and generally my employment has been at will, either of us are free to end the arrangement at any time. Having a specific date where that arrangement ends doesn't seem to be more flexible, if I wanted to leave in a month I would just give my notice and leave.
I'm in the same position as you career wise and I often get offers to join contract roles and they are very unappealing to me. When I do the math on the benefits I'd lose out on and the additional taxes, rarely are these offers competitive let alone when I factor in the greater volatility inherent in the arrangement and the lack of unemployment benefits. Also in my experience the recruiters pushing the contract roles are the most desperate and aggressive, that doesn't lead me to believe these roles are all that high quality.
The contract is for a year, with the option to extend. The job I just left was salaried but actively laying people off. So while both positions have risk, the contracted one provides a much higher income and flexibility to use it as I see fit. Plus any work I do on the weekend for the contract position is paid, as a salaried employee its not.
What if you had to provide your own health insurance?
For example I will use all income in the first half of the year to pay off all of my debt
But, unless your interest is >10%, probably actually costing you money compared to making 4x payments per year. IANAL (or accountant).
If I just quit my job once or twice a year, after being hired as a "permanent" employee, after a while my resume would start to look like a warning sign. Why can't this guy keep a job? But as a contractor, it's normal and expected.
Let's say you were correct. Want to stop it? Regulation is just a wall with holes. The only way to stop it is to reduce the labor force.
If this is actually a plan, it's conception requires that the labor force is going to expand rapidly. In a tighter labor market, companies are much better off locking up labor rather than nickel and diming costs. So any said evil plan is an add-on to opening the gates to immigration, both legal and illegal.
No one really gains as a contractor working 39 hours a week without benefits.