Google scraps minimum wage, benefits rules for suppliers and staffing firms
msn.com
msn.com
While I didn’t care too much about all my email going to a google system Ive definitely been looking for an alternative lately.
Two things I didn’t expect was a better web UI and better spam filtering. On top of that I can write to human support and they are both responsive and seem knowledgeable.
For what it's worth, I self host a few e-mail servers and modern Roundcube is actually a pleasant experience, even if I like connecting Thunderbird directly.
Here's the mail server I like: https://github.com/docker-mailserver/docker-mailserver
I still very much rely on some cloud vendor e-mails for uptime and deliverability, though. Otherwise, with random VPSes you risk the IPs having bad reputation or having a plethora of issues (such as some providers not allowing e-mail ports).
Also, in most cases, the other end an email isn't a gmail user but a corporate bot. So Google may actually not have all your emails if you move away from it.
I suspect they share data with a belligerent with its murder victim chooser algorithm, so you might drop "digital".
At least Microsoft and Apple have some identity with Tim and Satya.
Almost 10 years later the employment agencies call me out of the blue to tell me google has conducted an internal investigation showing that contractors had lower pay than “real” employees and they are now making up for it and if I could submit my updated bank information.
I mean, that sounds like a Nigerian scammer, but since I did in fact work with the agency that called me, I updated my info and two month later they added ~$200 to my account.
Avoid syndicated content.
Actual article & more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40092328
It was sold to the public as a way to stop employers abusing employees by under paying them and to prevent slave wages.
Constantly stating the so called "sweat shops" (the clothing manufacturing factories) in the north of England employing foreign and illegal workers and paying them a poultry £2 per hour.
What really happened was this:
Early on it was quite clear that the act was developed for the benefit of employers to reduce their overall wage budget and not to help employees by paying them more.
Large companies started to get rid of staff who were being paid a decent liveable wage only to re-employ new staff on the minimum wage. Early retirement was another way to get swathes of people out and employ more and more people on mimimum wages.
Right across the board from building site workers to Airline staff. No job was safe.
Minimum wage!
We as a company will pay you the minimum wage which is preset through our intensive lobbying of government to continue with our vast profits for shareholders.
In the Oxford dictionary the word "Employ" means "to use".
What is also needed are strong unions that fight on behalf of the workers to make sure wages are higher than the minimum (plus everything else that unions do for workers).
THose in a weaker position with regard to striking (easily replaced, no short term loss or employers who are better off absorbing it, large numbers of small employers rather than one or two big ones...) cannot benefit as much.
Laws that treat everyone equally are far better.
The best solution would be UBI.
Their median salary is £59,000 and considering their responsibilities that seems fine to me
Anyone who complains train drivers are overpaid is always free to retrain as one
it is higher than train drivers are paid in other European countries: https://www.dw.com/en/german-train-drivers-earn-less-than-yo...
It is far more than than a nurse earns.
> Anyone who complains train drivers are overpaid is always free to retrain as one
And anyone who complains CEOs are over paid is free to become one too, in theory.
I do not want to retrain as a train driver, but many people in occupations that are more skilled (such as nursing) would make more money if they did so.
They should take a page out of the playbook that the train drivers have been using.
I think you know that’s a specious argument because in reality it’s far easier to become a train driver than a CEO
Yes, UK train drivers might be better paid than most of their European counterparts but we still don’t have enough of them and their representatives have negotiated well
Nurses being underpaid doesn’t make train drivers overpaid that’s just Tory politicians talking points
The reality is that the minimum wage has hugely boosted incomes for the least well off - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/27/minimum-wage...
And the real issue is that wages have stagnated since the 2008 financial crisis with many people receiving below inflation pay rises e.g. medical staff being 35% worse off in real terms - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/20/uuk-workers...
Some companies pay more that the minimum wage as they’re competing for staff e.g. supermarkets, and the more people are paid the lower in work benefits will cost
There should obviously be special wages for particularly strenuous work, that leaves people exhausted and for certain professions that have special characteristics, and that's not for the government to decide, rather it must be set by collective agreements between large groups of workers and employers.
Politics and laws are too slow, and this provides an intermediate flexibility level in-between politics and direct negotiation.
It's at odds with some EU law though, which is a huge problem. It's designed to work in a closed system, so when people can bring in strikebreakers from abroad there's a major problem which will eventually have be solved at the EU level, or we'll eventually be unable to remain (since this is more core to our politics than our EU membership).
(Read the link. This is all about who's the real employer in indirect-employment situations.)
[1] https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2024/03/nlrb-blocked-from-i...
It also doesn't fix the problem where a number of contractors sue you even if they might be wrong. It could very easily be a class action lawsuit like the one that cost Microsoft a lot of money. They could use those rules as a start and then throw a few other things together such that Google thinks it might have a problem in court and wants to settle rather than risk getting sued by every single contractor.
The NLRB makes nearly all its law via adjudication, not rules. The aggressive interpretation of joint employer is what is causing companies to put up walls between employees and contractors so they don’t get swept up by the NLRB.
Conquering the press strategy always works for corporates. They can declare programs and initiatives to virtue signal whatever is catch of the season and they can choose either delay to implement or rollback with less fanfare. They've already gained political currency with in the initial barrage of press releases.