Hacker News Reader

Comment by jofer | Hacker News Reader

It's the same here in the US... The company I work for hires countless contractors that are required to work set hours and treated exactly like employees, except they're not given benefits, etc (in principle, they're paid more, though).

The biggest oddity is that I know of several "contractors" who have worked full-time for the same company for _multiple decades_ that are now being laid off with no severance and no warning.

Obviously, that's the advantage from the company's viewpoint, and you don't go into one of those roles without being aware that it could/will happen, but still... I've never understood how being a "contractor" somehow completely sidesteps employment laws.

View on HN

It doesn't sidestep the laws. Most likely these people are misclassified and the employer is breaking the law.

This is why Microsoft only allows contractors to work at Microsoft for 18 months at a time, with a mandatory 6 months in between contracts. They got busted for misclassifying employees as contractors.

Absolutely correct. I worked 7 years at a mega-bank that always had "contractors" on staff. Shortly after I arrived, the bank was wrapping up lawsuits brought by former contractors who (correctly) argued that they were misclassified and should have been employees. From that point on, the bank became very strict about enforcing the same 18/6 rule you saw at Microsoft.

I saw the same when I worked at a defense contractor. These workers did the exact same things as regular employees, and the only thing different about them was a company name on their badge and their names being in all-caps on the roster. (Or maybe if you spotted them making a photocopy of their custom time sheets.)

It's a reminder to me of how far the accepted practice diverges from the law as written, in which this exact arrangement isn't supposed to happen. (Just like racial/destination discrimination and underinsurance and abuse of contractor status aren't supposed to happen with regulated taxicabs.)

Wrt benefits though, I've worked in such a role myself (after moving to the Bay) and the contracting company covers them.

There are some differences, however. Work hours are dictated by the hours of the facility, not by the government client (with the exception of shift employees, such as security, whose rosters are controlled by their companies). Government employees aren't permitted to direct work of contractors; they have to go through the contracting officer who then contacts the contracting company's manager for all requests. Part of the contracts' language specifies interchangeability of personnel (as long as they are similarly qualified and possess the necessary clearances). And the contractors are employees of the company awarded the contract.

If you had a different experience than that, then your former office is at serious risk of a lawsuit.

To clarify, I was talking about (individual) contractors who worked at the defense contractor facility. They didn't deal directly with government employees, but their work was directed by defense contractor managers.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that is a weird situation. It definitely appears they were misclassified.

That's my point: it seems to be so routine and yet ostensibly illegal. But if their situation was anything like mine, they did have an employment relationship (with taxes etc paid), but it was with the contracting agency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com