
Google's 'two-tier' workforce training document - ycnews
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/11/google-tvc-full-time-employees-training-document
======
njstraub608
This really isn't that outrageous, at most of the F500 companies I've
consulted at they all have massive contractor workforces (including
consultants) that don't have the same benefits as anyone else and are
generally treated like second-class citizens. News like this that directs
outrage at a specific company is just clickbait bullshit written by an amateur
who doesn't understand how the broader workforce operates.

~~~
pesmhey
Given the undercurrent of class warfare in today's politics and economics, it
makes some sense that this is news. By the way, you do yourself no favors:

 _This really isn 't that outrageous_

 _are generally treated like second-class citizens_

I think I understand the sentiment here, that in the context of the workforce,
it's ethical to treat people in certain roles like second-class citizens
because they'd ideally be able to transition from full-time to contractor, and
vice versa, based on their needs. Or maybe I'm wrong here, you tell me. But
one thing is certain: step outside of yourself for a minute, and read those
two comments in series. You really don't think there will be outrage when
people are treated like second-class citizens? Like, ever? It seems to be a
human constant, across history, that people don't like to be treated as
lesser-than, and will muster up a lot of outrage if they are.

I mean, to be really honest, I feel like I'm trying to convince you that the
sky is blue.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
The problem here is characterizing people as "second class citizens" as a
blanket statement based on their work arrangement.

For all you know the subcontractor gives way better work arrangements and
benefits than they would get as a Google FTE. It may not be likely in the
specific case of Google but it's unknown.

For example, maybe I don't want to move to CA full time and I'd rather have
some other benefit that Google doesn't have, like a flexible living or work
arrangement. So the contract company has those perks, and I only do the Google
contract for 4 months. Why should I prefer Google benefits over that? That's
not a second class citizen.

Because Google is required to abide by the same contract law as every other
company they have to abide in the same way.

So it's just wrong to characterize it that way and you can't have a different
set of laws for Google than you have for every other company.

~~~
HillaryBriss
You're right -- if the discussion were about a "typical" large corporation.

But this is Google, the company that was not supposed to be typical, wasn't
supposed to engage in penny-pinching corporate bean counting, wasn't supposed
to reward a perpetrator of sexual harassment -- wasn't supposed to be "evil."

Google is a _standard-bearer_ for the leading edge, prosperous, tech economy.
It's the heart of the sector that is supposed to be saving us, creating
abundant high-paying jobs for the people. It's the company of glorious
benefits, 10% projects and enlightened employees. And California, that bright
and shining star of democracy, that leading-edge progressive state, has pinned
its hopes for the future (and its tax revenue and employment growth) on the
likes of Google. Google is the one corporate monopoly we can all love.

But cracks are appearing. More and more we see that Google is a hell of a lot
like a typical corporation. Our hopes for a prosperous enlightened, well-
employed, tax-revenue rich future are dashed against the rocks of common
corporate reality. And it's ugly.

That's the story here.

------
dsr_
95% of the problem is in this quote:

"Temps, vendors and contractors are an important part of our extended
workforce, but they are employed by other companies, not Google."

This is completely incorrect in every way except legally. Google employs them,
and pretends that they don't by inserting another company in between.

When you find yourself doing something simple in a complicated way because the
law gives you additional advantages, that's a great sign that the law is bad.

~~~
tylerl
You seem to be taking this all at face value.

Temp agencies are a pretty nontrivial force in the employment world. If you
work at a temp agency, they pay you regardless of whether you're bringing
money, they do technical training and career advancement work, all the while
you're "on deck" not actually being useful. Then a company like Google or
Boeing or Joe's Game Studio comes along and says "we need 3 highly skilled C++
programmers in two weeks, for 6 months", and the temp agency sends you off to
work there. You relocate, you work on some internal project for 6 months, and
then you're back "on deck" at the temp agency, and then off to somewhere else.
The company _does not_ have the option to hire you permanently unless the temp
agency put that into the agreement (probably for a price), the agency charged
something like 2x or even 3x your salary to the company while you were working
there, but your wage and benefits stay the same throughout, working or not.

So, who's your real employer?

Looking at this from an armchair, it's easy to miss that there's more going on
than just, "Tim is on the team for the next few months." Whether or not you
like the fact that this kind of agency exists and this kind of work is
possible is another question.

~~~
chaosite
But that's not how red/green/$color badges work at
Google/Intel/Facebook/$company.

They're not "3 highly skilled C++ programmers", they're usually slotted into
some kind of not as appreciated but still required role, like QA or data
entry, and they're not "in two weeks, for 6 months", they're basically at a
single host company for the entire time, but they renew the contract in 6
month increments until such time when the host company decides it doesn't need
them anymore. Which is basically a form of downsizing.

They aren't some form of highly skilled consultants that drop to aid a project
in a pinch. Usually they're basically indistinguishable from FTEs.

~~~
jpollock
This is fixed through tax legislation, where there are "bright line" tests for
whether or not someone is an employee.

When I was a contractor in New Zealand, I had an external office, my contract
allowed me to subcontract, I used my own equipment and I didn't go to the
parties.

When they wanted to send me overseas? We negotiated a new contract which
included paying me hourly rates for the flight hours.

Unmentioned in the Canadian and New Zealand documents, they also typically
consider length of service as a hint. If the contractor is with a single
company for more than 2 years, that's a hint that they're not really a
contractor.

USA [3]:

    
    
      1 Behavioral Control (instructions, when, rules, evaluation)
      2 Financial Control (equipment, expenses, profit)
      3 Relationship (contracts, benefits, permanency)
    

Canada [1]:

    
    
      1 Control
      2 Tools and Equipment
      3 Ability to subcontract
      4 Financial Risk
      5 Outside office and/or staff
      6 Able to increase profit
    

New Zealand [2]:

    
    
      1 Intention test (what both parties intend?)
      2 Control vs independence test (who sets the rules?)
      3 Integration test (are they part of the team? uniforms/parties)
      4 Fundamental/economic reality test (who pays what?)
    

[1]: [https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-
publi...](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-
publications/publications/rc4110/employee-self-employed.html)

[2]: [https://www.employment.govt.nz/starting-employment/who-is-
an...](https://www.employment.govt.nz/starting-employment/who-is-an-
employee/difference-between-a-self-employed-contractor-and-an-employee/)

[3]: [https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-
contr...](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contractor-
designation)

~~~
chaosite
Yeah, and the training described in the article is a direct result of these
tax rules.

------
1024core
_Swag, bonuses, and other gifts are considered taxable income to the
individual (which Alphabet cannot report since we are not the TVC employer)_

That's a valid reason. Why the faux outrage?

~~~
lovich
Because for all intents and purposes these workers appear to be Google
employees, but they've structured their agreements in a way to say "no they
are not", retain the benefit of having said employees, and don't pay back to
society in the form of taxes.

This sort of circumvention of the spirit of the law is only really doable by
large corporations, which means large corporations get to shirk their societal
responsibilities while everyone else has do more or society loses out. That's
where the outrage comes from, which I do not believe is faux

~~~
kjeetgill
I'm unfamiliar with the tax law around contractors. What tax is missing?
Whatever taxes google doesn't pay will be paid by the employer right?

~~~
lovich
On income tax, but these rules around what gifts are allowed to go to TVCs are
there because that is happening already and going untaxed.

Other additional points for anger around these sorts of faux employee setups
is that they make it easier for companies to get around employee protections
when it comes to firing/laying off because they've turned it into a contract
with another company, and that traditional growth from low skill jobs inside a
company has disappeared by this artificial barrier. You no longer hear stories
about a janitor or secretary who worked their way up into executive ranks by
seeing unfulfilled needs in the company and learning to solve them. You are
either over the arbitrary skill value from the beginning, or you are kept in
the lower ranks of second class citizen

~~~
joshuamorton
>On income tax, but these rules around what gifts are allowed to go to TVCs
are there because that is happening already and going untaxed.

Income tax is still paid for the employees income though, its just that Google
pays a vendor firm, and that vendor firm pays the employment tax, and the
vendor pays income tax on their income from the vendor firm.

~~~
lovich
I'm sure that those gifts are reported as income to same regularity that tips
are in restaurants

~~~
joshuamorton
I'm confused. I'm talking about income from work. Not income from gifts, which
upthread was mentioned are banned.

------
adrianmonk
You know all the fantastic, off the chart benefits that all Google employees
get? It encourages outsourcing less skilled / lower ranking roles to vendor
companies.

Jobs like customer support, manual QA, facilities, etc. end up being vendors
instead of direct employees.

This doesn't mean they aren't FTEs of the vendor company. They can be
permanent employees with benefits. They just aren't full time employees _of
Google_.

Of course Google is going to have some temp and limited term contractors, but
this category isn't _just_ that. Hence why the article refers to "TVC": temp,
vendor, and contractor.

------
sureshv
My guess is this goes all the way back to the Microsoft Permatemp case (you
could tell by by email a-/v-). The IRS sets the line as to how you can treat
temp staff and what benefits they can can get.

~~~
adrianmonk
You can have onsite contract employees who are permanent. I was one for
several years. You just start a contract with a separate company, then they
are full employees of that company.

------
benologist

        The risks Google appears to be most concerned about [...] 
        the risk of being found to be a joint employer, a legal 
        designation which could be exceedingly costly for Google 
        in terms of benefits.
    

If they paid their lower-caste 49.5% of 'not employees' properly instead of
accounting their benefits away, their vast fortune would drop from
$106,000,000,000 savings in the bank to $105,xxx,xxx,xxx this year then
continue climbing next year.

~~~
turtlecloud
That’s what happens when your CEO is Indian. They understand the caste system
very deeply. What might seem outrageous to Americans is quite natural to them.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Look, there's nothing more American than exploitation of the working masses.
Don't try to blame this on nationality.

------
at-fates-hands
Most of the article jives with how contractors are treated here in the
Midwest. The upside is you don't have yearly goals, you're not held to the
higher standards of the FTE's, you don't have to attend boring "all company"
meetings.

The only thing which popped out at me was the lower pay. When I contracted, I
didn't have benefits (I had them through a third party provider) so my hourly
rate was based on a 15-20% bump because of that. At not time was I ever
getting paid less than my FTE counterparts when you took everything into
consideration.

Having said this, is there a big pay gap between regular Google employees and
contractors?

~~~
lovich
The large groups of contractors at tech firms like Google are usually doing
work the company has identified as not their core business. Where companies
used to have janitorial staff, or cooks, or other administrators, they now put
all those relationships onto contracting firms so they don't have to provide
the same quality of benefits as they do to their FTEs and also have a much
easier time firing them en masse then they would if they were legal employees
of the tech firm.

As such, most of these people would be getting paid less than the software
engineers if they were legal employees anyway, but they do lose out on
benefits unless the contracting firm provides benefits on par with Google

------
sharemywin
After reading some of the details that sounds a lot like government tax law
issues rather than with google itself.

gifts are taxable income. The contracting company has no mechanisms for
collecting the tax.

------
rbanffy
I see it is sometimes used to circumvent equal-pay or labor laws to some
extent, but this practice is so widespread that I find it hard to point a
finger to Google on this one.

 _Every_ large company, on _every_ field, does it to some extent.

I was using that in Brazil a couple years back, inside a portal part of a
telco. We paid a company to provide us with an elastic workforce that could
grow, change and be reduced as we needed it to be. The company was hired (and
paid) to absorb the risks of hiring, retention and to, sometimes, provide
working space, and it did so for many other clients.

~~~
bsimpson
I've heard NASA does this too. Because headcount is effectively set in
Congress, they rely on TVCs to do most of the work. Only a small share of NASA
are "civil servants," who are actually employed by NASA.

------
BeetleB
I can't speak for Google, but I work in a big company that has a lot of
contractors. And ... there's not much "wrong" here.

The real engineering work is done by employees.

Contractors are for:

\- Kitchen

\- Security

\- Maintenance & Repairs

\- IT support (the regular IT are still employees)

\- Engineers

The first 3 being contractors are standard in many companies.

The "engineers" category is not for cost cutting. In fact, often (most?) of
the times, the company is paying a lot more per head for one of them than they
pay for their own employees. I recall one case where the company was easily
paying double what they pay their own engineers. The manager was upset because
that contractor did not care for the company's deadlines, etc (one of the
perks of being a contractor). The manager felt the company should just kill
the agreement and hire a regular engineer - save money _and_ get work done on
time. But he was overruled.

The only category I think are royally getting screwed are the IT support
staff. I spoke to one to get an idea of their pay, and it was abysmal. For his
skills and the work he did, he was definitely more useful to the company than
many of our FTE's.

At least in my company, this isn't a case of perma-temps.

------
s3r3nity
~50% of their employees are TVCs? That sounds crazy high - anyone else have
knowledge on wether or not that’s unusual for tech / the Valley specifically?

~~~
gpapilion
It seems high.

That said kitchen staff, custodial, physical security, ... etc are likely
counted in this group for google. Add in some portion on IT staff, tech
support, and finance contractors which are more or less normal for many
companies.

~~~
zhte415
> kitchen staff, custodial, physical security

These would not be contracted staff, but by a vendor providing a package. 100
staff or 1 person, as a vendor provided service the staff member of the vendor
has no link to the employer.

~~~
CydeWeys
They count in the number of TVCs though. They all get badges and are visible
as TVCs in the org chart.

------
sharemywin
I'm not sure I understand the issue. Hiring contractors is pretty standard
practice at most large organizations.

~~~
mkirklions
Upvotes=/= correctness.

HN whales notoriously upvote anti-corporate posts. It reminds me of
slacktivism.

~~~
writepub
It's a rather disappointing truth that HN whales, and HN in turn, are left
leaning, socialist Democrats. You'd think a tech focused forum would be more
diverse, but there's only one viewpoint kosher here. Unfortunate that the very
people screaming for diversity lack basic tolerance for diversity of thought.

~~~
dang
> HN in turn, are left leaning, socialist Democrats

This is the hostile media effect: ideological users see the platform as
dominated by their enemies. See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18671955](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18671955),
where HN is "the techno-libertarian norm around here".

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=13110004&sort=byDate&prefix&pa...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=13110004&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

~~~
writepub
HN is made of humans, and humans project concious and unconscious bias in
their actions.

Though perceptions may vary, there certainly is one ideology that can be
scientifically proven to exist among HN whales. It may or may not be the one I
perceive, but to pretend like HN whales carry no ideological baggage in their
voting is inaccurate.

Maybe a poll, or sentiment analysis of the most Up-voted and down-voted
comments can reveal this.

Thanks

------
ashelmire
How does the current state of things stand in light of the recent Dynamex
([https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/09/07/california-
suprem...](https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/09/07/california-supreme-
court-independent-contractors/)) decision? According to that ruling
([https://cbssacramento.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/dynamex-
op...](https://cbssacramento.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/dynamex-operations-
west-v-superior-court-of-los-angeles.pdf)), workers are considered to be
independent contractors only if all of the following conditions are met,
employees otherwise:

(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in
connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the
performance of such work and in fact;

(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the
hiring entity’s business; and

(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established
trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for
the hiring entity.

It seems like tvcs doing software engineering at Google would _not_ count as
independent contractors (failing, in fact, to meet even one of the three
conditions).

Edits for clarity.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
The TVCs definitely don't count as _independent_ contractors. They're
employees of a contract firm.

~~~
ashelmire
The Dynamex ruling does seem to touch on this; Dynamex, in fact, seemed to
claim that California wage orders would only apply to joint employers as the
core of their appeal (this ruling seems to take that as a given; and extend it
beyond that). This appears to be coemployment question that is raised in the
original article.

I don't think the courts (especially CA ones) will look fondly on companies
using intermediate corporations as veils to obfuscate the employment
relationship in any case.

------
gadders
I'm a contractor in the UK, and would actively like to be treated differently
than an employee so that I can continue to fall outside of IR35 and thus not
be taxed like an employee.

~~~
chillydawg
Sensible. Not paying income tax >>>> a few free shitty tshirts and invites to
propaganda all hands meetings, IMHO.

------
honkycat
Completely disgusted by a lot of these comments. It is outrageous. It is
unfair.

People citing the "tax law" excuse are either willfully ignorant or they just
do not care.

Why does Google not give them gifts, invite them to the company Christmas
party, or let them in on celebratory team meetings? It is not because "the
temp agency will handle it". It is not because "a shirt makes taxes
complicated."

Google and it's ilk make sure these people are on the outside to dehumanize
them. To make it clear they are not a part of the company so, when TVCs are
abused other workers do not speak up. It normalizes treating these people like
shit. "Just a contractor."

A lot of these TVCs do not get decent healthcare. They can, and often do, get
0 vacation time. They sit along with the full time employees but everybody
knows "they are the expendable ones." They can be fired for any reason,
including bringing up the fact that they were sexually harassed.

TVCs are employees deprived of their rights through a loophole.

~~~
TheMagicHorsey
You have no idea what you are talking about and clearly have never headed a
company.

The issue is that if you hire temporary contractors and treat them like your
employees, then you have to extend the status of employment to them, including
withholding payroll taxes, otherwise the government will come after you.

Google doesn't give two shits about giving people t-shirts and access to their
gyms. The issue is, if they do these things for temp contractors, then the
temps become employees.

You hire temps in situations where you don't actually need a full-time worker
for a long period of time. If you are not allowed to hire temps, the choice
then becomes should we hire anyone at all?

When Google does need a full-time worker, they do hire them, and they do pay
them as full employees.

If you have a problem with the casteism developing between full time employees
and contractors, go see your Congressman and ask them to change the laws that
make it so companies have to distinguish between temps and full-time in their
hiring.

~~~
honkycat
> You have no idea what you are talking about and clearly have never headed a
> company.

I actually have but whatever. I do not have to run a company to have opinions
about a loophole in modern labor laws. Also, the aggression isn't necessary.

Maybe having empathy and wanting better benefits for the people you take
advantage of is an "Unknown World" to you. But for me, the rise permatemp has
an effect on the people around me.

> The issue is that if you hire temporary contractors and treat them like your
> employees, then you have to extend the status of employment to them,
> including withholding payroll taxes, otherwise the government will come
> after you.

> Google doesn't give two shits about giving people t-shirts and access to
> their gyms. The issue is, if they do these things for temp contractors, then
> the temps become employees.

A lot of these workers are permatemps, who they keep on as temps in order to
not have to give them full employee benefits.

So yes, what you say is exactly correct but does not refute my assertion that
these policies serve to dehumanize the parts of the workforce Google considers
expendable.

> You hire temps in situations where you don't actually need a full-time
> worker for a long period of time. If you are not allowed to hire temps, the
> choice then becomes should we hire anyone at all?

Except for the fact that they do hire them as long-term full time employees,
but they keep them on as independent contractors hired through an external
agency to abdicate responsibility for providing them with benefits.

> If you have a problem with the casteism developing between full time
> employees and contractors, go see your Congressman and ask them to change
> the laws that make it so companies have to distinguish between temps and
> full-time in their hiring.

I clearly do have a problem with the casteism developing between full time
employees and contractors. And what else should I do?

Oh, maybe advocate for workers right's on social media and tell the other side
of the story. Which is what I am doing and apparently have triggered you. The
founder doth protest too much, methinks.

------
jordache
why is this news? intern writer at guardian?

------
Ericson2314
In this and other examples of Google's memos to FTEs, I've noticed they tend
to lump together actually following the law with doing something perfectly
legal that exposes them to higher taxation.

I get the whole market-based "everything is just an incentive" logic, and that
the US legal code is so, so far from being a coherent moral document. But
still, this seems like a coldly utilitarian stance use in the propaganda, vs
confine to executive meetings where there's no reason to be sunny.

------
vanderZwan
I've shared this before, but it's worth sharing again: Andrew Norman Wilon's
_Workers Leaving the Googleplex_ from 2011[0]. It's a performance piece (he
used to do this live) retelling his experience as an intern at Google, and why
he was fired.

(In the live version I saw he drew parallels to Brave New World, which felt
quite apt)

[0]
[http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/WorkersGoogleplex.html](http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/WorkersGoogleplex.html)

~~~
llampx
If he told Google Legal that there were no other copies of the tape in
existence, where is the video on that page coming from?

~~~
vanderZwan
Those are just livestreams from the Google campus that Google streamed on-line
by itself.

------
kerng
The reason for this is probably that if they treat vendors the same way, then
they are not justified temp or vendor positions but should be FTE. Which of
course Google wouldn't wont. I'm sure there is also a time box on how long
they can be a vendor, e.g. a max of a year or two before they have to move on.
Microsoft got into trouble I heard because they treated vendors "too nice" a
couple years back if I remember right.

------
1-6
Here's a great podcast with the leaders of the walk-out:
[https://www.recode.net/2018/11/21/18105719/google-walkout-
re...](https://www.recode.net/2018/11/21/18105719/google-walkout-real-change-
organizers-protest-discrimination-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast)

------
illnewsthat
The best part of the training is the suggestion that instead of recognizing
people with Google swag, they send them a note on G+.

------
Hello71
> G+, the social network used internally at Google

Ouch.

~~~
anticensor
Is it the same instance as [https://plus.google.com](https://plus.google.com)?

