
Google’s Shadow Work Force: Temps Who Outnumber Full-Time Employees - dror
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/technology/google-temp-workers.html
======
tssva
The article itself acknowledges that the ratio of contractors to employees at
Google isn't out of the ordinary for SV companies and my personal experience
is that it isn't unusual for large companies outside of SV. Even in the
unfortunate case sited in the article of the contract employee that was
sexually harassed once a complaint was filed Google fired the FTE responsible
for the harassment and negotiated a settlement with the contract employee.

So my question is why was the article written? If it were to highlight the use
of contract employees vs FTEs, why write it just about Google when it is an
issue affecting the workforce across industries? Why throw out the case of the
harassed employee but leave the information that Google fired the harasser
when a complaint was filed until much further in the article when many readers
will have stopped reading? This article strikes me as a Google hit piece.

~~~
nova22033
Ever since the Damore thing blew up, any article that portrays google in a
negative light gets a lot of play..

~~~
acdha
It started many years before Damore’s tantrum. I think it mostly goes back to
the image Google enjoyed for years as this amazing place with crazy benefits,
and then reality caught up that it’s a big company and will do things like
most other big companies such as aggressively cost-optimizing its workforce or
canceling beloved products (Reader was very popular with journalists).

Companies which never had that kind of image don’t get dispelling stories.

~~~
tomcam
Can you tell me how Damore’s memo was a tantrum, and quote passages that
reflect your opinion?

~~~
acdha
This is getting off-topic but it's basically two parts: the first being the he
attended an optional “Diversity and Inclusion Summit” and had a strong
emotional reaction, which he made an effort to circulate around the company
for several months. It's loaded with emotional language (“an ideological echo
chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed”) and claims
of authoritarian oppression. That inflammatory rhetoric is what cost him his
job because it clearly wasn't just a scientific discussion and left quite
plausible grounds for anyone working with (or especially, had he been
successful in making it into a leadership role, supervised by) to claim a
hostile working environment — which is why he dropped the NLRB claim after it
was looking like it'd be unfavorable[1]. Even if you think they're wrong,
publicly putting your management in a position like that is unlikely to end
favorably.

The second part is the painful irony of his positioning himself as a Man of
Science Protecting The Enlightment Against Dogma!!! but what he wrote was a
poorly-edited (and don't forget, what finally leaked was presumably better
_after_ the several rounds of editing prior to it being published) rehash of
traditional reactionary arguments for biological determinism with only a few
references to peer-reviewed literature, with little discussion or signs of
familiarity with their fields, and instead relying mostly on links to broad
Wikipedia pages and conservative blogs. Note how much work it was simply to
summarize his claims clearly enough to evaluate them in
[https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-
boot...](https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boots-on-
what-the-evidence-says-about-mr-damores-google-memo-bc93c8b2fdb9/#ba47) —
that's the most point-by-point examination I've seen and it's considerably
longer than the original.

On its own failing to perform at the level of a good student essay would be
embarrassing but given the topic and how quick he was to cast this as
political oppression while taking as little responsibility as possible for his
own actions, I think it warrants the use of “tantrum”.

1\. [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/federal-labor-
bo...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/federal-labor-board-google-
was-justified-in-firing-engineer-behind-gender-memo/)

~~~
VladimirIvanov
This may not be totally relevant but it's always bothered me that he lied
about being a chess Fide Master (FM) and then doubled down on his lie in a
reddit ama

------
funkjunky
I was a contractor at Google and I thought they treated me VERY well, with
most of the perks that come with the office (food, activities, music room,
gym, etc). They even let me work on a 20% project during office hours.

Then I got a new manager, new policies were enacted, they canned my project,
and they took away my access to Memegen. Memegen was the last straw, so I
left.

Anyway, Google had good reason to use contractors. Their hiring standards and
policies makes it extremely difficult and costly to hire people, and many jobs
there typically only have a retention rate of about 9-12 months, or just isn't
"involved" enough to demand a FTE position, or needs to be scaled up more
quickly than they can hire for. It just isn't worth it to go through the full
Google process for jobs like that.

~~~
wutbrodo
> they took away my access to Memegen. Memegen was the last straw, so I left.

Like many things about the way Google was run, I really didn't appreciate
Memegen enough until I left.

~~~
funkjunky
Tell me about it. I can see now the rest of my career is going to be "how, in
any way, can I make this place just one tiny step closer to what I experienced
at Google?"

~~~
wutbrodo
I can trace a lot of the mistakes I've made (and continue to make) in my
career to the fact that I started at Google, setting my baseline assumption of
organizational competence and personal intelligence way, way, way too high.

------
plinkplonk
Why is this newsworthy? Genuine question. The article (I did read it!) doesn't
seem to articulate why exactly this is a problem.

I _think_ (happy to be convinced otherwise) it is ok for a company to have
more temps than employees or vice versa. What does it matter? Is there a US
cultural/social nuance that I'm missing?

~~~
r3bl
Lower paychecks (75-80% of hourly rate of full-time workers), little to no
benefits (like healthcare coverage), harder to keep track of for taxation
purposes, harder to object to inhumane conditions like exploitative working
hours or sexual harassment (since you're seen as a "guest" instead of an
employee, complaining to the HR will usually result in you simply being
discarded and replaced by someone else who won't complain) etc.

Note: I wrote this as a general trend, which does not mean this applies to
Google specifically.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Is this like for like? your not going to pay a security guard the same as a
SRE are you.

If I went as a contactor in the UK id expect 2x to 3x when compared to a FTE
at a similar grade.

~~~
r3bl
Just because we're in a position to say no doesn't mean that we shouldn't feel
compassion for the others that are not in an opportunity to do so. A tech
office without a janitor will be dysfunctional, same as the one without a
senior engineer. But unlike a senior engineering position, a janitor will not
be a full-time position.

I'd personally even take it one step further: those who are payed the least
need benefits the most. By relegating this work to temporary workers you're
doing exactly the opposite: cutting away the privileges that the full-time
employees have. Not to just one employee, but anyone who's ever going to fill
out that position.

A trip to the doctor would not make a dent in a senior engineer's pocket
(regardless of the insurance), but a janitor could not afford a trip to the
doctor in the first place. This could work in a country with good social
programs to fall back on, but it has catastrophic consequences in the US.

~~~
CydeWeys
I agree in general terms, but the solution would be to pass stricter laws
requiring more benefits to full-time workers. These contractors _are_ full-
time workers, they're just full-time workers of staffing firms that contract
with Google and that themselves don't have benefits that are nearly as good.
So either require them to offer better benefits, or preferably, decouple
benefits from employment entirely. Everyone should get healthcare, retirement
accounts, etc.; it shouldn't be tied to your employer.

It's unreasonable to expect one company to make big strides in this area when
all it does it put them at a competitive disadvantage to their peers. Google
is already mandating a $15/hour minimum wage on all contracted-out workers,
plus some minimums for sick days, which is much better than most other
companies (which tend not to have requirements on contracted out employees in
their contracts with staffing firms at all).

~~~
r3bl
This is precisely why I added that note in my first comment. I'm talking about
general trends as a response to this:

> What does it matter? Is there a US cultural/social nuance that I'm missing?

I'm not familiar enough with Google's specific practices to reach a conclusion
about that.

~~~
CydeWeys
Fair enough. My view is that Google is better than most, in that they have
better requirements on their staffing firms:
[https://phys.org/news/2019-04-google-require-benefits-
minimu...](https://phys.org/news/2019-04-google-require-benefits-minimum-
wage.html)

------
m3nu
Another anecdote: Local friend works for Google in Asia. She is basically
forced to relocate to SF for 1-3 years and work at a rather low salary (for SF
standards) there on something unrelated to her current job.

I would suspect that part of the reason for such a "program" is to save on
wages, which would be much higher for locally-hired staff. Her field is
admin/marketing. Should be easy enough to find local talent for that. At a
higher price.

I'm sure there are upsides to this exchange program, but having no real choice
(except quitting) and working at a lower salary don't leave the best
impression.

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
Is your friend a Googler or a contractor? Can you expand on how she was
"forced"?

~~~
m3nu
Hired directly by Google and works in their office. Forced means it's
compulsory if she wants to keep her job.

------
ThrustVectoring
This is a natural and expected consequence of tax law - specifically
provisions in ERISA, which sets out the rules for 401(k) plans.

Google wants their 401(k) to be as efficient and useful as possible for their
employees, which tend toward being highly-paid engineers and other
professionals. ERISA has some fairness provisions, which means that all
employees must be subject to the same plan rules, and the plan must pass
certain tests of "highly-compensated" employee participation limits compared
to non-highly-compensated ones.

So if you have a bunch of engineers and some janitors, and you offer a large
401(k) match that engineers use and value and janitors don't, you wind up
having to unwind some of the engineer contribution and matching in order to
keep things "fair".

But, crucially, ERISA doesn't have say anything about who has to be an
"employee" versus hired on as a contractor. So all the janitors and cafeteria
workers become contractors, and now your 401(k) plan counts junior developers
as the "non highly-compensated" comparison class, and your 401(k) plan passes
muster again.

This affects Google a lot because their retirement plan is highly optimized
for allowing highly-paid employees to save a ton of money in a tax efficient
manner. It'd be difficult to craft a better plan, and from what I've heard
they've even automated using a niche tax loophole as well ("mega-backdoor
Roth" \- after-tax 401(k) contribution followed by immediate Roth conversion,
basically allows an extra $20k/yr or so in Roth contribution room).

------
oldjokes
To be fair to Google every company in every industry is doing this more and
more. It's one of the first things that happens when a merger or private
equity takeover happens- aggressively purge full time and move to temp workers
for all non-core services to save some money.

Of course the companies that pay more attention to data do this more
extensively and aggressively, why wouldn't they?

The army of temp workers/janitors/contractors/uber drivers convene and sleep
in the same parking lots at night. It's a whole community of a semi-permanent
underclass drifting around, saving the spreadsheets a few points here and
there.

In related news, I'm not sure I want to be an American anymore. This is not
the country I grew up in.

~~~
bkor
The big company I work for isn't doing what you said. They acquired a big
company last year. They also have multiple business units which are being
merged. Still not aggressively changing full time employees, nor changing
roles into temp ones. They have recently starting to insource some of the IT
again (less IBM).

~~~
joshuamorton
Google doesn't do this either. As discussed elsewhere in the thread, most of
the vendors at Google are in nontech roles like food service, security, and
maintenance/facilities.

------
tjpnz
What's the induction process like for a temp at Google? I'm curious as I've
heard stories of temps becoming subject matter experts on teams and carrying
projects across the line. If said individuals couldn't get into Google as a
full-time employee what would that then say about the way Google interviews?

~~~
iancmceachern
I worked as a contractor on a Google backed company on the Google campus. My
interview consisted of a short meeting at the gentleman who ran the agency's
house. I found the opportunity through an online consulting marketplace. I
then and showed up to the Google site the next week and began working. I also
applied directly, but have never heard back from them. My most striking memory
was the complete lack of connection to the outdoors. Every single window and
skylight was covered with light blocking coverings, you never knew if it was
night, day, sunny or stormy outside. Other than that it was fascinating work
with great people.

~~~
CydeWeys
What does Google-backed company mean? Is that a bet (under Alphabet)?
Something outside that even?

Did you contract directly with the company or were you working for the agency,
who contracted you out?

I was a contractor for four years as my first job and I was a full-time
employee of that contracting firm for the entire time. They paid a decent
salary, gave me healthcare, retirement, and other benefits, etc. It was
actually my best offer compared to some other SWE positions. Some company like
Google could have been one of my clients at some point (and indeed was at my
next job), but instead it was mostly banks and insurance companies.

------
jamesfe
It seems really similar to an article from March of 1998 about Microsoft:
[https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/30/business/equal-work-
less-...](https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/30/business/equal-work-less-equal-
perks-microsoft-leads-way-filling-jobs-with-permatemps.html)

~~~
Bucephalus355
The issue with that at the time was that Microsoft was using temps to avoid
paying payroll taxes. Ironically the IRS wised up to this tactic because of
_just how good_ Microsoft was treating their temps, i.e. the same as regular
employees.

Now the issue is a company is using temps to hold down the market rate for
salary. Less about tax avoidance, and more about wage suppression. Of course
it’s also a valid argument to say the Supreme Court decision at the time made
it more likely for companies to choose this route.

~~~
jamesfe
True in that sense.

Also true that the two-tier system existed in one of the big tech giants and
with it many of the same symptoms. It is interesting to see it again with
Google, although I wonder if Amazon/Netflix/Amazon have a similar situation.

~~~
vadym909
Most large tech companies- think FB, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco are similar.
Amazon surprisingly has a low ratio of contractors (they say under 10%)-
probably because their fulltime benefits are so cheap it doesn't make a
difference or maybe they don't count warehouse workers in that ratio.

------
amelius
Given the whole problem with platform economies (e.g. Uber drivers), perhaps
it's better if the distinction between contractor and employee becomes
smaller. E.g. healthcare benefits, separate them from the employer and make
them the same for everybody.

------
AJ007
Am I the only one who is shocked that Google has 223,000 people working for
them? What are all of these people doing?

------
huffmsa
Sounds like they're taking a page from the Federal Governments books. Staffing
firms had better wise up and start jacking up prices.

------
MichaelMoser123
Is it possible for a temporary employee to be promoted to full time status, or
is that impossible? What is the average length of employment for a temporary
employee vs that of a full timer? Just asking.

~~~
drcross
I was a contract worker for a similar scale web company and I was offered a
full time role after 12 months of working there. I declined it because the day
rate that I was on was more than the full time salary. The perks (stock,
parental leave and other benefits) were significant but I didn't want them as
they didn't apply to me. I preferred to keep my own autonomy and didn't think
the future was going to work out well for the team I was in. The team had
constant squabbles and moral was low. If you're willing to accept risk like
that you can make good money as a senior contracting engineer. Full timers
heads exploded when I declined the offer but I hated the self created
heirarchy that the contractor/FTE relationship posed. It seemed like there
were two set of rules, one for ftes and one for contractors. I think it's a
really toxic way to run your company.

~~~
xav0989
From what I've been told, you cannot treat contractors/temps the same way that
you treat your employees, otherwise they can claim that they were in fact
employees the whole time (which usually comes with an expensive lawsuit and a
visit from the IRS). In order to ensure that contractors/temps can't claim to
be employees, it's not enough to not offer benefits. You have to effectively
create a two tier system with FTEs at the top and contractors/temps at the
bottom.

Not arguing whether it's good/bad, but it comes with the territory in the
current landscape. You gain in flexibility/autonomy but loose in
benefits/treatment.

~~~
tylerrobinson
I’ve definitely seen the tiered system you’re describing. For example,
contractors aren’t given the same training or professional development
opportunities as FTEs. But do you know if there are actually legal reasons for
this, or is it just pragmatic to give fewer opportunities or privileges to
employees you know won’t be around long?

~~~
CydeWeys
There is legal precedent for it. The most famous and precedent-setting case in
this area occurred with Microsoft in 1996:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsof...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft)

That set the framework for all contracting that has followed since.

~~~
tylerrobinson
Interesting, thanks for the reference. In the Microsoft case it looks like the
decision hinged on the definition of a common law employee. Wikipedia notes
that benefits eligibility can be formally defined. Employers don’t have to
treat their contractors badly just to imply a tiered system, in other words,
as the parent comment suggests.

------
kdot
I'm going through this process right now, I have a contract for a SWE role at
Google through a contracting company. Interestingly enough I was offered no
benefits.

------
dfilppi
It's remarkable that such a fine institution as the New York Times would
publish unsubstantiated allegations that could ruin someones career.

------
Manjuuu
It would be interesting to know the ratio of employee/contractors working as
FTE (very common somewhere else) among software engineers.

~~~
jsty
I guess it would depend quite heavily on location - particularly re. tax and
employment regulation. For example, in London, a lot of the good people
historically went the contracting route due to much higher rates and lower
taxes. Big banks were (and are) staffed with a lot of contractors who were
very happy not to be on payroll.

~~~
baud147258
It was the same thing in Fintech in Paris when I was working there a few years
ago.

~~~
baud147258
I was working as an intern in a team developing a tool for the traders, there
was two FTE, the boss and one senior dev; the rest (5 devs) were all
consultants, all independents

------
firemancoder
Lots of companies do this (SV and others), if it makes good business sense for
them to do so why do we care?

------
matz1
Good. In the future everyone should be a contractor anyway.

------
avefilip
I was always wondering about similar thing with interns

~~~
bsimpson
What are you wondering?

Interns usually work for small periods of time between school cycles. They get
interesting projects, because internships are effectively a recruiting tool
for new grads.

With the amount of prep work and oversight/mentorship that goes into an
internship, it's not obvious that they benefit the company outside of
recruiting.

If the argument is "TVCs tolerate more because they fear retribution/loss of
access to a full-time role," that might happen for interns too. (I haven't
studied either group, so I'm not qualified to say.) If the argument is that
"TVCs are being exploited to minimize the number of full-time roles," that
definitely doesn't apply to interns.

