The issue is that, combined with hospital billing shenanigans, health insurance et al is tied to being a full-time employee. If you don't qualify for/can't afford government healthcare programs, you might go bankrupt from the hospital bill for an ambulance ride.
So where does the blame lay: on the USA for not offering public healthcare, or on companies for "exploiting" what is quite clearly a bus-sized loophole in the system?
It's not a loophole, it's part of the point of being a contractor. You have a temporary relationship that doesn't have all the requirements of a full-time employee. When I hire a handyman to come do some repairs at my house, I shouldn't have to provide health insurance for him.
On the USA for not offering real public healthcare. The USA spends twice as much of its cumulative wealth on healthcare and has worse outcomes for all but a small minority who are willing to pay top dollar. In relation to how any other first world country operates, health insurance premiums in the USA are effectively a privatised, for-profit system of taxation.
The system is basically a middle finger to the bottom 50% of the country — by increasing poverty, by accentuating the consequences of poverty, and impeding the upward mobility of people in poverty.
Every contractor I’ve known has done so with the downside being what you said, and choosing the upside of more flexible work or higher pay. People don’t seem to be forced into contracting?
Sure I guess the same way I have a choice between having a job and unemployment. Not an ideal system I agree, but until we get universal income or my startup IPOs thems the breaks.
In a LOT of cases it's neither short term or temporary, you would be surprised how many temps/contractors/vendors/whatever at these companies have been there for years, sat at a desk in their buildings, learned their tech stacks and developed products, ate lunch at their cafeterias, etc....
The IRS ensured that contract workers cannot work at a company for more than a certain amount of time before they are automatically turned into employees. That's why companies rotate contract workers off jobs when they hit a certain time limit.
I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should be happy with their disposable circumstances. As opposed to being annoyed that the conditions for a disposable workforce exist in the first place.
There are a ton of valid reasons to have a disposable workforce - seasonal employees, specialists who do work outside of the company's core competencies, temporary employees to fill the roles of those who are out on disability/family leave/what have you, etc. There are totally reasonable needs for these kinds of employees, and if you didn't have contract workers you'd just be hiring them as FTEs and then firing them shortly thereafter. I think it's clearly better for the employee to understand the temporary nature of their job.
Again, I objected to his line of reasoning that you shouldn't be able to complain about being seen as a more disposable form of labor vs full time employees. "You signed up for this" kind of rhetoric is just silly. It's ok to express empathy for those let go, you don't have to carefully dissect their life choices that lead them to this point.
You are lying and putting words in my mouth. I never said they should be happy about it. But the reality is that they have a temporary position, not a permanent position and they should accept this reality. They were hired as a temporary worker, not a permanent worker. End of story. There is no confusion here.
If they are looking for a permanent position, they should find a job with a permanent position. If those jobs aren't available or they aren't qualified for them... are you saying they deserve a permanent position anyway?
"I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should be happy with their disposable circumstances."
>You are lying and putting words in my mouth.
Ok, lets just use your own words to work through this.
>they should accept this reality.
How about "I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should just accept this reality."
Is that better for you?
You're also entirely missing the nuance of this conversation wherein a system exists for Apple to exploit a labor force and avoid the extra costs associated with fulltime employment (healthcare, benefits, etc). In your worldview, this is entirely reasonable and the trillion dollar company exploiting these workers is entirely above reproach. It is in fact the fault of the employees for either being too shortsighted with their contract employment or just not good enough to qualify for things like healthcare.
See why that might come across as gross to someone?
> How about "I took offense to his line of reasoning that contract workers should just accept this reality."
Yes, this is better. They need to accept their reality. They can't accept a temporary job and they cry when their temporary job gets cancelled. It's the reality of their situation. They shouldn't be happy about it in the same way that coal miners shouldn't be happy about working in a coal mine, but sometimes that's just how life works out.
> a system exists for Apple to exploit a labor force
I completely disagree they are being exploited. Some jobs are permanent and some jobs are temporary. That's reality. Do you expect waiters and cab drivers to be full time employees as well? Should M&A consultants working on a project be made permanent employees as well? Should football players be permanent employees? I certainly don't.
Some type of logical fallacy in the line of reasoning connecting your "quoted" text to the op.
Exploit (Oxford def.): "make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)."
Contractor (Oxford def.): "a person or company that undertakes a contract to provide materials or labor to perform a service or do a job"
Did Apple mislead these people into thinking their contracts were indefinite or not potentially bound by some end date? Did Apple retract guaranteed equity in the company?
This is literally what the contractor market is for: provide resources in increasing and decreasing amount due to market demands.
I certainly sympathize for the long tenured full time tech employees getting laid off. I really sympathize with the fact that contractors tend to be non-native or immigrant demographics, or out-sourced to other countries. Maybe that's what you were talking about, but seems like an intentionally generaliezd critique of the contracting industry.
Companies don't owe workers a permanent position. The company has a certain amount of permanent positions and a certain amount of temporary positions. The contract workers, for whatever reason, chose the temporary position. Either they didn't want to permanent position, or they wanted the permanent position but they weren't good enough to compete for the permanent position and got a temporary position instead.
Regardless, are you saying that the company owes these people a permanent position?
