Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 258 posts

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#191

Post by esja »

zamfi wrote: post #90
AlbertCory wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always thought the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is nonsense, btw. There's no such "proof."

I think the intent behind the modern usage of "the exception that proves the rule" is that: a) the rule is a heuristic, not a hard-and-fast rule, and b) the notability of exceptions suggests that the heuristic is pretty good. In other words, if the exception is, in fact, exceptional, it reinforces that the heuristic is reasonably valid for non-exceptional cases. In this case, the fact that it took the intervention of…

That’s a great explanation.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#192

Post by Simon_says »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #156
AlbertCory wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another commonly misused phrase is "begging the question" which you have done here. It means "assuming that which you need to prove." You have no proof that it was exceptional. All you have is one case . You have no idea what other people in pay disputes end up doing.

People are allowed to use a phrase for its literal meaning instead of the traditional idiomatic meaning.

"beg the question" does not have a literal meaning. It makes no sense unless you're so used to hearing it used that way.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#193

Post by PapaSpaceDelta »

pembrook wrote: post #52

My question is, if it's so advantageous to employ people via onsite staffing firms (basically half of FAANG's workforce is employed this way), why doesn't Google stop directly employing people altogether? Without fail, if it's a giant publicly-traded company, a huge percentage of the workforce will always be onsite vendors. It seems so bizarrely arbitrary where they decide to hire direct vs. contract. And I'm not tal…

With regard to its popularity with publicly traded companies, aside from the cost and liability issues that are being discussed here, I have been told that Revenue per Employee is an investment metric that senior management try to optimise by the use of vendor and agency staff.

Source: I have worked for large corporates both as a contractor and as a full time employee in mixed teams.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#194

Post by FartyMcFarter »

panda88888 wrote: post #162
0des wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the mechanism by which an entity that has the resources to spend on wrist-slaps is prevented from just continuing the behavior forever? I notice this a lot, and it feels like there are these opportunities everywhere that are exploited by corporations who know they'll skate every time with minimal financial impact.

One mechanism is to fine the CEOs in units of time rather than dollar. For example, the punishment can include 18 hour compulsory training for the Cxx executives that they have to attend in person over 3 days (6hr per day) so that they understand how to comply with the regulations.

Great idea! This should definitely require physical attendance in order to avoid loopholes.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#195

Post by zosima »

AlbertCory wrote: post #78
joe_the_user wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't make any general statements about what happens to everyone, but in this particular case, I can't complain at all about HR's handling. That's kind of the exception that proves the rule , you think? That is, your outlining of the situation gives a strong suggestion that this sort of thing is common and unless the contractor has pull (say, a relative that works at Google), they can't do anything.

I've always thought the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is nonsense, btw. There's no such "proof."

The exception that proves the rule is from a legal argument by Cicero.

It means that if someone bothers to write an exception in a law, say e.g. "but in case window is broken by stone smaller than 1 cm in diameter, then it's the owner of the window that should pay reparations", then in the general case it's likely the thrower of the stone that pays, otherwise there would have been no point in adding so specific an exception.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#196

Post by PapaSpaceDelta »

com2kid wrote: post #160
pembrook wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it could be a practice that started when companies still gave out pensions. Pensions were a massive burden (just look at the auto companies who still have massive pension liabilities), so it probably made a lot of sense back then. But now that corporate America has eliminated pensions in favor of 401ks, the contractor/employee juggling just seems wildly inefficient for anybody who's not a janitor. It feels li…

It is so companies can lay off entire teams at a whim. When I was at MSFT, one of the orgs I was in was infamous for having over 50% vendors. On more than one occasion entire teams would be laid off when budget cuts happened. It is bad for FTE morale to regularly lay off 100 FTEs, less bad to lay off 100 vendors.

It's an interesting part of corporate culture. Large companies hate the process of firing employees for a number of reasons: staff moral, public perception, potential legal liability, etc. This applies whether it's individuals for performance reasons, or entire teams for economic reasons. To avoid this, there is often a lot of (bureaucratic and difficult) process to justify the hiring of a new FTE.

The corollary to this is that it's often a lot easier for a manager to hire a contractor or use an out-sourcing vendor, even if they don't see the requirements of the role being any different than that of a "permie" and even if it costs the company more money.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#197

Post by bserge »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #112
bjohnson225 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather odd as in the UK id expect to get paid a lot more as a contractor for the same roll as a FTE As a software dev/management contractor, sure, but as a “self-employed Yodel delivery driver” or similar low skill role? (Which it seems to be in this case)

In the UK it’s fairly common for SWEs to also work on a contractor basis (but they own their own personal company which contracts directly with the contracting company’s HR dept: no bodyshops or consulting firms are involved in this particular style of employment). This happens a lot because of how the UK’s tax-law is set-up (by accident, not by-design, though). ———————- Outside of the games industry, the UK’s been l…

That's a scourge all over Europe. Management are leaders and engineers are low level workers.

Follow hierarchy, don't stick your head out, get paid peanuts, leave for America at the first opportunity.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#198

Post by cbzbc »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #181
cbzbc wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d concur with your assessment of British management culture and the class reasons for why it occurs. Ironically this kind of thing is also the reason why the U.K. has never produced a peer to any of the FAANGs I think if you reify CP Snows thesis through the lens of the class system it turns out to be mostly correct.

> this kind of thing is also the reason why the U.K. has never produced a peer to any of the FAANGs Well, ARM for one - but despite its incredible importance in the world, ARM isn't all that valuable because of their business-model. I was hoping that SoftBank and NVIDIA's purchase would make ARM more assertive in the marketplace and create value for themselves. I'm cautiously optimistic about their future though (as…

> Well, ARM for one - but despite its incredible importance in the world, ARM isn't all that valuable because of their business-model.

ARM I think fits an attempt to grow while operating within the constraints of the model that you mention above.

I was thinking of Madge Networks - once mentioned in the same breath as a small networking company called Cisco. Of course Madge went with ATM rather than Ethernet, but they also had blue-blooded management and would only hire engineers from Oxbridge (which is naturally going to limit both the outlook of your company and how fast you can grow).

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#199

Post by Dylan16807 »

Simon_says wrote: post #192
Dylan16807 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are allowed to use a phrase for its literal meaning instead of the traditional idiomatic meaning.

"beg the question" does not have a literal meaning. It makes no sense unless you're so used to hearing it used that way.

"beg" often means "beg for". "This situation begs for the question:" is a completely reasonable way to start a sentence.

Or to go with synonyms. Solicits the question. Entreats the question. These are the literal meanings of the words, and they work fine.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#200

Post by Dylan16807 »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #164
labster wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who ignore semantic drift are literally gay.

People who have high regard for it are literally queer. Reference: myself.

What's 'it' here, I can't tell if you have high regard for pedantry about words or if you have high regard for semantic drift.
Post reply on HN