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

Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 408 posts

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#201

Post by yosito »

tpmoney wrote: post #3
master_crab wrote: post #2

First thoughts after reading this: 1. Is this legal in all jurisdictions an employee could conceivably be based in? 2. When will Equifax monetize this as a service to other companies (because you know they will).

It's already a service. "The Work Number" is their employment verification service available to anyone https://theworknumber.com

I looked up my data in this system. They show only 2 of my past 11 employers, and those two have incorrect data about my start and end dates, and how much I was paid. With this information being so inaccurate, I'm wondering if it's even worth my time to try to correct it. To be honest, I think I'd rather just not work for companies who would use this kind of service anyway.

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#202

Post by mytailorisrich »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #161
sirsinsalot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK there's a set of criteria (IR35) that attempt to codify the distinction. The hiring business has to make the assessment. One of criteria is right to subcontract and freedom to work with multiple clients. If they get it wrong, they're liable for taxes, not the Contractor. HMRC, the UK tax body is responsible for this, and therefore it is an utter mess in practice and has had chilling effects on the UK IT con…

I think it's a great idea, there's far too many businesses that exploit employees by labelling them contractors. Of course, idea and execution are two very different things. In NZ, it's often found in courier companies and telecommunications, where you're an owner-operator! Except you have to do what the company you work for says, when they say, and you have to provide all your own equipment, and of course, pay for y…

The thing is that in IT people actually want to be outside of IR35 because being a contractor is financially better for them.

So you see contractor job ads prominently listing "outside of IR35" as a benefit.

When this was implemented I know people who actually quit because they were told they would be within IR35 from then on, and they found new contracts outside of IR35.

In IT/tech people go the contracting route for the money so unsurprisingly they follow the money...

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#203

Post by hobs »

jslaD wrote: post #184
ttymck wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specified, delegated and approved by distracted executives? Criminally negligent executives, in my personal opinion.

I don’t see how any of this was the executives fault. They have no idea of computer security and hired people who they thought were competent to handle it.

No, they didn't. The executive in charge had no freaking idea what was going on, at all. As noted earlier in the threads, it was a music major with no experience, they hired a fall guy/gal - please dont say stuff you have no idea about.

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#204

Post by Fendii »

raydiatian wrote: post #16

> Executives, especially in the tech industry, have said they're worried that some remote employees are distracted. “Distracted” like the time that Equifax leaked hundreds of millions of pieces of personal data. Maybe instead of blaming the workforce they should worry about making the company a place that people want to work exclusively. Equifax does not matter at all as an organization.

Very weird attack from your side.

They are big enough it's totally normal that not everyone knows what everyone else is doing.

Not sure what the leak is telling you, it's not telling me too much

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#205

Post by spydum »

denkmoon wrote: post #92
thwayunion wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. In an alternate universe, the Chief Information Security Officer of Equifax is giving interviews about the dangers of work from home for cyber security roles, informed by her masters in music composition and 0.0 years of IC experience as deep expertise. I'm still astounded no one ended up in jail over that. Software Engineering really does need some professionalization.

>Software Engineering really does need some professionalization. Consequences is what it needs. We can no longer allow it to be profitable to be so brazenly irresponsible. External selection pressure to kill off the maladaptive traits.

i mean ubers former CISO did just get convicted, so it could be starting? (granted his scenario seems more about intent to hide a breach vs ineptitude)

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#206

Post by brailsafe »

lostcolony wrote: post #64
tpmoney wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe the article, the employees were fired because they weren't doing the "scope of their duties".

The article calls out, multiple times, that the reason people were fired (all 24 of them, with another couple hundred contractors being flagged) were because they were moonlighting. It says nothing about their performance, except in the vaguest of terms ("weren't logged into the VPN enough" for instance), and the fact they were initially flagged to be investigated (presumably because of performance, but again, no det…

The company that just acquired the one I was contracting for offered me an employment agreement that had a no-outwide-work clause. I put some writing in to get hat changed to be much more specific to only inckude things that either directly comoete with the company or actively interfere with my work.

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#207

Post by lupire »

b800h wrote: post #115
SllX wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guards are still usually W-2 employees; but they’re employees of the firm that’s been contracted. Referring to them as “contractors” is more a colloquialism, but it marks someone that works for an outside firm versus someone that’s in-house and on the company team, even if they work in the same office day in and day out.

Yeah, there's a big disparity between UK and US terminology here. I'm the UK, a "contractor" is typically in business on their own account, applying for jobs directly to the end client. In the US, it seems like a "contractor" frequently works for an outsourcing company. In the UK we'd typically call these people "temps" or "consultancy staff" depending on the source.

It's Temp/Vendor/Contractor lumped together as "people who work here but allegedly aren't legally employees of thia company, so we can deceive about all the great benefits "all" our "employees" get.

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#208

Post by lupire »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #163
thaumasiotes wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was specifically referring to security guards structured as 1099 contractors. They do not have to be employees.

I'd be very surprised if security firms weren't classifying employees as contractors for the firm's financial gain.

*misclassifying.

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#209

Post by msh »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #59
gumby wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that they don’t know if any contractors were terminated; they only know about employees. They could terminate them if they could show that the contractors were faking the hours.

To what extent can you demand hours from a contractor?

If they were billing by the hour, or being payed to standby.

Re: Equifax used records it collects from companies to fire employees with 2nd jobs

#210

Post by lupire »

jslaD wrote: post #184
ttymck wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specified, delegated and approved by distracted executives? Criminally negligent executives, in my personal opinion.

I don’t see how any of this was the executives fault. They have no idea of computer security and hired people who they thought were competent to handle it.

What do you think an exec's job is? Watch TV and hope for the best?
Post reply on HN