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

381–390 of 408 posts

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

#381

Post by Hnrobert42 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #345
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #99

Unpopular opinion: I’m okay with this. I feel angry at those who lack integrity and work two full-time, salaried jobs. At a previous job where we were all 100% remote, we dealt with an employee who did this. We caught him because his work quality was poor and he was unavailable for days at a time on Slack. It took a lot of time to investigate and justify the firing. After being fired, he laughed with folks about how…

> We caught him because his work quality was poor and he was unavailable for days at a time on Slack. > It took a lot of time to investigate and justify the firing. So you already knew the work was of poor quality. That's enough reason to let them go. Why do you need to investigate and justify it any further? You don't need to invade their privacy. > I feel angry at those who lack integrity I feel angry about a lot o…

We were a small company. They still do have a great deal of integrity and loyalty. A company is only the people operating it.

He absolutely stole from the company. He agreed to do his best for at least 40 hours a week. The company paid him for that.

Integrity means to do what you say you are going to do. Two wrongs don’t make a right. If he didn’t like the company, he could have quit.

Edit: To the theft part, I will also add that while that employee was “working” for the company, we were unable to hire someone else. So not only was he stealing from the company, he was stealing the opportunity from someone else.

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

#382

Post by Hnrobert42 »

snvzz wrote: post #183
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #99

Unpopular opinion: I’m okay with this. I feel angry at those who lack integrity and work two full-time, salaried jobs. At a previous job where we were all 100% remote, we dealt with an employee who did this. We caught him because his work quality was poor and he was unavailable for days at a time on Slack. It took a lot of time to investigate and justify the firing. After being fired, he laughed with folks about how…

An employee having another job is basically none of the employers' business. Of course, if an employee's being useless, perhaps warn / eventually fire them, irrespective to whether they have a second job, which again should be none of the employers' business.

It is really difficult to objectively evaluate performance. If nothing else, evaluators have their own inherent biases. Multiple paychecks is an objective measure. It helps determine whether a borderline employee just needs help and support or had chosen to underperform.

I believe companies have a duty to try to help struggling employees. The corollary is employee’s must do their best for their employer.

If an employee is doing a great job, they can have 50 simultaneous jobs. I don’t care.

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

#383

Post by Hnrobert42 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #345
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #99

Unpopular opinion: I’m okay with this. I feel angry at those who lack integrity and work two full-time, salaried jobs. At a previous job where we were all 100% remote, we dealt with an employee who did this. We caught him because his work quality was poor and he was unavailable for days at a time on Slack. It took a lot of time to investigate and justify the firing. After being fired, he laughed with folks about how…

> We caught him because his work quality was poor and he was unavailable for days at a time on Slack. > It took a lot of time to investigate and justify the firing. So you already knew the work was of poor quality. That's enough reason to let them go. Why do you need to investigate and justify it any further? You don't need to invade their privacy. > I feel angry at those who lack integrity I feel angry about a lot o…

> Why do you need to investigate and justify it any further?

In the case of my previous employer, we did not use the Equifax service. However, we did have to compile significant evidence of underperformance. Do not underestimate the difficulty of firing someone, even in the U.S.

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

#384

Post by vidarh »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #202
EdwardDiego wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

It's just a matter of rates. You need rates a bit higher within IR35. Less so than people think, and even less now that the corporation tax changes are still going through. The biggest problem with IR35 is no longer tax since the gap has become smaller and smaller, but the uncertainty of the classification and the hassle of dealing with an umbrella company.

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

#385

Post by PUSH_AX »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #188
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…

There was a significant part of the UK IT consulting market which was not really consulting though right? People turning up and doing the same job day in day out for months or years. At least in the IT industry people legitimately had some freedoms. I was amused to learn that a lot of lorry drivers were operating as contractors outside IR35. Not even those driving their own vehicles. The driving regulations make it p…

100%.

I’m a contractor, and for many companies and recruiters it was a wink wink nudge nudge arrangement to keep a gravy train running. An element of that will return when the reform is scrapped.

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

#386

Post by PUSH_AX »

trollied wrote: post #175
nprateem wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the changes to it are going away, not the legislation. It'll be back on contractors to make the determination of IR35 status again

Which means it’s essentially going away. I first encountered it in 2005 when I first contracted & it has never affected me. It nearly affected me with my previous contract a couple of years ago as the business really didn’t understand it and was “playing safe” by trying to go “inside IR35” for the role, but that’s utter nonsense for a 3 month engagement such as the one I was doing. I’ve always paid employers NI etc.…

> Which means it’s essentially going away.

Tell that to all the contractors that had HMRC tribunals pre reform.

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

#387

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

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.

Doesn’t consultancy staff also cover people working for an actual consulting company?

I have worked on long contract - one or two years - for clients in the past helping them structure and put in place large projects and while I was technically there full time it was pretty clear that this was temporary, I was filling a punctual need the business wouldn’t have after and there was a somewhat clear idea of when we would part.

These relations are not necessary a way to pay less or not give benefits. I was actually paid a lot better than if I had been working there.

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

#388

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #141
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.

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

Are security guards employed as 1099 common? I was under the impression that most companies were just outsourcing and guards were actually full time employees of companies specialising in security in the same way most cleaning staff works for a cleaning company.

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

#389

Post by jejeyyy77 »

caturopath wrote: post #88
justinc8687 wrote: post #31

"Equifax flagged 283 contractors for potential 'dual employment,' documents show." Would this not be a big flag to reclassify these contractors as employees? Being able to have multiple clients is one of the factors to determine if you're a contractor...

A lot of the time 'contractor' is used to refer to a W-2 employee of a staffing company rather than an independent contractor.

That’s actually illegal on the part of the company.

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

#390

Post by jejeyyy77 »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #32
justinc8687 wrote: post #31

"Equifax flagged 283 contractors for potential 'dual employment,' documents show." Would this not be a big flag to reclassify these contractors as employees? Being able to have multiple clients is one of the factors to determine if you're a contractor...

You get a lot of this up here in Canada. Companies hire you as a contractor, but prohibit you from working other roles.

They can’t prohibit you from working other roles. That’s the whole point of being an “independent contractor”.

Most contractors I know take on many clients.

Post reply on HN