Comment by edraferi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by edraferi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I hate this. I REALLY hate this. Creating a full-time workforce by cobbling together contractors is disgraceful. Sure, sometimes contracting makes sense, but replacing your core workforce with contractors just sucks.

Here are some reasons why:

1) loss of corporate identity / camaraderie

2) reduced working training & quality... and loss of control over how work it performed. If you retain control over work methods, they’re supposed to be employees

3) double downward pressure on wages as companies compete and then the contracting firm takes a cut. Pressure increases as subcontractors show up

4) subcontracting! You hire firms with no capabilities, which then hire subcontractors who hire people who know what they’re doing (maybe, see above). Why are these companies making profits? It should all go to the workers.

5) false flexibility. Your HR system might be painful, but good luck getting rid of a toxic contractor if they’re the cheapest person who can do the work. You can take your contract to a new company but they’ll hire the same people you already had.

Contracting obviously has its place - no firm can do everything- but staff replacement just sucks.

-

> Creating a full-time workforce by cobbling together contractors is disgraceful.

Not paying people but still requiring them to do things (like show up to work or keep their schedule free) is disgraceful. Hiring part-time workers is not disgraceful.

If we want more full-time workers for stable employment, we need to a better job disentangling our social justice policy goals (retirement savings, health care, maternity leave, etc.) from full-time employment agreements (at least exclusively those agreements). If we want a dynamic labor market and employees with the ability to tell their bosses to stuff it, we need to stop leaning so hard on the employer/employee relationship.

It clearly isn't working.

That's actually a really good point. I argue for full time employment frequently, especially in retail. It's, imo, a terrible place to work with a lot of scummy tactics against employees.

I'd still say employers need to be held accountable for how they treat part time workers though. For example, they can drop your hours to next to nothing, forcing you to leave the job rather than firing you. They can juggle your part-time days around at random making it insanely difficult to hold two part-time jobs.

You make valid points about the employer/employee relationship, but even if things like benefits were fixed, holding two or three part time jobs can be extremely difficult.

My wife works in pharmacy, retail - and the things she sees from retails stores regarding employees is disgusting. The store seems straight up hostile towards it's employees. It really puts it into perspective how much better I have it, as I've worked salary for ~15 years now.

> I'd still say employers need to be held accountable for how they treat part time workers though.

Sure. I just think the best people for that job are the workers themselves. Making less of life dependent on full time employment will give employers less leverage over employees.

> ...even if things like benefits were fixed, holding two or three part time jobs can be extremely difficult.

It can be. But it can also be simple. You could work Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for one boss and Saturdays for another. Or you could work on a mostly commission basis for two different bosses. The challenges are typically where bosses are getting away with getting something for nothing. There is no minimum wage for "be available these hours" or "get approval before taking on another job".

> It can be. But it can also be simple. You could work Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for one boss and Saturdays for another.

Sure, but that assumes you have the power to dictate your schedule. That right there depends on some respect from employers to employees.

Clearly I'm biased as I have seen disgusting things in retail. In the examples I've seen, they want you 7 days a week, regardless if they will actually pay you on those days.

This is made worse by the job market that gives employers quite a bit of bargaining power. Why take the employee who only wants to work Mon/Wed/Fri, when there's someone else willing to take whatever they can get?

For what it's worth, I'm actually agreeing. I'm saying we've been too hung up on hourly wages and not focused enough on employers externalizing costs (business risks, logistics risks, career viability risks) on employees. Some simple things, like requiring a retainer or salary for mandatory schedule availability, have simple legislative solutions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com