On Nov 28, 12:34 am, "Ezekiel" <Z...@xxxxx> wrote:
> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > Google has been using independent contractors for years. Corporations
> > are only required to report layoffs because it transfers expenses to
> > liabilities when pensions, 401K obligations, and unemployment or
> > severence penalties increase liabilities or reduce capital (profit) to
> > the company short-term.
> No kidding. And this is the loophole that Google lawyers are using to avoid
> publically reporting the layoffs.
Yes, because they are not layoffs. They are simply non-renewed
consulting contracts.
Actual layoffs have to be reported because there are liabilities
related to the terminations. Not renewing consulting contracts is
simply attrition.
> > Contractors are easier to release, but more expensive to pay.
> Not always more expensive to pay. The company doesn't have to pay them
> dental, medical, 401k, etc.
Not directly, but this is factored into the price when hiring
contractors. It might be cheaper to hire someone from Accenture for a
year or two if you know that you won't be keeping them on after the
project is completed. Accenture will take care of medical, dental,
and other insurances, and when the project ends, so does the
liability. Early termination of a contract usually requires limited
additional payments (2 weeks in most cases).
The consulting firms figure that they will be able to transfer top
talent from one project to the next, and less stellar talent will
generally leave through attrition. Many consultants are required to
travel, keep strange hours, keep skills current, and many even have
management duties. The best thrive, the complacent tend to "burn
out".
> > Typically, an independent contractor will make twice as much as a
> > salaried employee, and cost even 3 times as much if they are working
> > for a large consulting firm.
> Except that these don't work for a consulting firm. They were hired by
> Google to save a few $$$ by not having to pay employee benefits.
These are 1099 contracts. Under the Bush administration and the
Republican tax codes, there were lots of tax benefits to working on a
1099 contract and purchasing your health insurance through a group
plan such as IEEE at professional group rates. The tax rate was
lower, less money was taxed, more could be deducted, and you could put
more tax free money into directly managed investments.
In New York, it wasn't uncommon for someone to own a condo or house in
Jersey City, and then take the apartment costs in Manhattan as
business lodging and office space. All kinds of other tax benefits -
under Bush/Republican tax structures.
> > Microsoft has other problems though.
> Unless you have proof to backup your ramblings I really don't care what you
> have to say. If I want to read fictitious stories then there's a good
> bookstore just down the road.
You probably believe that everything Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer is
the gospel truth, don't you? You probably don't even read the
transcripts of their legal hearings and trial testimony. You probably
don't even read print periodicals, and if you browse them in a book-
store or magazine rack, you probably only look at the headline news.
You probably think that the only news worth getting will be brought to
you by Fox or MSNBC.
I, on the other hand, subscribe to about 20 computer industry
periodicals which I get in either PDF or print formats, and which I
generally read cover-to-cover (since my success in the industry
requires that I stay informed about industry trends, breakthroughs,
and competition).
I will admit, sometimes my memory isn't perfect, and I don't have room
to store the periodicals I've read. I once had a library - 8 shelves
12 feet long - completely full - and that was just the magazines.
After paying for storage for over 10 years at $100/month, I finally
just told the storage place to auction off what they could, and send
the rest to the recyclers.
The collection even included every copy of Byte Magazine from 1979 to
1995, when Byte stopped publishing.
I'm better informed than you, and my sources don't get "sterilized"
every time Microsoft or some other big pocket advertizer decides he
doesn't like the content, or demands a retraction or they will sue for
damage to brand.
I'm sure that Bill Clinton and George W Bush both wish they could do
something like that to the press, but they just don't have the $4
billion/year advertizing budjet and $40 billion in placement control
over OEM advertizing that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have.
The usenet archives are full of links to broken links and nonexistent
documents, many of them purged within days of publication, often
BECAUSE they were cited on usenet.
|
|
