Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Microsoft Loses Temp Appeal 183

Posted by emmett from the thaw-a-new-legal-team-smithers dept.
Robert Wilde writes "The Supreme Court has turned down Microsoft's appeal of a ruling, allowing 10,000 temporary employees to sue for benefits such as the right to purchase Microsoft stock at a 15% discount. This lawsuit has implications for permatemps throughout the tech industry." I'm actually interested in seeing how many of the temps take Microsoft up on buying stock options.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Loses Temp Appeal More

Microsoft Loses Temp Appeal

Comments Filter:
  • The ESPP (Employee Share Purchase Plan) works like this: on Jan 1st & Aug 1st, Microsoft employees are allowed to allocate up to 10% of their salary towards buying stock. At the end of that period, the saved money is used to buy shares at 15% less than the lower of the prices at the beginning and the end of the 6 month period. So you can't lose- if the stock goes down, you've still made an extra 1.5% on your salary. If it goes up, cool. Once the shares have been bought you can sell them immediately, or keep them if you prefer. Haven't decided what I'll do yet.... ;-)

  • Disturbing (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is the first article that has moved me enough to post to slashdot. This is a bad thing. I am a contractor (temp worker) and I am glad there are differences between fulltime employees and me. We don't get benefits (ie stock option, holiday pay, job security) but we do get paid ALOT more. If decisions such as this narrow this gap then companies are going to be more inclined to employ fulltime rather then contract employees. There are plusses and minuses to both jobs and we need to preserve them.

  • Re:This might not be all good news (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is good for temps. I worked for MS on two occassions long enough to qualify for this class action lawsuit. There's a couple points that people have wrong: 1) The benefit is the ability to buy MS STOCK (*not* options) at %15 below market. 2) If I'd been able to buy MS stock at %15 below market then, the value of that stock now would be about %900 of what I paid. 3) MS Uses temps in lots of non-standard and potentially illegal ways. This ruling does not eliminate companie's ability to hire temps by the book-- this just catches MS trying to have it both ways. 4) Temps DON'T "make more money" than employees at Microsoft. In many cases they make less when you factor in the lack of benefits,etc. (And that's not including stock options-- if you include stock options then temps make FAR less than employees at MS historically. ) 5) Options ARE a cost of keeping an employee- MS has to buy its own stock on the open market to fulfill employee's exercising their options. 6) The next logical conclusion of this lawsuite would be to go after MS for failing to give stock optiosn to these "temp" employees! And that's a much bigger bill than this one which only would require selling MS stock at a loss to thes ex-employees. 7) From an ethical viewpoint, I think I will pruchase as many shares as I can under this program, hold the mfor a year, and then sell. (The year isn't a requirement- this isn't restricted stock- but it is a tax issue.) 8) IF this turns out to be a financial windfall for me on the order of $700,000 or more, then I would consider this a "fair deal" as that's what MS screwed me out of, in lots of ways, when I worked there. Singed- Suddenly happy to have been a MSFT contractor.

  • Re:Status of temp employees? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The problem is that a lot of companies can get around paying benefits like stock options/health insurance, etc. by making the majority of their employees "temps" or contract workers. Contract worker is a better term because these employees are hardly temporary seasonal staff--they may work at the same place for years on contract.

    Benefits such as vacation, insurance and stock options can cost the company an additional 30% plus the people to handle the hiring and paperwork they generate. When a company goes through an agency, they pay a larger hourly salary, but don't have to provide any of the perks or hassle with the administrative. I found as a contract I might make a little more hourly in cash, but you (if you were lucky) got only a week of vacation (after x number of hours) and no insurance unless you paid high premiumns for it. You may have a 401K plan available, but of course no pension or other company contributed retirement plan.

    The bottom line is the company makes out like a bandit by having full time workers they don't have to pay high$ benefits to get. Temping can be a good way to get more experience and I'm sure a lot of contract employees came in so they could add that they worked at Microsoft on their resume.

  • I'm not an expert in such things, but this brings up an interesting question: What rights do temps have at various places/states? Last time I temped, it was a christmas season time thing, and no benifits, etc, so I can't say personally... any thoughts?

    David

    bash: ispell: command not found
  • The point is that Microsoft had no intention of hiring them as "permanent employees." The treated them like permanent employees, worked them like employees, and hired them like employees but placed a label "temp" on them because they didn't want to pay benefits. It's not that the temps could have gotten full time jobs at Microsoft, it's that Microsoft had no intention of taking them on as permanent employees.

    They wanted a large number of workers with the label "temp" attached to them so that it would save them money. The lower courts ruled that this sort of scheme is illegal.

    -Dean

  • The Caldera settlement is implicit acknowledgement by Microsoft that they conspired to detroy a competitor by illegal means,
    and that no court in the land would reasonably believe otherwise.


    The settlement is not an admission of guilt. It's an out of court settlement. Guilty or not Microsoft avoiding the possibility of a guilty ruling. Things like this happen all the time. How many "out of court" settlements do you hear about over frivilous lawsuits? In those cases the companies definately aren't admitting guilt. They're just avoiding the expense and possible investor backlash over a lengthly trial. Wall street will probably look at this more favourably than damaging. Sure, maybe they would have won the case eventually but having the case against them represents uncertainty.



    The Temp ruling is an explicit statement that Microsoft discriminated against temporary hires in a way that exceeded any
    reasonable bounds.


    This is correct.


    IMHO, if you put someone on a factory floor, or behind a computer, you are saying they make a valuable contribution to the
    company. Otherwise, you wouldn't need the position, and they wouldn't be there. If a temp and a full-time employee are doing
    the same work, under the same conditions, and the employee is getting significantly better compensation, the company is
    basically saying to the temp "yes, you're doing stuff worth a damn sight more than we're giving you, and we're willing to pay
    other people for it, but we're legally allowed to treat -you- like dirt, and it keeps our accountants happy if we do."


    This is incorrect. I was a contractor, I quit contracting because I didn't like being a contractor. As a contractor I was payed considerably more than a regular employee but I was not eligible for employee perks. I couldn't get in on stock options or reduced stock pricing and so on. I knew this when I signed on. The people who contracted for Microsoft knew this as well or they were stupid. Stupidity should not be rewarded. As an employee you're taking some risk in that part of your wages are based on the success of the company. Maybe the company does well and those 10,000 stock options will be worth a million dollars. Maybe the company goes bust and they're not worth the paper they're printed on. As a contractor you're saying you want the cold hard cash up front.
  • To be honest, I would not have thought it worth the fight if it wasn't for the mere fact that they beat M$. Who in their right mind would buy MSFT now? There rights were trampled, and they took it court and won, great; but all they have won back is their pride.
  • This is an issue of employee rights.

    Exactly. This is a blow to workers rights. The courts have strengthened the position that workers do not have the right to negotiate arbitrary contracts with their employers. Workers are not permitted to work for what they consider to be fair compensation, they must work for what other people consider to be fair compensation. As a worker, I find this demeaning and oppressive. And yes, I'm aware of the vast precedent for this sort of regulation, but it doesn't make me agree with it.

  • The extra 15% difference is not counted as income. You won't pay taxes until you go to sell the stock.

    Vermifax
  • Hey! I've got some Microsoft stock and its done nothing but go up! Why not own it?

    Ethics.

    Eivind.

    P.S. If you think of protesting this, please be sure you know how the MSFT economy and the attention economy works.

  • The goal of INVESTING is to earn money from your investment. Microsoft is a rock solid investment.

    I dispute this on two levels:

    1. Despite your nice list of good things going for the stock, Microsoft isn't a solid investement, due to their enormous sale of put options in MSFT. It can not take a downward swing without totally falling apart. Sort of a house of cards.
    2. Ethics is a part of investing. For most people, there are reasons for not investing in the mob that go beyond the risk involved.

      Ethics work good when purchasing products, etc... But when planning out your retirement, I'd think that the goal would be to invest your money in companies with a proven track record, etc.

      Where does the "but" come from? Yes, that should be the goal - but it should not be the only goal. There are always secondary goals - would you kill somebody so their stock would get free so you could buy it? If not - where did you get that 'but' from?

      Eivind, who does not exactly love hypocrites who don't even take the time to learn how their investments work.

  • Im not an expert, but that idea sounds scandalous so there may be some SEC law preventing that... but then I'm not sure... I'm basing this only off of common sense and my vague familiarity with the SEC.
  • Aren't you awfully pessimistic?
  • The trust-busting laws were used in the turn-of-the-last-century anti-conglomeration effort by then-president Teddy Roosevelt and others of his time. They were established because Joe Schmoe was tired of losing limbs at the Spam factory and dieing at the ripe age of 27 due to improper working conditions. That was when we lost the true captilism that our country was founded on, and that is why our socialist capitalism survived where communism failed.

    As for Microsoft, the only trust-busting law they're breaking is that they're kinda sorta forcing their product on consumers.
  • Hey! I've got some Microsoft stock and its done nothing but go up! Why not own it?
  • What I don't understand: why don't temps get benefits from the staffing agency (including sick leave and holidays)?

    That's the way it works here in the Netherlands, and it seems to work well.

    EJB
  • I am a contractor and I get paid more than the regular employees around here. I also get overtime which they don't.

    I also get healthcare, stock options in my consulting company, participation in a stock purchase plan on equivalent terms to other SPP's at other companies I've been at, and a few vacation days a year.

    And on top of that, whenever something political comes my way I don't need to think twice before I excuse myself from the childishness saying "I was contracted to produce a specific deliverable, not engage in politics or sit in this meeting that doesn't concern me."

  • Hhhhmmmmm, "FIRST POST" eh?

    No, actually you were number 6, but nice try, please (don't bother to) play again. :o)

    Cheers,

    Tim
  • I am currently in this situation you describe. This is my fifth contract assignment over the course of two years that is 'temp to perm'. So far, every contract at every company has simply 'rolled over'... and over... and over...

    Its not that I'm not doing a good job, they just don't want to give me benefits (or pay the fee to hire me). I've been looking for a full time job for a while now so I can get health insurance. I've applied to hundreds of positions I'm PLENTY qualified for. Right now I'm paying through the nose to have health insurance.

    Another thing that really bothers me about the whole contract situation is that its impossible to do contract work on your own. You simply MUST go through a contracting company (at least here in MA). And with that, comes a giant fee to the employer if they do decide to hire you. It all just makes it more difficult for a contractor to get hired full time. I personally believe that this is an antitrust-like tactic. By making companies pay through the nose to hire contractors full time, the contracting companies are keeping--and building on--thier monopoly of workers. And they DO have a monopoly aroud here in MA--at least on technology workers.

    I've worked through three contracting companies now (all in MA), and I've been contacted by many more who want me to work for them. More and more are popping up all the time... Its just too easy to make a fortune off of ripping people off. Everyone knows that contracting companies take a huge percentage of what the contractor actually makes, why should they have the right to take your starting salary too?

    --------------------------
    -Riskable
  • If all the TVs in the USA show T-W media, delivered via AOL, that's a huge customer base for whatever OS a display unit runs. It doesn't have to be Linux to hurt Microsoft : if ATW choose to use Windows, the deal they cut will screw Microsoft to the floor, because ATW doesn't have to take it any other way.
  • Never mind the longer term .. once the stock market figures out the implications of the AOL deal instead of gut-buying technology shares, won't Microsoft stock sink pretty fast ?

  • All this suit is saying is that illegal contracts are to be contested in court. They signed a contract with MS they now claim that the contract is illegal. In this country you can take people to court and let the court decide who is right. Don't let your irratinal ideology corrupt the basic premise of freedom which is the enforcability of contracts by the govt. If contracts law is useless then free enterprise falls apart.
  • $400 rebate checks from Microsoft don't count as exploitation?
  • ..give me the Karma to moderate this trollific post down to where it belongs.

  • Hate to burst your innocent little bubble but Slashdot hardly operates for free these days. AFAIK every coder, story poster, etc are *paid employees* of Andover. Paid WELL for very little work. I for one am not about to spend my time contributing to a bunch of bigot sellouts with a IPO fan-club.
  • This is Slashdot, land of no-sense-of-humor.
    This is Slashdot, land of literalist jerks.
    This is Slashdot, place where a single typo means you must be a complete moron.

    usenet may be dying but the assholes didnt go away, they just found a new medium
  • If the temps want to take advantage of the offer, but think that Micro$oft stock is too risky, they could FIRST buy the stock at the Preferential price, and then turn arOund, and Sell iT immediately, couldn't they?
  • Umm, that is the way it works here (USA) too.
    But if someone's got, and you don't, there's
    no reason to work harder. Just get the gummint
    in there with them there lawyers to grab you some.

    ObOnTopic:
    From what I understand by talking to both temps and blue badges, the temps/contractors are eligible for overtime. So unless there is a huge squeeze, their workweek ends at 40 hours. No such luck for salaried exempt employees (actually,
    their max is 168 hours/week :).
  • The problem, though, is when you use temps as if they were real employees, to get out of paying real benefits. These were not contractors, who usually make a larger sum of money compared to permenant employees.
  • While it may be true that companies just use "temp" workers to improve the appearance of the bottom line, it's not all bad.

    For one thing, nobody holds a gun to someones head forcing them to stay at a job (especially in the case of a technical company like MSFT, there are tons of jobs). By definition, temps are not really under any kind of contractual obligation to the company (the placement agency might be though).

    From a personal perspective, I would be sad to see the "temp" internship go the way of the dodo. The main reason I have my job as a permanent employee now is because I spent a year and half right out of school (actually partially during school) as a temp for them, learning the ropes. While it did suck to not be in on the stock options and other benefits, it gave me a chance to see that I really liked the company, and it gave thema a chance to see what a great employee I could be. (c:
  • The problem here is that the case involves people who were real employees and were 'forced' into temp status so that MS could avoid paying benefits, without a concommitant increase in pay. These people were screwed plain and simple.

    However, the industry sees only the hype around the case, namely that people who were actual W2 employees of another company (the agency) have been reclassified as employees of the client. The result of this hype is that more and more large companies are becoming more and more wary of using true contractors in any situation.

    I myself am a "true" contractor. I make 4x what I made as an employee, I pay for my own benefits ($600/month for medical, dental and disability insurance, and my own retirement plan where I stuff $30k/yr pre-tax away) and I still am way ahead of my previous employee status.

    I want the people in the microsoft case to prevail for justice's sake, but unfortunately the side-effects of this case have already made it more difficult for me to work as a contractor.

  • This is ridiculous. When companies hire people as contractors, they are fully aware of their situation - they are fully aware of what their responsibilities are and what they will get in return. It's not a case of breach of trust or a company lying about what it would pay.

    We are not talking about illiterate migrant workers who are too poor to feed themselves if they are fired one day or too stupid to understand their contract. We are talking about people who make upwards of $50,000 a year and are highly skilled and highly sought after. These people had the option to seek permanent employment at MS or anywhere else if they felt they were being under-compensated or shafted.

    We are in an industry where we as tech workers are in high demand and have the ability to command compensation often in excess of what we might deserve - hardly an industry where employee protection law has a place.

  • I think your comments about this hurting other US Companies is exrtemly valid and I'm surprised nobody has commented on this yet. It was my uderstanding that once contractors win in this case it opens up the arena for contractors working in other companies to say "Hey look what happened at Microsoft! Wow now we can sue XYZ company since I worked there for a year and a half as a contractor!"

    This is like opening a pandoras box... Nothing good will come of it

  • I feel if a company is going to hire someone for a significant amount of time and treat them like an employee in every way, he or she should be compensated like an employee. Too many companies label their workers as "temporary" for the sole reason of depriving them of employee benefits. In the long run, forcing companies to hire more workers as full employees could eventually benefit these companies. An employee with a vested interest in a company will probably work harder, and in the long run, the expense of more full employees could be mitigated by the increase in productivity.

    In California companies are already prevented from hiring workers on a temporary basis for a significant amount of time. After the time period expires, the company either has to hire the person as a full employee or release them. It sounds like Washington has the same types of laws. Hopefully, this ruling and similar laws in other states will help increase the compensation CS and IT professionals receive, and encourage more people to enter these fields.
  • John D. Rockefeller's only comment
    regarding the forcible breakup of the
    standard oil trust:

    "Buy Standard Oil"

    And he was right. The breakup into 5 or 6
    companies (nearly every major oil company
    to this day) made standard oil stockholders
    much more money than owning the whole.

    Those Baby Bills might do the same.

    --chuck
  • ya at worst you get a gerinteed 15% retern on your money that way but it will probablty all be lost to taxes
  • Hang on a second. Contractors typically get paid more in basic salary than their permanent equivalents. They get paid more because they don't get benefits that are open to permanents (healthcare, stock schemes, whatever). I know many contractors at various companies, including MS, that have been offered permanent positions but turned them down because they prefer the flexibility of contracting.

    When you sign a contract, you see the work that you're going to do, and you see what compensation you'll be given for doing it. If you don't like the deal, then don't sign it!
  • I think there is a school of thinking out there that would argue that *because* of the deal between AOL and Time Warner, DOJ shuldn't really come down to hard on MS. The thinking being that the past is the past, but the future is the future and there not being such a lock on information/entertainment anymore etc.....
  • Did anyone else notice that the story in which those comments were made (and other slashdot demeaning posts) mysteriously disappeared?

    I'm hearing a conspiracy theory...

    Jeremy
  • Try http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fss8.pdf
  • So can I suggest that if Slashdot wants to do news, it does news, and if it wants to do discussion forums it does them too, but that it does them in different parts of the site, with different and suitable user interfaces to each part?

    Can I make a suggestion? If you are going to ask that folks who are already doing a tremendous amount of work (for free), could you help out? How about coding this little suggestion of yours?

    Is it too much work for your tender mouse hand to read both The Register [theregister.co.uk] and slashdot?

  • And if they were not happy with the situation, why did they not change it... But not in the form of sueing, which is a bit easy.

    The feds didn't really give them the option. If this is the case I'm thinking of, these people started out as independent 1099 contractors to Microsoft. This was the business arrangement they agreed to and the one they wanted.

    However: The IRS really, really doesn't like independent contractors. (Some state tax authorities like them even less.) They don't get taxes withheld, they're harder to control generally...and so the IRS will sometimes audit a company, declare its 1099 contractors are "really" employees, and bill the company for the back taxes (that the contractor has already paid in quarterlies), plus fines and interest.

    Fear of this outcome led MS, as it led many other companies, to tell their contractors that they'd have to switch to being leased employees of an agency. Instead of 1099 contractors, they are now W2 employees of the agency, which withholds their taxes. The IRS is happy, MS is happy, the agencies now getting a percentage are happy.

    The contractors have no reason to be happy, though. The agency is now chowing down for a quarter to a third of their rate, and their income drops accordingly. Their tax situation changes since they're no longer independent business people, but employees: a lot of expenses become suddenly un-deductible. Some of their intangible freedom is gone. In many ways, it's the worst of both worlds: they have the drawbacks of being an employee, without the benefits of being a Microsoft employee,

    They got screwed, so they sued. They can't sue the IRS or the agencies, and that leaves Microsoft. But they didn't get screwed because they weren't hired as employees; they got screwed because they weren't allowed to stay as contractors, but were forced into a leased-employement arrangement they didn't want to avoid tax liability for their clients.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us get screwed too, as it's been getting harder and harder for the last ten years or so to get 1099 work. Most companies demand you go through an agency and give up a percentage of your income, because they don't want the potential tax liability if you're arbitrarily declared an "employee". At some companies, this fear extends even to agency leased employees - they're terrified to treat you "like an employee" and that sometimes translates to "decently". (Trivial example: I've been officially disinvited from release parties for a product I'd been lead on because "HR rules are that contractors can't attend".)

    There was a Salon article [salon.com] about this a couple of years ago that gives a bit of background.

  • You're in trouble then, because if I remember right, "The Death of a Salesman" had no parallels to what you just replied to.

    Better hope your professor shows some mercy, there.
  • I would venture to say that none of the Microsoft employees who took part of their pay in "company scrip" in the last decade or two is going to die a pauper in the VA hospital.

    But believe whatever you like. I hear you can get some Yggdrasil stock fairly cheap.
  • Most of the contractors where I work are bumming at rulings like this, because these kinds of precedents will cause companies to eliminate contract positions. If there's no incentive for the company to save a little by hiring more 'flexible' workers they just won't do it any more. Most contractors want their independence.
  • Many companies hire people as temps to start with and only hire on permanently the people who are good workers. So I can see why whiners and low performers would be nervous about a status quo where they're out the door if they can't meet the standards at the company. I can see why they would try to screw the company for all it is worth. I can also see why they should be thrown out of court on their ear.
  • You have to understand that to be a successful business, Slackware needs a steady flow of eyes looking at the banner advertising. So a high performance 'news cache' scheme had to be developed. It isn't completely FIFO, so don't worry, important breaking items will make it to the top when they occasionally happen.

    But do calm down. And click on a few banners, willya? Rob's Aibo needs new batteries.
  • For God's sake, the brainlessness of the stock-option weenies makes me want to go to Seattle and start randomly smashing windows (again)!

    You fools are being had! Let me tell you a story:

    A few years ago I travelled round Appalachia, helping my girlfriend write a book. One of the people we interviewed was an old miner, nearly dead from black lung. He could hardly speak without wheezing. But he could sure enough shout at the top of his voice about one thing:

    Company scrip!

    I'll never forget him rising up out of his chair to pull a handful of worthless company paper out of a drawer and wave it in my face, shouting at me about the humiliation and indignity of giving a company hours of hard labour, and being paid in worthless scrip which tied you in to one company for your whole working life. And then the mine went bankrupt, and all his savings were worthless. Twenty years of sweat, danger and black lung, and he might as well have not bothered

    And now the oh-so-clever geek generation are lining up and stampeding over each other for the opportunity to work for company scrip. Well in twenty years time, when we're all blind from VDU use, and dying of cancer from UV lights, we'll all be able to find the strength in our carpal-tunnel hands to pick up a bunch of dot com stock certificates (long since worthless), shove them into the face of some impudent college kid, and scream it at the top of our voices, just like this old miner:

    COMPANY SCRIP, BOY! COMPANY SCRIP! DON'T WASTE YOUR LIFE WORKING FOR COMPANY SCRIP!!!!

    Three months later, he died in a Veterans' Adminisation hospital.
  • Why do slashdotters argue madly that Microsoft stock options are a great thing and can never falter or collapse while:
    • suffering the problems and scarcities of a monopoly-owned industry
    • working to _change_ the state of affairs so that Microsoft is no longer the total unopposable crushing force it has been- a situation that is directly responsible for its current valuation?
    I'm sorry, but I really don't see it. It appears to me that MS's valuation is extremely situational- it depends on their being a monopoly. If you don't think that can ever change, what the hell are you doing here? Slashdot can't be _that_ interesting to a total Microsoft partisan, and in any case most slashdotters are not total Microsoft partisans. So why this assumption that MS stock is not 'company scrip'? It sure looks like it. The whole options game is sick in a number of ways...
    • company scrip
    • your profits are directly boosted not simply by your excelling, but by making your competitors _fail_
    • options make it very unprofitable to take a long view and be concerned about the environment, the economy in general, society etc. It becomes a game with only one piece, which is a coin: but you don't get the coin, even though it represents you- instead you get how much somebody else _thinks_ it's worth, after they look at you and your competition. Is it any wonder options turn people into schizoid sociopaths? Your livelihood ends up depending on how badly your environment does in comparison with you.
    COMPANY SCRIP, man! Who came up with this latest twist on company scrip? Our anonymous friend has this one figured out very nicely.
  • You can't deny that somebody ends up winning the lottery, too, but it is still basically a tax on people who are stupid about math.

    This is the same deal. Do you seriously think J. Random Temp is going to walk into a Palo Alto ranch house anytime soon? The window of opportunity is over, over, over, and even when it was open, we're talking lottery chances here.

    Face it, you're acting like a math luser. Forget the stories you've read in Time about teenager stock option millionares. It doesn't apply here. The window is closed, and it was smaller than you imagine in the first place- and the only people buying your argument are scratch ticket buyers.

  • >In other words, if the Supremes thought the 9th
    >was really over-reaching here, might they not
    >have taken the case anyway?

    Not until it gets *really* extreme (though there are particular judges that are rumored to cause near-automatic certiori :)

    The ninth cercuit is just plain huge; unless it's painfully obvious that something very bad happened, the court just can't handle that load.

    The last figure I recall was about 1% of cases are accepted--requests from the ninth circuit total something like ten to twenty times that capacity.

    What the court *prefers* to do is wait until different districts reach different conclusions, and there are a couple of reasons for this.

    The first is that if all of the districts agree, it doesn't need to intervene anyway.

    More importantly, though, the court's decision will be the last word for many years on the subject. By waiting, it is able to take into account the differing opinions reached by different courts, and consider why the results were different. If it takes the first case that comes along, the most important argument could be missing.

    As for what portion of cases heard by the court are overturned, it varies wildly from year to year, as the court focuses on different types of cases. I really couldn't tell you what the current portion is, but when it faces split authority from different districts, at least one ruling gets a whack :)

    hawk, esq., who doesn't think, that anybody could possibly construe anything in here as legal advice.
  • So more power to the people pressing this suit. I think they're doing it for the right reasons -- they've done the work of permanents, held the term of permanents and all they've gotten in return is a sort of lofty disdain from proper (Salaried and optioned) Microsoft employees.

    nonsense - if they wanted full time jobs at microsoft, why didn't they apply for them? they want all the benefits of temporary work, and all the benefits of permanent work too. essentially, the US government is saying it's ok to violate a contract if you change your mind after freely signing it - is is a mockery of law and justice. microsoft has a reputation of being an excellent employer, offering many perks and benefits.

    don't let your irrational hatred of microsoft blind you.

  • Yes, that's a great idea! I happen to be a professional Perl programmer and System architect, so maybe I _could_ help.

    Gosh, except there's no CVS server for the Slashdot code. And no Slashdot developers mailing list. Hmmm, looks like maybe Slashdot doesn't want to be open source and get help from folks who want to help.

    Wonder if that's linked to large sums of money somewhere? Naa.....
  • I guess slash doesn't like pod.

    That should have been:

    We do not get the short end of the stick.

    [we] don't have to put up with the crap permies have to put up with.

    ... use their higher wage to pay for those benefits.

    Sorry. I guess I'll stick to html in the future :) Or maybe Rob could add a Pod translator :)
  • I make no appologies for this statement: I hope people in my country (England) never resort to whining and whinging about their employee situation and resort to sueing the way Americans do.

    It is unbelievable to me that you can say you wonder (assumedly with regret) about what sort of royalties you missed out on when you left a company that abused you. I can't believe people are looking at things that way - what is wrong with America?

    If people can't wake up to their current job situation, whether they are being abused, used, misused, overworked, etc, then that's their problem. Not a judges, not the companies (although if people start leaving one team in droves the company should look at its managers). You earn more as a temporary or contract worker. That's your benefit - your compensation package. Period. Looking back in retrospect and saying the company abused you for years is just plain wrong. You left. You got something better. Don't look back in anger.

  • Would it be better if 10,000 Microsoft Temps and Contractors stood up and walked away?

    Frankly, yes. It would be far more effective. And far more honest.

    As for:

    [when] a company is hiring on temp and contract employees to do the jobs of those who are in permanent roles, and the company is not offering those temps and contractors the option to become permanent employees -- it is a matter for the labour boards and legal system to handle.

    I just don't get it. If temps aren't hired to do the jobs permies are hired to do - what are they hired for?

    I can look back at one of my first jobs: I worked my arse off, 14 and 16 hour days creating a product that is the European equivalent of what Seibel Systems produce - and with a market to prove it. And there are guys there about to make a killing with stock options. Me, I left - I didn't want to work those hours for the equivalent of minimum wage (as a Manager too). Instead I'll make my own fortune my way. And I'm not in the least bit bitter. This is an open market, and I have free will. I'm now earning more, treated better, working less, and living better. Thanks to me. Not thanks to a lawyer who saw a way to sue mega-corporation #1 out of mega-bucks.

    If you think companies are honest, or that the law will keep them that way, you haven't known many.
  • MSFT: Down a few cents at opening :)
  • The Caldera settlement is implicit acknowledgement by Microsoft that they conspired to detroy a competitor by illegal means, and that no court in the land would reasonably believe otherwise.

    The Temp ruling is an explicit statement that Microsoft discriminated against temporary hires in a way that exceeded any reasonable bounds.

    In the wake of everything else (eg: Judge Jackson's finding of fact), this is going to shake a LOT of people's confidence in Microsoft, both that of potential hires and potential customers.

    eg: If you're using a product that competes with one that Microsoft produces, you might stop and think twice now about purchasing Microsoft products, in case your existing software is adversely affected. No company is going to spend thousands, or tens of thousands, for a product who's first action is to destroy tens of millions in existing data and/or software.

    eg: Are you going to want to be hired by a company as a temporary hire if you know you're seen as an expendable commodity? How can you build any faith that they'll honor -any- standards not absolutely mandated by law? Can you really have any faith they will even honor those? Temps are typically not the richest in the world, and most benefits typically denied them are benefits for things that would cost a great deal of money otherwise. In short, not covering a temp is a damn good way of keeping them a temp, because they'll never have the means to be anything else.

    IMHO, if you put someone on a factory floor, or behind a computer, you are saying they make a valuable contribution to the company. Otherwise, you wouldn't need the position, and they wouldn't be there. If a temp and a full-time employee are doing the same work, under the same conditions, and the employee is getting significantly better compensation, the company is basically saying to the temp "yes, you're doing stuff worth a damn sight more than we're giving you, and we're willing to pay other people for it, but we're legally allowed to treat -you- like dirt, and it keeps our accountants happy if we do."

    The bottom line is this. Either the job + environment + risk is worth a certain amount, or it isn't. If it is, paying one class of people that amount and another -significantly less- is discrimination, as it is saying that the company will treat that second group as second-class citizens, and not recompense them the value of the work they do.

  • What a pity you felt you had to post as AC. This is the best post I've seen on /. in a long time. But put a voice behind it! It's worth ten of JK's sermons! Stick an e-mail in there, at least.
  • It is amazing who can get a short-term loan if they walk into a bank with an option on a guaranteed profit. In fact if you do this you will have no choice but to sell immediately to pay back the loan...

    Cheers,
    Ben
  • I would expect MSFT stock to rise today.

    Why?

    Well we have had good news (the Caldera settlement) and bad news (the Supreme Court won't hear this case). But the bad news was largely expected and so should be already factored into the market. And the good news was a complete surprise so it is not.

    Ah well, we will find out in a few hours...

    Cheers,
    Ben
  • Wow, with articles like this:

    Hacker penetrates
    Virgin
    Service put on hold after
    back door breached

    who can resist?

    Boojum
  • In America, there exists a hierarchy of courts. The news here is that MS lost in front of the *Supreme Court*, their absolute final appeal. This happened on Monday, which is pretty new.
  • The goal of INVESTING is to earn money from your investment. Microsoft is a rock solid investment.

    Think about it:

    They have a huge marketshare with very minimal real competition (it's the truth right now. Maybe not tomorrow).

    They're the most valuable company in the world.

    They've posted annual growth for 15 or 20 years so far.

    Incedentally, they're a monopoly. Because the government can't fine them, they won't lose their cash horde. The worst that can happen is that they get broken into serveral new companies... If you'd owned AT&T before they broke up, and were still holding stock in them today, you'd have made something like 14x the amount of if you'd left all that money in IBM.

    Ethics work good when purchasing products, etc... But when planning out your retirement, I'd think that the goal would be to invest your money in companies with a proven track record, etc. Microsoft is one of the few companies around that you know will still be a major force in the next decade... Maybe not as much so as they are today, but they ARE NOT going away.
  • Microsoft is a rock solid investment.

    Yep, about as rock solid as Beanie Babies.

    Consider: Microsoft pays no dividends, so real earnings per share (until you sell) is zero. Even if you look at Microsoft's reported earnings (which they don't share with stockholders as dividends anyway), earnings per share at todays share prices is pathetic. (Sure, there are others that do worse -- e.g. Amazon.com -- but that's hardly a guideline for investing.)

    The only thing that makes Microsoft shares worth anything at all (since they have no inherent earning potential) is what other people might be willing to pay for them. Just like Beanie Babies.
    If the fad blows over -- the market becomes disillusioned with MSFT -- the shares will be worth only slightly more than the paper they're printed on. (About $3/share cash, plus whatever an investment that earns about $1/share per year is worth. Call it about $20, tops -- and that's assuming that MSFT could maintain its business.)
  • I make no appologies for this statement: I hope people in my country (England) never resort to whining and whinging about their employee situation and resort to sueing the way Americans do.

    There are certainly situations where the presence of lawyers have lead to worse outcomes for most of the people concerned. And it does make me wince to see what could be seen by somebody as a personal injury worthy of a law suit.

    But the current Microsoft case isn't anything like that. This wasn't just a workmen's compensation case run amok or a frivolous suit about the lack of access to the employee's washroom. This was a case filed on the behalf of thousands of people who were systematically and illegally classified as temps when the way their jobs and compensation was structured legally made them employees. This legal fact cannot be changed even by an employee's willingness to sign it away, and, in the case of Microsoft, many of the employees treated as temps or contractors emphatically wanted Microsoft to recognize the employment status they already had, which is why there was a lawsuit in the first place.

    If people can't wake up to their current job situation, whether they are being abused, used, misused, overworked, etc, then that's their problem. Not a judges, not the companies (although if people start leaving one team in droves the company should look at its managers).

    The point is that people in this case did wake up to their current job situation. They were being treated illegally, not just badly. At any of several points, Microsoft could have recognized this, and either restructured the way these people were employed (and eliminating the whole reason for the complaint), or officially granted them the status they legally had. Instead, they basically just acted as if being Microsoft meant they were beyond the law.

    Here's a similar case that might make the point. Suppose you take a job at a company, and that company asks you to sign a legally indefensible and unenforcable clause in a contract. If everything else about the job is great, you might well sign off on the bogus clause, with the knowledge that if it ever becomes an issue, it would legally become a non-issue. Yes, a lawyer or even a judge may have to become involved, but standing up for your legal rights is not whining.

    One other point about cases like this which may not be immediately clear to a non-US citizen is the infuriating correlations between employment status and things like health insurance, pensions, and other tax-advantaged benefits. It might be nice if you really did have freedom of action to choose among all these things no matter how you were employed, but you can't. Pretending you can might make you feel better morally or intellectually superior, but it won't help you get treatment at a hospital when you need it if you are uninsured because insurance companies decided that you, the temp, were uninsurable due to some previously existing condition.

  • Microsoft did *not* lose an appeal here; the Supreme Court simply refused to hear the case--as it does with 99% of the cases that it is offered.

    This generally gives *no* indication as to how the court would rule on the issue.

    Well, my inner geek then asks: what is the proportion of cases that the court hears where it does overturn an appeals court ruling? I guess I did know that the 9th circuit is the one most likely to get whacked, so I wonder whether this actually bodes well for the ruling, a copy of which is here. [techlawjournal.com]

    In other words, if the Supremes thought the 9th was really over-reaching here, might they not have taken the case anyway?

  • A contractor has it made compared to the many administrative temps and secretaries who are made promises (yes, actual promises, it has happened to many people I know) of eventual permanent employment, which then never happens. "Temps" are often quite skilled (having done many different things) and go without benefits for years at a time. Manpower Associates proudly proclaims to be one of the largest, perhaps THE largest, employer in the U.S. (and growing by leaps and bounds). A great deal of these "employees" earn no benefits, and are not making the kind of money a professional "contractor" makes.

    Unless you want your kids (or your friends and neighbors kids) to to be relegated to a future where service sector jobs for no benefits are the norm, consider making a distinction between well-paid and rewarded "contractors" and those hard-working, underappreciated, and largely uninsured "temps".

    Also, the use of prison labor in industrial countries is a growing sector, and helps to further destroy the job base. Don't get me started on NAFTA and GATT.
  • We were told to stop treating our temps as regular employees based on this case. It makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint. The temps that sue, though, are suing out of pure and simple greed. When you are a contractor or a temp you know this. If you spend two years as a temp at a job without being taken on full time, how can you say you were cheated out of anything? Why would you sit around and think "Man...there is no difference between me and those other folks. I should get what they are getting."

    The answer is to either ask to be taken on permanently or seek employment elsewhere. If you don't then it means you like being a temp there or hope to be brought on full time some day. Until you are you are a temp, no matter how nice they treat you.

    For those who say that they were by false promises of permanent status, I can only ask how long did you sit around hoping? I would have left fairly quickly if it seemed hopeless.

    No, this is nothing more than another case of a money grabbing society in the US and people figuring "MS can take the hit. I want some money."

    Now, in this case Microsoft was writing them off as temps and making money off of them by calling them temps. They saved on benefits and options etc. But again I say, who was fooling whom? The temps knew they were temps and could have left at any time for permanency elsewhere. They were betting on the day when they could be brought on full time or they enjoyed the position of being a temp and being able to "walk" away at any time. MS is always in a city where there is good opportunity for all so to think that these were the best jobs around is simply not so.

    I worked as a temp for MS in the summer of 95. It was one of the most boring yet inspiring jobs ever. It is what brought me from teaching to computers, but I had no illusions that I was not permanent.

    The way this is being discussed is as if this were a common law marriage and that these employees were entitled to half. Heck, what could they ultimately win? Past medical benefits? Options? What temp will be willing to purchase options? Some I am sure. I would, but not everyone.

    In the end this serves only to make life more miserable for contractors all over the US. Companies will treat them even colder for fear of retribution and in 10 years we will be seeing the "Hurt Feelings" lawsuit on behalf of all the contractors who feel like they have no sense of permanency.
  • I don't understand the hostility people seem to have with contract vs permanent status.

    From what I have seen over the past six years there is little difference. In the Engineering construction field, they can use over 50% contractors depending on the size of the job. As the job winds down, they will start letting go of people. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to whom they let go. They let go of some contractors and lay off employees depending on the tasks they were doing. Therefore in this industry, stability doesn't seem to be an issue. Noone has stability.

    However, pay is different. Contract employees make 30 to 50% more per hour. However they don't get benefits. It's your choice. Money or benefits. Money or paid vacations and holidays. Money or health insurance.

    With the current corporate attitude of maximizing today's bottom line at the expense of tomorrows, I don't think anyone should believe they have more stability as a permanent employee. Companies are not inclined to pay you for a month of down time to ride out a lull in the market. Most seem to think they can hire a replacement person in a month or two with no effect on the bottom line.

    Everyone needs to make the decision that is correct for them. However, they should not look to the world of yesteryear for guidance today. Company's don't care about us. The only care about money. Once you realize that, and can start not caring about the company but rather for yourself, and then you start to have the advantage.

    Quack

  • Microsofts stock traditionally has been pretty bullet-proof---but today we see three events that could begin to shake the confidence of investors.

    The decision to pay out $150 to $200 million dollars in a settlement instead of vigorously defending themselves in court.

    This has started a spate of rumors that the company is going to settle with the DOJ---again failing to legally defend what they have said all along was their right to defend.

    And now this.



    The stock market is emotional--volatile---and Microsoft stock may bounce a little on this news.
  • Several points: 1) what do you propose as an alternative form of compensation which lacks the above problems? Profit sharing? Same problem (short sighted, competitors must fail). Large salary increases? Company can only affort this under the same terms that would make salary profitable.

    What you are saying is that workers in a capitalist economy tend to be short sighted, and generally cannot profit as much as the corporations and their owners.

    Yep, we've all known that for the last 100 years. Next!

    The bottom line is that capitalism works fairly well, and better than most. Thus, we stick with it. If you have any real ideas, please post them.


  • Oopes forgot the other points:

    2) Please stop using phrases like "COMPANY SCRIP" as an argument. It's just a phrase. Please pose thought, argument or at least opinion.

    3) Since the mean quality of life has risen over the past 20 years, what is the point of bemoaning the quality of life?

    4) If you're making a reasonable wage and you are offered stock options (as is the case is most high-tech companies) why not? Do you lose something?

  • I had to read your subject a couple of times to make sure where you were coming from, because I had just then been thinking "why would anyone but a moron NOT accept options?".

    Ah yes, your coal miner example is sad and interesting, but it's not the same bucket of mushrooms as the Microsoft thing. There's a guaranteed return on investment if you have an opportunity to get in on Microsoft stock at an early price. I wouldn't expect most of these people to hang on to the stock for fifty years, and I certainly wouldn't equate them to coal miners.

    RP

  • Company scrip!

    ...isn't tradable in the exchanges, stock in MSFT is. Third parties all over the world are interested in buying MSFT stock. This weakens the analogy quite a bit, IMO.
  • And how do you plan on changing things? How can an individual have close to an equal chance against a multi-billion dollar corporation except to use these tactics?

    Companies don't change their ways unless they're forced to or punished. This means either legislative and judicial change. Unfortunately, the big money interests have the ear of the legislators, and you don't. So looks like a trip to the courts.....

    There is also the issue of why benefits are so expensive, but there is so much noise and no consensus. Unlikely to change soon.

    The temp issue is more than individual whining about money. Companies have been using pseudo-contractors as a way to avoid paying benefits. It is right for the courts to have a look at this. It is a societal issue.

    You do have a point in that lawsuits are really only bandaids for larger societal changes. But they are necessary for maintaining the balance of power between powerful corporate bureaucracies and individuals.

    Some lawyers are slimy, sure, but if you want to go up against Goliath, guess who's the only ones willing to be on your side.

  • A lot of these temps were working for MS at a time when their stock was lower, and before it climbed to its peak. It's sure to drop somewhat over the next couple of years, so they're kinda screwed now even though they've got the ability to purchase it cheaper.

    Maybe they should get refunds on any purchases they made previously.
  • temporary/contract workers are usually brought in as a short-term solution to a project, or to beef up an existing workforce, again in the short term. they do not get any of the benefits permanent employees get (such as, for instance, health insurance, national insurance contributions (a uk thing), or other bonuses). however, their rates are usually much higher than for the same position in a permanent role - were they to work a 40 hour week, 50 weeks a year, they'd make a fortune.

    on the other hand as they're usually brought in at a crunch time during a project, have to perform immediately (no sitting around on the job learning new skills!) work long hours, and otherwise be a "super-employee". that's the theory, anyway, there are plenty who underperform, i'm sure. if there is no work, they don't get paid, as simple as that. to a company, they are a luxury, rather than a necessary resource, and get treated as such.

    the contract and permanent roles are distinct, and serve different purposes. they are both useful in their own right, and there is a strong argument for maintaining them that way.

    where the problem lies is the area where these roles cross, with companies trying to cajole the "best of both worlds" from the definitions, at the worker's expense. a contractor should not be working at the same role in the same company for an extended period of time - in the case that it happens, he/she should be converted to a permanent employee, with all the benefits. the onus at the moment is on the companies to do this, but of course, it is in their interest not to.

    what's needed here is an expanded, up-to-date review of the situation from governments, to take in the (relatively new, at least on this scale) IT contract market, and amend the law to provide better protection for both the workers, and the companies. fair is fair.

    Fross
  • When AT&T was split into 7 companies, shareholders in AT&T got 7 different stocks which have appreciated immensely since the breakup. I'd buy MS soley on the hopes that the DOJ will break them into 4 or 5 companies at least some of which would be viable in the long run.
  • MS could get dinged pretty good if they have to sell those original temps stocks at the 1992 price minus 15%...
  • You make a very good point. For some people like students, working part time as a temp for a significant period of time is desirable. It WOULD be a shame if these types of jobs to made illegal, and cause companies to not be able to retain employees on a part time basis after an intitial summer internship over. BR>
    -EJ
  • There are two deals available, you can contract or be permanent. Contractors get paid more than permanent employees, but permanents get stock benefits.

    Now, it looks as though contractors are (in effect) asking to be allowed to change which deal they chose retrospectively. So, by the same token, if the stock tanks, should permanents be allowed to retrospectively change their deal to get cash instead of worthless stock options? No, didn't think so.

    You could argue that the contractors didn't have the option to be permanent employees, but that's not really the point. They almost certainly had the option to be permanent employees somewhere. Furthermore, so what if a company employs the bulk of its staff as contractors - market forces should mean that it has to offer compensation packages viewed as equivalent to its competitors or it won't attract good staff.
  • I wonder how this post got marked up as "interesting". It is so filled with flawed logic as to be, at best, humour. First of all, on the face of it, all of the millionaire Microsofties from their "company scrip" immediately renders this poster a complete fool. How many mine workers were ever millionaires? How many Microsoft employees risk black lung? What exactly is supposed to be the salient point of comparison here? Can someone give the moderator in question a shot of brain power?
  • It's just becoming ridiculous how many times they've lost (or at least not won) in court this past year. This is the one issue I was rooting for them about.

    I enjoy the freedom and flexibility that being a contractor affords. I've never (even back in the 80s) worked as a temp or contractor for more than a week at a place and not been offered a full-time position. Most I turned down, a few I accepted.

    I can imagine that others working in other markets may not have been so fortunate, but in this case I cannot imagine every member of the action against MS truly felt discriminated against back before the stock price started really moving.

    In any event the real problem for contractors is how the industry will react to this. Several people here are posting in order to describe technical distinctions between contractors and employees, but when it comes down to it, it'll be up to the industry to interpret. Hopefully, they're content with the changes they've already made, but I'm nervous they'll go further in order to "play it safe" and that'll reduce the number of opportunities for contractors.

    -skew
  • The problem is that using 'temporary' and 'contractor' designations as a means of avoiding the offering of permanent positions is a problem that should be handled by the legal system.

    This is an issue of employee rights. Not everybody has the luxury to pack up and leave, particularly in saturation markets like temporary staff.

    When there is a breach of rights such as this -- a company is hiring on temp and contract employees to do the jobs of those who are in permanent roles, and the company is not offering those temps and contractors the option to become permanent employees -- it is a matter for the labour boards and legal system to handle.

    It is an abuse of the system, and nothing more or less. Of course I look back at that first shiny job of mine where I was paid far less than I was worth to complete a project that became a cornerstone of off-shelf sales with, if not anger, irritation. I contributed to that company, and I got shafted. End of story. I don't dwell on it, but I will warn of it.

    If people can't wake up to their current job situation? They are waking up. Thousands of them. That is why this lawsuit is in place. Would it be better if 10,000 Microsoft Temps and Contractors stood up and walked away? Well, it would certainly provide amusement. You have to realise that the legal system is in place to settle disputes, and disputes like these are those that most need the settling. Certainly, the American legal system is more of a hammer than the one favoured by you Brits, stocked up with heavy-handed fines to discourage those who violate the spirit of the law. I, for one, am glad that American corporations have to watch their asses at every instance. The amount of frivolous lawsuits that result from this are an acceptable loss to national integrity, I would suppose. I know they're often maligned over here (I dwell in Eire), and I think a fair number are ridiculous. This is not one of them.

    It keeps them honest.

    Is there anything more important than that?
  • you treat the temp as a normal employee? I mean, if you hire a temp for 2 weeks, should that temporary employee get all the benefits a truely devoted employee gets who works there for, lets say, 2 years? IMHO no.

    A temporary employee SHOULD get the benefits of a 'working' person, like healthcare, but isn't that taken care of by the middleman agency like Manpower ? ;) Here in Holland it is. And for the contractors: sorry, but you are on your own. You are a one man company, so why should you benefit from company favors to employees. You are not an employee. The company that contracted you hires services from your company, which is in fact you. A contracter normally gets payed per hour and gets more money per hour than an average employee, because it's infact a company.

    Just a thought.

  • At the core of all this are ten questions that the IRS has. According to them if you can answer yes to any of them, then you are not a "consultant" and are really a common law employee.

    What does this mean? It means that they disallow expenses, deductions, etc. and make you and the firm you contracted for pay more taxes. This is what happened to the "temps" and they did what others have done: sue the company that created the situation. This isn't the first time it's happened, and almost always the company loses to the "temps" because a Federal ruling carries significant weight. It was written up in "Contract Professional" a year or two ago.

    Some of the ten questions are:
    Are you required to attend staff meetings?
    Are you provided an office, a phone?
    Are you required to keep regular office hours?
    etc.

    Most of the time the "temps" are going "direct" (i.e. they are independant contractors without the middle man taking a cut). If they were working for another company (W-2, not 1099) who was selling their services, then it'd be impossible to claim they were employees of the buyer. Why does the IRS target the self employed? Turns out that 99% of all W-2 employees pay their taxes, since they don't have much other choice due to it automatically being taken out of their pay. Where as it's something like 95% of the self employed that pay.

    So, if you got hurt because of a clueless company's policies get you declared an "employee" then shouldn't you get the benefits of being that employee?

  • Re:this is old news (Score:3)

    by Jon Peterson ( 1443 ) <jon@@@snowdrift...org> on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @01:25AM (#1384374) Homepage
    Quite. This isn't new by any definition. Given recent comment on /.'s increasing inability to publish breaking news, can I make a suggestion?

    The requirements of a breaking news site and a community discussion site are radically different. They need to be treated differently. 'The Register' is IMHO the best breaking news site in the geek arena (sarcastic comments notwithstanding).

    Slashdot's story submission system does not allow breaking stories to be posted promptly, and apparently it doesn't allow very good confirmation of the stories. Likewise, the time-based nature of the homepage doesn't allow the discussions to last much beyond 24hrs.

    So can I suggest that if Slashdot wants to do news, it does news, and if it wants to do discussion forums it does them too, but that it does them in different parts of the site, with different and suitable user interfaces to each part?

    Increasingly, I hear a news item on another site, only to see it on Slashdot the 10 hours later where a cursory 24hr discussion follows. That's not really a valuable resource.

  • Re:Temp Employees Deserve This (Score:3)

    by Matts ( 1628 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @02:12AM (#1384375) Homepage
    Content-type: text/pod

    As a contractor I completely disagree with this. We do B get the short end of the stick. We very definitely get a better end of the stick than most permanent employess. Simply put: We get paid better and don't have to put up with the crap I have to put up with. The same goes for temps. If we get abused we leave. Often taking key corporate knowledge with us. The company that abuses a contractor will get what is coming to them.

    If these temp workers (contractors, whatever - the principal is the same - higher pay because of the instability) want the benefits bestowed on permies they should use thier higher wage to B for those benefits. Those 15% employee discounts aren't available because employees took the risk to join the company. Contractors don't want that risk (it's funny how the "risk" has turned around - it used to be more risky to be a contractor - that's just my biased opinion though I guess).

    I don't think MS is saving a buck or two in this case - I seriously think they're doing what most companies do - paying through the nose for contractors because that extra pay gets them some extra benefits (instant hire/fire, highly knowledgable workers, etc).

  • Fickle job market (Score:3)

    by Matts ( 1628 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @02:19AM (#1384376) Homepage
    The job market is a strange place. Companies do employ these tactics of re-hiring people at lower wages, re-hiring as temps, etc. So what. If you don't like it - leave. If you're really worth something you'll get other work. Don't start bitching and moaning to a lawyer.

    The US has turned into a place where if you don't like your current situation you sue, rather than trying to change that situation. Sadly it looks like the rest of the world is trying to emulate this.

    I'm also a contractor, also glad of it, and would never dream of sueing for benefits. My wife temps during the summer hols (a student), she gets paid more for being a temp - I imagine thats the same everywhere, she wouldn't dream of sueing for benefits either.

  • Ruling makes my life very difficult (Score:3)

    by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @01:01AM (#1384377)
    This ruling sucks big time!!! And I am disgusted that the courts let it through. You see I am a contractor, consultant, etc. And yes I and my wife have worked in this field for a longer period of time (eight years). And yes WE LIKE IT LIKE THIS.

    A contractor is a contractor, is a contractor and not an employee. And if you agree to the contractor priniciples then you stick to it and not decide to change your mind.

    Personally I think this is an incidence of sour grapes because the employees made more money through stocks. My comment is why the people never applied for jobs in the first place.

    And if they were not happy with the situation, why did they not change it... But not in the form of sueing, which is a bit easy.

  • Understanding stock purchase plans (Score:3)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @07:13AM (#1384378) Homepage Journal
    I work at EMC [emc.com], where we seem to have similar stock plans to what is mentioned above in regards to Microsoft, so I thought I would explain a bit about how they work.

    The most talked about stock deal is the "Incentive Stock Option." Depending on your performance, the company may decide to offer these to you. When they do, they'll give you options for a certain number of shares, priced at the current value as of the day they offer them to you. You can't excercise the options until they vest, though, and that takes time. At EMC, options vest at 20% per year, so they don't fully vest until after 5 years. Other companies vest at different rates. It's important to note that stock options are given out on a case by case basis, so people who don't get them, be they employees or temps, can't sue for them.

    What they're talking about here is different. It's something like our Employee Stock Purchase Program. The deal is that you can have a given portion of your paycheck (at EMC, upto 10% or $10,000) withheld, and at the end of each half, they buy stock with that money. Now what makes this such a great deal is the price at which they buy the stock. They take the price as of the first trading day of the half and the last trading day of the half. They then toss out the higher of the two prices. They then lop 15% off that price. They then buy stock for you at that price with all the money that you've had withheld. This can be very profitable--at least a 15% profit, even if the stock is crashing and you sell immediately. The important thing here is that this is a standard benefit for all employees, but not for temps, so the temps are saying that they should be considered employees, so they should have received this benefit. It's easy to calculate the exact cash value that they would have received had they participated in the program and sold immediately, so it's easy for them to say what the dammages should be.

    Now back to the issue of whether they're employees or temps.

  • Settling with DOJ is likely to increase the price (Score:3)

    by Dacta ( 24628 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @01:51AM (#1384379)

    of MS shares.

    The market fears that the DOJ will force MS to breakup. A settlement (on almost any terms) would calm market fears of this.

    Sure, a big fine, and DOJ monitoring might cause a bit of a drop short term, but I think that the Market is genrally hoping for something like that.

    If MS can't settle with the DOJ, they might be in real trouble - their fate is out of their hands. The market trusts Bill Gates to turn a profit - they fear taking the control of MS away from him.

  • Thorny Issue (Score:3)

    by boojum_uc ( 122395 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @02:01AM (#1384380)
    On the one hand, people who want to be independent and work as contractors should be free to do so. Often its a better lifestyle (particularly when the market is good) then the normal job can provide.

    However, I remember all too well when I graduated from college in the late 80s when no jobs were to be had and all I could find was a job as a temp employee. Companies regularly hired people as these so-called temp to perm positions where they essentially hired you through a temp agency with the promise that youd be made a permanent employee after the trial period. The trial periods were regularly extended and extended without any appeal possible on the behalf of the worker. It got to the point where most of us had been working for a year or more for all intents and purposes as permanent employees, only we had no health insurance, no benefits, no nothing. Its a horrible position to be in, particularly if you arent making enough to save for the eventuality of being let go without warning.

    I dont have enough information about the complaintents to really judge, but from what I understand these are not people who chose a free-wheeling high-income contractor lifestyle, these are people who have not had the option to be permanent employees extended to them.

    Temp employees should be temp employees, and if youre using somebody like a permanent employee, they should be really legally hired (if they should so choose).

  • Re:Temp Employees Deserve This (Score:3)

    by lblack ( 124294 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @02:44AM (#1384381)
    I've worked as a Contractor, and I quite enjoyed my time as one also. I had a great deal of freedom, working generally in a 1-3 month fixed term, and occasionally receiving a bonus at the end of it. In this time, I've also been approached regarding contract extensions. I've accepted some, but others (which seemed to me less of a contract extension and more of a "Please stay on indefinitely") seemed unfair. I would usually reject them outright, but I once made an exception and asked to be made a permanent member of staff, even accepting a cut in pay. They turned me down, and I'm fairly certain that that 'indefinite contracting' position was foisted upon some other contractor within a week of my leaving.

    It is a situation like that which provides abuse. By and large, I would say that these things happen to the inexperienced contractor, not to the long-termer who knows full well that working 3 months a year and travelling for 9 is the way to go, screw the stock options.

    Temps are much more susceptible to abuse, though. I'm not sure if you know anybody who has done long-term temping work, but they are treated exactly as permanently employees. Less the benefits. Of course they can just walk out the door, but temps do receive pay rises and tend to be amongst the least skilled of the office workers. Want to start over for 3 bucks less an hour? If I recall my college days correctly, that's 15 packets of Mr. Noodles!

    If a contractor leaves taking key corporate knowledge with him, and seeks vengeance for abuses, he's committing an illegal act. At least, under the terms of every contract I have on hand, I'm required to create and submit all project and process documentation at the end of my term, even if I am dismissed from the project or walk out after a few weeks.

    Curiously, I also have a contract that absolutely requires me to wear a tie. But that is besides the point.

    What is the difference between temporary and permanent employees? Temporary employees can be dismissed with less notice and less trouble. They're generally paid higher for this sacrifice, this is true. If a company shows that they have been hiring temps in place of permanent staff merely to glean this advantage, though (look at amazon.com), I think that is fundamentally wrong. True, there is no shortage of people willing to temp, but I think this is a violation of workers rights.

    In every company I've worked for that has had a well-developed temporary staffing solution, you could subtract the temps and continue to maintain the status quo, at the very least during the slowest month of the year. Temps were always used when things were falling behind, or during a sudden rush.

    Contractors are a bit different. I think that perhaps they should have known better, but that inexperienced people suddenly being offered $10-20k per quarter will grab it without questions, and then act exactly as a permanent employee does, doing the work of a permanent employee and having the long-term projections and assessments of a permanent employee. Suddenly, 3 years down the road, they realise that they've been shafted.

    I'd like to say 'Too bad for them', but having been, early in my career, used and abused by an employer, I really can't. True, I left that job and trebled my salary. But then, I wonder just how many royalty payments I missed out on?

    -l

  • Time on their side (Score:3)

    by RuntimeError ( 132945 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @12:45AM (#1384382)
    The class-action suit, filed in 1992, claimed that Microsoft treated temporary and contract workers as permanent employees except for compensation.

    This year 2000. That makes it almost 8 years.

    The saying goes, Justice delayed, is jusice denied

    How sadly true. The lengthy court procedures often help big corporations like Microsoft. By the time justice is served, the victim is dead, sometimes in the literal sense, sometimes in the figurative.

  • Microsoft did *not* lose an appeal here; the Supreme Court simply refused to hear the case--as it does with 99% of the cases that it is offered.

    This generally gives *no* indication as to how the court would rule on the issue. Frequently, the court waits for conflicting opinions from differant appellate districts until it hears a topic.

    For microsoft itself, it's the same result as losing--the lower court opinion stands. As for the future, however, keep in mind that the 9th district is the most frequently overrulled district in the country . . . (or at least it was last time I checked).

  • Temp Employees Deserve This (Score:4)

    by lblack ( 124294 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @12:45AM (#1384384)
    I know that at many companies, employees are hired on as temps and carry at least the workload of the full-time staff. So far as I'm aware, this lawsuit affects the more professional workers (contractors) as well.

    There are quite a few corporate entites which abuse temp status. Temps and contractors do not need to be supplied with benefits of any sort in most countries, and this results in mean ol' companies abusing the law. In Ireland, for instance, many companies hire employees to 11 month fixed contracts, at which point they are dismissed. This is because beyond 11 months, they become eligible for benefits. I've also seen companies over here where 'Temporary' employees hold a fair bit of seniority (1-2 years).

    In my belief, Temps and Contractors shouldn't be eligible for benefits if they are brought in strictly as relief staff or additional manpower for a fixed, brief period of time. At Microsoft, however, this does not seem to be the case. They've abused the worker classification of those employees strictly to avoid health benefits, stock options and even, IIRC, a decent lunch.

    So more power to the people pressing this suit. I think they're doing it for the right reasons -- they've done the work of permanents, held the term of permanents and all they've gotten in return is a sort of lofty disdain from proper (Salaried and optioned) Microsoft employees.

    Another bit of blood on the nose of Microsoft, I suppose. Still, this is something that has been played out, though for basic rights like a minimum wage (not lucrative stock), for years in Big Industry.

    For those of you who are wondering about the proper classifications of Temporary and Contractual employees:

    Temporary: A temporary employee is one who is maintained on a rolling contract and paid a fixed wage based on time worked, generally schemed around hours. They often get the short end of the benefit stick, not even getting paid sick leave and having a rather paltry amount of holidays. Generally, temps will be provided by staffing agencies. Temporary staff are often abused by rolling their contracts for week after week, keeping them on as 'Temporary' employees despite having reached the point where they would carry seniority if they were a Permanent employee.

    Contractor: A contractor is a bit different, as their pay scale can be done hourly, weekly, daily or project-based. They are employed on a fixed term contract, and their billing varies as much as their pay scales. The abuses to contractors occur in much the same way as those to temps. A contractor is employed for a specific project, then the project term is extended or he is transferred to another project team, and so he remains a contractor, although he is obviously acting outside of his original contracting brief. I've seen 'Contractors' with more say in a company than the director of IT, and yet they're still working off of their base terms as far as benefits go. And that means that if the company they helped create runs an IPO, they're not entitled to a bit of it.

    As mentioned above, from what I can tell MS purposefully abused these designations in order to save a buck or two.

    -l

  • Review the Definitions (Score:5)

    by benenglish ( 107150 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2000 @03:40AM (#1384385)

    I find it terribly interesting that people shout back and forth about "I'm an employee!", "I'm an independent contractor!" or some other such thing without the foggiest notion of what they *actually* are. In fact, the definition of employee and of independent contractor are matters of law. No contract that you can sign between yourself and someone who pays you money can change that. If the contract says you're an independent, if both parties agree you're an independent, if nearly everyone accepts that you're an independent BUT your individual circumstances meet the definition of an employee, then you ARE an employee. Period. You can sign contracts and make agreements to the contrary all day long and it doesn't matter one whit.

    Different agencies at the federal, state, and local level work under different statutes. And yes, they are a mess, generally using vague language that may well result in someone being an employee to the Internal Revenue Service but an independent contractor to the Department of Labor. Or vice-versa. Most agencies, though, wind up falling back on the 20 common law factors used by the IRS or a variation thereof. (That situation is in flux right now, but the 20 common law factors still rule for tax purposes, even if the new kinder and gentler IRS is so gun-shy that they're not really enforcing them.) Take a look at them on IRS Form SS-8, Determination of Employee Work Status For Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax. [irs.gov]

    Work through that form and you might be surprised. I think a lot of "independent contractors" will find that they are actually employees. And if they're employees, aren't they entitled to the benefits a company extends to employees?

Slashdot Top Deals

Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three -- and paradise is when you have none. -- Doug Larson

Close