Comment by fixermark
8 years ago
Peeling back the layers a bit, it seems a major misfire in this whole story is that the employee in question was a short-term contractor... But a shot-term contractor who was apparently quite valuable to his team.
Smart companies'll make people in that position permanent employees. The machine is so automated partially to make sure legal compliance of two companies sharing one employee is executed upon correctly (because past lawsuits have made it clear that if you get too chummy with your contractors, you're on the hook for treating them like they're full-time).
Don't want to get screwed by your own automation? Make fewer people working in your building interchangeable third-party subcontracts.
a major misfire in this whole story is that the employee in question was a short-term contractor.
A 3-year contract is a long-term contractor... Many permanent employees don't stick around that long.
Sorry; I didn't mean anything formal by the "short-term" adjective phrase there. I meant "In contrast to a full-time employee, whom one assumes is making a career out of THAT company."
Three years is a long time in contractor-land, but it's a drop in the bucket for career company employee.
I think that what 'gaius is saying is that "whom ones assumes is making a career..." part is a wrong assumption, especially in this industry. "Making career" is more of an exercise of jumping between companies every other year.
If it had truly been a 3-year contract they wouldn't've had the renewal issue.
Want to bet it was structured as six 8-month contracts to dodge some legal requirement that you provide extra benefits to any contractor retained for three or more whole quarters? ;)