Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday March 02 2020, @11:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the welcome-to-the-new-world-order dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Until the 1980s, big companies in America tended to take a paternalistic attitude toward their workforce. Many corporate CEOs took pride in taking care of everyone who worked at their corporate campuses. Business leaders loved to tell stories about someone working their way up from the mailroom to a C-suite office.

But this began to change in the 1980s. Wall Street investors demanded that companies focus more on maximizing returns for shareholders. An emerging corporate orthodoxy held that a company should focus on its "core competence"—the one or two functions that truly sets it apart from other companies—while contracting out other functions to third parties.

Often, companies found they could save money this way. Big companies often pay above the market rate for routine services like cleaning offices, answering phones, staffing a cafeteria, or working on an assembly line. Putting these services out for competitive bid helped the companies get these functions completed at rock-bottom rates, while avoiding the hassle of managing employees. It also saved them from having to pay the same generous benefits they offered to higher-skilled employees.

Of course, the very things that made the new arrangement attractive for big companies made it lousy for the affected workers. Not only were companies trying to spend less money on these services, but now there were companies in the middle taking a cut. Once a job got contracted out, it was much less likely to become a first step up the corporate ladder. It's hard to work your way up from the mailroom if the mailroom is run by a separate contracting firm.

[...] The existence of such a two-tier workplace is especially ironic in Silicon Valley, a region that takes pride in its egalitarian ethos. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave a remarkably candid assessment of the situation in 2012, in a statement quoted by author Chrystia Freeland.

"Many tech companies solved this problem by having the lowest-paid workers not actually be employees. They’re contracted out," Schmidt said. "We can treat them differently, because we don’t really hire them. The person who’s cleaning the bathroom is not exactly the same sort of person. Which I find sort of offensive, but it is the way it’s done."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2020, @01:54AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2020, @01:54AM (#965799)

    > Movie producers don't hire workers, they contract it all out.

    But that makes sense to me -- the movie crew comes together for some months (or maybe a year or so) until the movie is done, then splits up. No permanence in the crew because the project is over. Same for the actors, they audition and if they get the role they are employed for the duration of the project (and may also share in revenue, depending on their contract terms).

    I have no idea, but maybe in the distant past, studios had a regular crew that was made of employees? If so then the studio management would have to always be ready to make the next movie (or else the company would be paying the crew to be idle).

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2020, @03:13AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2020, @03:13AM (#965831)

    You are right. Back in Hollywood's "Golden Age", the studios would crank out the movies. If you were an actress or a stage hand, you never stopped working.
    Things are more "blockbuster" driven these days: much larger bets placed on much fewer movies. In the Golden Age, the more frequent release cycle worked because people didn't have televisions.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday March 03 2020, @01:34PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday March 03 2020, @01:34PM (#965954) Journal

      My wife is friends with a couple who are both professional set designers. The husband has worked on blockbuster movies (if you saw the scene in I Am Legend where Will Smith is hunting in a forested section of Midtown NYC, that's his handiwork), but has mainly been employed by the TV series Gossip Girl for the past decade. The TV shows seem to have a more regular crew that produces each episode.

      He has often remarked how grateful he is for the steady work of the TV show, because it's hard to raise a family on the random gigs that are blockbusters--you have to hustle all the time to line up your next job while you're still on the current job.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.