Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday September 06 2015, @12:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can-start-tomorrow...-and-finish-next-friday dept.

Over at the Harvard Business Review there's speculation that the paradigm of people working full-time for a single employer has outlived its usefulness:

Our vision is straightforward: most people will become independent contractors who have the flexibility to work part-time for several organizations at the same time, or do a series of short full-time gigs with different companies over the course of a year. Companies will maintain only a minimal full-time staff of executives, key managers, and professionals and bring in the rest of the required talent as needed in a targeted, flexible, and deliberate way.

There are two reasons such a flexible work system is now plausible. The first is societal values. Work-life balance and family-friendly scheduling are much more important to today's workers, and companies are increasingly willing to accommodate them. The second is technology. Advances in the last five years have greatly improved the ease with which people can work and collaborate remotely and companies and contract workers can find each other.

The opinion piece goes on to list how workers, employers and society in general will benefit from this shift. What seems to be missing is speculation on the down sides, both to employers and contractors. Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:06PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:06PM (#232973) Journal

    The glut is artificially created, engineered by "lobbyists" in Washington, bribing our representatives. Corporations benefit from globalization and trade agreements - no one else does.

    Globalization is corruption run amok.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:13PM

    by Justin Case (4239) on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:13PM (#232975) Journal

    So you would prefer a law that says you can only buy iPhones made in the USA.

    I refer you back to the debate between two puppets. You're never going to fix anything by hoping for the laws to change in your favor. They won't.

    But even if your iPhone is made in Utah, why should there be a trade agreement between $YOURSTATE and Utah? Only Apple would benefit -- not you.

    No, you should be required to buy phones made only in your state. Strike that: your city. No statewide globalization. It only benefits the nasty rich.

    In fact, why should people from the north side of town be allowed to trade with people from the south? It's plainly unfair. You should only be allowed to buy things made by someone on your block. Nasty rich, remember?

    Best of all, you should only be allowed to trade with yourself. No more exploitation! Enjoy your perfect life.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:50PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:50PM (#232981) Journal

      Sorry, I won't dignify your absurdity with the latin phrase.

      The fact is, the US and a few other countries fostered the industrial age, with in turn led to this new "digital age". Those nations poured generations of work into where we are today. And, today, the corporations that grew out of our nation's hard work have stabbed us in the back. This "distribution of wealth" doesn't even benefit the average workers in those nations - I've addressed that issue before. The corporations are taking advantage of the absence of environmental laws, and poisoning villages. They are exploiting the native, en masse and individually, only moving slowly to eliminate slave labor, child labor, gross safety issues, and so much more. And - they are only moving slowly, because our first world nations are objecting to the exploitation taking place in those third world nations.

      Walmart, for instance, had zero objections to young women being locked into stifling warehouses with zero concern for fire safety, until multiple horrendous fires were associated with Walmart purchasing. Only when activists protested Walmart's purchasing practices did Walmart pretend to be concerned with worker's safety and working conditions.

      Apple has had it's own exposures. Other major companies haven't yet been highlighted, and/or not enough people have taken up the challenge to protest for their workers.

      But, whatever - the worship of the Almighty Dollar must go on, despite any unfortunate losses of human life. What value a couple hundred women in some southeast Asian country, after all? There are millions more to exploit.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by zugedneb on Sunday September 06 2015, @08:29PM

        by zugedneb (4556) on Sunday September 06 2015, @08:29PM (#233056)

        Those nations poured generations of work into where we are today. And, today, the corporations that grew out of our nation's hard work have stabbed us in the back.

        C'mon bro... what stabbed "us" in the back is the inability to organize and maintain some "rational" union.
        What stabbed in the back was the belief that capitalism just "provides", without there being need for gardening work, on the society amongst other things...

        Have you heard this one?
        "Help yourself, and then even God will help you?"

        Only when activists protested Walmart's purchasing practices did Walmart pretend to be concerned with worker's safety and working conditions.

        now observe:

        Only when activists protested

        AHA!
        goal, organisation, initiative -> achievement?
        But you already seem to know...

        the worship of the Almighty Dollar must go on, despite any unfortunate losses of human life.

        Than we have this, yes...
        I observed, however, that not consuming ends up as antisocial behaviour.
        Dressing in military cloth with military boots that last 10+ years is not gonna get you laid...
        I would almost say, that the moment we all have nice fuckable androids, and we do not have to invest in merchandise to impress the opposite sex (women), consumption will go down as well...

        Women have no reason to complain over work conditions... Men consume, 90% of the time, to impress them.
        They just have to decide not to be impressed by shiny shit...
        admitting -> informing -> adjusting -> profit!!11!!1

        --
        old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @05:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @05:38PM (#233014)

      > So you would prefer a law that says you can only buy iPhones made in the USA.

      I don't know about runaway, but I would prefer a law that says all products in the marketplace must meet minimum manufacturing standards for human resources and environmental accountability. Same way we have minimum standards for the fitness of imported foods and the safety of imported products.

  • (Score: 1) by Pino P on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:56AM

    by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:56AM (#233568) Journal

    Corporations benefit from globalization and trade agreements - no one else does.

    Then come up with a business plan, get on LegalZoom, and get your INC.