Google to Make Security Guards Employees, Rather Than Contractors

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/03/google-to-make-security-guards-as-employees-rather-than-contractors/

by adidash • 12 years ago

257 130 12 years ago

blogs.wsj.com

I think this is a good move.

I understand the tax incentives/accounting behind it, but I still feel it's kind of shady to hire "contractors" for positions that are indefinite. I think contractors should be for the time you need a bunch of hands or brains to get something done for a few months, but using contractors for years on end is just abuse of the system and demeaning for the person.

Who do you think is going to be more loyal and do a better job with your security, someone who always feels like an outsider, or someone who is protecting "their" own company?

enneff• 12 years ago

I guess part of the rationale for using contractors for, say, kitchen workers is that you can use a consulting firm with expertise in catering, rather than having to develop that expertise in-house.

vanadium2• 12 years ago

Or you could just hire a single person with domain expertise as a consultant for a given time to staff the group and end up with a presumably high-quality in-house kitchen staff from the start. The consultant moves onto their next gig after making sure the pieces fit as intended.

This is a pretty common use case for the better consultants out there.

sidcool• 12 years ago

That exactly was my first thought...'What's in it for Google?'. Not doubting their good intentions, but whenever any corporate portrays an altruistic thing, it rings the skeptic bell in my head.

Good move Google.

bostik• 12 years ago

I don't understand the downvote, because I can easily think of non-altruistic reasons for this move.

1) I have no doubt Google already tracks their contractors' staff turnover. Every industry has institutional knowledge, and if staff turnover is high, not enough of the knowledge gets transferred. If the prestige of being a Googler is enough to counter that trend, it may be well worth a lot more than the monetary cost.

2) Assuming the detail about "gbus" access is true, the security guards traveling on the buses will have personal incentives for keeping them safer.

3) This move may attract the kinds of people Google wants for their physical security. (Related to point #1.)

So while Google may well be riding the social awareness wave for PR purposes, there are bound to be real corporate reasons behind the move too.

Alex3917• 12 years ago

Avoiding lawsuits for racial discrimination.

ufmace• 12 years ago

Part of the reason may be a PR thing - they want to improve their image so that there are less people, say, protesting their busses and employees.

001sky2• 12 years ago

This is a cheap way to buy "token minority positions" and increase the appearance of diversity.

Its a smart, if somewhat cynical move.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/the-work...

"Blacks, who make up just 11 percent of the workforce, account for more than a third of home health aides and about 25 percent of both security guards and bus drivers—rather low paying jobs."

xorcist2• 12 years ago

Common sense suggests that this way should be cheaper, too. The contractor is often twice as expensive as their salary, so if you want them for an extended period of time it would make economic sense for a rational actor to hire directly.

This is however offset by economic realities, where two equal cost may have a very different impact of valuation. So it does make economic sense to pay more for a cost that is not counted as a fixed cost of doing business on the accounting sheets.

walshemj9• 12 years ago

err these are minimum wage security guards employed by a contractor not self employed contractors in their own right

ownagefool2• 12 years ago

I guess that depends on location. Personally, in the UK, I wouldn't dream of being a perm employee. Contract is the only way you can hire me.

You can't really say a company is deemening me by holding on to me as long as possible.

JCole• 12 years ago

What are the advantages of contract work in the UK?

kamjam• 12 years ago

In IT maybe, but those security guards are probably permanent employees of the firm that Google sub-contracted their security to. So reality they may just be moving from being a permanent employee of Acme Security Corp to that of Google.

It seems they get more benefits being a Google employee though (from TFA at least).

tehwebguy• 12 years ago

They aren't using the independent contractor tax option (1099) to pay individuals, they are contracting a company that has employees.

This position would never pass as a 1099

tn13• 12 years ago

- Who do you think is going to be more loyal

I think the person who knows for sure that he will be fired for not doing his job properly will be more loyal.

I don't think it is a wise decision for any company to employ security guards as they own employees. It makes much more sense to let a third company specialized in security recruit, train and contract guards to Google. Is Google in a better position to do background verification, recruit, train and maintain large number of security guards ? Is is a good way to spend their profits ? The answer might be yes or not but it has nothing to do with "demeaning for the person" and other rhetorical reasons.

joelrunyon• 12 years ago

The August think tank report found that the median hourly wage is $14 an hour for security guards in Santa Clara County – home to Google and scores of other tech companies. By contrast, the median wage for software developers is roughly $63 an hour.

Obviously - $14/hour is quite low and there's a certain increased level of security that comes with paying guards more (it won't be so easily for them to consider alternative income sources), but does anyone really think that that gap needs to be closed completely? I think they'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that a security guards warrants equal pay with a software developer.

mentat• 12 years ago

The value of software development is the multiplicative application of innovation / creation. Security guarding will never have that (without adjacent technological innovation.)

walshemj9• 12 years ago

well unskilled labour vs overwhelmingly grad entry high skilled professional jobs works like that and devs are underpaid relative to lawyers and MD's

mianos• 12 years ago

Coincidentally until this week I never saw the security people in the lift (we share a building). This week I have seen them many times inside and outside wearing Google Security logoed shirts.

SilentDirge• 12 years ago

Doesn't this reduce their ability for overtime pay in certain situations?

flomo2• 12 years ago

Doubtful.[1] California has limited exemptions for overtime that can't simply be avoided by paying salary. Even a significant number of 'IT professionals' should be paid overtime. [2]

[1] http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_overtimeexemptions.htm [2] https://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/ComputerSoftware.pdf

walshemj9• 12 years ago

Nope CA passed a law exempting IT professionals and M&P grades are normally always exempt even In places like France

frozenport• 12 years ago

>SIS told The Journal the change was a business move on its part. “The decision to end this contractual relationship was made by SIS as part of its normal business operations and then conveyed to Google,” said SIS Chief Financial Officer Tom Seltz in an email.

Um, so who made the choice SIS or Google?

magicalist• 12 years ago

Maybe it was just the impetus for the change? I'd imagine there's more than one security contractor in silicon valley.

valas• 12 years ago

Isn't it obvious?

SIS cannot force Google to convert some employees to full-time (nor it makes business sense for them).

raincom2• 12 years ago

Who made the choice: Definitely, Google. On the paper, it is SIS. I worked for SIS a decade ago: yes, they are nice folks, they did not provide health insurance. They had some $120/month insurance, which covers like $10K a year--and this is not an insurance at all. That's why I did not buy that insurance.

SIS won lots of security contracts based on the price alone. Guardmark, one of its competitors, provides a good health insurance for its employees; but they can't compete with SIS, which does not provide any benefits.

ChuckMcM2• 12 years ago

It gives them more control over who they hire, it makes it harder (if not impossible) for the SEIU from unionize them, assuming they have to sign the employment agreement it allows them to install surveillance on any of their computers, and it will probably make for a much better experience for employees.

One of the saddest things they did during my time there was switch the TechStop folks from employees to contractors and that was, in my opinion of course, a huge mistake. Having these folks be contractors totally changed the dynamic with respect to the other employees.

flomo2• 12 years ago

The big opportunity here is to hire and train people who actually care about "Google security", versus people who care about wearing a uniform and applying for real cop jobs. Sorry if I'm going back to my blue-collar days, but I've never met a security guard who really took his job seriously. They're there mostly for show and they recognize that.

ChuckMcM2• 12 years ago

Exactly, that was my experience as well. As employees they should be invested in doing a good job and that will make them better security guards.

JoeAltmaier• 12 years ago

It may be important to keep that distinction. Security should not be 'one of us' but a separate culture, or they can't do their job effectively.

AJ007• 12 years ago

It is possible they are transitioning to a more automated force: http://knightscope.com/ (math I did came out to about $4 per hour, 24/7.) If that is the case you want a smaller number of higher quality security workers in house.

I can't speak for the Bay area, or Google, or the contracting firm, but security guards typically have a turnover exceeding 100%. Makes a lot of sense to have any firm deal with the bullshit that arises from having turnover that high.

burnte• 12 years ago

"allows them to install surveillance on any of their computers"

I've never heard about this. Google makes employees install surveillance software on all computers, personal and work, for the duration of their employment contract?

boulos• 12 years ago

This wasn't mentioned in the article but this will also mean they can ride the shuttle for free (the IRS considers this a benefit with some specified dollar amount). I'm glad the security guards won't have to choose between driving or paying the "gbus fare".

DonnyV• 12 years ago

I wonder if Google has caught a contractor that was working for NSA.

choppaface• 12 years ago

The median salary for software engineers is $130k??!? At Google or in all of SV???

josephkern2• 12 years ago

Yeah it's the median. SV and NYC both. Have you seen what $130k gets you these days? Not much in those areas. You'd be better off at $75k in Texas.

kelnos8• 12 years ago

That's preposterous. $130k gets you quite a bit in SV, even a pretty nice 1BR apartment in SF if you want it. Yes, it's more expensive to live here than most other places in the US, but saying $130k isn't enough or is even marginal or crappy is ridiculous.

$75k in Texas probably does go farther, but that's not really comparing apples to apples.

frankchn• 12 years ago

I am fairly certain that the median salary for engineers at Google is (much) more than that. If you count bonuses and RSUs, the pay package for new graduates in 2014/15 is already more than $130k.

umanwizard2• 12 years ago

RSUs should be counted when they vest, not when they're awarded. Otherwise you can make it sound like you're paying anyone any amount of money.

"I'm giving you a $200,000 signing bonus! Vests at $1,000 yearly for 200 years."

icelancer3• 12 years ago

Hmm? This doesn't seem impossible at all at Google. My last job in Seattle as a Data Scientist was approaching that in salary alone, and I'm not good enough to work at Google. Those who are should make about that much.

walshemj9• 12 years ago

You should try London day rate for DS contractors is £700 £800 a day

judk5• 12 years ago

You are not not good enough to work at Google.

ghshephard2• 12 years ago

I'm sure Google is much more, that's likely SV. $130K, btw, probably isn't enough for you to buy your own house - so it's not great wages.

kelnos8• 12 years ago

Not everyone's goal is home ownership.

Having said that, it'd take you a while to save up for a down payment on $130k/yr (even assuming regular raises), but it's definitely doable.

kelnos8• 12 years ago

Serious question: are you surprised because you think that's high, or low?

josephkern2• 12 years ago

I am very glad to hear this, google employs (or ahem contracts) some very good security personnel. I do wonder though if the current security personnel will be converted to full employees or if they will be sent back to the contracting company ...

journeeman• 12 years ago

Google's getting its own army. ;-)

praptak• 12 years ago

Naah, that's what robots are for.

TeMPOraL• 12 years ago

For a second I actually imagined that this might be the start of what in 10 years will become Google Security Forces, people safegurading Google micronation/underwater colony/Mars establishment.

piokoch• 12 years ago

That's strange. Google will have to go into bussines of security services. Why they just don't negotiate with the contracted security company better terms for the employees working for Google?

judk5• 12 years ago

Probably because they couldn't find one.

ghshephard2• 12 years ago

Note - that this sort of thing usually lasts while a company is profitable. Once things get tight (if they do), then everything is back on the table, and Security Guards, Cleaners, Kitchen Staff, Groundskeepers - basically anybody who doesn't have proprietary knowledge, training, or skills is replaced with a contractor.

I remember when my University (SFU) fired all their cleaning staff - some of whom had been working their for 20+ years and replaced them with contractors (who (ironically?) actually did a much better job for a lot less money) - students went on a mini strike, but, at the same time, the University was being forced to raise tuition to cover the bills - so they were trying to find every way they could save money possible.

atmosx• 12 years ago

Sure, but this is all-mighty Google. I don't see any cash issues in the mid (or long for the matter) term future.

rodly• 12 years ago

This isn't always the case. Zappos had always hired people to prepare breakfast and dinner and then flipped and used a contractor for food prep and service when they moved to their new HQ in downtown Las Vegas. Zappos is definitely not tight on money and is very well run (from what I could tell).

Perhaps they're just an outlier though.

walshemj9• 12 years ago

It's a sign that hr and accountants have taken over and the tail is wagging the dog

RyJones• 12 years ago

It's interesting to me that Google is doing this. I was at Microsoft when they decided receptionists weren't a core competency they wanted. They kept tightening up when was - as an STE at the time, you could see that role was not going to make the cut. I was at MSN as an SDET when the last STEs were laid off and rehired as contractors. I was back at Microsoft when they decided SDETs weren't core; we were all converted to SDEs or hired back as STE contractors.

theshrike79• 12 years ago

It all depends on the contract for the cleaning staff.

Around here the university did the opposite, they ended all cleaning contracts and hired their own staff with better pay. Costs went down, quality went up.

The problem was that due to idiotic (EU?) competition laws the maximum length for a cleaning contract was 2 years with a 1 year extension. So the firms worked kinda OK for the first 2 years and fucked around for the extension year since they wouldn't get renewed anyway. Quality went to shit, no one did the basic work of re-waxing the floors "the next contractor will do it" etc.

usernamepc• 12 years ago

Maybe it was to preempt something like this. Seattle City council calling out Amazon to treat its security guards better and to let them unionize. http://www.geekwire.com/2014/seattle-city-council-amazon-sec...

wodenokoto• 12 years ago

I'm actually quite surprised by this.

Having worked as a contractor for Google, my impression is that they consider being an employee at Google as a brand in and by itself.

My contract stated several times that I was not a Googler, and I was not hired by Google and I was not allowed to say "I work for Google"and if I start a company I am definitely not allowed to send out a press release saying "Ex-googler makes new start-up to solve ..."

bduerst• 12 years ago

Google still employs the contractor industry like most of the big tech firms in the bay area, and I'm not talking about just as cooking staff or temps.

My guess is they flipped on making security guards FTEs simply because it's been an isolated PR issue:

http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-security-guards-prote...

rohit89• 12 years ago

I think the brand of being a Googler only applies to programmers and executives.

nailer• 12 years ago

There are contract programmers inside Google, most of the Creative Lab works are produced by them.

walshemj9• 12 years ago

That's because Microsoft cocked up big time a long time back and lost a big case over disguised employment aka permatractors that set employment law precedent.

krick2• 12 years ago

Well, saying that you "worked for google as a programmer" sounds a bit more impressive than you "worked for google as a cleaner", because google is a tech company. It is all about public image, so if you are a programmer then it is pretty natural your contract is stating that there is notable difference between you and, say, Sebastian Thrun in the sense of your importance for google. It doesn't seem to be necessary to say that some security guard's role in google wasn't like one of Sebastian Thrun, so why not?

a3_nm2• 12 years ago

I was not allowed to say "I work for Google"

Seriously? That's frankly ridiculous. Performing tasks for someone in exchange for payment seems to me like a reasonable use case for the verb "work", no matter whether your status is employee, contractor, moonlighter, intern, teenager looking for pocket money, etc. It seems impressive to me that they would feel entitled to forbid you from saying so.

psykovsky• 12 years ago

Should they even have the right to do that?

seivan• 12 years ago

I've always wondered why we outsource cleaning and janitorial staff? It's so unnecessary and cruel. Make them part of the team.

pcurve• 12 years ago

Same reason why many companies (including probably Google) outsources landscaping work even though there's work to be done every year around. The subcontracted companies have foreman and managers who are much better equipped to train people in janitorial, cleaning, and landscaping work than Google.

Whatever the motive, I applaud the move.

wtbob• 12 years ago

Perhaps the skills needed to find, recruit and manage janitorial staff are different from the skills needed to find, recruit and manage developers?

Almost every company outsources electricity generation, too.

joezydeco• 12 years ago

Janitorial staff need direction and supervision. If you hire a lot of janitors in a place like Google, which has many buildings, you need to track them all, give them proper equipment/resources, and check their work.

A lot of times it's just easier (and cheaper, of course) to hire a firm that's more skilled in this work than to try and manage it all yourselves. It's one contact with a simple objective: clean the buildings. If the buildings aren't cleaned, the company can be replaced.

pacaro• 12 years ago

Often (although this might not be relevant for Google) these services are provided by the owner/operator of the building, replacing them can be tricky for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is that you may be displacing union jobs

imswapnil• 12 years ago

Good move I've seen some really bad contractors

mark_l_watson• 12 years ago

I worked as a contractor at Google last year as a software engineer. All of the people I interacted with who were non technical contractors, like security guards, office supplies, etc. seemed to have a great attitude and acted like they appreciated their jobs. Same comment applies to almost all of the technical contractors I met.

Unless companies need to lock in key employees, using contractors makes a lot of sense, and with the affordable health care act, one of the big reasons for wanting to be an employee vanishes. I have worked as an independent consultant for 15+ years, so I am biased in favor of flexible working arrangements.

BTW, I hope the current contracted security guards get some preference in being hired as employees.

crpatino• 12 years ago

Security "contractors" are not the same as real contractors. They are themselves employees of a different 3rd party company that "hires" them to the paying customer for a (usually much) bigger bill than the contractor's wage. The flexibility from the point of view of the customer is that they can let go such "contractor" on a wimp and expect to have a replacement lined up in a short time if needed. The 3rd party company probably manages this by swapping its employees from one customer to another, at least in the short term.

Strategically speaking, the reasons for resorting to this type of arrangement range from the legitimate (you really don't care about developing the core competencies required by the position in-house) to the borderline fraudulent (you want to hide a big fixed cost in your accounting books and make it pass as a variable cost, so your company's finances look healthier than they really are).

jgalt212• 12 years ago

Given how security conscious Google is, I'm surprised the security personnel were ever outsourced.

davidf18• 12 years ago

Given the importance of security and worry over theft of intellectual property by accessing servers on-site, etc., I am really surprised that hi-tech firms (Google, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, ...) don't hire their own security. Also, for people that store data on Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon servers, I'd want security to be vetted by the firm (Google, etc.) that is accountable for providing the secure service.

Incidentally, this also holds true for hospitals, etc. that have secure medical data.

raincom2• 12 years ago

All these companies have security teams (not network security). Most of them are retired cops, retired detectives, sometimes these companies hire local cops for big bucks as their VP of security. But they also hire managers of security for local sites.

But at the bottom level, they have contracted out to Securitas, Guardsmark, SIS Security, etc.

Patrolling, monitoring cameras from a central site, checking locks of all doors, badging, etc--all these have been contracted out.

Hospitals are better in this aspect: they hire full timers for the bottom layer, and they also keep contract security firms. Stanford hospital is a good example: they have 70% full time security guards, and 30% is contracted out.

rasengan• 12 years ago

We have had our security guards as employees (not contractors) since the beginning. Not sure how this is news and how this isn't the norm.

krick2• 12 years ago

I see many comments here be like "security is important for google, so paying guards more is a wise move". That isn't really true. If you want to keep something safe the real question isn't if your employee wants to abuse you, but if he can. Security is about being sure that damage that can be made by every single person you entrusted with access to something is reasonably low. Because if somebody can blow you up, him being your own employee and not a contractor, or paying him nice wage doesn't guarantee enough. Consider Snowden.

Now about wages. I'm not sure why I'm saying such obvious things on HN, but there's some visible ignorance in comments on that topic. Developers aren't paid more than cleaners because being developer is somehow better by itself. Wages are dictated by market, so the question is if you can find somebody who can do the same work while being paid less. Of course I don't know what specific purpose will serve these security guys hired by google, but if we're talking about something like sitting all day long watching nobody enters using other tools than his NFC card then answer is definitely yes, finding a guy who can do that is easier than finding a guy who can write efficient js or something like that.

I do think that hiring your own security staff is convenient (and I'm a bit surprised it wasn't the case before — I suppose it isn't like they are founding their own Blackwater), but it doesn't seem to be as important as some journalists are implying and sure it isn't about social equality.

smileysteve• 12 years ago

If you want to keep something safe the real question isn't if your employee wants to abuse you, but if he can.

This assumes that 100% safeguarding is something that you are 100% capable of doing. If Google had that, they may not even need security guards (hyperbole).

Consider Snowden

In the case of Snowden, we know that he attempted to raise the issue internally. Many argue that Snowden actually did serve his drive and oath comparatively to Manning.

Drive goes into these aspects that inspire people. It suggests that autonomy and purpose matter much more than pay - and Google having greater control over this could certainly help control.

a3_nm2• 12 years ago

The article says "more than 200 security guards". Any clue about how this compare to the number of security guards working as contractors for Google? I'm curious about whether "Security Guards" in the title means "all security guards", or "a small proportion of security guards, as an experiment".

scottlocklin• 12 years ago

I guess the EEOC is finally breathing down their necks. Funny how long companies like google can get away with it....

Vote it down if you like: it's the obvious reason Google is hiring its security guards.

billpg• 12 years ago

I wonder if they get to use 20% of their time providing security for their personal projects.

(b'dom ksh)

Google to Make Security Guards Employees, Rather Than Contractors

Related Stories