Re: Permattemp?

More | Report Post

On 11/16/06, Tom wrote:
> Thanks for the response.
> I guess, the corporation directly dictating my wage based on a
> submitted resume, is nothing like their hiring procedure. Nor is
> their requirement that I take their training courses, at my
> expense, to do their work. With threats to change my
> classification, if I don't. Yet on my ID badge, that is
> required, it states 'Contract Employee', hmmm.....

the Microsoft permatemps had a pot-of-gold to go for: Microsoft
benefits and stock options that the company promised to
all "common law employees" of Microsoft. since the permatemps
qualified as "common law employees," they were contractually
entitled to the benefit intended only for Microsoft (non-temp)
employees.

you're correct to smell similarities; many temps do qualify
as "common law employees" of the company they're assigned to work
at; both the agency and the company are typically "joint
employers" of the temp worker. in other words, you may very well
be a "common law employee" of the corporation.

however, so what? did the corporation promise a benefit or
something to its "common law employees." if so, you may have a
claim. if not, you may be a "common law employee," but there's no
pot-of-gold at the end of that rainbow.

Microsoft basically screwed itself by promising too much (or to
too many people) by saying all "common law employees" got
benefits. unless your corporation likewise made some contractual
obligation (promise) to "common law employees" or all "jointly
employed workers" or somesuch, there's no particular benefit from
being a permatemp.

good luck.