TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> This has to do with the 9th Circuit Court ruling many years ago (2000?
> 2001? 1999? '98?). The contractors sued microsoft because they were
> denied stock options and watched the "real" employees doing the same
> work one desk over become millionaires while they just collected their
> paychecks. The Court ruling found that since the contractors were
> continuously employed for a long period of time (sometimes 10 or
> more years), they were de-facto employees and then granted a large
> settlement.
> The 100 days of layoffs is the loophole to keep from hiring real
> employees. After the ruling, most US corporations started similar
> practices.
That, I understood.
However, the poster on the STC forum is not complaining about working as
a contractor, he just has a problem being unemployed for that 100 days,
given that Microsoft is by far the biggest employer of techwriters in
his area, and interim jobs are quite scarce.
Microsoft would seem to have an interest in retaining a worker who knows
the company, knows the project/product, and has a proven work history
with them - it's only the letter of the law that causes them to exclude
him for 100 days per year.
So, my question was: Couldn't Microsoft hire a one-man corporation to
take over for him while he's on ... er... hiatus... and that one-man
corporation would just happen to have our poster as its only employee...
and prez, and shareholder... ?
Are the rules (of employment standards OR of taxation) so explicit or so
arcane that such an approach would be either explicitly prohibited or
made bureaucratically uncomfortable for all parties? Or is it something
that is commonly done - and I didn't know because I don't work there and
so don't face those problems? Or do I just think differently enough
that I'm the first one to suggest it? (unlikely...)
- Kevin
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help gives you everything you need to author and
publish quality Help, Web, and print content. Perfect for technical
authors, developers, and policy writers. Download a FREE trial. http://www.componentone.com/DocToHelp/
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
