Facebook Contractors Must Work in Offices During Coronavirus Pandemic(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
Facebook Contractors Must Work in Offices During Coronavirus Pandemic
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-facebook-contractors/
59 comments
> There you go, anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion.
... or possibly misinformation. We haven't seen the thread, so we don't know, do we?
... or possibly misinformation. We haven't seen the thread, so we don't know, do we?
I think the GP is suggesting that as soon as you are moderating speech, a powerful moderating authority can quickly lose trust by deleting discussions. Or it could be that the moderating authority already is untrusted so deletions legitimate or not are always suspect.
The GP is very explicitly saying that the rules are being used to delete the discussion because it is inconvenient:
> anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion
But we don't actually know if that's why it was deleted. It's a presumption on whatshisface's part.
> anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion
But we don't actually know if that's why it was deleted. It's a presumption on whatshisface's part.
I think you’ve missed the point now twice. It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption. The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP.
> I think you’ve missed the point now twice.
I've only responded once so I don't know how you figure I missed the point twice.
> It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption.
The top poster made a claim of fact, that anti-misinformation rules were used as a front to silence criticism. Whether that fact is true or not is the point I'm interested in. I get that you're interested in something else, but I'm not. You get to be interested in what you want, but you don't get to claim that the top poster said something other than what they did.
> The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP.
Big assumption. If the moderator has acted in good faith and whatshisface still doesn't trust them, that may say more about whatshisface than the moderator.
I've only responded once so I don't know how you figure I missed the point twice.
> It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption.
The top poster made a claim of fact, that anti-misinformation rules were used as a front to silence criticism. Whether that fact is true or not is the point I'm interested in. I get that you're interested in something else, but I'm not. You get to be interested in what you want, but you don't get to claim that the top poster said something other than what they did.
> The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP.
Big assumption. If the moderator has acted in good faith and whatshisface still doesn't trust them, that may say more about whatshisface than the moderator.
Sorry but the assumption is on on your part. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
I saw the post in question. The person claimed that the mountain view office was a hotbed of infection and multiple people had already been infected from having to go to work.
In reality the office has 0 infections.
In reality the office has 0 infections.
>In reality the office has 0 infections.
How would you know this? Many infected people are asymptomatic for over a week, and the US generally isn't testing asymptomatic people unless they were in close contact with a known infected person.
(I'm saying this just as reminder that people would do well to practice social distancing even if there is no evidence that specific persons are infected. I'm not trying to justify whoever it was who allegedly posted baseless claims to the forum.)
How would you know this? Many infected people are asymptomatic for over a week, and the US generally isn't testing asymptomatic people unless they were in close contact with a known infected person.
(I'm saying this just as reminder that people would do well to practice social distancing even if there is no evidence that specific persons are infected. I'm not trying to justify whoever it was who allegedly posted baseless claims to the forum.)
This is a clear externality caused by having a contracting company between an employer and employee. Contracting companies are incentivize to increase their margin by reducing benefits, including maintaining employee health.
If we're going to also start a better discussion about working from home, can we do the same for the proliferation of second-class contractors? The lack of health care and sick leave is going to drastically increase the spread of coronavirus.
To say nothing of employees in retail, food service, and maintenance.
If we're going to also start a better discussion about working from home, can we do the same for the proliferation of second-class contractors? The lack of health care and sick leave is going to drastically increase the spread of coronavirus.
To say nothing of employees in retail, food service, and maintenance.
They are also incentivized to to give benefits to attract skilled people.
Only if the job requires a skilled person.
Not really. Once enough companies switch to hiring contractors through staffing agencies because of the huge savings (as is happening more and more), all the choice that will be left is between two equally stingy staffing agencies with no benefits.
At my employer, while WFH was encouraged for employees before Covid-19, it was explicitly prohibited for contractors. There are some teams where the contractors do not have the capability to remotely access work systems (when we had the polar vortex conditions last winter, employees were told to work from home, contractors were either in the office or took PTO).
Locally (Chicago), I'm seeing a lot of closures (our suburban schools/libraries/park district all closed effective today, about half the museums are currently closed), and anecdotally, there have been far fewer people than usual on the "L" during my commutes. I imagine that it's a matter of when and not if when the whole company moves to mandatory WFH. Not sure what will happen with the contractors for whom this is not a possibility.
Locally (Chicago), I'm seeing a lot of closures (our suburban schools/libraries/park district all closed effective today, about half the museums are currently closed), and anecdotally, there have been far fewer people than usual on the "L" during my commutes. I imagine that it's a matter of when and not if when the whole company moves to mandatory WFH. Not sure what will happen with the contractors for whom this is not a possibility.
And the answer to when, it turns out, is Monday. My floor has a bit of a ghost town this week.
FTA:
> contract workers stating that, contrary to statements to them from Facebook, they are barred by their actual employers from working from home, despite the technical feasibility and clear public health benefits of doing so.
Sounds like Facebook should immediately evaluate their relationships with these contracting companies.
> contract workers stating that, contrary to statements to them from Facebook, they are barred by their actual employers from working from home, despite the technical feasibility and clear public health benefits of doing so.
Sounds like Facebook should immediately evaluate their relationships with these contracting companies.
Sounds more like there's 2 sets of rules: the ones that Facebook corporate publishes publicly, and the ones that the contractors are held to, from the frontline/engagement management.
> One Accenture employee
Yeah look easy to hate on Facebook, but Accenture is a big company and can easily send their own staff home to sit on the bench and do business development or just work on another client.
Yeah look easy to hate on Facebook, but Accenture is a big company and can easily send their own staff home to sit on the bench and do business development or just work on another client.
I believe that these are low-skill content-moderation staff who were hired specifically for their FB contract. They'll likely be shitcanned if they lose the contract. Accenture isn't going to run this huge contract into the ground anyway.
> I believe that these are low-skill content-moderation staff who were hired specifically for their FB contract.
I agree it's possible. If there are small consultancies doing the same work that would happen. Accenture would be more likely to wear it though to avoid rehire and PR expenses.
My point was that it's on Accenture what they choose to do, a company with plenty of billions and locus of control - not the client.
I agree it's possible. If there are small consultancies doing the same work that would happen. Accenture would be more likely to wear it though to avoid rehire and PR expenses.
My point was that it's on Accenture what they choose to do, a company with plenty of billions and locus of control - not the client.
It might be. I don't know the terms of the contract, but they may have civil liability if they choose to do something else.
No. The engagement will be governed by a contract, and those contracts will often require they staff a certain number of people for the engagement - especially if it's a "butts in seats" kind of engagement, which this looks like it is.
There will be provisions for backfills if/when people quit and the like, but otherwise they would have to have agreement from FB to alter the contract to have nobody billing for some period of time.
Whomever is managing the engagement from Accenture is shitting the bed and communicating poorly, for sure, though.
There will be provisions for backfills if/when people quit and the like, but otherwise they would have to have agreement from FB to alter the contract to have nobody billing for some period of time.
Whomever is managing the engagement from Accenture is shitting the bed and communicating poorly, for sure, though.
> No. The engagement will be governed by a contract, and those contracts will often require they staff a certain number of people for the engagement - especially if it's a "butts in seats" kind of engagement, which this looks like it is.
Yes. Multiple years in big 4 consulting much spent writing statements of work - Accenture is not powerless and can definitely make the call here for a few weeks. Takes an engagement director with backbone and managing partner + maybe executive buy in but it's definitely very doable for a many billon dollar company.
> Whomever is managing the engagement from Accenture is shitting the bed and communicating poorly, for sure, though.
Agreed.
Yes. Multiple years in big 4 consulting much spent writing statements of work - Accenture is not powerless and can definitely make the call here for a few weeks. Takes an engagement director with backbone and managing partner + maybe executive buy in but it's definitely very doable for a many billon dollar company.
> Whomever is managing the engagement from Accenture is shitting the bed and communicating poorly, for sure, though.
Agreed.
At what point can you make an OSHA complaint that your employer is failing to provide you a safe (disease-free) workplace?
When is your workplace ever certified disease free?
While you’re at it, file a complaint about them making you drive to work in a car.
While you’re at it, file a complaint about them making you drive to work in a car.
Definitely not during a global pandemic, which is the whole fucking point.
29 states have declared a state of emergency due to COVID-19...
It's not so much about certifying it as disease free and more about certifying it as unsafe.
It's not so much about certifying it as disease free and more about certifying it as unsafe.
> While you’re at it, file a complaint about them making you drive to work in a car.
If your employer forced you to drive through floodwaters, you'd probably have a valid OHSA complaint.
If your employer forced you to drive through floodwaters, you'd probably have a valid OHSA complaint.
> When is your workplace ever certified disease free?
Never, but taking these actions in this situation is definitely negligence at best. It's like running a hospital forcing people to work without providing soap or hand sanitizer.
Never, but taking these actions in this situation is definitely negligence at best. It's like running a hospital forcing people to work without providing soap or hand sanitizer.
Wow.
In case anyone doesn't fully grasp how irresponsible this is, these folks can transmit to each other, and in turn transmit to elderly and vulnerable populations.
Yet another reason not to use their toxic product.
In case anyone doesn't fully grasp how irresponsible this is, these folks can transmit to each other, and in turn transmit to elderly and vulnerable populations.
Yet another reason not to use their toxic product.
Facebook is not telling them they have to come into the office. Rather, it’s the contracting companies that these people actually work for. Quite a difference, which is clarified in the first paragraph.
> Facebook is not telling them they have to come into the office. Rather, it’s the contracting companies that these people actually work for.
Though that's one of the benefits of outsourcing: you get all the benefits of squeezing your workers to the maximum (which helps the bottom line), while still having deniability for PR purposes.
Facebook is responsible unless they loudly and publicly order their vendors to treat their employees better.
Though that's one of the benefits of outsourcing: you get all the benefits of squeezing your workers to the maximum (which helps the bottom line), while still having deniability for PR purposes.
Facebook is responsible unless they loudly and publicly order their vendors to treat their employees better.
> Facebook is not telling them they have to come into the office.
Yes, they are.
> A Facebook spokesperson told The Intercept that “for both our full-time employees and contingent workforce there is some work that cannot be done from home…for content reviewers, some of this work must be done from the office for safety, privacy and legal reasons,”
Yes, they are.
> A Facebook spokesperson told The Intercept that “for both our full-time employees and contingent workforce there is some work that cannot be done from home…for content reviewers, some of this work must be done from the office for safety, privacy and legal reasons,”
[deleted]
Every budget within an organization is a moral doctrine. By evaluating company outlays you can tell where priorities lay. Facebook apparently doesn't care that much about doing business with a company that would have such a policy.
My workplace is still requiring everyone to come into the office even though we're all capable of working at home. They're allowing people to work at home on a case by case basis. What's crazy is that we already get to work from home one day, every other week. They're obviously telling people to stay home if they are not well. A lot of my coworkers are upset that higher-ups are not taking this seriously.
Accenture and WiPro
I think at this point it's fair to dox the individual middle-managers and C-level schmucks, expose them to the consequences of their choices.
I think at this point it's fair to dox the individual middle-managers and C-level schmucks, expose them to the consequences of their choices.
I think it's very unlikely this has anything to do with middle-managers or even C-level "schmucks" at the contracting companies. I can assure you that Accenture (dunno about Wipro but I would imagine they are similar) has a strong remote work culture and has been encouraging their people to WFH if at all possible. However, Accenture is beholden to contracts and has to defer to the client for situations like this.
What's likely happening here is that FB is insisting that the work be done in the office (from doing similar contract work myself, this sounds like it is because due to security reasons FB doesn't allow some of its contractors to take home their computers and can only connect via in-office networks), and Accenture either has to go along with it or break the contract. FB is trying to blame the contracting companies to avoid PR, and since one of the reasons you hire a contracting company is because it's a convenient way to place blame when things go wrong, Accenture probably won't rebut.
Since these contractors work as content moderators, I think there is also a certain level of thinking that the work they are doing is critical at a time like this (both because of upcoming election and because of misinformation spread about coronavirus), so while they might just send home other contractors, these ones need to stay).
What's likely happening here is that FB is insisting that the work be done in the office (from doing similar contract work myself, this sounds like it is because due to security reasons FB doesn't allow some of its contractors to take home their computers and can only connect via in-office networks), and Accenture either has to go along with it or break the contract. FB is trying to blame the contracting companies to avoid PR, and since one of the reasons you hire a contracting company is because it's a convenient way to place blame when things go wrong, Accenture probably won't rebut.
Since these contractors work as content moderators, I think there is also a certain level of thinking that the work they are doing is critical at a time like this (both because of upcoming election and because of misinformation spread about coronavirus), so while they might just send home other contractors, these ones need to stay).
I think doxing is(or should be?) A crime that should have you see jail time, as is this threat/conspiracy you just posted.
Lawful managemement decisins are fine, the US is not under emergency officially and there is no direction from the government or CDC asking employers to make people work from home.
Lawful managemement decisins are fine, the US is not under emergency officially and there is no direction from the government or CDC asking employers to make people work from home.
US is not "under emergency officially" because Trump wants to save face.
CA has been in a state of emergency since March 4
CA has been in a state of emergency since March 4
It is now, and people should follow emergency orders...now? Was what FB did against CA emergency state orders or guidelines?
Some contractors. My gf started as a contractor at FB in January and she is now working from home and was asked not to come in unless it was absolutely necessary (she was in yesterday to pick up some gear).
But she's not in moderation or anything; she's a research scientist. So there may be a class system involved.
But she's not in moderation or anything; she's a research scientist. So there may be a class system involved.
Isn't it possible for the contractors to unite and force altogether to let their individual contracts with Facebook be changed?
Hey, that sounds suspiciously like a union.
I'm sure they could, it would probably end up with their contracts being terminated though. Or maybe not, depending on how strong the PR backlash is.
I'm sure they could, it would probably end up with their contracts being terminated though. Or maybe not, depending on how strong the PR backlash is.
the article is describing people who work for external companies that facebook has a contract with. they don't have individual contracts with facebook themselves.
Looking at the names of the contracting companies , I would guess that most of the contractors are Indians. As such they are on a visa and their only options are either keep working or get laid off and go back as you won’t be able to find another job very soon in this climate.
Can't believe HN is on the panic bandwagon as well. Is the CDC recommending work from home? Is law enforcement? Any public health officials? Law enforcement? Congress? What authoritative source suggested working from home at this stage is mandated or even recommended?
What are people smoking. Crowd think sure is scary. I don't like FB and I think there should be an executive order from the whitehouse requiring anyone older than 55,immunocompromised (medically verified) or showing cold/flu like symptoms to be allowed to work from home or receive subsidized paid time off. But I don't think irrational panic and getting high on fear like this is healthy. At a macro level,the panic is doing more harm than the disease. At the individual level there are explicit steps you can take to keep safe, it is important to not panic yet take every recommended precaution.
What are people smoking. Crowd think sure is scary. I don't like FB and I think there should be an executive order from the whitehouse requiring anyone older than 55,immunocompromised (medically verified) or showing cold/flu like symptoms to be allowed to work from home or receive subsidized paid time off. But I don't think irrational panic and getting high on fear like this is healthy. At a macro level,the panic is doing more harm than the disease. At the individual level there are explicit steps you can take to keep safe, it is important to not panic yet take every recommended precaution.
My office of 500 people is going mandatory remote today until further notice.
Estimates of infection rates are getting up to 50% of the US population. With the current 1-2% mortality rate thats 1.6 million dead.
Seems like a no-brainer to require work from home to limit the spread of infection.
Estimates of infection rates are getting up to 50% of the US population. With the current 1-2% mortality rate thats 1.6 million dead.
Seems like a no-brainer to require work from home to limit the spread of infection.
Similar here with wfh. Estimates and stats are fine but I prefer to trust the experts than play public health expert myself. If someone is being extra cautious that's fine, but trying to villify for not being as paranoid as you is silly.
> Crowd think sure is scary.
It's polarizing, which pushes emotions to 11.
It's polarizing, which pushes emotions to 11.
Exactly, I was surprised with HN because HNers from experience are otherwise very rational.
Easy, the math is so simple but not obvious to able-bodied people. Anyone who knows how the anti-vaxx crowd mindset is broken against the elderly and disabled has enough of a clue here.
Threaten the ablebodied, they feign understanding accessibility. Do you have any legitimate questions, or was your point entirely bearing towards short-term effects like purchasable goods and not healthcare for the (probably) doomed?
Your flippancy isn't improving your point. The panic for staying away is commendable, the impending panic to get to healthcare probably unnecessarily will be what makes the mortality rate resemble a very unwelcome sharp upward curve for the duration of time that we have bodies to expire or reinfection can be stemmed. Whatever comes first.
Threaten the ablebodied, they feign understanding accessibility. Do you have any legitimate questions, or was your point entirely bearing towards short-term effects like purchasable goods and not healthcare for the (probably) doomed?
Your flippancy isn't improving your point. The panic for staying away is commendable, the impending panic to get to healthcare probably unnecessarily will be what makes the mortality rate resemble a very unwelcome sharp upward curve for the duration of time that we have bodies to expire or reinfection can be stemmed. Whatever comes first.
The people who are experts have specific recommendations, you do your own analysis and freak out and complain about others not joining you.
You seem to be talking to a strawman. I advocate business as usual, but I also notice how helpless you all feel in some way or another over this and it doesn't pain me.
There you go, anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion. At least now we have a specific example to illustrate the free speech issues associated with trying to curtail the spread of misinformation, one involving Facebook no less.