Google's Security Guards Are Now Officially Google Employees 134
jfruh writes People concerned about the growing gap between the rich and poor point to a common practice in Silicon Valley: going through staffing agencies for non-core jobs like janitorial and security work, leaving those workers disconnected from the company and lacking in the job security and benefits their co-workers take for granted. Google has now decided to buck the trend, bringing their security guards in-house.
Wow (Score:1)
Imagine that. Hiring your own employees. And paying them. With benefits. It's almost like it's 1955 all over again.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
And by the same token, it's not uncommon for guards to be outsourced, especially since it's the sort of job that you might only need one guy for, and he can't ever call in sick. If you outsource the position, he comes from a larger pool.
Further, guards come with liability issues. You might not be well suited for managing them, arming them, training them -- especially if you're going to have one or two of them, at most.
Security guards, cleaning companies, the people who water your plants... ...all make sense for outsourcing if you're not huge.
Google is probably big enough to bring them all inside -- if they're not too stingy with the benefits.
Now, all they've got to do is hire all of their bus drivers -- or at least pay their employers to end split shifts for them.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Hire a cleaning company and I guarantee you they will bottom feed. You will have tweakers and ex-cons cleaning/stealing and cleaning crew managers demanding a cut of all theft as well as a share of pay. Honest cleaners _can't_ survive under that kind of deal.
You will lose more the theft then you can possibly save. Anybody with physical access should be an employee or contractor. So you have some control of who is in you space.
Replacing the cleaning company is no help as this is an industry that truly did spiral to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what your rented security is for -- to follow the cleaners from secure area to secure area.
In large industries that I've worked, the cleaning staff has been internal, but it's been external in every "office" job I've ever had.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever worked an office job the didn't have an ongoing (cleaning crew/mystery overnight) theft problem?
I haven't. Except the one that got so sick of it they told the landlord to just clean the toilets and changed the locks. We emptied our own trash cans and the office manager ran the vacuum once a week. There was hate in the cleaning crews eyes after that.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm fortunate. "Cleaning crew theft" has never been a problem in my world. I'm sure a few things have vanished over the years, but I suspect plenty of (real) employee theft has been blamed on the cleaning crews over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
Laptops, phones, purses (what woman leaves her purse behind?) anything of value left on a desk. One was caught red handed. Claimed it must have fallen into the trash bin on his cart. They would steal from you if you were working late and went to the can. No apparent fear.
Could be something about the Sacramento market. I could see one or two really bad large cleaning companies fucking up a whole eco system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a server at a site once that would always go down on Sunday night. Turned out that one of the cleaning crew had found a notebook with passwords in it laying on one of the PHBs desk and decided to use his spare time on the weekend playing games on one of the servers. He was sort of cleaver about it too, he rebooted the server to a live windows CD with the game already installed, played, then rebooted the server thinking everything would come up again. Except everything didn't come back up automatically
Re: (Score:2)
Our cleaning is outsourced and the cleaners generally have little command of the local language. I know most of them by now, however, and have a little chat when I can. I leave my wallet and phone on my table if I go grab a coffee to allow them to clean my office (I work late a lot of times). Nothing untoward ever happened and I've not heard any of my colleagues complain.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm basically in the exact same situation. Never had any problems with leaving cash/wallet/phone on the desk overnight.
Never heard of anything being stolen.
Guess it depends on the cleaners. Ours seem to be from Morocco, and I live in Norway.
Re: Wow (Score:2, Funny)
What kind of two-bit company are you working for? Here the cleaning staff is forced to strip naked and forced to undergo cavity searches when they're finished. Then, once per month, they're marched off to the incinerator to be disposed of. It's not like there isn't a queue of lowlifes desperate for any job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I were a Fortune 500 company with a lot of valuable IP to protect, I sure as shit wouldn't cut corners on my security. You don't want the guy who decides who can come in and out of secure areas in your building to be some outside contractor making $9/hr. What do you think some guy like that is going to say when someone approaches him and offers him $10,000 to look the other way when they come in?
Re: (Score:2)
What you're saying makes sense. However, despite the logic, it costs money. As such, no big company will do it. In Big Business, it's always better to save money today, even at the expense of losing tons of money later. Gotta keep those quarterly numbers up.
Re: (Score:2)
In Big Business, it's always better to save money today, even at the expense of losing tons of money later
If you're an auditor or CFO or something for a big company, I'll believe you.
Otherwise, it's just hot air.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> its not uncommon for a place to run there own guards. one are local hospitals have there own guards. they only used outside guards for when they where moving to a new building and the tare down of the old one.
Ok, try again ...
It's not uncommon for a place to run their own guards. For example our local hospitals have their own guards. They only used outside guards when they were moving to a new building and during the tear-down of the old one.
Fixed that for you. I mean, really. And get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you misunderstood. The GP really meant this:
There (at some unknown location), the guards are owned by the nation's (its) 'not uncommon for a place to run', which I'm guessing is the name of a native tribesman. And the one hour (misspelled) local hospitals [they] have there, also own guards. And as a result of the ample availability of slaves, they used outside guards only when moving to a new building or when adjusting the scales underneath their existing building to adequately determine the weight
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. You can be on my lawn. Good show.
Re: (Score:2)
All the security guards at any hospital I have seen has been either off duty sheriff deputies or a branch of the local police department. It's not uncommon to find police department substations inside of hospitals.
As someone else pointed out, there are liability issues with security guards but I think the reason for cops (on or off duty) in the hospitals (at least where I have seen) is mainly because of drunk driving accidents, drug overdoses, gunshot wounds or stab wounds, domestic violence, and other ER v
Re: (Score:1)
And paying them. With benefits.
Yeah, but now they have to worry about Google conspiring with other Silicon Valley companies to keep their wages down.
Re: (Score:2)
Every military junta knows: Pay your soldiers well.
'cause contract cops can't cope (Score:2)
Google PMC (Score:3, Interesting)
Twitter's done this for years (Score:5, Informative)
Leech (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:1)
Is the social capital gained by this move that valuable? Are the costs that minimal? When there are companies specializing in providing custodial staff at costs lower than google could feasible hire them, why does it matter how they are employed?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
The why is obvious if you take a cynical approach: not long ago there were articles about the ethnic ratios of Google employees. Now if they hire all their own security of african-americans and hispanics, woo-hoo, just look at those workforce diversity numbers skyrocket!
Re: (Score:2)
I like you assumption about security guards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not making any assumptions, I just read the article. It specifically states the outsourced security guards they already employ are mainly black and latino.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The why is obvious if you take a cynical approach: not long ago there were articles about the ethnic ratios of Google employees. Now if they hire all their own security of african-americans and hispanics, woo-hoo, just look at those workforce diversity numbers skyrocket!
That.......................actually makes sense
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything is money.
Most service provider treat there employees like shit, and pay them like shit. Google has decided that it wasn't right, and brought them on board. At a raise in salary and benefits.
"why does it matter how they are employed?"
Are you 8 years old? do you think everyone gets the same pay and benefits?
Re: (Score:2)
Do YOU think everybody at a given company gets the same pay and benefits?
Re: (Score:2)
Outsourcing custodial work is just stupid.
They are all over you physical plant. The outsourcer is a specialist bottom feeder, he knows how to hire ex-cons/tweakers etc for absolute minimum. He even knows how to get a % of the value of the stuff they steal (or he will bad mouth them to the parole officer). He can run a tighter margin than any honest businessman possibly could as he has hidden income from the deal.
Ask yourself: Q Why is it that no custodial contractor can deliver honest cleaning crews? A
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about making massive assumptions, stereotyping, ad hominem attacks. Sheesh, you nailed them all. Do you happen to have data or just anecdotes? My anecdotal experience has been the opposite of yours. The cleaning crews at the places I've worked have been friendly, honest, and harder working than many of the in-house employees so far as I could tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, an obvious answer is that minimum wage gets you minimum loyalty, so if you actually need security, it might be a food iodea to pay your guards more than strictly needed to get warm bodies into uniforms - and the only way to ensure that is to pay them yourself.
Good and Bad (Score:2)
There are good things and bad things about hiring workers directly for things like security. At the tech company I work for, we hire outside services for security, landscaping, stocking the coffee stations, and running the cafeteria. Obviously these workers aren't getting the same benefits package that direct employees get. On the other hand, it lets the company focus on doing what the company does and letting other companies specialize in other services.
It's rather like using an outside cloud vendor for
In house (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The beginning of... (Score:2)
Google Army.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has, roughly 20BN in cash reserves. That's almost enough to buy the majority stake in Halliburton, and certainly enough to buy Academi (nee Blackwater).
Google can buy an army any time they want one.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, would like to be the first to welcome our new GOverlords+.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Army.
It will take over several small countries whilst in beta before being disbanded for no good reason.
Current Guards (Score:1)
So does that mean they've stopped hiring the current guards and will hire new ones. What will happen to the old ones?
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Bring services in means more control, the actor will a have a higher degree of agency, lead to less disenfranchisement, and they will develop a better repoire with the coworkers.
Janitors and landscapers next? (Score:1)
Ok, I gather, janitors and landscapers will be next.
How about the construction workers, who build Google's fancy offices — and those paving the roads leading to them? Shouldn't they share Google's wealth and fancy (free) lunches too?
How about the makers of furniture used by Google? Is it not unfair, than anybody, who ever came into contact with this wealthy company
Re: (Score:2)
When I worked for Boeing, they spun off their core engineering and manufacturing tasks involved with building airplanes faster than they scaled back their facilities group.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
If you're a large organisation, you must already be expert in hiring, logistics, personel management and purchasing, since that is always required no matter what sort of jobs are being done.
Basically, if you need more than one person on the payroll then why not hire then permenantly? You already have the support infrastructure to deal with them. I used to work for a large and old university. Despite the bashings universities get in the press, it was the most efficient large organisation I've ever wo
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so it is the "continual" service-providers, who must all be placed on staff if a company cares for its karma and approval by the Progressive community?.. Ok. How about all of the folks, who continuously supply Google's very-well stocked pantries with free (for the employees) food? How about the cooks in their famous cafeterias — as well as the farmers growing foo
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure, but I think Google does hire its chefs directly. I thought I saw a job posting for one once on Google's careers website, but I could be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure, but I think Google does hire its chefs directly. I thought I saw a job posting for one once on Google's careers website, but I could be wrong.
I once met a guy (at OSCON) who said he was on the hiring committee for Google's chefs. I certainly got the impression they are employees.
All the better to boost company-wide demographics (Score:1)
Contract vs. In House (Score:1)
I've been in the private security industry for 5 years. Most of that was working for a contract company. The security company I worked for specialized in security for the industry I was in which made it more tolerable but the flaws of contract security were still clearly visible. As a contract employee there was always the feeling of working in a building full time for years but never actually being treated as an employee with management, yet also having two sets of bosses - the Security company and the man
Translation (Score:2)
They just learned about guards from outside staffing agencies "looking the other way" before certain incidents after taking bribes from competitors?
So when will the Google execs get food tasters? (Score:2)
Meh (Score:2)
Google Police (Score:2)
Google police
Arrest this man
He search with Bing
He Buzzfeed on a fridge
He's listening on Mixradio
Google police
Arrest this girl
Her iPhone six
Is making me feel envy
And we've crashed her macBook
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
When you mess with us
Google police
I've given all I can
It's not enough
I've given all I can
But we're still on the payroll
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
When you mess with us
For a minute th
Stock Options (Score:2)
Wait a few months. These guys will sue Google for stock options, win the case & google will settle for millions. And then back to agencies again.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good answer I didn't think of. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Its a PR amove to appease the local population after their recent protests.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness I'm hiding in the server room - the guards aren't allowed in here.
Pick your poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the head or heads of Security would have such access. Maybe not even then, an HR rep might be needed in an emergency.
And I would expect good physical security for secure rooms, at least motion detection and cameras (and door access alerts during certain hours).
Re: (Score:2)
Taking it a little further, but still not too complicated for advanced physical security:
1. Require HR be present to open the door. This prevents security conspiracy to enter. And if HR conspires then:
2. Have an alert sent to the "owner" of the system, automatically. Head of HR controls the automatic alerts.
3. Control when security can access physical security recording tapes (if ever). HR or even another C-Level should be present outside of "swap the backups" time.
It wouldn't be harder to be even mo
Re: (Score:3)
Usually, the way you would handle that is through logging. Your badge readers automatically keep a log of everyone who entered the room. If stuff starts disappearing or systems get accessed inappropriately, it doesn't take long to figure out who did it.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is a high-security area, you would also have cameras. And you also train your employees to not allow tailgating. My point was that in most cases, a reactive system is, at least in practice, roughly as good as a restrictive system.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And that $17/hr is probably still less than it costs in full-time Google benefits -- even just the on-campus ones.
Employees cost a lot more than their hourly wage.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how they do the bean counting.
Total on campus benefit cost/Total campus salary == On campus benes cost as %.
So it looks cheap for low paid people, expensive for high paid.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.
The grandparent said now they cost less: minimum wage rather than the above-minimum contract rate.
I simply said that a minimum wage employee costs a lot more than his wage - perhaps more than the contract rate.
I'm personally on contract for 33% above my actual wage. To employ me at my actual wage would likely cost just as much, if not more.
Re: (Score:2)
You're likely pretty well paid. But 33% is not 100%. Benes are expensive, but not that much.
Google employees benes are likely valued as a % of salary. Not by # of free meals. So cheap employees benes are reported to the IRS as (e.g.) 33% of salary, not actual cost.
Re: (Score:2)
A minimum wage employee probably has the highest percentage overhead, as a number of costs are built in. [Every employee costs so many cents to process checks for, etc.]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> Can someone please tell me how this move increases shareholder value, which should be Google's top priorities?
Bad reputation is not good for a company. The more people think Google is OK with being evil, the worse it is for shareholders in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Common fallacy.
Not every move needs to be about shareholder value. That is only the case if their mission statement is:
"Every move is to optimize shareholder earning regardless of the damage it does to people."
Example from https://www.google.com/about/c... [google.com]:
"You can make money without doing evil.
Google is a business. The revenue we generate is derived from offering search technology to companies and from the sale of advertising displayed on our site and on other sites across the web. Hundreds of thousands of
Re: (Score:3)
This move means that the Security staff is now Google employees. It would not be in a Google employee's interests to sell company secrets, inside information or other things that might make the company not be able to keep Google employees on the payroll. This increases shareholder value because employees have a vested interest in seeing the company succeed whereas contractors do not have that impetus. In addition, it actually makes it less likely that the Security staff will unionize, which in turn also
Re:Google's forgoten its obligation to shareholder (Score:5, Insightful)
At a small scale, the fixed costs of running your own security are substantial relative to the total cost, meaning that it's cheaper to pay a contractor instead, despite the overhead that comes with having a middleman between you and the guards. At a large scale, such as Google's, the fixed costs are a relatively minor component, whereas the overhead associated with the contractor is rather substantial, so it ends up being cheaper to bring the guards in-house. You can even provide them with better pay/benefits thanks to the money you'll be saving by cutting out the contractor.
That's the most obvious answer, at least. Other possibilities are that the employees will feel more loyalty towards Google on account of the shared bond with the other employees (not to mention the better pay/benefits), which would make them more inclined to do their job well; they'll get to be a part of more of the corporate culture, which will help them to recognize things that are out of place better; Google won't be subject to the hiring whims of their contractor, meaning that they can work on hiring the cream of the crop; and that having them in the company is conducive to a healthier Google in the long-term, which is in line with preserving Google's value.
Re: (Score:2)
So, on balance, we can find an economic reason for not treating people like crap.
However, if someone could save a buck; die!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm with you. I was merely responding to the OP by pointing out that even if he doesn't subscribe to the idea that we should treat people well, there are economic reasons for doing so.
Re: (Score:3)
The obligation to the share holders isn't anything other than what the shareholders want out of the company. With Google's growth leveling off, at this point, keeping the ship afloat and profitable, not growth is what's important.
The whole "obligation to it's shareholders" notion is only true when you're selling the company. Google's probably not going to be sold to anyone anytime soon. so...
Re: (Score:2)
Why should that be Google's top priority?
I'd contend that their top priority should be living up to their "don't be evil" mantra.
Re: (Score:2)
No company is legally obligated to maximize (or even increase) shareholder value. They are required to attempt to make money (due to IRS requirements). Otherwise, Google may run its business as it sees fit, pursuant to its corporate charter. Furthermore, Google voting stock is controlled by just 3 people, so the Google founders don't really have to listen to stockholders at all.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are a shareholder, ask the company yourself. If you aren't, why do you care?
Re: (Score:2)
Though this move is surely good news to those workers, I hope Google hasn't forgotten its obligation to [its] shareholders.
Google's action reflect the wishes of it's majority voting shareholders, class B holders Sergey and Larry. If the other hangers on want to complain, they are free to enact that oldest and noblest traditions of free market traditions, namely vote with their wallets and sell their stock. Sorry, but non-founders do not get a vote, which quite frankly I agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but non-founders do not get a vote, which quite frankly I agree with.
I don't think you should be called a public company unless the majority of voting shares are able to be purchased by the public..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone please tell me how this move increases shareholder value, which should be Google's top priorities?
I expect the shareholders are glad that the company takes steps to safeguard that value, e.g. by paying for an alarm system or a safe for the petty cash at night?
Re: (Score:2)
The Googstapo?
Re: (Score:2)
Like pesticide research and ways of making unskilled labor more efficient.