Talk:Permatemp

Seems awfully biased against permatemping, and only references Microsoft case. Permatemping was around before Microsoft. Could the article be expanded? Sonria 16:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to point out some of the benefits of permatemping? We can include it in the article. A minor quibble: I think it would be incorrect to say "Permatemping was around before Microsoft", since they were founded in 1975. Perhaps you mean "Permatemping is not exclusive to Microsoft"? I don't know if there's a hard and fast definition of "Permatemp" but I don't believe the word was in widespread usage until well into the tech boom of hte 1990s. Maybe an editor with access to LexisNexus could find the earliest reference to "permatemp"? Ewlyahoocom 17:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're complying with WP:NPOV, wouldn't it be appropriate to point out the benefits of permatemping for businesses -- they do exist -- as opposed to only focusing on the detractions for employees? There are also a handful of people who prefer permatemping because of its flexibility.Sonria 20:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to point out some of the benefits of permatemping? Ewlyahoocom 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Allows for monitoring of labor costs 'by project' and for management using the same just-in-time theories present in logistics and supply
• (Related to above) Helps to control unnecessary labor costs which constitute overhead
• It actually does give employees greater flexibility in choice of position; however, I'll grant that most (not all) employees find the cost of that flexibility to be too high.

Frankly, permatemping is the natural end of the at-will employment concept and now that I've given it some thought I wonder if this article should be folded into that one.Sonria 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This article also seems way too focused on Microsoft in general. I've permatemped for Microsoft and other companies. The "dash trash" terminology and a few other details seems specific to Microsoft and not typical in other companies. 67.188.193.103 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Should this article include information about contract workers?

More and more jobs are being converted from being done by employees to be done by contract workers. In fact, the USA PATRIOT Act included a mandate that 700,000 federal jobs be converted to contract work.

In my mind, this is the same thing as permatemp, but brings in a much larger picture, namely, the changing nature of the working environment in the U.S.

I'm new here, so I want to get a sense of the community before I start doing anything.

There are many forces that lead to companies firing their workers, and bringing in contract workers. Should this be referenced?

What is the difference between "permatemp" and "contract worker"?

Should a separate article be written? I looked up both "contractor" and "contract worker" in the Wiki search box, and the only thing I found that even referred to employment issues was "outsourcing", which is different- at least in the Wiki article.

In the Wiki article, outsourcing was referring to moving the control of a project to another company, as well as the work, whereas contract workers can still be managed and directed n-house, while being hired by and paid through an outside agency.

If we don't want to talk about contract workers here, I don't see another article to point the readers to.

Would it be better to start a new topic of "contract worker" and link it to this article on permatemp (which, in my mind, is almost equivalent to "Contract worker", or write a new article (not likely; it's much easier to edit an existing entry that start a new one) and put a reference to it on this page?

MargaretBartley 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)