"Permanent" Workers?
I'm going to guess that this Fortune article is a somewhat geographic-specific piece. And while I cannot comment on the legal nuances of the concepts, I can describe what I hear when I speak with people in high tech companies. It's not quite what Fortune is describing.
In Silicon Valley, we don't have permanent workers anymore. Sure, there are people on company payroll (which one used to call "permanent") and there are people on third party payrolls (which this article calls "temps").
But it's pretty much all "at will" employment, and increasingly both workers and companies are making that a reality -- with many "permanent" positions lasting no longer than "temporary" ones.
At the same time, many "temporary" positions contain some "permanent" employment benefits (eg, medical insurance) via the third party "agency", and sometimes make up for not offering others (eg, employee stock purchase plans) via higher base wages.
Source
In Silicon Valley, we don't have permanent workers anymore. Sure, there are people on company payroll (which one used to call "permanent") and there are people on third party payrolls (which this article calls "temps").
But it's pretty much all "at will" employment, and increasingly both workers and companies are making that a reality -- with many "permanent" positions lasting no longer than "temporary" ones.
At the same time, many "temporary" positions contain some "permanent" employment benefits (eg, medical insurance) via the third party "agency", and sometimes make up for not offering others (eg, employee stock purchase plans) via higher base wages.
Source