In the first part of this series of posts dedicated to IT services (Services Companies in Computer Engineering), allowing both pointing drift inherent in this sector but also those they share with the rest of the economy, I ‘ I described the basics of operation of these companies and listed by the biggest problems menu asking it in my opinion.
In this second post, I will try myself to consider what is a major component of this sector, namely outsourcing and lending personnel (noting that this can be done directly in regulated fashion or indirectly through outsourcing or centers of competence I will focus here on the reasoning network activity). Note first that much of the IT services business is, literally illegal.
Indeed, Article L.125-3 of the Labor Code stipulates that “any for-profit operation whose sole purpose is the loan of labor is prohibited under penalty of sanctions provided for in Article L.152- 3 if it is not carried out under the provisions (…) relating to temporary work … “. incurred maximum sentences: two years imprisonment and a € 30,000 fine. However, a significant portion of the IT services revenue is carried out by the authority, which is neither more nor less than … the labor loan. The customer expresses in managerial Newspeak, the need for a resource or a complementary competence in teams (include employee). The consulting firms will then submit one or more profiles and the customer will make its market and choose one of these profiles. Therefore, the employee of the consulting firms will work full time on the client’s site, as a client of the employee, with client teams on the client hardware. It is very clear that this labor lending and that software houses are not of interim companies, they should fall within the scope of the law. I will return in another post on the global ecosystem within which SSII and why the state does not move.
Then there are two questions to ask in my opinion:
Why is there a law banning labor ready and is it based?
Why end customers did they resort to massive IT companies, and more generally to outsourcing? Why IT companies, themselves, resort to subcontracting, creating a phenomenon of Russian dolls whose extreme granularity is the individual (freelance)?
The labor loan is banned or at least restricted to temp agencies because it is an extremely powerful way to circumvent the mechanisms of social regulation. Indeed, it comes to be in the same workplace, employees of different classes. We will find the employees of the company-client, receiving certain benefits or social controllers of various kinds: work environment, ability to have a formal support (unions) or informal colleagues, benefits in kind (ranging from canteen vacation certificates or PEE for example) and external-employees working in an entirely different and generally more unfavorable regime (except perhaps for the actual salary).
This can range from symbolic but meaningful differences (for example, access to the canteen prohibited subcontractors, for example, I know-or even participation in the Christmas tree or other collective activities reserved for employees of the client company) to things deeper (RTT different schemes, the two-speed pace of work …).
Therefore, we find in the same geographical location several classes of employees subject to different rules, which can ultimately that generate unease among the subcontractor. Moreover, it is isolated. Although he established a strong working relationship, he is not an employee of his client and therefore not a true “colleague” of employees with whom he works. But it is also separated from his “real” colleagues he does not alongside, its hierarchy, its office (even if it has one). So we inevitably weakening the loaned employee put in an inferior position and being unable to find support, including moral, with a group, which promotes the danger of depression (see my previous post referring in an article on the increase in suicides in IT). The law on labor loan, therefore, has a true sense since it promotes a certain social harmonization and inter-individual solidarity.
One can find an analogy to this situation in the famous Bolkestein directive and the equally famous Polish plumber. This directive (which was eventually passed but being very amended) was to establish the principle of country of origin (PPO). That is to say that a Polish worker (keep the example) performing a service activity in France was not subject to French law but Polish. Public opinion has greatly moved by this fact via protectionist fiber stressing, in particular, the risks very real competition distortion vis-à-vis domestic companies. Our ethnocentric vision has not identified at the time that this directive could understand, ultimately, suffering potential to work for these migrant workers, driven to temporary emigration by poverty or unemployment rates country and destined to become employees of second-home …
One can quite make the parallel between what was in the directive and hand ready to work practiced by consulting firms. Employees loaned to corporate clients are being applied the principle of the original company, creating the same excesses that pure sugar Bolkestein directive would have created: salaried second area and isolation on the one hand, social pressure downward on internal employees on the other hand (who are de facto compared to external service providers and are under threat of outsourcing, partial -licenciement and replacement by the sub-trance- or total – outsourcing in the case of computer ).
The workforce is ready to resume a strong element of fragility (thus pressurizing) employees on loan but also the employees of client companies who can be in competition internally (especially for positions involving no frame). Note that embrittlement is further increased by the phenomenon of inter or broken in the jargon, that is to say, the period between missions. The employee has to compete with colleagues and accountable to the extreme on employability among customers, creating again an extremely violent psychological pincer. It is also on this occasion held at a point of total availability and mobility even though his employer often made on this occasion demonstrated the total lack long-term management of its employees (internal assignment to menial tasks, consulting to stay at home in the office attendant- m2 are expensive, …).
Finally, the consulting firms themselves outsource often cascaded to the unexpected (won a big contract for example). It, therefore, has a real chain of subcontracting, increasing the isolation of employees. A more recent trend also shows that IT companies, to increase their flexibility, especially when facing times of crisis, encourage or put pressure on employees to work freelance. Finally, it comes down to push the system to the way that IT services companies become pure temp agencies based on an independent pool. Ironically, they then come back under the law.
After this finding on the labor loan and its consequences, I give you an appointment for a future post to dig this phenomenon on the part of corporate customers, including large enterprises, and the antiphon ‘focus is core business “(which itself echoes the necessary short-term shareholder) and see how the whole responds to a” global “economic need.