A layoff fundamentally changed how I perceive work

Because in a lot of places the consultants and employees work side by side, sometimes for a long time, on the same project/work. They operate as one team, more or less. The consultants are more like staff augmentation, than McKinsey consultants.

If I was a manager of that team, I'd worry about the effect of treating part of my team differently.

If I was an employee on a team like that, I'd feel really bad about my team mates not being allowed to participate.

There is admittedly a difference between staff augmentation and McKinsey style strategic “consulting”. The distinction is usually who owns the project?

If the client company owns the project and you are just coming in as a warm body, that’s staff augmentation.

But if the client company is putting out Requests for Comments to different companies and they sign a Statement of Work and your consulting company comes in and does the work, that’s “consulting”. In the latter case, you don’t usually get let go as soon as there is no work for you - ie when you are “on the bench”.

Even if you are a more junior employee at the latter company where you are more hands on keyboard than flying out to meet customers and sometimes you might even be doing staff augmentation for the client, it still feels differently.

My consulting company has internal employee events, is responsible for my pay, performance, etc - not the client.

No experience with McKinsey directly (thank goodness) or any consulting groups like that, but why not invite them to the holiday party? But certainly we should invite "Sheryl from accounting" who is technically a contractor, or the janitor who works for the landlord. These people are coworkers, whether or not our paychecks have the same signature on them.

If you were working with a general contractor where you signed a contract with them and they just went out and led the work and kept you updated with statuses, would you invite them? Would you invite the subcontractors? The actual construction workers?

This how true “consulting companies” work. You sign a statement of work with the requirements and costs and then they (we) go off and take care of staffing and lead the project. Your company will probably never interact with anyone besides sales, the tech lead and maybe the people over sub projects of the larger project (work streams) and their leads.

OK sure, but I never once mentioned any of this and have no idea what the social customs are around hiring general contractors to build buildings or asking CIA-adjacent consulting companies how to jack up the price of bread. I just know that half my coworkers have a slightly different email address for "legal reasons", and they aren't allowed to come to the Christmas party. This is, in my opinion, simply mean. Basically we seem to have invented a kind of at-will apartheid that 0.0001% of the population understand and even fewer benefit from.

That’s staff augmentation which is completely different. If your company doesn’t know anything about Salesforce for instance and you just need a one off large project, you are going to hire a consulting company to go off and do the work and leave.

It doesn’t make sense to build the competencies in house if that’s not your core line of business’s

I left our part of my explanation of a general contractor. I meant when you are having a physical structure built like a house or in the case the analogy would be adding on to your office building

OK, have a good day. Hope you're feeling well.

At the same time, a consulting company's employee might spend 30 times more time together with the employees of his/her client, and then it might have felt more natural to join them on Christmas dinner too, and a bit sad to be "left out" (although of course everyone probably understand why).

The client's employees can be your "real" coworkers that your at every day, for years and years? Although maybe your company does shorter projects (?), what do I know