5 ms·

Should replace Google with HCL. The actual employer and one lobbying against unionization

KirinDave 7y ago
Well, its Google's responsibility in this to make it clear unlawful anti-union activities are grounds for terminating contracts. They have a lot of the power here and if they set a precedent, a lot of other companies can follow.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  That's actually not Google's responsibility. It's the government's. I mean, it would be a nice thing for Google to do, but Google is not law enforcement. It's important not to assign the responsibilities of the state to a private company, as that inevitably leads to disappointment. I'll also just point out that Google probably lacks a sufficient, just apparatus to evaluate the claims being made. I mean, USW claims that illegal anti-union activities are occurring. HCL would probably deny those claims. Google is not a detective agency, and it shouldn't be. If it observes illegal activities occurring on its own property, or has substantial knowledge of them, that would be one thing, but I imagine that if HCL is doing this dirty stuff they are not going to make it obvious. Finally, I doubt the unionizing HCL workers would appreciate the remedy that some people here are proposing. People are saying to terminate the contract with HCL. What? What good would that do? Do you think the unionizing workers would appreciate having their positions eliminated? If anything should be considered anti-union, this proposed remedy is it!
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    I do think it’s Google’s responsibility to ensure their suppliers are adhering to basic standards of decency, whatever Google thinks decency is. The government has nothing to do with that. I don’t think the government should be adjudicating virtue, nor do I think companies can say “I outsourced that part of my product, so it’s not my concern how it gets made!”
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      I agree with your broad claim, but the devil is in the details. Google should presumably have an element in their contracts that says that contracting companies should not do anything illegal with respect to their employees. Perhaps there should even be a minimum wage requirement. However, I do not think it is Google's responsibility to adjudicate and investigate whether a particular anti-union activity on the part of a contracting partner crosses the line of legality.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        The question is not about whether it crosses the line of legality, but whether it crosses the standards set by Google. Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way? If not, it's reasonable to demand the same from their suppliers, legality aside.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
        I don't think Google is particularly pro-union, so Google's standards on this front are probably not very different from expecting that partners remain within the bounds of law. I want to reiterate that it has not been established that any illegal anti-union activity has actually taken place. The only thing that we know for sure is that USW believes it has. I strongly doubt that Google is opposed to HCL being more responsive to workers ahead of a union vote, nor of having a consultant available to speak about unions, as long as the consultant is being honest and factual in the things that they say.
        icebraining 7y ago
        Granted, but then putting Google in the title is still reasonable, since they're abetting the management of HCL.
        underpand 7y ago
        > Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way? Isn't this exactly what companies want to avoid doing? They need to treat employees and contractors differently or risk getting sued. https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-treat-c/dont-treat-contractors-like-employees-idUSTRE53063S20090401 https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-...
  - JamisonM 7y ago
    I doubt the unionizing HCL workers would appreciate the remedy that some people here are proposing. People are saying to terminate the contract with HCL. What? What good would that do? If there are no consequences for union-busting then what? This is the same question for US companies that do overseas human rights compliance audits on their supply chains, it is true that if a supplier fails the people being mistreated lose their jobs, but if the threat of losing the contract does not exist the managers have every incentive to simply cheat and lie and then apologize when they get caught. The willingness to lose your employment in the battle for labour fairness in an important element of organized labour, it is that sort of solidarity that gives you the leverage you need to win.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      I 100% guarantee you that if Google were to try to terminate the contract over this, people would be claiming that Google is anti-union and that that itself constituted a form of union-busting. The proper way to handle something like this would be to have penalties in the contract for illegal behavior on the part of the contracting company that reflects poorly on Google.
      - JamisonM 7y ago
        I 100% guarantee you don't know that this would be the case. If the correct way is penalties then the correct course of action for the subcontractor would be to try to not get caught, there are penalties for union busting tactics already, and that is not stopping them. It would be easy for google to do things to make it clear that they do not oppose unions: Steve Gyrgo has worked with HCL for two years. He says he is not against unions as a whole, but he is worried that after forming a union, Google might want to work with another contracting firm. Google can just put out a press release that says that union shops are welcome to be google subcontractors and that they as a company will have minimum compensation guidelines for subcontractors to show they are committed to people being fairly compensated for their work.
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        I am sure anti-union folks would spread that propaganda, yes.
  - inerte 7y ago
    It is Google's, and the government, responsibility. Why not both? Google contracts a company. Company does shady things. Google should play detective, should make sure its suppliers well behave. Google employees should demand their employer is doing this, consumers should too. Why can't they? And Google is free to ignore, but then face the consequences - which will be practically none in this case or like any other case from any other company in any other market involving contractors. Nestlé hires companies using slaves, Apple hires Foxconn who drives people to suicide, Zara hires Thai companies using child labour. The important point here is that it's ok to at least calibrate our expectations: I do expect Google is at least considering, if this is true, to talk with HCL and say "dudes this is bad PR, get your shit together or we're gonna talk about $". Things aren't either nil responsibility or maximum responsibility, different actors play different roles with different levels - sure, enforcing the law is government's responsibility, but Google can have its own share and we can call it responsibility too.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    I'm not of the opinion that we're all helpless children who need to wait for the government to appear and use overwhelming force to correct obvious violations of individual freedom. > Google is not a detective agency, and it shouldn't be. If it observes illegal activities occurring on its own property, or has substantial knowledge of them, that would be one thing, but I imagine that if HCL is doing this dirty stuff they are not going to make it obvious. We are discussing well sourced evidence by a reputable news organization organization. This is hardly the domain of rumors and whispers. > Finally, I doubt the unionizing HCL workers would appreciate the remedy that some people here are proposing. Well, HCL could choose to discontinue the anti-union activities to make the problems go away, and any sane shareholder in their business has to ask seriously if unionization will cost the company more than losing service contracts with one of the biggest companies in the US. > If anything should be considered anti-union, this proposed remedy is it! Do you think anyone finds this line of argument compelling? You're saying, "The only remedy is to do nothing, because any action might change the status quo." But folks aren't unionizing because they like the status quo. If HCL falls apart, so be it. Its not clear why they should be so easily forgiven for obviously violating the law.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- close04 7y ago
  Google shouldn't wash their hands of this and claim ignorance. They are the ones contracting a service and should have a share of the moral responsibility. The same goes for Apple and Foxconn, or Facebook and their contractors, etc. Knowing your partners are breaking the rules should put at least some moral pressure on them, if not legal. This is expected from you even as an individual (in situations like buying stolen items). It makes even more sense for companies since they have the actual power to shift this in any direction.
benologist 7y ago
There's a parallel effort to detangle who employs Google et al's workforce too. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/california-bill-gives-employee-status-to-contract-workers https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/california-b...
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Many tech companies right now, Amazon and Microsoft included, specifically use contractors in order to deny them benefits their employees are entitled to and provide a level of plausible deniability or reduced liability. It is absolutely accurate to hold the big guys responsible for the ecosystem they're creating.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Well, its Google's responsibility in this to make it clear unlawful anti-union activities are grounds for terminating contracts. They have a lot of the power here and if they set a precedent, a lot of other companies can follow.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
That's actually not Google's responsibility. It's the government's. I mean, it would be a nice thing for Google to do, but Google is not law enforcement. It's important not to assign the responsibilities of the state to a private company, as that inevitably leads to disappointment. I'll also just point out that Google probably lacks a sufficient, just apparatus to evaluate the claims being made. I mean, USW claims that illegal anti-union activities are occurring. HCL would probably deny those claims. Google is not a detective agency, and it shouldn't be. If it observes illegal activities occurring on its own property, or has substantial knowledge of them, that would be one thing, but I imagine that if HCL is doing this dirty stuff they are not going to make it obvious. Finally, I doubt the unionizing HCL workers would appreciate the remedy that some people here are proposing. People are saying to terminate the contract with HCL. What? What good would that do? Do you think the unionizing workers would appreciate having their positions eliminated? If anything should be considered anti-union, this proposed remedy is it!
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  I do think it’s Google’s responsibility to ensure their suppliers are adhering to basic standards of decency, whatever Google thinks decency is. The government has nothing to do with that. I don’t think the government should be adjudicating virtue, nor do I think companies can say “I outsourced that part of my product, so it’s not my concern how it gets made!”
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    I agree with your broad claim, but the devil is in the details. Google should presumably have an element in their contracts that says that contracting companies should not do anything illegal with respect to their employees. Perhaps there should even be a minimum wage requirement. However, I do not think it is Google's responsibility to adjudicate and investigate whether a particular anti-union activity on the part of a contracting partner crosses the line of legality.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      The question is not about whether it crosses the line of legality, but whether it crosses the standards set by Google. Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way? If not, it's reasonable to demand the same from their suppliers, legality aside.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
        I don't think Google is particularly pro-union, so Google's standards on this front are probably not very different from expecting that partners remain within the bounds of law. I want to reiterate that it has not been established that any illegal anti-union activity has actually taken place. The only thing that we know for sure is that USW believes it has. I strongly doubt that Google is opposed to HCL being more responsive to workers ahead of a union vote, nor of having a consultant available to speak about unions, as long as the consultant is being honest and factual in the things that they say.
        icebraining 7y ago
        Granted, but then putting Google in the title is still reasonable, since they're abetting the management of HCL.
      - underpand 7y ago
        > Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way? Isn't this exactly what companies want to avoid doing? They need to treat employees and contractors differently or risk getting sued. https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-treat-c/dont-treat-contractors-like-employees-idUSTRE53063S20090401 https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-...
- JamisonM 7y ago
  I doubt the unionizing HCL workers would appreciate the remedy that some people here are proposing. People are saying to terminate the contract with HCL. What? What good would that do? If there are no consequences for union-busting then what? This is the same question for US companies that do overseas human rights compliance audits on their supply chains, it is true that if a supplier fails the people being mistreated lose their jobs, but if the threat of losing the contract does not exist the managers have every incentive to simply cheat and lie and then apologize when they get caught. The willingness to lose your employment in the battle for labour fairness in an important element of organized labour, it is that sort of solidarity that gives you the leverage you need to win.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    I 100% guarantee you that if Google were to try to terminate the contract over this, people would be claiming that Google is anti-union and that that itself constituted a form of union-busting. The proper way to handle something like this would be to have penalties in the contract for illegal behavior on the part of the contracting company that reflects poorly on Google.
    - JamisonM 7y ago
      I 100% guarantee you don't know that this would be the case. If the correct way is penalties then the correct course of action for the subcontractor would be to try to not get caught, there are penalties for union busting tactics already, and that is not stopping them. It would be easy for google to do things to make it clear that they do not oppose unions: Steve Gyrgo has worked with HCL for two years. He says he is not against unions as a whole, but he is worried that after forming a union, Google might want to work with another contracting firm. Google can just put out a press release that says that union shops are welcome to be google subcontractors and that they as a company will have minimum compensation guidelines for subcontractors to show they are committed to people being fairly compensated for their work.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      I am sure anti-union folks would spread that propaganda, yes.
- inerte 7y ago
  It is Google's, and the government, responsibility. Why not both? Google contracts a company. Company does shady things. Google should play detective, should make sure its suppliers well behave. Google employees should demand their employer is doing this, consumers should too. Why can't they? And Google is free to ignore, but then face the consequences - which will be practically none in this case or like any other case from any other company in any other market involving contractors. Nestlé hires companies using slaves, Apple hires Foxconn who drives people to suicide, Zara hires Thai companies using child labour. The important point here is that it's ok to at least calibrate our expectations: I do expect Google is at least considering, if this is true, to talk with HCL and say "dudes this is bad PR, get your shit together or we're gonna talk about $". Things aren't either nil responsibility or maximum responsibility, different actors play different roles with different levels - sure, enforcing the law is government's responsibility, but Google can have its own share and we can call it responsibility too.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  I'm not of the opinion that we're all helpless children who need to wait for the government to appear and use overwhelming force to correct obvious violations of individual freedom. > Google is not a detective agency, and it shouldn't be. If it observes illegal activities occurring on its own property, or has substantial knowledge of them, that would be one thing, but I imagine that if HCL is doing this dirty stuff they are not going to make it obvious. We are discussing well sourced evidence by a reputable news organization organization. This is hardly the domain of rumors and whispers. > Finally, I doubt the unionizing HCL workers would appreciate the remedy that some people here are proposing. Well, HCL could choose to discontinue the anti-union activities to make the problems go away, and any sane shareholder in their business has to ask seriously if unionization will cost the company more than losing service contracts with one of the biggest companies in the US. > If anything should be considered anti-union, this proposed remedy is it! Do you think anyone finds this line of argument compelling? You're saying, "The only remedy is to do nothing, because any action might change the status quo." But folks aren't unionizing because they like the status quo. If HCL falls apart, so be it. Its not clear why they should be so easily forgiven for obviously violating the law.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
close04 7y ago
Google shouldn't wash their hands of this and claim ignorance. They are the ones contracting a service and should have a share of the moral responsibility. The same goes for Apple and Foxconn, or Facebook and their contractors, etc. Knowing your partners are breaking the rules should put at least some moral pressure on them, if not legal. This is expected from you even as an individual (in situations like buying stolen items). It makes even more sense for companies since they have the actual power to shift this in any direction.

benologist 7y ago

There's a parallel effort to detangle who employs Google et al's workforce too. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/california-bill-gives-employee-status-to-contract-workers https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/california-b...

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

Many tech companies right now, Amazon and Microsoft included, specifically use contractors in order to deny them benefits their employees are entitled to and provide a level of plausible deniability or reduced liability. It is absolutely accurate to hold the big guys responsible for the ecosystem they're creating.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]