4 ms·

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

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-...
    - icebraining 7y ago
      I don't think the workers here are contractors; they are employees of a firm contracted Google, which is a different thing.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  The only responsibility proposed here is to present obviously illegal union-busting as grounds for terminating a contract. But there is a precedent here; Apple has even stronger agreements in place with Chinese manufacturers with respect to workplace safety, health and maximum working hours. These are supported both by the public and the government. Why should we be more enthusiastic about policing fair workplace practices in China than the US?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    > The only responsibility proposed here is to present obviously illegal union-busting as grounds for terminating a contract. What of the alleged anti-union activity is "obviously illegal?" As far as I can read, USW accuses HCL of scheduling mandatory meetings where it makes anti-union statements. That is not illegal. USW never in its press release claimed that any of HCL's actions were illegal, nor did the article claim that any illegal conduct had taken place.
scarejunba 7y ago
No, this is an anti-pattern that appears like a smart idea. The government is where the enforcement of workers' rights needs to happen. The problem with the "pay with your wallet" thing is that there are lots of unscrupulous companies without the public visibility that Google has and all you'll do is push this into the shadows. Maintaining minimum worker rights is government responsibility because there is no incentive in any direction. It's just the job of government to maintain law.

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-...
  - icebraining 7y ago
    I don't think the workers here are contractors; they are employees of a firm contracted Google, which is a different thing.
KirinDave 7y ago
The only responsibility proposed here is to present obviously illegal union-busting as grounds for terminating a contract. But there is a precedent here; Apple has even stronger agreements in place with Chinese manufacturers with respect to workplace safety, health and maximum working hours. These are supported both by the public and the government. Why should we be more enthusiastic about policing fair workplace practices in China than the US?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  > The only responsibility proposed here is to present obviously illegal union-busting as grounds for terminating a contract. What of the alleged anti-union activity is "obviously illegal?" As far as I can read, USW accuses HCL of scheduling mandatory meetings where it makes anti-union statements. That is not illegal. USW never in its press release claimed that any of HCL's actions were illegal, nor did the article claim that any illegal conduct had taken place.

scarejunba 7y ago

No, this is an anti-pattern that appears like a smart idea. The government is where the enforcement of workers' rights needs to happen. The problem with the "pay with your wallet" thing is that there are lots of unscrupulous companies without the public visibility that Google has and all you'll do is push this into the shadows. Maintaining minimum worker rights is government responsibility because there is no incentive in any direction. It's just the job of government to maintain law.