7 ms·

> Google executives have been aware since at least May 2019 that the company was failing to comply with local laws in the UK, Europe and Asia that mandate tempo

> Google executives have been aware since at least May 2019 that the company was failing to comply with local laws in the UK, Europe and Asia that mandate temporary workers be paid equal rates to full-time employees performing similar work, internal Google documents and emails reviewed by the Guardian show. > But rather than immediately correct the errors, the company dragged its feet for more than two years, the documents show, citing concern about the increased cost to departments that rely heavily on temporary workers, potential exposure to legal claims, and fear of negative press attention.

0des 5y ago
What is the mechanism by which an entity that has the resources to spend on wrist-slaps is prevented from just continuing the behavior forever? I notice this a lot, and it feels like there are these opportunities everywhere that are exploited by corporations who know they'll skate every time with minimal financial impact.
- bko 5y ago
  The "wrist slaps" will make up for the entire amount that the offending party short-changed the workers and penalties on top of that not to mention the cost associated with litigation. So it's not economical for the offending parties to continue such behavior.
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    > So it's not economical for the offending parties to continue such behavior. Of course it is. The only needed change is to take adequate care to not leave incriminating evidence such as emails around.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    This assumes a 100% success rate of catching such behavior.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Penalties just have to be set correctly. If I don’t pay a parking meter I’m likely to lose up to 100x as much as I saved… if Google doesn’t pay its employees…
  - tharkun__ 5y ago
    High potential punishment has never worked. If your city has exactly 0 'meter maids' what does the 100x fine do to deter you? Nothing. If your city is patrolling its meters with a frequency that guarantees you will be caught 100% of the time you will definitely not do it ever (if you knew or after being caught multiple times in a row) and the expenses for meter maid salaries would be exorbitant. No more money coming in. Theres probably a hard to attain sweet spot where having the patrols brings in enough money to offset enough of the salaries and which also gives you the feeling of 'always getting caught' thus not making it worth your while.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      shrug i’ve usually got caught unless parking for a very short time, i think with computerized meters they must have some automatic systems that flag cars just by driving past with an enforcement vehicle, only do that during busy times and you have pretty decent enforcement and parking meters doing what they were designed to do
      - tharkun__ 5y ago
        So then tell me if you've got caught nearly 100% of the time, are the fines just a slap on the wrist or why do you keep doing it? (what I didn't say is that if all you get is 'you bad boy but please don't do it again' then 100% enforcement doesn't help either. That should be obvious)
        colechristensen 5y ago
        Well the last parking ticket I got was a result of putting the wrong space number in the machine, I got them more frequently when I was younger and stupid or forgetful. (I had a bit of a problem with sleep and would park somewhere and take an unplanned nap and get a ticket). In the cheaper ticket city I would freely not pay the meter more or less breaking even on cost, and now in a more expensive city I do unless i’m only intending to park for a few minutes.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  the mechanism is turning the heat up to 11. Whatever money they saved, 20x it and fine them. Do it for every minor infraction until they comply. Drag their executives in front of a camera and make them issue a public apology. What are they gonna do, drop out of the entire European or Asian market? The problem is just lack of political willingness to reign them in, nothing else.
- burlesona 5y ago
  Agreed. Executives need to start getting personal punishment if we want corporate behavior to change. Alternatively, start issuing fines such that it’s X percent of revenue plus Y percent of salary from all employees. Even a fine of 1% of annual pay would light a big angry fire under most employees, and perhaps incentivize them to stand up to the execs and refuse to follow illegal or unethical decisions.
  - lumost 5y ago
    The gdpr fine system has seemingly been very effective and convincing corporations to comply with laws. Maximum of 20% in revenue fines, enough to cause many businesses to recapitalize - wiping out shareholders and executives.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    You want to directly fine low level employees for the actions of execs? My god, no. That's such an evil idea. They're fined indirectly with stock prices already, but man is your idea really bad.
    - burlesona 5y ago
      All employees would include execs obviously. I admit it's unorthodox and might feel a little unfair, but I imagine for these big tech companies that are so often guilty of just ignoring the law and paying fines to make their problems "go away," having the employees be furious at the bosses would be a far, far more effective punishment. In terms of dollars, I don't think it would take much to make the point. Suppose you set the fine to 0.5% of salary from all employees. Someone in an entry level job earning $40k would only owe $200. But they'd be really flipping mad and might quit over it. That scales up pretty well - a middle-manager at Facebook who makes $600k would owe $3k. Not enough to really affect their life, but enough to make them really pissed off and potentially bail on the company. In the end, if we as society want corporations to follow the law, we have to start recognizing that corporations are made up of regular humans following incentives, and if the corporate shield means the people who work in the company and carry out its actions feel no personal consequences of illegal actions, then it's not surprising they'll ignore the law.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Penalties should be high enough, that even if 10% of the cases are uncovered, the fines become more expensive than actually working within all rules. Also, a lot would be solved if responsible people would get punished too, especially if they knew about the illegal stuff, and didn't do anything.
- scythe 5y ago
  The mechanism is by assigning visible but not devastating (despite the public demand for schadenfreude) punishments to executives found culpable. The goal is to maximize reporting and to change the culture. If the punishments are set too high, individual loyalties begin to dissuade reporting. You might not love your boss, but you might not want to see his kids lose their father. So executing executives has its downsides. However, the sanctions must be visible so as to decrease the tendency for offenders to defend each other and entrench corruption. This is difficult because it means that people will still be employed (in less powerful roles) after being sanctioned for offenses many people find morally repulsive. It's a difficult balancing act. Cultural factors play about as big of a role as incentives. Rick Scott's Medicare fraud is infamous but it didn't stop him from winning three statewide elections in Florida.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    I think the important thing about the penalties is that any potential gains (and then some) are negated. If someone does not pay their contractors enough, knocking them down a peg to the level of those contractors seems like an appropriate punishment. They can work their way up again.
- panda88888 5y ago
  One mechanism is to fine the CEOs in units of time rather than dollar. For example, the punishment can include 18 hour compulsory training for the Cxx executives that they have to attend in person over 3 days (6hr per day) so that they understand how to comply with the regulations.
  - FartyMcFarter 5y ago
    Great idea! This should definitely require physical attendance in order to avoid loopholes.
heisenbit 5y ago
The crux is that one needs to be willing to pierce through the pretend veil of separation: > “the correct outcome from a compliance perspective” and could place the staffing companies it contracts with “in a difficult position, legally and ethically”. The systemic abuse of subcontracting companies to undermine the rule of law by these large corporations needs to stop. But it only will if executives at Google would face the same consequences as executives at the subcontractors (which tend to escape criminal punishments as well by hiding behind multiple shells and false ids).
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  The systemic abuse from the rule of law needs to stop. How dare anyone try to tell me who I can work for or how much I can charge for my services. All this nonsense does is keep the privileged in their place by not allowing the poor to underbid them.
  - nickff 5y ago
    The minimum wage was one of the earliest examples of this; attempting to make it more expensive (and uneconomical) to employ black people.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      I think I'm going to start using reverse psychology on these issues. "I love these laws. I don't want the poors undercutting me. They should be deported instead."
- ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
  In Korea subcontractors with limited liability for workplace accidents was a huge problem in construction. The law now holds contractors and subcontractors equally liable for workplace safety violations.
ashtonkem 5y ago
As I keep saying: there’s nothing more dangerous than a company (or department in this case) that was once wildly profitable and is now merely profitable. It’s absurd that even at places like Google, which has effectively infinite money, there’s still this present attitude of not being able to afford paying workers. Nuts.
- RIMR 5y ago
  It's not that they don't think they can afford to pay fairly. It's that the decision makers are incentivized to cut every possible cost and are rewarded for it with multimillion dollar bonuses.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Yes, you’re right. I worded my post for the sake of glibness and not clarity. I think what’s particularly fascinating is not the relentless drive for more profits, that’s been hashed to death and I have nothing original to offer here, but how the internal narrative of “we can’t afford to pay them” holds in cases where it’s transparent bullshit. Of course Google can afford to pay its temp workers a fair wage, and of course they don’t want to. It’s just surprising that the story they tell themselves is so trivially falsifiable.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  Its not really "dangerous" only because that wording implies another state of possible affairs that could be safer. unfortunately, ceteris paribus, the tendency of a rate of profit to ultimately slow is one of the costs of a free market, there is not really a way out of it long term!
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > Its not really "dangerous" only because that wording implies another state of possible affairs that could be safer. I generally use this phrase in the context of companies being willing to do anything to get back to being wildly profitable. And in that case, yes, there is quite a bit of danger towards basically everyone else.
RIMR 5y ago
Honestly, underpaying employees should be viewed no differently than any other for of theft, and executives willfully allowing it to happen ought to be facing time behind bars for it.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Wage theft is the largest form of theft
ren_engineer 5y ago
nothing will change until high level executives start getting thrown in jail

0des 5y ago

What is the mechanism by which an entity that has the resources to spend on wrist-slaps is prevented from just continuing the behavior forever? I notice this a lot, and it feels like there are these opportunities everywhere that are exploited by corporations who know they'll skate every time with minimal financial impact.

bko 5y ago
The "wrist slaps" will make up for the entire amount that the offending party short-changed the workers and penalties on top of that not to mention the cost associated with litigation. So it's not economical for the offending parties to continue such behavior.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > So it's not economical for the offending parties to continue such behavior. Of course it is. The only needed change is to take adequate care to not leave incriminating evidence such as emails around.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- chitowneats 5y ago
  This assumes a 100% success rate of catching such behavior.
colechristensen 5y ago
Penalties just have to be set correctly. If I don’t pay a parking meter I’m likely to lose up to 100x as much as I saved… if Google doesn’t pay its employees…
- tharkun__ 5y ago
  High potential punishment has never worked. If your city has exactly 0 'meter maids' what does the 100x fine do to deter you? Nothing. If your city is patrolling its meters with a frequency that guarantees you will be caught 100% of the time you will definitely not do it ever (if you knew or after being caught multiple times in a row) and the expenses for meter maid salaries would be exorbitant. No more money coming in. Theres probably a hard to attain sweet spot where having the patrols brings in enough money to offset enough of the salaries and which also gives you the feeling of 'always getting caught' thus not making it worth your while.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    shrug i’ve usually got caught unless parking for a very short time, i think with computerized meters they must have some automatic systems that flag cars just by driving past with an enforcement vehicle, only do that during busy times and you have pretty decent enforcement and parking meters doing what they were designed to do
    - tharkun__ 5y ago
      So then tell me if you've got caught nearly 100% of the time, are the fines just a slap on the wrist or why do you keep doing it? (what I didn't say is that if all you get is 'you bad boy but please don't do it again' then 100% enforcement doesn't help either. That should be obvious)
      - colechristensen 5y ago
        Well the last parking ticket I got was a result of putting the wrong space number in the machine, I got them more frequently when I was younger and stupid or forgetful. (I had a bit of a problem with sleep and would park somewhere and take an unplanned nap and get a ticket). In the cheaper ticket city I would freely not pay the meter more or less breaking even on cost, and now in a more expensive city I do unless i’m only intending to park for a few minutes.
Barrin92 5y ago
the mechanism is turning the heat up to 11. Whatever money they saved, 20x it and fine them. Do it for every minor infraction until they comply. Drag their executives in front of a camera and make them issue a public apology. What are they gonna do, drop out of the entire European or Asian market? The problem is just lack of political willingness to reign them in, nothing else.
burlesona 5y ago
Agreed. Executives need to start getting personal punishment if we want corporate behavior to change. Alternatively, start issuing fines such that it’s X percent of revenue plus Y percent of salary from all employees. Even a fine of 1% of annual pay would light a big angry fire under most employees, and perhaps incentivize them to stand up to the execs and refuse to follow illegal or unethical decisions.
- lumost 5y ago
  The gdpr fine system has seemingly been very effective and convincing corporations to comply with laws. Maximum of 20% in revenue fines, enough to cause many businesses to recapitalize - wiping out shareholders and executives.
- yupper32 5y ago
  You want to directly fine low level employees for the actions of execs? My god, no. That's such an evil idea. They're fined indirectly with stock prices already, but man is your idea really bad.
  - burlesona 5y ago
    All employees would include execs obviously. I admit it's unorthodox and might feel a little unfair, but I imagine for these big tech companies that are so often guilty of just ignoring the law and paying fines to make their problems "go away," having the employees be furious at the bosses would be a far, far more effective punishment. In terms of dollars, I don't think it would take much to make the point. Suppose you set the fine to 0.5% of salary from all employees. Someone in an entry level job earning $40k would only owe $200. But they'd be really flipping mad and might quit over it. That scales up pretty well - a middle-manager at Facebook who makes $600k would owe $3k. Not enough to really affect their life, but enough to make them really pissed off and potentially bail on the company. In the end, if we as society want corporations to follow the law, we have to start recognizing that corporations are made up of regular humans following incentives, and if the corporate shield means the people who work in the company and carry out its actions feel no personal consequences of illegal actions, then it's not surprising they'll ignore the law.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Penalties should be high enough, that even if 10% of the cases are uncovered, the fines become more expensive than actually working within all rules. Also, a lot would be solved if responsible people would get punished too, especially if they knew about the illegal stuff, and didn't do anything.
scythe 5y ago
The mechanism is by assigning visible but not devastating (despite the public demand for schadenfreude) punishments to executives found culpable. The goal is to maximize reporting and to change the culture. If the punishments are set too high, individual loyalties begin to dissuade reporting. You might not love your boss, but you might not want to see his kids lose their father. So executing executives has its downsides. However, the sanctions must be visible so as to decrease the tendency for offenders to defend each other and entrench corruption. This is difficult because it means that people will still be employed (in less powerful roles) after being sanctioned for offenses many people find morally repulsive. It's a difficult balancing act. Cultural factors play about as big of a role as incentives. Rick Scott's Medicare fraud is infamous but it didn't stop him from winning three statewide elections in Florida.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  I think the important thing about the penalties is that any potential gains (and then some) are negated. If someone does not pay their contractors enough, knocking them down a peg to the level of those contractors seems like an appropriate punishment. They can work their way up again.
panda88888 5y ago
One mechanism is to fine the CEOs in units of time rather than dollar. For example, the punishment can include 18 hour compulsory training for the Cxx executives that they have to attend in person over 3 days (6hr per day) so that they understand how to comply with the regulations.
- FartyMcFarter 5y ago
  Great idea! This should definitely require physical attendance in order to avoid loopholes.

heisenbit 5y ago

The crux is that one needs to be willing to pierce through the pretend veil of separation: > “the correct outcome from a compliance perspective” and could place the staffing companies it contracts with “in a difficult position, legally and ethically”. The systemic abuse of subcontracting companies to undermine the rule of law by these large corporations needs to stop. But it only will if executives at Google would face the same consequences as executives at the subcontractors (which tend to escape criminal punishments as well by hiding behind multiple shells and false ids).

Consultant32452 5y ago
The systemic abuse from the rule of law needs to stop. How dare anyone try to tell me who I can work for or how much I can charge for my services. All this nonsense does is keep the privileged in their place by not allowing the poor to underbid them.
- nickff 5y ago
  The minimum wage was one of the earliest examples of this; attempting to make it more expensive (and uneconomical) to employ black people.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    I think I'm going to start using reverse psychology on these issues. "I love these laws. I don't want the poors undercutting me. They should be deported instead."
ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
In Korea subcontractors with limited liability for workplace accidents was a huge problem in construction. The law now holds contractors and subcontractors equally liable for workplace safety violations.

ashtonkem 5y ago

As I keep saying: there’s nothing more dangerous than a company (or department in this case) that was once wildly profitable and is now merely profitable. It’s absurd that even at places like Google, which has effectively infinite money, there’s still this present attitude of not being able to afford paying workers. Nuts.

RIMR 5y ago
It's not that they don't think they can afford to pay fairly. It's that the decision makers are incentivized to cut every possible cost and are rewarded for it with multimillion dollar bonuses.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Yes, you’re right. I worded my post for the sake of glibness and not clarity. I think what’s particularly fascinating is not the relentless drive for more profits, that’s been hashed to death and I have nothing original to offer here, but how the internal narrative of “we can’t afford to pay them” holds in cases where it’s transparent bullshit. Of course Google can afford to pay its temp workers a fair wage, and of course they don’t want to. It’s just surprising that the story they tell themselves is so trivially falsifiable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
beepbooptheory 5y ago
Its not really "dangerous" only because that wording implies another state of possible affairs that could be safer. unfortunately, ceteris paribus, the tendency of a rate of profit to ultimately slow is one of the costs of a free market, there is not really a way out of it long term!
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > Its not really "dangerous" only because that wording implies another state of possible affairs that could be safer. I generally use this phrase in the context of companies being willing to do anything to get back to being wildly profitable. And in that case, yes, there is quite a bit of danger towards basically everyone else.

RIMR 5y ago

Honestly, underpaying employees should be viewed no differently than any other for of theft, and executives willfully allowing it to happen ought to be facing time behind bars for it.

alisonkisk 5y ago
Wage theft is the largest form of theft

ren_engineer 5y ago

nothing will change until high level executives start getting thrown in jail