3 ms·

the NLRB ruled Cognizant and Google as joint employers

paxys 3y ago
Which is being appealed, and even otherwise is a meaningless ruling. Google doesn't pay these contractors. They are under no obligation to renew their contracts once they expire. What will they even negotiate?
- gcr 3y ago
  It's not meaningless, it's a significant next step for AWU. As a deliberate strategy, AWU's focused on unionizing Alphabet TVCs at several small shops for years now. I think this is partly because small TVC groups are easier to organize than entire PAs, and partly because TVCs are so badly treated compared to full-timers that they're more likely to view unions favorably anyway. (It's hard as hell to organize FTEs for various reasons.) However, as I understand it, one key problem was that Google doesn't need to deal with AWU directly since they could say that the vendor (ie. Cognizant) is the employer. That's apparently changed. If the NLRB rules that Google and the contractor are co-employers, then that could require Google to bargain directly with this unit. That said, the status quo was still a win for workers because AWU could bargain with vendors, but it's not as impactful as it would be if Google were required to bargain with AWU directly. As for what is bargained, AWU's been successful at winning RTO extensions for Google Maps workers, gotten managers to agree to hiring transparency initiatives, won back pay owed by stubborn vendors, and have even gotten some unjust punishments against individual employees reversed. You can see these here: https://alphabetworkersunion.org/power/wins/ https://alphabetworkersunion.org/power/wins/ Typically, companies are required to bargain "in good faith" with unions about issues that affect workers' material working conditions like hours, wages, policies, vacations, layoffs, etc, and the NLRB can impose fines and other consequences upon companies that don't make a good faith effort to do so.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    Bingo. NLRB does not want google to use contractors to skirt around the definition of employee and employer.
    - gcr 3y ago
      It feels like the Microsoft "permatemp" 2001 case all over again. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2589538/it-personnel-microsoft-to-pay-97-million-to-settle-permatemp-case.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2589538/it-personnel-m...
  - bushbaba 3y ago
    Couldn't google just end its contract early with this single shop?
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      It's worth keeping an eye on them to see if they do. If they do, people should raise hell.
    - gcr 3y ago
      Honestly I'm not sure. If the judge rules that Google is a co-employer, then it could be much harder for them to do that. I think that's why the ruling is so important.
- Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
  Wages are not the only thing unions can negotiate about. Work flows can be negotiated, as can be work hours and many other things related on how and when the work is done. For example, and note the example is entirely made up by me, if google writes 9-5 in the contract, then negotiating about a flexible time program with Cognizant will be fruitless. It is unlikely the contracted company will even attempt to negotiate such details with the contracting company on behalf of their workers, even if the later would just shrug and change it upon request. Now, what the bargaining unit actually wants to negotiate, i do not know, the media coverage is rather thin about that. Point is: The ruling is not meaningless: if a contracting company reserves substantial control, then it is only reasonable to negotiate directly with the company that is in control.

Which is being appealed, and even otherwise is a meaningless ruling. Google doesn't pay these contractors. They are under no obligation to renew their contracts once they expire. What will they even negotiate?

gcr 3y ago
It's not meaningless, it's a significant next step for AWU. As a deliberate strategy, AWU's focused on unionizing Alphabet TVCs at several small shops for years now. I think this is partly because small TVC groups are easier to organize than entire PAs, and partly because TVCs are so badly treated compared to full-timers that they're more likely to view unions favorably anyway. (It's hard as hell to organize FTEs for various reasons.) However, as I understand it, one key problem was that Google doesn't need to deal with AWU directly since they could say that the vendor (ie. Cognizant) is the employer. That's apparently changed. If the NLRB rules that Google and the contractor are co-employers, then that could require Google to bargain directly with this unit. That said, the status quo was still a win for workers because AWU could bargain with vendors, but it's not as impactful as it would be if Google were required to bargain with AWU directly. As for what is bargained, AWU's been successful at winning RTO extensions for Google Maps workers, gotten managers to agree to hiring transparency initiatives, won back pay owed by stubborn vendors, and have even gotten some unjust punishments against individual employees reversed. You can see these here: https://alphabetworkersunion.org/power/wins/ https://alphabetworkersunion.org/power/wins/ Typically, companies are required to bargain "in good faith" with unions about issues that affect workers' material working conditions like hours, wages, policies, vacations, layoffs, etc, and the NLRB can impose fines and other consequences upon companies that don't make a good faith effort to do so.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Bingo. NLRB does not want google to use contractors to skirt around the definition of employee and employer.
  - gcr 3y ago
    It feels like the Microsoft "permatemp" 2001 case all over again. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2589538/it-personnel-microsoft-to-pay-97-million-to-settle-permatemp-case.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2589538/it-personnel-m...
- bushbaba 3y ago
  Couldn't google just end its contract early with this single shop?
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    It's worth keeping an eye on them to see if they do. If they do, people should raise hell.
  - gcr 3y ago
    Honestly I'm not sure. If the judge rules that Google is a co-employer, then it could be much harder for them to do that. I think that's why the ruling is so important.
Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
Wages are not the only thing unions can negotiate about. Work flows can be negotiated, as can be work hours and many other things related on how and when the work is done. For example, and note the example is entirely made up by me, if google writes 9-5 in the contract, then negotiating about a flexible time program with Cognizant will be fruitless. It is unlikely the contracted company will even attempt to negotiate such details with the contracting company on behalf of their workers, even if the later would just shrug and change it upon request. Now, what the bargaining unit actually wants to negotiate, i do not know, the media coverage is rather thin about that. Point is: The ruling is not meaningless: if a contracting company reserves substantial control, then it is only reasonable to negotiate directly with the company that is in control.