5 ms·

> According to the NLRB panel, Google openly admits to refusing to bargain with the Union because it, along with Cognizant "contest the validity of the union's

by Alupis 3y ago

> According to the NLRB panel, Google openly admits to refusing to bargain with the Union because it, along with Cognizant "contest the validity of the union's certification" based on the pair's position "that Cognizant and Google are not joint employers." Doesn't seem as "open and shut" as The Register wants readers to believe. Also, employers refuse to negotiate with employees all the time - how would this be any different? Just because an employee (or group such as one represented by a union) doesn't have their demands met does not seem to automatically be "illegal". The employee's recourse, of course, is to leave/quit. Even if these contractors were classified as Google employees, Google can probably just say "no" to any demand anyway...

jeffbee 3y ago
If you don't care for The Register, the actual ruling is: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583c083ab https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583c083ab
- Alupis 3y ago
  It's not that I don't care for The Register, it's that this is far from a settled issue and litigation will continue.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- greenyoda 3y ago
  And the NLRB's reasoning is summarized in this sentence: > At all material times, Respondents Cognizant and Google have codetermined the essential terms and conditions of employment of employees employed at the E. Parmer Lane facility and have been joint employers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
blacksqr 3y ago
"Employers have a legal duty to bargain in good faith with their employees' representative and to sign any collective bargaining agreement that has been reached." https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/bargaining-in-good-faith-with-employees-union-representative https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba...
- Alupis 3y ago
  This depends if these contractors are classified as Google employees, which both Google and their actual employer Cognizant, dispute. This also does not mean Google cannot say "no" to any demand, union or not. There is no legal obligation to accept demands from employees, union or not. Good Faith means "honest dealing" in a legal setting, and saying "No" to everything can be honest.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    Saying "no" to everything won't be found to be bargaining in good faith.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      That's not true. Just because you want something does not mean you are entitled to something... there is no legal protections for not getting what you want - union or not. This is why strikes happen. Demands are not met. The unfortunate reality is this super tiny union is not going to scare Google with the threat of a strike. And... all this hinges on if these are even Google employees, which it really seems to be a stretch to claim they are. NLRB is not an unbiased party - they exists almost exclusively to be pro-union. The union probably would make better headway by going after their actual employer... Cognizant.
      - stonogo 3y ago
        You're just parroting the Google lawyers' line here. Your argument contains no evidence to contradict the assertion that Google and Cognizant are joint employers here (as Google and Accenture were found to be last time we went around this carousel) and since the judicial authority over this matter has ruled that they are, the ball is very much in the "no they're not" court to prove it.
cool_dude85 3y ago
>Also, employers refuse to negotiate with employees all the time - how would this be any different? The NLRA says both parties must negotiate a contract in good faith. >Just because an employee (or group such as one represented by a union) doesn't have their demands met does not seem to automatically be "illegal". Google is fine to not meet the demands of the union, they must negotiate a contract in good faith. >The employee's recourse, of course, is to leave/quit. They have an additional recourse: file an unfair labor practice with the NLRB and win, as they did here.
- Alupis 3y ago
  > The NLRA says both parties must negotiate a contract in good faith. The NLRA exists to protect unions. At dispute is if these contractors are even Google employees. This is not "over" just because NLRA says so... in fact, they have very little enforcement abilities it seems. > Google is fine to not meet the demands of the union, they must negotiate a contract in good faith. Good Faith is a legalese way of saying "dealing honestly". It would be honest of Google to simply say "No" to every demand. A union is not a magic ticket to getting what you want. > They have an additional recourse: file an unfair labor practice with the NLRB and win, as they did here. And nothing is going to happen as a result. It will be appealed, and the litigation will continue possibly for years.
  - yareal 3y ago
    [dead]
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    >Good Faith is a legalese way of saying "dealing honestly". It would be honest of Google to simply say "No" to every demand. No it isn't and no it wouldn't. Per the NLRB: The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground. Does it sound to you like going into negotiations with the goal of refusing every proposal and not offering any of your own, i.e. saying no to every demand, meets this criteria?
csdreamer7 3y ago
> Doesn't seem as "open and shut" as The Register wants readers to believe. Looks pretty open and shut to me. Google employed a contractor to avoid the liability of those employees unionizing. In doing so it misclassified them since it is normally work an employee would do-not a contractor under labor law. They were already caught doing this previously according to the register. > Also, employers refuse to negotiate with employees all the time - how would this be any different? Just because an employee (or group such as one represented by a union) doesn't have their demands met does not seem to automatically be "illegal". Once a union is recognized by the NLRB an employer is required by law to make a good faith effort to negotiate. This is what? 80-100 year old American law? https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/employer-union-rights-and-obligations https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... > The employee's recourse, of course, is to leave/quit. Even if these contractors were classified as Google employees, Google can probably just say "no" to any demand anyway... That is part of why collective bargaining improves the economic situation of most Americans. Google says no, they go on strike, and Google then has to choose to eat the cost replace and retrain most of those people in this market (and hope they don't unionize) or meet the demands. Compare this to how Costco handled a unionization recently. https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/costco-employees-vote-unionize-company-response-remarkable.html https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/costco-employees-vote-unio... Added: (and hope they don't unionize)
- irjustin 3y ago
  > Looks pretty open and shut to me. Also disagreed it's not simple open/shut. > Google employed a contractor to avoid the liability of those employees unionizing. In doing so it misclassified them since it is normally work an employee would do-not a contractor under labor law. They were already caught doing this previously according to the register. Everything hinges on this concept. That contractor work == employee work. The article states that one of the central arguments was around contractors who were training Bard. That those contractors should have been determined as employees even though they were hired through Accenture. Admittedly, I would stand with Google/Alphabet on this one. Data entry work, once initial training completed the vast majority will not be kept on. If there was a plan to convert a few contractors to FTE to remain on Bard then that would signal even more so (pure speculation). Currently, the argument is for Cognizant contractors but there's no details on the article that can help me understand what they're doing for Youtube that would show contractor-work == employee-work. Of course, google is smart, they'll fight these core points before even beginning to worry/engage with labor unions. There's really no point in worrying about the downstream stuff if the upstream hasn't been determined. [EDIT] I got some insight by glancing at the ruling by the NLRB[0] > All full-time and regular part-time Senior Process Executive-Data/Music Generalist (SPEs) and Project/Process Specialists/Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) employees employed by the Employers in YouTube Music Content Operations who are employed to work from the Employer’s (Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation) facility at 717 E. Parmer Lane in Austin, Texas. They're all housed at a non-google facility, but those roles seem central to Youtube Music operations even if they are data-entry jobs. I can largely side with NRLB in this ruling. We'll have to see how google fights this one. A side note, Youtube HATES Youtube Music. I hate it. I use it because it's packaged with my Youtube premium and it's not worth holding Spotify + Youtube memberships. But WOW, Youtube Music's such an afterthought. Everything about the UX is terrible. [0] https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-326027 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-326027

by Alupis 3y ago

jeffbee 3y ago

If you don't care for The Register, the actual ruling is: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583c083ab https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583c083ab

Alupis 3y ago
It's not that I don't care for The Register, it's that this is far from a settled issue and litigation will continue.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
greenyoda 3y ago
And the NLRB's reasoning is summarized in this sentence: > At all material times, Respondents Cognizant and Google have codetermined the essential terms and conditions of employment of employees employed at the E. Parmer Lane facility and have been joint employers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

blacksqr 3y ago

"Employers have a legal duty to bargain in good faith with their employees' representative and to sign any collective bargaining agreement that has been reached." https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/bargaining-in-good-faith-with-employees-union-representative https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba...

Alupis 3y ago
This depends if these contractors are classified as Google employees, which both Google and their actual employer Cognizant, dispute. This also does not mean Google cannot say "no" to any demand, union or not. There is no legal obligation to accept demands from employees, union or not. Good Faith means "honest dealing" in a legal setting, and saying "No" to everything can be honest.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  Saying "no" to everything won't be found to be bargaining in good faith.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    That's not true. Just because you want something does not mean you are entitled to something... there is no legal protections for not getting what you want - union or not. This is why strikes happen. Demands are not met. The unfortunate reality is this super tiny union is not going to scare Google with the threat of a strike. And... all this hinges on if these are even Google employees, which it really seems to be a stretch to claim they are. NLRB is not an unbiased party - they exists almost exclusively to be pro-union. The union probably would make better headway by going after their actual employer... Cognizant.
    - stonogo 3y ago
      You're just parroting the Google lawyers' line here. Your argument contains no evidence to contradict the assertion that Google and Cognizant are joint employers here (as Google and Accenture were found to be last time we went around this carousel) and since the judicial authority over this matter has ruled that they are, the ball is very much in the "no they're not" court to prove it.

cool_dude85 3y ago

>Also, employers refuse to negotiate with employees all the time - how would this be any different? The NLRA says both parties must negotiate a contract in good faith. >Just because an employee (or group such as one represented by a union) doesn't have their demands met does not seem to automatically be "illegal". Google is fine to not meet the demands of the union, they must negotiate a contract in good faith. >The employee's recourse, of course, is to leave/quit. They have an additional recourse: file an unfair labor practice with the NLRB and win, as they did here.

Alupis 3y ago
> The NLRA says both parties must negotiate a contract in good faith. The NLRA exists to protect unions. At dispute is if these contractors are even Google employees. This is not "over" just because NLRA says so... in fact, they have very little enforcement abilities it seems. > Google is fine to not meet the demands of the union, they must negotiate a contract in good faith. Good Faith is a legalese way of saying "dealing honestly". It would be honest of Google to simply say "No" to every demand. A union is not a magic ticket to getting what you want. > They have an additional recourse: file an unfair labor practice with the NLRB and win, as they did here. And nothing is going to happen as a result. It will be appealed, and the litigation will continue possibly for years.
- yareal 3y ago
  [dead]
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  >Good Faith is a legalese way of saying "dealing honestly". It would be honest of Google to simply say "No" to every demand. No it isn't and no it wouldn't. Per the NLRB: The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground. Does it sound to you like going into negotiations with the goal of refusing every proposal and not offering any of your own, i.e. saying no to every demand, meets this criteria?

csdreamer7 3y ago

> Doesn't seem as "open and shut" as The Register wants readers to believe. Looks pretty open and shut to me. Google employed a contractor to avoid the liability of those employees unionizing. In doing so it misclassified them since it is normally work an employee would do-not a contractor under labor law. They were already caught doing this previously according to the register. > Also, employers refuse to negotiate with employees all the time - how would this be any different? Just because an employee (or group such as one represented by a union) doesn't have their demands met does not seem to automatically be "illegal". Once a union is recognized by the NLRB an employer is required by law to make a good faith effort to negotiate. This is what? 80-100 year old American law? https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/employer-union-rights-and-obligations https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... > The employee's recourse, of course, is to leave/quit. Even if these contractors were classified as Google employees, Google can probably just say "no" to any demand anyway... That is part of why collective bargaining improves the economic situation of most Americans. Google says no, they go on strike, and Google then has to choose to eat the cost replace and retrain most of those people in this market (and hope they don't unionize) or meet the demands. Compare this to how Costco handled a unionization recently. https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/costco-employees-vote-unionize-company-response-remarkable.html https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/costco-employees-vote-unio... Added: (and hope they don't unionize)

irjustin 3y ago
> Looks pretty open and shut to me. Also disagreed it's not simple open/shut. > Google employed a contractor to avoid the liability of those employees unionizing. In doing so it misclassified them since it is normally work an employee would do-not a contractor under labor law. They were already caught doing this previously according to the register. Everything hinges on this concept. That contractor work == employee work. The article states that one of the central arguments was around contractors who were training Bard. That those contractors should have been determined as employees even though they were hired through Accenture. Admittedly, I would stand with Google/Alphabet on this one. Data entry work, once initial training completed the vast majority will not be kept on. If there was a plan to convert a few contractors to FTE to remain on Bard then that would signal even more so (pure speculation). Currently, the argument is for Cognizant contractors but there's no details on the article that can help me understand what they're doing for Youtube that would show contractor-work == employee-work. Of course, google is smart, they'll fight these core points before even beginning to worry/engage with labor unions. There's really no point in worrying about the downstream stuff if the upstream hasn't been determined. [EDIT] I got some insight by glancing at the ruling by the NLRB[0] > All full-time and regular part-time Senior Process Executive-Data/Music Generalist (SPEs) and Project/Process Specialists/Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) employees employed by the Employers in YouTube Music Content Operations who are employed to work from the Employer’s (Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation) facility at 717 E. Parmer Lane in Austin, Texas. They're all housed at a non-google facility, but those roles seem central to Youtube Music operations even if they are data-entry jobs. I can largely side with NRLB in this ruling. We'll have to see how google fights this one. A side note, Youtube HATES Youtube Music. I hate it. I use it because it's packaged with my Youtube premium and it's not worth holding Spotify + Youtube memberships. But WOW, Youtube Music's such an afterthought. Everything about the UX is terrible. [0] https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-326027 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-326027