8 ms·

It's pretty unclear to me what "refusing to bargain" means in this context. It sounds like these are employees of a different company, trying to bargain with Go

It's pretty unclear to me what "refusing to bargain" means in this context. It sounds like these are employees of a different company, trying to bargain with Google instead of their employer: > "As we've said before, we have no objection to these Cognizant employees electing to form a union," Google spokesperson Courtenay Mencini told The Register. "We simply believe it's only appropriate for Cognizant, as their employer, to engage in collective bargaining." It details a similar situation with Accenture. Google's position makes sense here: Accenture and Cognizant set their employees pay, benefits, etc. So they should be the ones negotiating with the union. If I'm a forward deployed engineer and I want better pay, I don't negotiate with the customer I'm working with I negotiate with my boss. Regardless, I don't think the union has much in the way of leverage here besides drumming up negative PR for Google. The Alphabet Workers Union apparently has ~1,400 members: https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/#:~:text=Our%20union%20of%201400%2B%20members,our%20solidarity%20with%20one%20another https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/#:~:text=Our%20union%20.... Google has over 170,000 employees and ~120,000 contractors. Even if it were exclusive to employees, the Alphabet Workers Union accounts for less than 1% of Google's workforce.

Aperocky 3y ago
It has always surprised me how many employees and contractor Google has. Anyone has a rough estimate of tech/non-tech division in Google?
lokar 3y ago
The vendor arrangement is in large part a pretext by Google to avoid their legal responsibilities. Also, the workers have the right to negotiate about more then pay and benefits, they can bargain over working conditions which Google controls.
- sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
  I literally had to take a training that said even if a “TVC” was a core contributor to a launch and the team got t-shirts, it was not allowed to give a shirt to the TVC. You can’t give a TVC a pencil without it being counted as “compensation”. The way Googlers are fully accepting of what is clearly a tax dodge built on sacrificing the most pathetic acts of human dignity made me sick.
  - voiceblue 3y ago
    Can someone knowledgeable explain this “tax dodge”? I was under the impression that the issue GP underlines (giving a contractor shirt/pencil) is more about avoiding misclassification and stems from a lawsuit by Microsoft contractors claiming to be common law employees based on how they were treated and then demanding additional employee-only benefits.
    - notaustinpowers 3y ago
      I don't work at Google so I don't know if this is exactly what is happening, but I've worked on both ends of something similar before and this is (usually) what happens. Company A wants to hire employees to perform Task A. Task A has a lot of legal overhead or paying taxes for employees and Company A would rather not deal with that. So Company A hires Company B as a contractor, meaning Company B is primarily responsible for the legal overhead and tax liability of Task A and Company B's employees. As a contractor relationship, Company A is not able to demand Company B do certain things (such as Company A dictating what Company B pays employees, or setting PTO policies, etc). Usually, they are only able to set standards that Company B must meet to maintain that contract for Task A. It's possible Company A here (Google) may have overstepped and began instituting requirements or policies on the employees of Company B, which leads to the misclassification of employment. Google may say "They're not our employees" but if they're overstepping their bounds then they might actually be considered Google employees. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I can say it's a pigeon all day long but everyone knows it's a duck.
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        I'm not comfortable being too specific publicly but I guess I'm just wondering about the legal implications if Company A was more like: "screw it, let's have them be de facto members of the team: do the same work on the same days, and move on once we hit the 'too long to lie' mark" and steadily moved to that arrangement for a significant amount of work for a large portion of job functions.
        3y ago
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > The vendor arrangement is in large part a pretext by Google to avoid their legal responsibilities. I’ve heard this argument repeated a lot, but it doesn’t really make sense. What legal responsibilities is Google avoiding that aren’t handled by the contracting company? > Also, the workers have the right to negotiate about more then pay and benefits, they can bargain over working conditions which Google controls. This also doesn’t make sense. Google negotiates the contracts with the contracting agency, but it’s ultimately the contracting agency that decides whether or not to accept the contract. The contractors can walk out if they don’t like the terms of the contract, but to be clear they’re walking out on the contracting agency, not Google. They can demand whatever they want, but all of these claims that we need to ignore the existence of the contracting agency don’t make sense. The contracting agency isn’t an invisible, blameless middleman.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    >I’ve heard this argument repeated a lot, but it doesn’t really make sense. What legal responsibilities is Google avoiding that aren’t handled by the contracting company? But that's precisely how it's supposed to work - there are things (legal issues, other things, whatever it may be) that Google doesn't want to deal with. The theory is that Google pays the contracting agency to deal with those issues so that Google doesn't have to be bothered with them.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    > What legal responsibilities is Google avoiding that aren’t handled by the contracting company? Inter alia, collective bargaining, to wit, the thing we are commenting on. > The contracting agency isn’t an invisible, blameless middleman. Are you sure? I'm not sure if I should believe you or some other guy I know who says that's sure how they work in practice. That man isn't me.
  - l3mure 3y ago
    > The contracting agency isn’t an invisible, blameless middleman. Fantastic, you agree with the NLRB! > "Cognizant and Google have codetermined essential terms and conditions of employment and have been joint employers"
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  There is no pretext. Google's legal responsibility is to maximize shareholder profits. That means they have a responsibility to not overpay for value given. If contractor wages meet the value google needs, they will opt for contractors vs FTEs. Its not fairto criticize google for doing something that every person does everyday When looking for mechanics, plumbers, and general contractors
theGnuMe 3y ago
So, if you've ever worked in these contractor roles for a large tech company you will soon realize (like the NRLB does and the courts have) that it is all smoke and mirrors. You are effectively an employee of said tech company. The union will win this one and hopefully it goes to court b/c this whole contractor scam needs to be abolished.
- scottyah 3y ago
  Are the suppliers of windshield wipers effectively employees of car companies?
  - oblio 3y ago
    Yes, if they only make windshield wipers for 1 car company. In many places in the world you're only an independent contractor if you don't work long term for 1 single client and only if they don't dictate all your working conditions. Because that would be the description of an employee and the condition is called "hidden employment" and it's illegal in many jurisdictions.
    - scottyah 3y ago
      Being an independent contractor even if you only have one client can have many benefits, I am astounded to hear that it can be illegal. It's a great way to better allocate how your pay gets spent (benefits, perks, parties, etc) if you disagree with how the company does it, and it also grants you many other freedoms like retaining IP rights, paystructures (hourly vs salary), etc unlike normal employees. At the cost of complexity, you get freedom.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > I am astounded to hear that it can be illegal Is it really news to you? There's also another reason - companies trying to duck various taxes tied to employment. > At the cost of complexity There are many more costs than that, including loss of a lot of negotiating leverage, job security, and opportunity for advancement.
xtiansimon 3y ago
“Google has over 170,000 employees and ~120,000 contractors” Vintage Silicon Valley move. Your paycheck says you work for a third-party, then you work for them—-they pay the payroll taxes, insurance, etc. Why would anyone question who is the ‘employer’? Meanwhile, you’re hired by, you work for and are give directions by The Company (here, google). Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it’s a duck. What’s changed in the past 30 years?

Aperocky 3y ago

It has always surprised me how many employees and contractor Google has. Anyone has a rough estimate of tech/non-tech division in Google?

lokar 3y ago

The vendor arrangement is in large part a pretext by Google to avoid their legal responsibilities. Also, the workers have the right to negotiate about more then pay and benefits, they can bargain over working conditions which Google controls.

sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
I literally had to take a training that said even if a “TVC” was a core contributor to a launch and the team got t-shirts, it was not allowed to give a shirt to the TVC. You can’t give a TVC a pencil without it being counted as “compensation”. The way Googlers are fully accepting of what is clearly a tax dodge built on sacrificing the most pathetic acts of human dignity made me sick.
- voiceblue 3y ago
  Can someone knowledgeable explain this “tax dodge”? I was under the impression that the issue GP underlines (giving a contractor shirt/pencil) is more about avoiding misclassification and stems from a lawsuit by Microsoft contractors claiming to be common law employees based on how they were treated and then demanding additional employee-only benefits.
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    I don't work at Google so I don't know if this is exactly what is happening, but I've worked on both ends of something similar before and this is (usually) what happens. Company A wants to hire employees to perform Task A. Task A has a lot of legal overhead or paying taxes for employees and Company A would rather not deal with that. So Company A hires Company B as a contractor, meaning Company B is primarily responsible for the legal overhead and tax liability of Task A and Company B's employees. As a contractor relationship, Company A is not able to demand Company B do certain things (such as Company A dictating what Company B pays employees, or setting PTO policies, etc). Usually, they are only able to set standards that Company B must meet to maintain that contract for Task A. It's possible Company A here (Google) may have overstepped and began instituting requirements or policies on the employees of Company B, which leads to the misclassification of employment. Google may say "They're not our employees" but if they're overstepping their bounds then they might actually be considered Google employees. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I can say it's a pigeon all day long but everyone knows it's a duck.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      I'm not comfortable being too specific publicly but I guess I'm just wondering about the legal implications if Company A was more like: "screw it, let's have them be de facto members of the team: do the same work on the same days, and move on once we hit the 'too long to lie' mark" and steadily moved to that arrangement for a significant amount of work for a large portion of job functions.
      - 3y ago
Aurornis 3y ago
> The vendor arrangement is in large part a pretext by Google to avoid their legal responsibilities. I’ve heard this argument repeated a lot, but it doesn’t really make sense. What legal responsibilities is Google avoiding that aren’t handled by the contracting company? > Also, the workers have the right to negotiate about more then pay and benefits, they can bargain over working conditions which Google controls. This also doesn’t make sense. Google negotiates the contracts with the contracting agency, but it’s ultimately the contracting agency that decides whether or not to accept the contract. The contractors can walk out if they don’t like the terms of the contract, but to be clear they’re walking out on the contracting agency, not Google. They can demand whatever they want, but all of these claims that we need to ignore the existence of the contracting agency don’t make sense. The contracting agency isn’t an invisible, blameless middleman.
- jjulius 3y ago
  >I’ve heard this argument repeated a lot, but it doesn’t really make sense. What legal responsibilities is Google avoiding that aren’t handled by the contracting company? But that's precisely how it's supposed to work - there are things (legal issues, other things, whatever it may be) that Google doesn't want to deal with. The theory is that Google pays the contracting agency to deal with those issues so that Google doesn't have to be bothered with them.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  > What legal responsibilities is Google avoiding that aren’t handled by the contracting company? Inter alia, collective bargaining, to wit, the thing we are commenting on. > The contracting agency isn’t an invisible, blameless middleman. Are you sure? I'm not sure if I should believe you or some other guy I know who says that's sure how they work in practice. That man isn't me.
- l3mure 3y ago
  > The contracting agency isn’t an invisible, blameless middleman. Fantastic, you agree with the NLRB! > "Cognizant and Google have codetermined essential terms and conditions of employment and have been joint employers"
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
There is no pretext. Google's legal responsibility is to maximize shareholder profits. That means they have a responsibility to not overpay for value given. If contractor wages meet the value google needs, they will opt for contractors vs FTEs. Its not fairto criticize google for doing something that every person does everyday When looking for mechanics, plumbers, and general contractors

theGnuMe 3y ago

So, if you've ever worked in these contractor roles for a large tech company you will soon realize (like the NRLB does and the courts have) that it is all smoke and mirrors. You are effectively an employee of said tech company. The union will win this one and hopefully it goes to court b/c this whole contractor scam needs to be abolished.

scottyah 3y ago
Are the suppliers of windshield wipers effectively employees of car companies?
- oblio 3y ago
  Yes, if they only make windshield wipers for 1 car company. In many places in the world you're only an independent contractor if you don't work long term for 1 single client and only if they don't dictate all your working conditions. Because that would be the description of an employee and the condition is called "hidden employment" and it's illegal in many jurisdictions.
  - scottyah 3y ago
    Being an independent contractor even if you only have one client can have many benefits, I am astounded to hear that it can be illegal. It's a great way to better allocate how your pay gets spent (benefits, perks, parties, etc) if you disagree with how the company does it, and it also grants you many other freedoms like retaining IP rights, paystructures (hourly vs salary), etc unlike normal employees. At the cost of complexity, you get freedom.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > I am astounded to hear that it can be illegal Is it really news to you? There's also another reason - companies trying to duck various taxes tied to employment. > At the cost of complexity There are many more costs than that, including loss of a lot of negotiating leverage, job security, and opportunity for advancement.

xtiansimon 3y ago

“Google has over 170,000 employees and ~120,000 contractors” Vintage Silicon Valley move. Your paycheck says you work for a third-party, then you work for them—-they pay the payroll taxes, insurance, etc. Why would anyone question who is the ‘employer’? Meanwhile, you’re hired by, you work for and are give directions by The Company (here, google). Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it’s a duck. What’s changed in the past 30 years?