7 ms·

"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

"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.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        The Accenture case is still being litigated. It's even in the article.. none of this is settled, and likely will not be for years if ever. > judicial authority over this matter has ruled that they are NLRB has no authority to classify contractors as employees. That's why this is still being litigated. > You're just parroting the Google lawyers' line here. Stating reality and facts does not make one a "parrot" as you claim.
        stonogo 3y ago
        The fact that it's being appealed doesn't negate the existence of a prior ruling, and your act of parroting does not make you a parrot. Finally, yes, the NLRB has exactly that authority, including determining the standard to be used to make the distinction, no matter how many times you baselessly and falsely claim otherwise. Your confidence in facts and reality is commendable, but your grasp of those terms may not be as strong as you assume.
  - sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
    In rough terms, negotiating in good faith means negotiating in a way that is likely to yield an agreement. Bad faith means just going through the motions for the sake of appearance, or even making moves to spoil the process. IANAL
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      It has nothing to do with the likelihood of agreement. It is about honestly representing your interests and taking steps that actually advance them.
- el-dude-arino 3y ago
  They're not google employees in name only. They work on google equipment, have google badges, and go into google offices. If google doesn't like them, they're fired. Google controls every aspect of their work. These employees aren't allowed to seek other customers either. This is a purely a scheme by google to get away from having to hire full time employees but abusing the contractor system that was meant for actual consulting, not employees-for-rent.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    If you work in an office building, I'm sure that your company hires a contractor to do janitorial work. Or maybe it's the building itself that hires a contractor to clean all the floors. But at the end of the day a worker is still going into your office doing some piece of work but they're not employees of your company. Abusing the contractors employment is a very specific claim, employers are not supposed to use contractors for the same work that full-time employees perform. It's not about in the same badges or working in the same offices or working on the same equipment, it's about the work that they are performing. It's not abusing contracting systems if a company is using contractors for a specific class of work like answering customer service tickets or data ingest. If you've got details on how Google is using contractors for the same work as full-time employees, it'd be really good to share.
    - el-dude-arino 3y ago
      Yeah because a janitor working at google is doing the exact same work as an engineer working at google. C'mon Count Chocula, come back to reality.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Again, if you have details on how Google is using contractors for the same functions as full time employees I'd be glad to read it. But all the examples I've heard were for roles significantly distinct from Google's full time employees. I've read stories of Google contractors answering help center calls, and scanning books. I have not seen examples of Google contractors working on Google Ads in the same function as full time engineers. Again, I'd be glad to read up on any details of this happening that you're willing to share. But until then, the presumption is that Google isn't abusing contract work
- jefftk 3y ago
  > their actual employer Cognizant You're assuming something that's very much in dispute: The NLRB has concluded otherwise that "Cognizant and Google have codetermined the essential terms and conditions of employment [for the YouTube team] and have been joint employers" at all material times.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    It’s not even really in dispute at this point. Companies can pursue an appeal of an NLRB ruling in federal court, but they generally lose.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Nobody disputes that Cognizant is these employees employer. Cognizant hired them, sets their pay, etc. The NLRB is saying that Cognizant's customers are supposed to negotiate with Cognizant's employee union. How exactly Google is supposed to participate in these negotiations when Cognizant is the one that actually has the ability to give employees raises is remains rather unclear.
- Veserv 3y ago
  Assuming that their union is legally recognized: Their existing work arrangement is agreeable to Google. If the employees wish to continue with their existing work arrangement, only as a union, and then Google chooses to reject that, then that is sufficiently strong evidence that Google is rejecting their demand purely due to the existence of a union. That is illegal according to current US law. If they declare that they are not rejecting due to the existence of a union, then there is sufficiently strong evidence that they are not engaged in "honest dealing" as they are being dishonest with their motives. To engage in "honest dealing" with those facts either requires them to honestly disclose they are rejecting due to the existence of a union (which would be illegal), or extremely compelling extenuating circumstances showing why their existing work arrangement is now, coincidentally, untenable.

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.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      The Accenture case is still being litigated. It's even in the article.. none of this is settled, and likely will not be for years if ever. > judicial authority over this matter has ruled that they are NLRB has no authority to classify contractors as employees. That's why this is still being litigated. > You're just parroting the Google lawyers' line here. Stating reality and facts does not make one a "parrot" as you claim.
      - stonogo 3y ago
        The fact that it's being appealed doesn't negate the existence of a prior ruling, and your act of parroting does not make you a parrot. Finally, yes, the NLRB has exactly that authority, including determining the standard to be used to make the distinction, no matter how many times you baselessly and falsely claim otherwise. Your confidence in facts and reality is commendable, but your grasp of those terms may not be as strong as you assume.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
  In rough terms, negotiating in good faith means negotiating in a way that is likely to yield an agreement. Bad faith means just going through the motions for the sake of appearance, or even making moves to spoil the process. IANAL
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    It has nothing to do with the likelihood of agreement. It is about honestly representing your interests and taking steps that actually advance them.
el-dude-arino 3y ago
They're not google employees in name only. They work on google equipment, have google badges, and go into google offices. If google doesn't like them, they're fired. Google controls every aspect of their work. These employees aren't allowed to seek other customers either. This is a purely a scheme by google to get away from having to hire full time employees but abusing the contractor system that was meant for actual consulting, not employees-for-rent.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  If you work in an office building, I'm sure that your company hires a contractor to do janitorial work. Or maybe it's the building itself that hires a contractor to clean all the floors. But at the end of the day a worker is still going into your office doing some piece of work but they're not employees of your company. Abusing the contractors employment is a very specific claim, employers are not supposed to use contractors for the same work that full-time employees perform. It's not about in the same badges or working in the same offices or working on the same equipment, it's about the work that they are performing. It's not abusing contracting systems if a company is using contractors for a specific class of work like answering customer service tickets or data ingest. If you've got details on how Google is using contractors for the same work as full-time employees, it'd be really good to share.
  - el-dude-arino 3y ago
    Yeah because a janitor working at google is doing the exact same work as an engineer working at google. C'mon Count Chocula, come back to reality.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Again, if you have details on how Google is using contractors for the same functions as full time employees I'd be glad to read it. But all the examples I've heard were for roles significantly distinct from Google's full time employees. I've read stories of Google contractors answering help center calls, and scanning books. I have not seen examples of Google contractors working on Google Ads in the same function as full time engineers. Again, I'd be glad to read up on any details of this happening that you're willing to share. But until then, the presumption is that Google isn't abusing contract work
jefftk 3y ago
> their actual employer Cognizant You're assuming something that's very much in dispute: The NLRB has concluded otherwise that "Cognizant and Google have codetermined the essential terms and conditions of employment [for the YouTube team] and have been joint employers" at all material times.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  It’s not even really in dispute at this point. Companies can pursue an appeal of an NLRB ruling in federal court, but they generally lose.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Nobody disputes that Cognizant is these employees employer. Cognizant hired them, sets their pay, etc. The NLRB is saying that Cognizant's customers are supposed to negotiate with Cognizant's employee union. How exactly Google is supposed to participate in these negotiations when Cognizant is the one that actually has the ability to give employees raises is remains rather unclear.
Veserv 3y ago
Assuming that their union is legally recognized: Their existing work arrangement is agreeable to Google. If the employees wish to continue with their existing work arrangement, only as a union, and then Google chooses to reject that, then that is sufficiently strong evidence that Google is rejecting their demand purely due to the existence of a union. That is illegal according to current US law. If they declare that they are not rejecting due to the existence of a union, then there is sufficiently strong evidence that they are not engaged in "honest dealing" as they are being dishonest with their motives. To engage in "honest dealing" with those facts either requires them to honestly disclose they are rejecting due to the existence of a union (which would be illegal), or extremely compelling extenuating circumstances showing why their existing work arrangement is now, coincidentally, untenable.