4 ms·

> 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

> 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 Correct, that would be abusing contract work. But while there have been people insisting that this happens, I have yet to see someone substantiate these allegations.

refulgentis 3y ago
Ah I just realized I'm replying to you in two separate subthreads: tl;dr oh yes. 100% yes. but it's unclear what your bar for confirmation is and its not a good idea to just start free associating from 'source?'. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38875022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38875022
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  That just links to a hacker news comments, which links to a hacker news comment, which links to yet another hacker news comment that just postulates that Google is abusing contract work to do the same work as full time employees but doesn't describe any incident of this occurring. In fact, the end of your linked list is the grandparent of this comment chain. Is there more compelling evidence that Google has used contractors in place of FTEs than HN users insisting it's happening with no other evidence?
bugglebeetle 3y ago
…this is more or less what the NLRB ruled Google did, so I don’t know what else would have to be substantiated at this point.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  No, the NRLB is trying to argue that RTO policies and number of sick days means Google is now in the role of the employer. There is nothing at all in the ruling that says these contractor were performing the same work as employees.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    In the NLRB filings, the workers charged that Google controlled all aspects of their work, not simply set RTO policies or sick days, which made them a joint employer. Both sides presented their evidence. The NLRB ruled that what the workers were correct in this claim. It’s all in the filings. What you highlight was only part of what the union claimed as evidence of the misclassification, as a comment on the article, not the entirety of what was reviewed and adjudicated. I’m not sure why you’re trying to misrepresent and diminish the situation in this way.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Again, what exactly are you trying to argue? It sure sounded like in the previous two comments you were trying to argue that Google was using contractors in place of full time employees. That full time workers and contractors are doing the same work. If that's what you're trying to claim, then that's incorrect the NRLB finding did not at all claim this. That Google controlled aspects of their work? Of course, they're contractors hired by Google. If I hire a janitorial contractor is it violating labor law to tell the to change the bags once per day? What if I have them use a specific brand of garbage bags that I think are more reliable? Contractor are hired to fulfill some need that the customer has. So of course rh customer is going to be controlling the work that contractor do. At what point am I directing contractors to such a degree that now I'm their joint employer? The NRLB's examples of Google controlling the Cognizant employees does indeed revolve around RTO and time off, as well as things like not using your personal phone at work. None of them strike me as particularly out of place, and I'd be unsurprised if the appeal has a different outcome.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Again, you’re just making stuff up based on a comment in the article and don’t understand what misclassification of contractors constitutes. Here’s what the union claimed, directly from their filing: “The bargaining unit employees in this matter, individuals with specialized skills who work on the Music Content Operations (“MCO”) team, run virtually all aspects of Google’s YouTube Music platform. They are part of Google’s “extended workforce.” While Cognizant hires the employees, Google applies constant, exacting control over every aspect of their day-to-day work, including work hours and location, manner and means of work, wages, and employee benefits.” Which is textbook misclassification of FTEs under the guise of contractors. The union provided evidence this was true. Google was unable to refute. The NLRB ruled in the worker’s favor and told Google they have to bargain with the union. This is what I’m saying happened and what the NLRB said happened too. Everything in your post is some kind of weird gish-gallop, fantasy of your own making.

refulgentis 3y ago

Ah I just realized I'm replying to you in two separate subthreads: tl;dr oh yes. 100% yes. but it's unclear what your bar for confirmation is and its not a good idea to just start free associating from 'source?'. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38875022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38875022

Manuel_D 3y ago
That just links to a hacker news comments, which links to a hacker news comment, which links to yet another hacker news comment that just postulates that Google is abusing contract work to do the same work as full time employees but doesn't describe any incident of this occurring. In fact, the end of your linked list is the grandparent of this comment chain. Is there more compelling evidence that Google has used contractors in place of FTEs than HN users insisting it's happening with no other evidence?

bugglebeetle 3y ago

…this is more or less what the NLRB ruled Google did, so I don’t know what else would have to be substantiated at this point.

Manuel_D 3y ago
No, the NRLB is trying to argue that RTO policies and number of sick days means Google is now in the role of the employer. There is nothing at all in the ruling that says these contractor were performing the same work as employees.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  In the NLRB filings, the workers charged that Google controlled all aspects of their work, not simply set RTO policies or sick days, which made them a joint employer. Both sides presented their evidence. The NLRB ruled that what the workers were correct in this claim. It’s all in the filings. What you highlight was only part of what the union claimed as evidence of the misclassification, as a comment on the article, not the entirety of what was reviewed and adjudicated. I’m not sure why you’re trying to misrepresent and diminish the situation in this way.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Again, what exactly are you trying to argue? It sure sounded like in the previous two comments you were trying to argue that Google was using contractors in place of full time employees. That full time workers and contractors are doing the same work. If that's what you're trying to claim, then that's incorrect the NRLB finding did not at all claim this. That Google controlled aspects of their work? Of course, they're contractors hired by Google. If I hire a janitorial contractor is it violating labor law to tell the to change the bags once per day? What if I have them use a specific brand of garbage bags that I think are more reliable? Contractor are hired to fulfill some need that the customer has. So of course rh customer is going to be controlling the work that contractor do. At what point am I directing contractors to such a degree that now I'm their joint employer? The NRLB's examples of Google controlling the Cognizant employees does indeed revolve around RTO and time off, as well as things like not using your personal phone at work. None of them strike me as particularly out of place, and I'd be unsurprised if the appeal has a different outcome.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Again, you’re just making stuff up based on a comment in the article and don’t understand what misclassification of contractors constitutes. Here’s what the union claimed, directly from their filing: “The bargaining unit employees in this matter, individuals with specialized skills who work on the Music Content Operations (“MCO”) team, run virtually all aspects of Google’s YouTube Music platform. They are part of Google’s “extended workforce.” While Cognizant hires the employees, Google applies constant, exacting control over every aspect of their day-to-day work, including work hours and location, manner and means of work, wages, and employee benefits.” Which is textbook misclassification of FTEs under the guise of contractors. The union provided evidence this was true. Google was unable to refute. The NLRB ruled in the worker’s favor and told Google they have to bargain with the union. This is what I’m saying happened and what the NLRB said happened too. Everything in your post is some kind of weird gish-gallop, fantasy of your own making.