4 ms·

Bargain how? They don't set these employees wages. Cognizant does. How is Google supposed to meaningfully negotiate when Cognizant is the one that's actually em

Bargain how? They don't set these employees wages. Cognizant does. How is Google supposed to meaningfully negotiate when Cognizant is the one that's actually employing these people? Previously, this only came into effect if companies were using contractors for the same functions as full time employees. And the outcomes in those cases was often to make the company hire on the contractors full time, not dragging a company's customers into it labor disputes. Plenty of people have been alleging this, but none have substantiated allegations that Google is using contractors for the same work as employees.

jameshart 3y ago
Because employment is more than wages, and some of the constraints on these employees working arrangements are going to be bound up in the terms of the contract their employer has made with Google. If their employer would like to offer them changes in working conditions or pay that, in order to be feasible or economical, they would need to change the terms of their Google contract, they can't do that without Google's involvement. It would seem far more efficient to have Google be in the room involved in the negotiations and bound by the arbitration, rather than have the contracting company have to go to Google and suggest something they might like to change, get tacit approval that that might be up for renegotiation, then go to their employees and make an offer based on that assumption, and if the employees accept it, hope that Google honors the tacit agreement they got rather than laughing and telling them how they now have them over a barrel and further tightening their contract.
COGlory 3y ago
These works work at Google, for Google. They must respect Google's workplace policies and conditions in order to perform their job. Their union is allowed to bargain over working conditions, which Google sets. You could argue that they need to bargain with Cognizant, and Cognizant in turns needs to bargain with Google, but the NLRB has (rightfully) determined that it's ultimately Google setting the working conditions, and therefore the union should be bargaining directly with Google.

jameshart 3y ago

Because employment is more than wages, and some of the constraints on these employees working arrangements are going to be bound up in the terms of the contract their employer has made with Google. If their employer would like to offer them changes in working conditions or pay that, in order to be feasible or economical, they would need to change the terms of their Google contract, they can't do that without Google's involvement. It would seem far more efficient to have Google be in the room involved in the negotiations and bound by the arbitration, rather than have the contracting company have to go to Google and suggest something they might like to change, get tacit approval that that might be up for renegotiation, then go to their employees and make an offer based on that assumption, and if the employees accept it, hope that Google honors the tacit agreement they got rather than laughing and telling them how they now have them over a barrel and further tightening their contract.

COGlory 3y ago

These works work at Google, for Google. They must respect Google's workplace policies and conditions in order to perform their job. Their union is allowed to bargain over working conditions, which Google sets. You could argue that they need to bargain with Cognizant, and Cognizant in turns needs to bargain with Google, but the NLRB has (rightfully) determined that it's ultimately Google setting the working conditions, and therefore the union should be bargaining directly with Google.