3 ms·

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 uni

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.

Manuel_D 3y ago
Again, let's be clear the comment I first responded to claimed: > 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. This is not at all what the NRLB filing alleged. Using contractors to fulfill the same work as full time employees is a separate issue entirely. As far as what the NRLB did write about, it did claim that Google was controlling contractors to an extent that it's now a joint employer. But their justification for this claim is shaky. And yes, it did indeed include return to office and time off. You say I'm making stuff up, but your own except says largely the same things: > work hours and location, manner and means of work, wages, and employee benefits.” So if I tell contracted janitors they need to change the garbage bags in my office at 7pm, I'm now a joint employer because I'm controlling their work hours and location? Likewise, if the contractor wants to pay the janitorial staff $80 per hour and I decide that's overpaying I'm now a joint employer because I'm controlling wages? The things the union is describing as exacting control are pretty bog standard things that a customer of a contractor would ask for. The company is hiring that he contractor to fulfill some need. This is inevitably going to involve controlling things like what work contractors are doing and policies around hours and time off.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  It is exactly what the claim alleged. And it’s not a separate issue at all: saying someone is not a Google employee, but making them one, in practice, is misclassification because it’s relative to the entire scope of Google’s business. It doesn’t matter if they have FTEs on the team mixed in with contractors. It matters if they’re working contractors like FTEs, which the NLRB said, yes, Google did. Your hypotheticals about janitors and whatever else are a tiresome, pointless, and a distraction. We know what happened, we know how the NLRB ruled, and we know you’re posting here saying, “well, I disagree on the basis of imaginary laws and scenarios that have no relationship to reality”. Which, I guess, fine? Have at it!
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    > It matters if they’re working contractors like FTEs, which the NLRB said, yes, Google did You're being really slippery when you reword this to "working contractors like FTEs". What, exactly, did the NLRB filing alleged? That Google asked TVCs to return to the office, set their time off, etc. The NLRB focused most entirely on how Google was controlling the conditions of Cognizant employees' work. That's a very, very different claim than saying Cognizant employees were performing the same task as FTEs. Nowhere does the NLRB report say "Cognizant employees were tasked with _______ just like FTEs". "Google is using contractors to perform the same work as full time employees." "Google is setting contractors' conditions like return to office, time off, wages, etc." The NLRB is alleging the latter. It is not alleging the former (which is what the grandparent comment wrote, and what I insisted is incorrect). And if you can't comprehend the difference between these two claims, there's no real point in continuing here.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      I don’t know how many times I have to go round and round on you with this, but I’m not being slippery. You fundamentally don’t understand what misclassifying contractors means and are in dialogue with your own, imaginary version of U.S. labor law. > NLRB focused most entirely on how Google was controlling the conditions of Cognizant employees' work. That's a very, very different claim than saying Cognizant employees were performing the same task as FTEs. Except its not, because both determine whether someone is a contractor or an employee. You’ve invented this fantasy distinction that separates the two, but this doesn’t exist in law or precedent. What is generally determinative is the importance of the work to the business, in addition to constraints place on how it’s done. Both are alleged in the claim by the union, as I quoted from the filing, and the NLRB said that is what Google is doing. Let me quote it again because you also seem to be arguing from an imagined version of it: “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.” And I agree there is no real point continuing here because you’ve unequivocally demonstrated you have zero clue what you are talking about.

Manuel_D 3y ago

Again, let's be clear the comment I first responded to claimed: > 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. This is not at all what the NRLB filing alleged. Using contractors to fulfill the same work as full time employees is a separate issue entirely. As far as what the NRLB did write about, it did claim that Google was controlling contractors to an extent that it's now a joint employer. But their justification for this claim is shaky. And yes, it did indeed include return to office and time off. You say I'm making stuff up, but your own except says largely the same things: > work hours and location, manner and means of work, wages, and employee benefits.” So if I tell contracted janitors they need to change the garbage bags in my office at 7pm, I'm now a joint employer because I'm controlling their work hours and location? Likewise, if the contractor wants to pay the janitorial staff $80 per hour and I decide that's overpaying I'm now a joint employer because I'm controlling wages? The things the union is describing as exacting control are pretty bog standard things that a customer of a contractor would ask for. The company is hiring that he contractor to fulfill some need. This is inevitably going to involve controlling things like what work contractors are doing and policies around hours and time off.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
It is exactly what the claim alleged. And it’s not a separate issue at all: saying someone is not a Google employee, but making them one, in practice, is misclassification because it’s relative to the entire scope of Google’s business. It doesn’t matter if they have FTEs on the team mixed in with contractors. It matters if they’re working contractors like FTEs, which the NLRB said, yes, Google did. Your hypotheticals about janitors and whatever else are a tiresome, pointless, and a distraction. We know what happened, we know how the NLRB ruled, and we know you’re posting here saying, “well, I disagree on the basis of imaginary laws and scenarios that have no relationship to reality”. Which, I guess, fine? Have at it!
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  > It matters if they’re working contractors like FTEs, which the NLRB said, yes, Google did You're being really slippery when you reword this to "working contractors like FTEs". What, exactly, did the NLRB filing alleged? That Google asked TVCs to return to the office, set their time off, etc. The NLRB focused most entirely on how Google was controlling the conditions of Cognizant employees' work. That's a very, very different claim than saying Cognizant employees were performing the same task as FTEs. Nowhere does the NLRB report say "Cognizant employees were tasked with _______ just like FTEs". "Google is using contractors to perform the same work as full time employees." "Google is setting contractors' conditions like return to office, time off, wages, etc." The NLRB is alleging the latter. It is not alleging the former (which is what the grandparent comment wrote, and what I insisted is incorrect). And if you can't comprehend the difference between these two claims, there's no real point in continuing here.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    I don’t know how many times I have to go round and round on you with this, but I’m not being slippery. You fundamentally don’t understand what misclassifying contractors means and are in dialogue with your own, imaginary version of U.S. labor law. > NLRB focused most entirely on how Google was controlling the conditions of Cognizant employees' work. That's a very, very different claim than saying Cognizant employees were performing the same task as FTEs. Except its not, because both determine whether someone is a contractor or an employee. You’ve invented this fantasy distinction that separates the two, but this doesn’t exist in law or precedent. What is generally determinative is the importance of the work to the business, in addition to constraints place on how it’s done. Both are alleged in the claim by the union, as I quoted from the filing, and the NLRB said that is what Google is doing. Let me quote it again because you also seem to be arguing from an imagined version of it: “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.” And I agree there is no real point continuing here because you’ve unequivocally demonstrated you have zero clue what you are talking about.