6 ms·

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 miscla

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
    > You’ve invented this fantasy distinction that separates the two, but this doesn’t exist in law or precedent This does indeed exist, Microsoft got in trouble for this back in 1989: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-tries-to-reassure-contractors-about-rule-changes/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-tr... This has nothing to do with unions. Microsoft was using contractors to do full time work, misclassifying them. The grandparent comment claimed this is what Google was doing, which is not at all what the NLRB filing alleged. > individuals with specialized skills who work on the Music Content Operations (“MCO”) team, run virtually all aspects of Google’s YouTube Music platform And a contractor performs virtually all aspects of our janitorial functions. The fact that the venture Music Content Operation is staffed by contractors sure makes it sound like there's a pretty clear separation between contractors' work and FTEs. If the filing explained how both FTEs and contractors staffed the MCO and they were doing the same functions, that would be supporting your claims. But it doesn't.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      I look forward to the day when your imaginary janitors are imbued with the authority to reshape US labor law in the image of their simulation.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Even if they violated the same law, "same task" and "too directly controlled" are different things. It matters when describing the situation. So even if you were 100% right legally, your comments are still wrong to conflate those two situations.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Those “two situations” are the same situation - how the contractors are being employed. I also didn’t conflate them. It’s how the employment terms were described by the union themselves, in their filing, as I’ve repeatedly quoted.

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
  > You’ve invented this fantasy distinction that separates the two, but this doesn’t exist in law or precedent This does indeed exist, Microsoft got in trouble for this back in 1989: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-tries-to-reassure-contractors-about-rule-changes/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-tr... This has nothing to do with unions. Microsoft was using contractors to do full time work, misclassifying them. The grandparent comment claimed this is what Google was doing, which is not at all what the NLRB filing alleged. > individuals with specialized skills who work on the Music Content Operations (“MCO”) team, run virtually all aspects of Google’s YouTube Music platform And a contractor performs virtually all aspects of our janitorial functions. The fact that the venture Music Content Operation is staffed by contractors sure makes it sound like there's a pretty clear separation between contractors' work and FTEs. If the filing explained how both FTEs and contractors staffed the MCO and they were doing the same functions, that would be supporting your claims. But it doesn't.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    I look forward to the day when your imaginary janitors are imbued with the authority to reshape US labor law in the image of their simulation.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Even if they violated the same law, "same task" and "too directly controlled" are different things. It matters when describing the situation. So even if you were 100% right legally, your comments are still wrong to conflate those two situations.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Those “two situations” are the same situation - how the contractors are being employed. I also didn’t conflate them. It’s how the employment terms were described by the union themselves, in their filing, as I’ve repeatedly quoted.