3 ms·

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 co

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.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    There are a lot of factors and we should distinguish the factors. If the union claims X+Y factors, and the NLRB only claims Y factors, that matters. If NLRB only backs up half the evidence, the case is weaker. And that seems to be the case, based on your quotes. What is important to the business is yet another factor, and you gave some evidence for that too, which is useful. But if they outsource an entire service like you quoted, that seems like it might be a weaker case than mixing employees.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      No, they ruled that all the factors I cited made Google a co-employer. You can read the original decision by the regional officer here: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-RC-305751 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-RC-305751 Start with the amended board decision, which clearly delineates why they were employees, and includes all the things I’ve mentioned throughout this thread. The most recent ruling from the NLRB, which is linked in the article, is a follow-up up to this decision because Google subsequently refused to bargain with the union, after they were deemed to be a co-employer. The NLRB asked Google to demonstrate why they don’t have to bargain with the union, Google said they’re not their employees, the NLRB said the regional officer already ruled on this and said you’re their co-employer, Google provided no new evidence to the contrary other than “we say they’re not”, the NLRB said, no, they Regional Director is correct and they are, bargain with the union. Imaginary janitor dude is just having a conversation with himself, independent of the facts of the case.

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.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  There are a lot of factors and we should distinguish the factors. If the union claims X+Y factors, and the NLRB only claims Y factors, that matters. If NLRB only backs up half the evidence, the case is weaker. And that seems to be the case, based on your quotes. What is important to the business is yet another factor, and you gave some evidence for that too, which is useful. But if they outsource an entire service like you quoted, that seems like it might be a weaker case than mixing employees.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    No, they ruled that all the factors I cited made Google a co-employer. You can read the original decision by the regional officer here: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-RC-305751 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-RC-305751 Start with the amended board decision, which clearly delineates why they were employees, and includes all the things I’ve mentioned throughout this thread. The most recent ruling from the NLRB, which is linked in the article, is a follow-up up to this decision because Google subsequently refused to bargain with the union, after they were deemed to be a co-employer. The NLRB asked Google to demonstrate why they don’t have to bargain with the union, Google said they’re not their employees, the NLRB said the regional officer already ruled on this and said you’re their co-employer, Google provided no new evidence to the contrary other than “we say they’re not”, the NLRB said, no, they Regional Director is correct and they are, bargain with the union. Imaginary janitor dude is just having a conversation with himself, independent of the facts of the case.