3 ms·

Manuel you're extremely oddly passionate about this, you speak extremely aggressively, nothing is ever good enough for you to take a step back and ask something

Manuel you're extremely oddly passionate about this, you speak extremely aggressively, nothing is ever good enough for you to take a step back and ask something more interesting than "Name names or it's lies!" and you lie about silly things like multiple Google employees telling you it's false and that I'm anonymous. I don't trust you enough to name names just to win a pissing match. Rationally, It's much more likely that you're a Google lawyer or Googler eager to report possible NDA violations than some guy who just needs names to believe. (Which doesn't make any sense anyway)

Manuel_D 3y ago
Let me get this straight: me asking you to give just one specific example of something you claim is happening on all teams at Google is "extremely aggressive"? Meanwhile you're claiming that I'm a Google lawyer astroturfing HN to hunt down NDA violations. If that were the case, Google should get some better lawyers. The ones they've been hiring have been wasting a lot of billable hours debating the feasibility of electrical grid storage on Hacker News. The recap, NRLB filing linked in this article is not alleging that Cognizant employees are doing the same work as FTEs at google. It's alleging that by having contractors return to the office, and setting other policies like sick leave Google is now a joint employer. The idea that Google is using FTEs and contractors to fulfill the same functions is not supported by the NRLB finding. It's not even a topic that the NRLB is discussing in this document. The NRLB is trying to claim that setting RTO and PTO policies makes Google a joint employer, despite contractors doing separate work from FTEs. If you're only willing to say "it happens but I can't give any further details or examples" then just say so and be willing to accept that this doesn't meet many people's epistemic thresholds.

Manuel_D 3y ago

Let me get this straight: me asking you to give just one specific example of something you claim is happening on all teams at Google is "extremely aggressive"? Meanwhile you're claiming that I'm a Google lawyer astroturfing HN to hunt down NDA violations. If that were the case, Google should get some better lawyers. The ones they've been hiring have been wasting a lot of billable hours debating the feasibility of electrical grid storage on Hacker News. The recap, NRLB filing linked in this article is not alleging that Cognizant employees are doing the same work as FTEs at google. It's alleging that by having contractors return to the office, and setting other policies like sick leave Google is now a joint employer. The idea that Google is using FTEs and contractors to fulfill the same functions is not supported by the NRLB finding. It's not even a topic that the NRLB is discussing in this document. The NRLB is trying to claim that setting RTO and PTO policies makes Google a joint employer, despite contractors doing separate work from FTEs. If you're only willing to say "it happens but I can't give any further details or examples" then just say so and be willing to accept that this doesn't meet many people's epistemic thresholds.