3 ms·

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/ca

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.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> they ruled that all the factors I cited made Google a co-employer. They did do that! But the specific thing that started this conversation was not a factor NLRB cited. It was "de facto members of the team: do the same work on the same days". You're focusing so much on the end result that you're ignoring which claim Manuel_D asked for evidence of. Even if he's super wrong on the legal analysis, he asked for evidence of something, and it's something quite relevant, and there has not been a good citation for it. Even if the factors NLRB cited are enough to declare Google a co-employer, it's still valid to want evidence of what was actually claimed upthread.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Again, no, this was also addressed in the initial ruling. The workers working alongside Google employees was counted against Google in identifying their status as co-employer: >SMEs regularly interact with Google employees. They attend weekly video meetings for about 30 to 45 minutes, chat online daily, and may reach out to Google employees for help with any bugs they are unable to fix. It is expected in the course of SMEs’ work that they are in contact with and work with Google employees. It’s not my fault the dude didn’t read the filings and decided to play Manuel_D Janitor Labor Law RPG with himself on Hacker News instead.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    A) It would have helped focus the conversation if that was one of your earlier quotes. B) That level of interacting is not particularly conclusive for saying they do the same job. For example, in another industry I could imagine artists and programmers interacting that way, while having wildly different jobs. C) You are getting way too hung up on the janitor example. It's a perfectly good explanation of one end of the spectrum.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      A) The person I was responding to was blatantly making things up, refused to engage with what I quoted, and proceeded to only describe fictional scenarios or misrepresentations based on a comment in the article. I doubt this would’ve made a difference. B) Irrelevant. Companies have people in all different kinds of roles collaborating with each other. What matters is the nature of that collaboration in terms of classifying them as co-workers (i.e. employed by the same company) or contractor and customer. The NLRB looked at this and said the way Google and the “contractors” worked together made them jointly employed by Google, as I quoted directly from the filing. C) I’m not hung up on it, I just find it obnoxious that someone chose to a. not read the filings b. pretend to know what they’re talking about while demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of the law and the specifics of the case c. justified doing so with appeals to fictional janitors multiple times. I’m harping on it because how it’s demonstrative of how stupid the whole “argument” was.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        > What matters is the nature of that collaboration in terms of classifying them as co-workers (i.e. employed by the same company) or contractor and customer. The NLRB looked at this You keep focusing on what matters for the case outcome. Which is good and all, but it's not what started this conversation. You're hijacking the actual question to answer a different question. Even though the question you're answering is more important, the original question was also valid, and your NLRB quotes don't answer it. It's not stupid just because it doesn't tell us who wins the case. > The person I was responding to was blatantly making things up, refused to engage with what I quoted, and proceeded to only describe fictional scenarios or misrepresentations based on a comment in the article. I doubt this would’ve made a difference. The comment that started this topic was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38874977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38874977 That comment describes a very specific scenario, and Manuel_D wanted to know if that specific scenario had evidence of happening. To the extent that he didn't "engage with what you quoted", it's because your quotes didn't answer that specific question. They were about the case in general. You decided the actions in the case were "more or less" the same, but mostly in the sense that they lead to the same legal judgement. Which is a fair attempt at an answer, but once you learned that wasn't what he was actually asking you should have stopped doubling down on trying to say your answer fit his question. Your answer did not fit his question. It doesn't matter how correct your answer is when that happens.

Dylan16807 3y ago

> they ruled that all the factors I cited made Google a co-employer. They did do that! But the specific thing that started this conversation was not a factor NLRB cited. It was "de facto members of the team: do the same work on the same days". You're focusing so much on the end result that you're ignoring which claim Manuel_D asked for evidence of. Even if he's super wrong on the legal analysis, he asked for evidence of something, and it's something quite relevant, and there has not been a good citation for it. Even if the factors NLRB cited are enough to declare Google a co-employer, it's still valid to want evidence of what was actually claimed upthread.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
Again, no, this was also addressed in the initial ruling. The workers working alongside Google employees was counted against Google in identifying their status as co-employer: >SMEs regularly interact with Google employees. They attend weekly video meetings for about 30 to 45 minutes, chat online daily, and may reach out to Google employees for help with any bugs they are unable to fix. It is expected in the course of SMEs’ work that they are in contact with and work with Google employees. It’s not my fault the dude didn’t read the filings and decided to play Manuel_D Janitor Labor Law RPG with himself on Hacker News instead.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  A) It would have helped focus the conversation if that was one of your earlier quotes. B) That level of interacting is not particularly conclusive for saying they do the same job. For example, in another industry I could imagine artists and programmers interacting that way, while having wildly different jobs. C) You are getting way too hung up on the janitor example. It's a perfectly good explanation of one end of the spectrum.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    A) The person I was responding to was blatantly making things up, refused to engage with what I quoted, and proceeded to only describe fictional scenarios or misrepresentations based on a comment in the article. I doubt this would’ve made a difference. B) Irrelevant. Companies have people in all different kinds of roles collaborating with each other. What matters is the nature of that collaboration in terms of classifying them as co-workers (i.e. employed by the same company) or contractor and customer. The NLRB looked at this and said the way Google and the “contractors” worked together made them jointly employed by Google, as I quoted directly from the filing. C) I’m not hung up on it, I just find it obnoxious that someone chose to a. not read the filings b. pretend to know what they’re talking about while demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of the law and the specifics of the case c. justified doing so with appeals to fictional janitors multiple times. I’m harping on it because how it’s demonstrative of how stupid the whole “argument” was.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      > What matters is the nature of that collaboration in terms of classifying them as co-workers (i.e. employed by the same company) or contractor and customer. The NLRB looked at this You keep focusing on what matters for the case outcome. Which is good and all, but it's not what started this conversation. You're hijacking the actual question to answer a different question. Even though the question you're answering is more important, the original question was also valid, and your NLRB quotes don't answer it. It's not stupid just because it doesn't tell us who wins the case. > The person I was responding to was blatantly making things up, refused to engage with what I quoted, and proceeded to only describe fictional scenarios or misrepresentations based on a comment in the article. I doubt this would’ve made a difference. The comment that started this topic was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38874977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38874977 That comment describes a very specific scenario, and Manuel_D wanted to know if that specific scenario had evidence of happening. To the extent that he didn't "engage with what you quoted", it's because your quotes didn't answer that specific question. They were about the case in general. You decided the actions in the case were "more or less" the same, but mostly in the sense that they lead to the same legal judgement. Which is a fair attempt at an answer, but once you learned that wasn't what he was actually asking you should have stopped doubling down on trying to say your answer fit his question. Your answer did not fit his question. It doesn't matter how correct your answer is when that happens.