4 ms·

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 mi

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.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  I don’t know why we have to keep revisiting this. The person made the claim that what was stated in the original post wasn’t happening. I said no, that the NLRB ruled that it did happen (which again, they did). The person said that it didn’t happen and made a false claim that the NLRB ruling was somehow more narrow, was mostly about RTO (which it wasn’t), without ever reading the filings. I again stated that was not what the NLRB ruled. They proceeded to make up fictional labor laws and scenarios. I said those don’t matter only the real labor laws and the ruling did. But despite, not once, bothering to look at the filings, which were linked in the article and I quoted from, I’m to blame because I didn’t quote the correct chapter and verse from them to make it as clear as possible, to a person who was repeatedly unmoved by any appeal to reality and started off with false and unfounded assertions. Okay, thanks. Very helpful.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > The person made the claim that what was stated in the original post wasn’t happening. I said no, that the NLRB ruled that it did happen (which again, they did). If by original post you mean the comment I linked to: No they did not rule that. You keep giving evidence for a forest, when he was asking about evidence of a specific species of tree. NLRB claims a forest. They cite specific trees. None of them are that species. Your evidence is useful but not what was asked for, and when you keep insisting it answers the question the disconnect is your fault. Even if he's wrong about the legal situation, you have not given the evidence he was asking for. I would like to see that evidence too. Even if it doesn't make a difference in the case, I want to know what google was doing in more detail.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Yes, they did rule that. You and Mr. Imaginary Janitors are just trying to stretch the NLRB’s ruling, beyond all recognition instead of admitting to having been wrong. Let’s go back to his qualification about what this “species of tree” constituted: >There is nothing at all in the ruling that says these contractor were performing the same work as employees. Except there was in their ruling - the Google employees and “contractors” both work together to resolve problems and to coordinate training, management, and work assigned to lower level staff. Why you both refuse to admit this, I have no idea. Him, I guess because he likes imagining janitors, you, I would guess because you also didn’t read the filings, and only realized you were wrong when I cited the first ruling.

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.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
I don’t know why we have to keep revisiting this. The person made the claim that what was stated in the original post wasn’t happening. I said no, that the NLRB ruled that it did happen (which again, they did). The person said that it didn’t happen and made a false claim that the NLRB ruling was somehow more narrow, was mostly about RTO (which it wasn’t), without ever reading the filings. I again stated that was not what the NLRB ruled. They proceeded to make up fictional labor laws and scenarios. I said those don’t matter only the real labor laws and the ruling did. But despite, not once, bothering to look at the filings, which were linked in the article and I quoted from, I’m to blame because I didn’t quote the correct chapter and verse from them to make it as clear as possible, to a person who was repeatedly unmoved by any appeal to reality and started off with false and unfounded assertions. Okay, thanks. Very helpful.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > The person made the claim that what was stated in the original post wasn’t happening. I said no, that the NLRB ruled that it did happen (which again, they did). If by original post you mean the comment I linked to: No they did not rule that. You keep giving evidence for a forest, when he was asking about evidence of a specific species of tree. NLRB claims a forest. They cite specific trees. None of them are that species. Your evidence is useful but not what was asked for, and when you keep insisting it answers the question the disconnect is your fault. Even if he's wrong about the legal situation, you have not given the evidence he was asking for. I would like to see that evidence too. Even if it doesn't make a difference in the case, I want to know what google was doing in more detail.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Yes, they did rule that. You and Mr. Imaginary Janitors are just trying to stretch the NLRB’s ruling, beyond all recognition instead of admitting to having been wrong. Let’s go back to his qualification about what this “species of tree” constituted: >There is nothing at all in the ruling that says these contractor were performing the same work as employees. Except there was in their ruling - the Google employees and “contractors” both work together to resolve problems and to coordinate training, management, and work assigned to lower level staff. Why you both refuse to admit this, I have no idea. Him, I guess because he likes imagining janitors, you, I would guess because you also didn’t read the filings, and only realized you were wrong when I cited the first ruling.