4 ms·

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

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
    Working together doesn't always mean doing the same work. Sometimes different teams with very different jobs still share some meetings and ask each other for help. Honestly, if I had to guess I'd guess the same work same team thing is happening, but I don't think there's clear evidence in any part of the report I've seen. > coordinate training, management, and work assigned to lower level staff I don't see anywhere this was brought up until right now? But you'll have to be more specific on "coordinate". I don't think I'm unreasonably stretching when I say you can coordinate management, many types of training, and giving work to people with connected but entirely different jobs. Or have them resolve problems together. Like a plumber and an electrician on the same building under construction, to throw out another example.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      I quoted to you from the filing where this was described. Read that again and the whole filing itself. Not that it will matter, because you’re just doing what Mr. Imaginary Janitors did now, trying to ignore and elide the facts of the case, as well as the NLRB’s ruling about them, to invent a scenario where you’re right. Be careful doing this though, unless you want to end up with a lot of imaginary friends in the building trades, providing you with fictitious legal advice.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Listen, Google can be in the wrong without having every single factor go against them. It's okay for that single factor not to have much evidence. Don't stretch what is claimed. It might be true, but it's not directly in the claim. I'm not inventing any scenarios for Google, I'm just reading what the complaint literally says, no guesswork to read between the lines. And in particular the ruling just says "Cognizant and Google have codetermined the essential terms and conditions of employment of employees". That's it, zero specifics.
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        The amended board decision, beginning on page 6 under the heading “II. BOARD LAW”, which I linked you to and you didn’t read, is two pages of the specifics of the ruling, analyzed point-by-point by the NLRB, which were preceded by the evidence presented in the case, that according to you, doesn’t exist. I get that you’ll tirelessly do anything to have the last word, but since you’re now doing the same thing as Mr. Imaginary Janitors, saying things don’t exist that I’ve quoted and linked you to, and, in fact, do exist, I think we can call it a day.

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
  Working together doesn't always mean doing the same work. Sometimes different teams with very different jobs still share some meetings and ask each other for help. Honestly, if I had to guess I'd guess the same work same team thing is happening, but I don't think there's clear evidence in any part of the report I've seen. > coordinate training, management, and work assigned to lower level staff I don't see anywhere this was brought up until right now? But you'll have to be more specific on "coordinate". I don't think I'm unreasonably stretching when I say you can coordinate management, many types of training, and giving work to people with connected but entirely different jobs. Or have them resolve problems together. Like a plumber and an electrician on the same building under construction, to throw out another example.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    I quoted to you from the filing where this was described. Read that again and the whole filing itself. Not that it will matter, because you’re just doing what Mr. Imaginary Janitors did now, trying to ignore and elide the facts of the case, as well as the NLRB’s ruling about them, to invent a scenario where you’re right. Be careful doing this though, unless you want to end up with a lot of imaginary friends in the building trades, providing you with fictitious legal advice.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Listen, Google can be in the wrong without having every single factor go against them. It's okay for that single factor not to have much evidence. Don't stretch what is claimed. It might be true, but it's not directly in the claim. I'm not inventing any scenarios for Google, I'm just reading what the complaint literally says, no guesswork to read between the lines. And in particular the ruling just says "Cognizant and Google have codetermined the essential terms and conditions of employment of employees". That's it, zero specifics.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        The amended board decision, beginning on page 6 under the heading “II. BOARD LAW”, which I linked you to and you didn’t read, is two pages of the specifics of the ruling, analyzed point-by-point by the NLRB, which were preceded by the evidence presented in the case, that according to you, doesn’t exist. I get that you’ll tirelessly do anything to have the last word, but since you’re now doing the same thing as Mr. Imaginary Janitors, saying things don’t exist that I’ve quoted and linked you to, and, in fact, do exist, I think we can call it a day.