3 ms·

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

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
    I misunderstood what that link was the first time. I have gone through it now. My bad. However, while that link lays out an excellent case for Google being in control, I don't see anywhere it mentions direct employees doing the same jobs during the same period. The evidence is not there. You would have quoted it ten posts ago if it was. Your evidence is for SOMETHING ELSE THAN WHAT WAS ASKED. Seeya.

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
  I misunderstood what that link was the first time. I have gone through it now. My bad. However, while that link lays out an excellent case for Google being in control, I don't see anywhere it mentions direct employees doing the same jobs during the same period. The evidence is not there. You would have quoted it ten posts ago if it was. Your evidence is for SOMETHING ELSE THAN WHAT WAS ASKED. Seeya.