3 ms·

If I cancel a contract with an external party with immediate effect it's fair to say I 'fired' them. I have taken the decision to end their job working in my co

If I cancel a contract with an external party with immediate effect it's fair to say I 'fired' them. I have taken the decision to end their job working in my company. That's true even if they continue to be employed by the company I've contracted them from. If Google specifically cancelled the contract for this team from Cognizant because the team unionized it's fair to say that Google fired them. The only way it isn't fair to say that is if Cognizant fired them without Google's input. Knowing contracting companies though, I'm fairly sure that didn't happen. Cognizant wouldn't jeopardize their relationship with Google like that.

mike_d 3y ago
My friend owns a security guard company - he employs about a dozen guards and takes on contracts that last anywhere from a day to a few years. When a guard quits or gets fired he has another one on the bench that goes and fills that role. If a guard is assigned to a construction site to watch it for a month, he isn't "fired" by the construction company when the work is done. Instead he goes back on the bench or is moved immediately to another job site. These Cognizant employees are going back on the bench and being paid for seven weeks until they can be reassigned to another contract. https://www.kxan.com/news/youtube-music-workers-laid-off-after-cognizant-contract-ends/ https://www.kxan.com/news/youtube-music-workers-laid-off-aft... Cognizant, Google, and the workers all knew the contract was ending today. By their own admission they had been training other people to take over the work in anticipation of the end of the contract. This was theatre.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The only way it gets even close to “fired” is if you had a month contract for the construction site, and the company cut it short and banned you from the property. A contract expiring is not being fired. Maybe - maybe - a contract that has been renewed repeatedly being not renewed is similar, but it still really isn’t.
- eesmith 3y ago
  From https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/youtube-music-workers-hold-unfair-labor-practice-strike-as-google-refuses-to-bargain-ignores-nlrb https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/youtube-music-wor...: "NLRB announced that it would uphold a previous ruling that found members of the YouTube Content Operations Team to be jointly employed by both Google and Cognizant" Unless the guards employed by your friend's company are also jointly employed by the places where they work, the two situations are not directly comparable. The NLRB describes why joint employment is relevant, at https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/the-standard-for-determining-joint-employer-status-final-rule https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/the-standard-for-... : "Considering indirect control prevents an entity that has an employment relationship with employees from avoiding joint-employer status—and the bargaining obligation that goes with it—by using an intermediary to implement decisions about essential terms and conditions of employment."
zaphirplane 3y ago
The company was sacked, the expression goes. The employees of the terminated company are not sacked, layed off, terminated
drivingmenuts 3y ago
How does the legal definition of firing compare to the legal definition of canceling a contract? I would imagine that the outcome depends on exactly what was specified in the contract itself. While I might feel sympathy for the former employees of Google, without knowing the exact conditions under which they were employed at (not by) Google, I can only sympathize and not much else.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> it's fair to say I 'fired' them The title here says "laid off". This is definitely not the case if they're a third party whose contract was cancelled. If the Cognizant team unionised, it will have done so as part of Cognizant, I assume, so I'm still a bit confused.

mike_d 3y ago

My friend owns a security guard company - he employs about a dozen guards and takes on contracts that last anywhere from a day to a few years. When a guard quits or gets fired he has another one on the bench that goes and fills that role. If a guard is assigned to a construction site to watch it for a month, he isn't "fired" by the construction company when the work is done. Instead he goes back on the bench or is moved immediately to another job site. These Cognizant employees are going back on the bench and being paid for seven weeks until they can be reassigned to another contract. https://www.kxan.com/news/youtube-music-workers-laid-off-after-cognizant-contract-ends/ https://www.kxan.com/news/youtube-music-workers-laid-off-aft... Cognizant, Google, and the workers all knew the contract was ending today. By their own admission they had been training other people to take over the work in anticipation of the end of the contract. This was theatre.

bombcar 3y ago
The only way it gets even close to “fired” is if you had a month contract for the construction site, and the company cut it short and banned you from the property. A contract expiring is not being fired. Maybe - maybe - a contract that has been renewed repeatedly being not renewed is similar, but it still really isn’t.
eesmith 3y ago
From https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/youtube-music-workers-hold-unfair-labor-practice-strike-as-google-refuses-to-bargain-ignores-nlrb https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/youtube-music-wor...: "NLRB announced that it would uphold a previous ruling that found members of the YouTube Content Operations Team to be jointly employed by both Google and Cognizant" Unless the guards employed by your friend's company are also jointly employed by the places where they work, the two situations are not directly comparable. The NLRB describes why joint employment is relevant, at https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/the-standard-for-determining-joint-employer-status-final-rule https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/the-standard-for-... : "Considering indirect control prevents an entity that has an employment relationship with employees from avoiding joint-employer status—and the bargaining obligation that goes with it—by using an intermediary to implement decisions about essential terms and conditions of employment."

zaphirplane 3y ago

The company was sacked, the expression goes. The employees of the terminated company are not sacked, layed off, terminated

drivingmenuts 3y ago

How does the legal definition of firing compare to the legal definition of canceling a contract? I would imagine that the outcome depends on exactly what was specified in the contract itself. While I might feel sympathy for the former employees of Google, without knowing the exact conditions under which they were employed at (not by) Google, I can only sympathize and not much else.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> it's fair to say I 'fired' them The title here says "laid off". This is definitely not the case if they're a third party whose contract was cancelled. If the Cognizant team unionised, it will have done so as part of Cognizant, I assume, so I'm still a bit confused.