A Google spokesperson told Motherboard in a statement at the time of the unionization that it had “no objection to these Cognizant workers electing to form a union,” but that it would not bargain with them. “We are not a joint employer as we simply do not control their employment terms or working conditions—this matter is between the workers and their employer, Cognizant,” the spokesperson said.
NLRB seems to disagree. This will be an interesting case, I suspect …
So Google, like Amazon, is trying to play the “they work for a subcontractor that only supports us, so it’s their fault, not ours” card. I really want to see the NLRB smack this pattern down hard and set an example for all the other companies to try to avoid unionization by way of not directly hiring people.
NLRB changed their criteria for what is considered co-employment last month, widely broadening the definitions used to determine this status. Essentially, if a company has significant control (not just exclusive control) over any of a worker’s employment status or conditions, then they are considered a co-employer now. It used to be that a company needed exclusive or overriding control over another company’s employees to be considered a co-employer.
I’m certain we are going to see more lawsuits and legal challenges from employees because of this. I’m pretty certain there already are lawsuits from some other Google contractors over this exact thing; they are providing a case that Google is their co-employer due to the control they have over every aspect of their work.
Doesn’t appear so, seems Google is okay with them unionizing. According to a ruling from a while back Google is required to bargain with the union just as much as cognizant is but it appears cognizant is the one which is unwilling to bargain with the workers. Google’s track record with workers leads me to believe that they have no issue with workers unionizing.
What planet are you living on? Did you read the article? Or even the headline? Google is constantly union busting, and this article explicitly states that Google is refusing to bargain with the bargaining unit, despite court rulings that they are required to.
The only reason why they say they dont care about these people unionizing is because they fully intend on ignoring the union. They believe they can appeal the decision that they are required to bargain and win.
Yeah I read this article and other sources on the subject that give more details. Google has said they support them organizing but it’s not up to them. As far as I’m aware Google is the only tech giant that has an employee workers union
Well you absolutely know wrong lmao the Alphabet Workers Union is not recognized by NLRB, and Amazon’s Workers Union is. Apple also has some unionization, as do several video game developers and support companies.
Google has said they support them unionizing because they think it will not affect them at all. Maybe go look into the handful of people who have attempted to formally unionize at Google and see how they have all been fired. Then try and tell me Google supports unionization.
Amazon Warehouse and delivery drivers unionizing is not similar to the situation that the YouTube Music workers are dealing with and aren’t the same as what the Alphabet union is but I’m glad you feel like undermining alphabet users achieving what they have but you are fully into recognizing two Apple retail stores barely passing and neglecting to mention their constant Union busting and propaganda. Thanks for supporting workers!
Two things: for one, I work at Google and am part of the AWU, so fuck you.
And for two, please explain exactly how amazon unionization is so fundamentally different from AWU unionization? Is it because AWU seeks to represent workers from every contractor/vendor alongside actual full time Googlers? Or what?
I want to, but I can’t shake off the feeling that Google does have a point here: it’s like requiring Amazon to bargain with DHL’s drivers. It’s kind of not their issue: they pay DHL for their services and DHL commissions their employees to do particular tasks.
Yes, I think that’s the reasonable argument Google’s lawyers and PR will use - but your example kind of demonstrates why that argument falls flat. The service DHL is providing to Amazon is logistics and shipping. This is an established, well-regulated industry all its own.
Meanwhile, at Google, this contractor’s services are listed in the article:
ensuring music content is available and approved for YouTube Music’s 80 million subscribers worldwide
That sounds an awful lot like running the service to me. These employees perform key YouTube-specific work on an ongoing basis. For all intents and purposes, they work for Google, in Google’s offices, on Google’s systems, but their paycheck comes from Cognizant. The services being rendered aren’t on the level of “you make the widget and we’ll transport it to stores around the country because we’re a shipping company”. This is more like “we employ people for you, but provide a flimsy air gap so you don’t have to treat them like actual employees. We sell legally plausible deniability as a service.”
ensuring music content is available and approved for YouTube Music’s 80 million subscribers worldwide
this could really mean anything from running the entire service to merely scraping lyrics. and since it’s a group of 49 people, I wanna say it’s probably something along the lines of the latter. but yeah, your point in general stands.
Absolutely fair. But as one of those IT dudes who used to be a contractor but now work for the same megacorp I was contracting for - I wouldn’t bet on it being super menial stuff. I love my job and my employer, but it’s very well understood that the agencies are essentially a cover for some fairly serious labor law violations.
according to Times, Cognizant workers in Dublin were previously contracted for verifying business listings in Google Maps. this is far from “running the service” I’m afraid
NLRB seems to disagree. This will be an interesting case, I suspect …
So Google, like Amazon, is trying to play the “they work for a subcontractor that only supports us, so it’s their fault, not ours” card. I really want to see the NLRB smack this pattern down hard and set an example for all the other companies to try to avoid unionization by way of not directly hiring people.
NLRB changed their criteria for what is considered co-employment last month, widely broadening the definitions used to determine this status. Essentially, if a company has significant control (not just exclusive control) over any of a worker’s employment status or conditions, then they are considered a co-employer now. It used to be that a company needed exclusive or overriding control over another company’s employees to be considered a co-employer.
I’m certain we are going to see more lawsuits and legal challenges from employees because of this. I’m pretty certain there already are lawsuits from some other Google contractors over this exact thing; they are providing a case that Google is their co-employer due to the control they have over every aspect of their work.
That’s excellent news, especially for the employees of Amazon subcontractors handling warehouse and delivery operations.
Doesn’t appear so, seems Google is okay with them unionizing. According to a ruling from a while back Google is required to bargain with the union just as much as cognizant is but it appears cognizant is the one which is unwilling to bargain with the workers. Google’s track record with workers leads me to believe that they have no issue with workers unionizing.
What planet are you living on? Did you read the article? Or even the headline? Google is constantly union busting, and this article explicitly states that Google is refusing to bargain with the bargaining unit, despite court rulings that they are required to.
The only reason why they say they dont care about these people unionizing is because they fully intend on ignoring the union. They believe they can appeal the decision that they are required to bargain and win.
Yeah I read this article and other sources on the subject that give more details. Google has said they support them organizing but it’s not up to them. As far as I’m aware Google is the only tech giant that has an employee workers union
Well you absolutely know wrong lmao the Alphabet Workers Union is not recognized by NLRB, and Amazon’s Workers Union is. Apple also has some unionization, as do several video game developers and support companies.
Google has said they support them unionizing because they think it will not affect them at all. Maybe go look into the handful of people who have attempted to formally unionize at Google and see how they have all been fired. Then try and tell me Google supports unionization.
Amazon Warehouse and delivery drivers unionizing is not similar to the situation that the YouTube Music workers are dealing with and aren’t the same as what the Alphabet union is but I’m glad you feel like undermining alphabet users achieving what they have but you are fully into recognizing two Apple retail stores barely passing and neglecting to mention their constant Union busting and propaganda. Thanks for supporting workers!
Two things: for one, I work at Google and am part of the AWU, so fuck you.
And for two, please explain exactly how amazon unionization is so fundamentally different from AWU unionization? Is it because AWU seeks to represent workers from every contractor/vendor alongside actual full time Googlers? Or what?
Yeah you know what. You are just a shit human. Good luck my guy I’m not gonna waste my time with your vile bullshit
Megacorps can get fucked. Pay your employees well or deal with the consequences.
I want to, but I can’t shake off the feeling that Google does have a point here: it’s like requiring Amazon to bargain with DHL’s drivers. It’s kind of not their issue: they pay DHL for their services and DHL commissions their employees to do particular tasks.
Yes, I think that’s the reasonable argument Google’s lawyers and PR will use - but your example kind of demonstrates why that argument falls flat. The service DHL is providing to Amazon is logistics and shipping. This is an established, well-regulated industry all its own.
Meanwhile, at Google, this contractor’s services are listed in the article:
That sounds an awful lot like running the service to me. These employees perform key YouTube-specific work on an ongoing basis. For all intents and purposes, they work for Google, in Google’s offices, on Google’s systems, but their paycheck comes from Cognizant. The services being rendered aren’t on the level of “you make the widget and we’ll transport it to stores around the country because we’re a shipping company”. This is more like “we employ people for you, but provide a flimsy air gap so you don’t have to treat them like actual employees. We sell legally plausible deniability as a service.”
this could really mean anything from running the entire service to merely scraping lyrics. and since it’s a group of 49 people, I wanna say it’s probably something along the lines of the latter. but yeah, your point in general stands.
Absolutely fair. But as one of those IT dudes who used to be a contractor but now work for the same megacorp I was contracting for - I wouldn’t bet on it being super menial stuff. I love my job and my employer, but it’s very well understood that the agencies are essentially a cover for some fairly serious labor law violations.
according to Times, Cognizant workers in Dublin were previously contracted for verifying business listings in Google Maps. this is far from “running the service” I’m afraid
NLRB contact details If workers provide a service, they should be allowed to bargain collectively to be adequately paid for that service. Full stop.
Google will simply find a different contractor company. Problem solved.