I’m not sure what contract workers with an ending contract would have expected? I’m not fan of Google, but that’s not how contracts work. I’m sure that’s why they hire contractors to begin with.
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
376 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59378 readers
4249 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A 2023 ruling by the NLRB clarified that contractors have the right to unionize
Sure, but wouldn't any union busting company not renew the contract
This is the illegal part. Firing them because they unionized.
It's almost certain they can prove Google still needs these positions and the firing was motivated by this corrupt motive, not a business decision.
It's almost certain they can't. Motives are notoriously hard to prove, and they can just invent a plausible, legal, lie.
You know whats a really plausible reason? Every tech company in the world is cutting jobs by double digit pecentages.
Its insane to think you have any leverage as a contractor for one of the most bloated companies in the history of man kind. They dont even have customer service, why do they need so many people! Stop reinventing texting and hire people to answer phones!
Its insane to think you have any leverage as a contractor for one of the most bloated companies in the history of man kind.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, but this is the reality.
I didn't downvote, but I briefly thought about it because their first statement is incorrect. Not factually, but the fact that many tech companies are downsizing isn't something that you could reasonably argue in court as for why these specific positions were eliminated.
"But your honor, all of the other cool companies are doing it!" isn't something that would stand up to much scrutiny.
The bit you quoted was what made me pause, because I agree with you.
Google isn't their employer, it's the contracting company. The contract not being renewed is inherently a business decision between two busines entities, which is probably going to result in the contracting company laying off the workers but that can't be directly tied to Google because...Google didn't hire these people, they hired a company that happened to employ them.
Is it a loophole? Possibly, depending on the structure of the two businesses in question...but it's very unlikely to be suddenly declared illegal, it's been common practice in sectors for a while for basically that reason. Contractors get the shit end of the deal and that needs to be addressed directly instead of pretending they're already protected by laws.
The team of more than 40 went on strike in February last year, demanding changes to Google’s return-to-work policy.
Can they prove they are needed if they weren't needed for over a year?
“Contracts with our suppliers across the country routinely end on their natural expiry date.”
Google or Alphabet (or whoever) probably gave Cognizant a contract with an expiration date for YouTube Music. After a year of being on strike, the contract expired. Does that still count as firing?
Filling offices is a priority to companies. That priority is important enough to Google to not give the right to work remotely to these employees.
The team of more than 40 went on strike in February last year, demanding changes to Google’s return-to-work policy.
If Google's return to work policy affects them, then they were probably employees misclassified as a contractor.
Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:
-Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
-Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
-Type of relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (that is, pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?
Thanks for the link and info. So I tried to find something dealing with hiring agencies at irs.gov using site:irs.gov but couldn't find anything. For financials, shouldn't that fall under Cognizant since they are the ones paying the workers?
Cognizant chief communications officer Jeff DeMarrais said in an email to The Verge that the team will be given seven weeks of pay and opportunities to find another role within Cognizant.
It seems like they are employees of Cognizant instead doing YouTube Music work.
The NRLB ruled that they were partial Google employees last march. https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/3/23624631/alphabet-cognizant-joint-employers-youtube-music-workers-union
Thank you for the info.
I really wish these articles were more specific to what the job titles of these employees are.
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-RC-305751
INCLUDED: All full-time and regular part-time Senior Process Executive-Data/Music Generalist (SPEs) and Project/Process Specialists/Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) employees employed by the Employers in YouTube Music Content Operations who are employed to work from the Employer’s (Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation) facility at 717 E. Parmer Lane in Austin, Texas. Eligible to vote are those in the unit who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the issuance of this Decision.
EXCLUDED: Team Leads, temporary employees, seasonal employees, managerial employees, professional employees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If their contracts have a set expiration like what Google claims then, as temporary or season employees, they are excluded from being part of the Alphabet Workers Union-Communications Workers of America.
The issue is, if you want a job in this sort of field, 90% of the time it is contract, with no option or ability to switch over to permanency. I have worked for several years in my current IT job, but I am technically a contractor, and every 6 months, I need to make peace with the fact that I might not have a job for no reason. I definitely do not rock the boat, because even though they’re “not allowed” to fire me if I join a union, they only have to wait till the end of the contract to find another worker bee.
Well, you want a job in IT. If you don’t like contract, use this employed time to find a non-contract IT job.
The world is due for a big round of anti-trust break ups.
The thing is that these contractors shouldn't expect to be in the same level as a regular employee in terms of importance. And if they didn't fire these people, but they simply didn't bother to renew the contract, then that solidifies that position.
This past few months (can't recall how long it has been) have been full of layoffs across various industries. Their position just became even weaker.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A union representing contractors for YouTube Music claims that Google cut the workers’ contract after they went on a prolonged strike.
The Alphabet Workers Union-CWA, which represents the contractors, said the team consisted of moderators employed by Google contractor Cognizant in Austin, Texas, that was responsible for approving music content for YouTube Music.
In a statement emailed to The Verge, Google spokesperson Courtenay Mencini maintained the decision to cut the team did not lie with them but, rather, with Cognizant and said, “Contracts with our suppliers across the country routinely end on their natural expiry date.”
The team of more than 40 went on strike in February last year, demanding changes to Google’s return-to-work policy.
The union said many workers who were hired to work remotely are paid as little as $19 an hour, and going to the office would be too expensive.
It is disgusting that Google has taken this path when confronted with its workers’ modest demands to be treated fairly on the job,” said contractor and union member Jack Benedict in a statement.
The original article contains 377 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I mean.. Contractors.
Not employees
Their union struggle is with their paycheque-issuer .
If they're contractors then it's with the contract house.
But....is it?