1616
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1616 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59623 readers
933 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
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
True, but is this maybe WHY Google uses subcontractors -- to avoid direct responsibility and need to negotiate?
Yeah, apparently working as a contractor apparently involves a middleman, a 'pimp', if you will, that brings nothing to the contractor, the person doing the labour, but instead just serves to make it easy for the company in need of services to skirt labor laws. Even unionized, what are you going to do, strike against the one with which you do the actual contracting by not attending the monthly check-ins with PimpCo and refusing to submit your timesheets?
I wonder, however, shouldn't not doing the work cause a breach of contract between the company requesting the service and the middleman and thus cost the middleman some valuable business?
Your last paragraph is the actual value of a unionized strike as a subcontractor.
If your employees strike, you can't fulfill your business obligations, and so you get pressured by the people you have a contract with.
The activity that skirts labor law is individual contractors, who are often indistinguishable from employees except for tax status and are much more often taken advantage of.
A contracting company is just a company agreeing to do business with another, and doing so via it's employees. It's basically identical to a auto parts manufacturer selling parts to a car company. A Ford parts supplier is largely just a middleman for managing the production of parts to keep Ford from having to manage that process itself. Ford can't renegotiate those employees contracts, even though their work is directly to a spec dictated by Ford.