376
Google cuts team of contractors who went on strike
(www.theverge.com)
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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!
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.
Can they prove they are needed if they weren't needed for over a year?
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.
If Google's return to work policy affects them, then they were probably employees misclassified as a contractor.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee
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?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
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.