Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alupis | Hacker News Reader

> According to the NLRB panel, Google openly admits to refusing to bargain with the Union because it, along with Cognizant "contest the validity of the union's certification" based on the pair's position "that Cognizant and Google are not joint employers."

Doesn't seem as "open and shut" as The Register wants readers to believe.

Also, employers refuse to negotiate with employees all the time - how would this be any different? Just because an employee (or group such as one represented by a union) doesn't have their demands met does not seem to automatically be "illegal". The employee's recourse, of course, is to leave/quit. Even if these contractors were classified as Google employees, Google can probably just say "no" to any demand anyway...

View on HN

> Doesn't seem as "open and shut" as The Register wants readers to believe.

Looks pretty open and shut to me. Google employed a contractor to avoid the liability of those employees unionizing. In doing so it misclassified them since it is normally work an employee would do-not a contractor under labor law. They were already caught doing this previously according to the register.

> Also, employers refuse to negotiate with employees all the time - how would this be any different? Just because an employee (or group such as one represented by a union) doesn't have their demands met does not seem to automatically be "illegal".

Once a union is recognized by the NLRB an employer is required by law to make a good faith effort to negotiate. This is what? 80-100 year old American law?

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...

> The employee's recourse, of course, is to leave/quit. Even if these contractors were classified as Google employees, Google can probably just say "no" to any demand anyway...

That is part of why collective bargaining improves the economic situation of most Americans. Google says no, they go on strike, and Google then has to choose to eat the cost replace and retrain most of those people in this market (and hope they don't unionize) or meet the demands.

Compare this to how Costco handled a unionization recently.

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/costco-employees-vote-unio...

Added: (and hope they don't unionize)

> Looks pretty open and shut to me.

Also disagreed it's not simple open/shut.

> Google employed a contractor to avoid the liability of those employees unionizing. In doing so it misclassified them since it is normally work an employee would do-not a contractor under labor law. They were already caught doing this previously according to the register.

Everything hinges on this concept. That contractor work == employee work.

The article states that one of the central arguments was around contractors who were training Bard. That those contractors should have been determined as employees even though they were hired through Accenture. Admittedly, I would stand with Google/Alphabet on this one. Data entry work, once initial training completed the vast majority will not be kept on. If there was a plan to convert a few contractors to FTE to remain on Bard then that would signal even more so (pure speculation).

Currently, the argument is for Cognizant contractors but there's no details on the article that can help me understand what they're doing for Youtube that would show contractor-work == employee-work.

Of course, google is smart, they'll fight these core points before even beginning to worry/engage with labor unions. There's really no point in worrying about the downstream stuff if the upstream hasn't been determined.

[EDIT]

I got some insight by glancing at the ruling by the NLRB[0]

> 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.

They're all housed at a non-google facility, but those roles seem central to Youtube Music operations even if they are data-entry jobs. I can largely side with NRLB in this ruling. We'll have to see how google fights this one.

A side note, Youtube HATES Youtube Music. I hate it. I use it because it's packaged with my Youtube premium and it's not worth holding Spotify + Youtube memberships. But WOW, Youtube Music's such an afterthought. Everything about the UX is terrible.

[0] https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-326027

The specifics of the case you’re speculating about and calling into question have all been documented, reviewed, and now ruled upon by the NLRB. It’s linked in the article:

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-326027

What Google is doing now is appealing the ruling in federal court as an attempt to delay recognition of the union. Companies rarely win these appeals, but they use them as a stalling tactic in an attempt to demoralize and break up the union.

> Everything about the UX is terrible.

Me and my family have no real problems with it. What's wrong with it? It does my manually-created playlists well, the different supermixes with different artists are accurate 99% of the time, and the "speed dial" on mobile is very useful.

- There's no native OSX/Windows app, just an electron wrapper for the website

- Desktop app can't download/offline

- The list of songs that you're looking at isn't the true play list. There's a "hidden" list when you click on the empty space on the bottom bar.

- Shuffle isn't a true shuffle simply reorders the "secondary/hidden list". So you can't turn shuffle on/off only "exit/reenter" to go from order to non-ordered.

- Can't sort list on name/artist

- Billboard doesn't seem to have an official list? It's like a bunch of weird lists or sometimes one whole "song" that contains the top billboard. I follow a random dude who maintains a close-enough list to a billboard one i care about.

Things I miss from Spotify:

- Seamless control of the "other player". i.e. my phone can control the one that's running on the TV and taps into the main sound system.

- Radios are a lot stronger. They have a chance to introduce me to new music.

- opposite of everything above?

Not sure about speed dial. it's not on my desktop version, but i can't tell if that's a device or a/b or rollout difference.

> - There's no native OSX/Windows app, just an electron wrapper for the website

Do you mean the prompt on the browser to install the PWA? That's technically not Electron, but I get what you mean.

>Also, employers refuse to negotiate with employees all the time - how would this be any different?

The NLRA says both parties must negotiate a contract in good faith.

>Just because an employee (or group such as one represented by a union) doesn't have their demands met does not seem to automatically be "illegal".

Google is fine to not meet the demands of the union, they must negotiate a contract in good faith.

>The employee's recourse, of course, is to leave/quit.

They have an additional recourse: file an unfair labor practice with the NLRB and win, as they did here.

> The NLRA says both parties must negotiate a contract in good faith.

The NLRA exists to protect unions. At dispute is if these contractors are even Google employees. This is not "over" just because NLRA says so... in fact, they have very little enforcement abilities it seems.

> Google is fine to not meet the demands of the union, they must negotiate a contract in good faith.

Good Faith is a legalese way of saying "dealing honestly". It would be honest of Google to simply say "No" to every demand. A union is not a magic ticket to getting what you want.

> They have an additional recourse: file an unfair labor practice with the NLRB and win, as they did here.

And nothing is going to happen as a result. It will be appealed, and the litigation will continue possibly for years.

>Good Faith is a legalese way of saying "dealing honestly". It would be honest of Google to simply say "No" to every demand.

No it isn't and no it wouldn't. Per the NLRB:

The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground.

Does it sound to you like going into negotiations with the goal of refusing every proposal and not offering any of your own, i.e. saying no to every demand, meets this criteria?

Yes it does. At dispute here is if this union is even legal in the first place, and who they have power to bargain with if any at all. Both the actual employer and Google dispute the union's ability to bargain with Google at all...

Regardless, "bargaining in good faith" purely means an intention to bargain honestly. If that bargain means "nothing changes" - that satisfies the NLRB according to their own website[1].

Again - there is no legal obligation to accept demands from employees - union or not. A union is not a magic ticket to get whatever you want. Employers are free to reject any demand for any reason. Being an employee does not mean you can force an employer to give you things...

So while the NLRB might be able to ultimately compel Google to come to the table, so to speak, they cannot compel Google to accept demands.

[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba...

> At dispute here is if this union is even legal in the first place

Does any reputable legal authority think Google's claims have merit here? They're appealing the court ruling against them, sure, but that looks more like a stalling tactic than something they expect to actually succeed.

> Regardless, "bargaining in good faith" purely means an intention to bargain honestly. If that bargain means "nothing changes" - that satisfies the NLRB according to their own website[1].

Which would be a win for the employees - they're trying to get Google's (unilateral, illegal) changes to their working conditions rolled back.

> A union is not a magic ticket to get whatever you want. Employers are free to reject any demand for any reason. Being an employee does not mean you can force an employer to give you things...

Not true. Employers have obligations, employees have rights, and unionised employees have more rights. Yes, you can't always get everything you want. But you can get some things, such as preventing your employer from unilaterally worsening your working conditions.

Good faith is not about willingness to compromise, give up ground, or change your mind. it is about listening, not lying, and engaging.

The fact that you think employers are legally required to give in to employee demands is truly bizarre.

Even stranger is the fact that you seem to think such a law would be a good thing if it did exist.

Here's a quote from one of my posts on the subject:

"Google is fine to not meet the demands of the union, they must negotiate a contract in good faith."

Care to find a corresponding quote matching what you say I am claiming, namely that I "think employers are legally required to give in to employee demands"?

"Employers have a legal duty to bargain in good faith with their employees' representative and to sign any collective bargaining agreement that has been reached."

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba...

This depends if these contractors are classified as Google employees, which both Google and their actual employer Cognizant, dispute.

This also does not mean Google cannot say "no" to any demand, union or not. There is no legal obligation to accept demands from employees, union or not. Good Faith means "honest dealing" in a legal setting, and saying "No" to everything can be honest.

They're not google employees in name only. They work on google equipment, have google badges, and go into google offices. If google doesn't like them, they're fired. Google controls every aspect of their work. These employees aren't allowed to seek other customers either.

This is a purely a scheme by google to get away from having to hire full time employees but abusing the contractor system that was meant for actual consulting, not employees-for-rent.

> They're not google employees in name only. They work on google equipment, have google badges, and go into google offices. If google doesn't like them, they're fired. Google controls every aspect of their work. These employees aren't allowed to seek other customers either.

All of these classifications are required for a contracting position to exist. Access control mechanisms existing isn't a good argument. And another commentor[0] actually pointed out that they go to a non-Google facility.

> These employees aren't allowed to seek other customers either.

Presumably they can indeed seek other customers. If Cognizant doesn't let them, I don't see how that's on Google unless Google's agreement with them prohibits shuffling workers (most likely Google requires they give them some advanced notice, but it's still on Cognizant if they just don't allow the contractors to withdraw from said position or threaten the contractor with loss of any work if they try to withdraw from Google).

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38874465

If you work in an office building, I'm sure that your company hires a contractor to do janitorial work. Or maybe it's the building itself that hires a contractor to clean all the floors. But at the end of the day a worker is still going into your office doing some piece of work but they're not employees of your company.

Abusing the contractors employment is a very specific claim, employers are not supposed to use contractors for the same work that full-time employees perform. It's not about in the same badges or working in the same offices or working on the same equipment, it's about the work that they are performing.

It's not abusing contracting systems if a company is using contractors for a specific class of work like answering customer service tickets or data ingest. If you've got details on how Google is using contractors for the same work as full-time employees, it'd be really good to share.

Yeah because a janitor working at google is doing the exact same work as an engineer working at google.

C'mon Count Chocula, come back to reality.

Again, if you have details on how Google is using contractors for the same functions as full time employees I'd be glad to read it.

But all the examples I've heard were for roles significantly distinct from Google's full time employees. I've read stories of Google contractors answering help center calls, and scanning books. I have not seen examples of Google contractors working on Google Ads in the same function as full time engineers.

Again, I'd be glad to read up on any details of this happening that you're willing to share. But until then, the presumption is that Google isn't abusing contract work

> their actual employer Cognizant

You're assuming something that's very much in dispute: The NLRB has concluded otherwise that "Cognizant and Google have codetermined the essential terms and conditions of employment [for the YouTube team] and have been joint employers" at all material times.

Nobody disputes that Cognizant is these employees employer. Cognizant hired them, sets their pay, etc.

The NLRB is saying that Cognizant's customers are supposed to negotiate with Cognizant's employee union. How exactly Google is supposed to participate in these negotiations when Cognizant is the one that actually has the ability to give employees raises is remains rather unclear.

It’s not even really in dispute at this point. Companies can pursue an appeal of an NLRB ruling in federal court, but they generally lose.

Assuming that their union is legally recognized:

Their existing work arrangement is agreeable to Google. If the employees wish to continue with their existing work arrangement, only as a union, and then Google chooses to reject that, then that is sufficiently strong evidence that Google is rejecting their demand purely due to the existence of a union. That is illegal according to current US law.

If they declare that they are not rejecting due to the existence of a union, then there is sufficiently strong evidence that they are not engaged in "honest dealing" as they are being dishonest with their motives. To engage in "honest dealing" with those facts either requires them to honestly disclose they are rejecting due to the existence of a union (which would be illegal), or extremely compelling extenuating circumstances showing why their existing work arrangement is now, coincidentally, untenable.

Saying "no" to everything won't be found to be bargaining in good faith.

That's not true.

Just because you want something does not mean you are entitled to something... there is no legal protections for not getting what you want - union or not.

This is why strikes happen. Demands are not met.

The unfortunate reality is this super tiny union is not going to scare Google with the threat of a strike.

And... all this hinges on if these are even Google employees, which it really seems to be a stretch to claim they are. NLRB is not an unbiased party - they exists almost exclusively to be pro-union.

The union probably would make better headway by going after their actual employer... Cognizant.

You're just parroting the Google lawyers' line here. Your argument contains no evidence to contradict the assertion that Google and Cognizant are joint employers here (as Google and Accenture were found to be last time we went around this carousel) and since the judicial authority over this matter has ruled that they are, the ball is very much in the "no they're not" court to prove it.

The Accenture case is still being litigated. It's even in the article.. none of this is settled, and likely will not be for years if ever.

> judicial authority over this matter has ruled that they are

NLRB has no authority to classify contractors as employees. That's why this is still being litigated.

> You're just parroting the Google lawyers' line here.

Stating reality and facts does not make one a "parrot" as you claim.

The fact that it's being appealed doesn't negate the existence of a prior ruling, and your act of parroting does not make you a parrot. Finally, yes, the NLRB has exactly that authority, including determining the standard to be used to make the distinction, no matter how many times you baselessly and falsely claim otherwise. Your confidence in facts and reality is commendable, but your grasp of those terms may not be as strong as you assume.

In rough terms, negotiating in good faith means negotiating in a way that is likely to yield an agreement. Bad faith means just going through the motions for the sake of appearance, or even making moves to spoil the process.

IANAL

It has nothing to do with the likelihood of agreement. It is about honestly representing your interests and taking steps that actually advance them.

If you don't care for The Register, the actual ruling is: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583c083ab

It's not that I don't care for The Register, it's that this is far from a settled issue and litigation will continue.

And the NLRB's reasoning is summarized in this sentence:

> At all material times, Respondents Cognizant and Google have codetermined the essential terms and conditions of employment of employees employed at the E. Parmer Lane facility and have been joint employers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com