"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...
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba...
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.
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.
> 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.
IANAL
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.
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.
C'mon Count Chocula, come back to reality.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.