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)