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.
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).
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