Google is sitting on the "but they're contractors!" angle because it makes it easier for them.
Why?
Because once the union does collective bargaining with their actual employer, Cognizant, the company will have almost no recourse but to increase fees to Google for the contract work.
Once this happens, Google just says "Oops, you're shit out of luck" and then hires a whole new company of contracted workers for the same work, for cheaper.
Google purposefully uses this type of structure to ensure they never have to pay more, even when collective bargaining with unions does happen. Because then they can just shitcan the whole company and claim costs were too high. They certainly won't break their contract, but you can bet your ass when time comes to renew it, Google will have found someone new to take their place.
This is exactly how it works. I've seen the same thing go down with another major Google contractor (fortunately as an outsider).
That sounds like their jobs require no talent and are easily replaced. Is it so?
As a user of YouTube Music, quite possibly.
They probably still deserve raises.
It sounds like your job requires no talent and you could be easily replaced. Is it so?
Just because there are other people out there who can do the same job as you (or them) doesn't mean that it takes no skill, nor that replacing them can be done at a snap of the fingers. But nobody is irreplaceable. That's how companies see their employees. Even you.
Of course everyone deserves a raise and I do hope they get everything they're asking for, but some people are more easily replaceable than others and in this case there might just be nothing stopping them from being replaced. It sucks, but Google isn't technically required to negotiate.
So? The whole point of organizing is that under capitalism, corporations hold way more bargaining power than individuals. Pointing out that a corporation isn't "required" to cooperate is basically a non-statement.
That's a very defeatist attitude. In this case Google can just sign the contract to another company, but unions do work historically.
They "work historically" because workers fought "illegally" for years for the rights and protections that exist today. I don't understand how this is defeatist. I'm all for worker power, and I'm glad these people are trying to push the needle further.
Pointing out that the current state of the law isn't on their side is either "defeatist" because it has some implicit is/ought bias or implies that they won't change anything, or it's meaningless because they already know what they're fighting against.
I really didn't think we would ever see a return to the days of the robber barons. Now I think that era was but an open mic amateur hour opening for the headliner that's coming.
Google has never been quick to learn lessons, especially when it comes to its workers.
When it comes to their workers, the Big G does learn its lessons. That's why it's so able to keep screwing them over; they reason from the standpoint of "how do I make this not affect me?"
Must be why it keeps coming back to bite them in the ass
Google’s tech union crossed the picket line when their NYC building was getting asbestos removed by scabs. They refused to help the custodial union. They suck, too.
Once the body of that first billionaire hits the floor, they're gonna start dropping like flies.
A Google spokesperson told Motherboard in a statement at the time of the unionization that it had “no objection to these Cognizant workers electing to form a union,” but that it would not bargain with them. “We are not a joint employer as we simply do not control their employment terms or working conditions—this matter is between the workers and their employer, Cognizant,” the spokesperson said.
NLRB seems to disagree. This will be an interesting case, I suspect ...
Can they automatically go union then? I thought there’s a new law about that.
The U.S. National Labor Relations Board on Friday resurrected key elements of a policy it eliminated more than 50 years ago requiring businesses that commit labor law violations to bargain with unions without holding formal elections.
Google is sitting on the "but they're contractors!" angle because it makes it easier for them.
Why?
Because once the union does collective bargaining with their actual employer, Cognizant, the company will have almost no recourse but to increase fees to Google for the contract work.
Once this happens, Google just says "Oops, you're shit out of luck" and then hires a whole new company of contracted workers for the same work, for cheaper.
Google purposefully uses this type of structure to ensure they never have to pay more, even when collective bargaining with unions does happen. Because then they can just shitcan the whole company and claim costs were too high. They certainly won't break their contract, but you can bet your ass when time comes to renew it, Google will have found someone new to take their place.
This is exactly how it works. I've seen the same thing go down with another major Google contractor (fortunately as an outsider).
That sounds like their jobs require no talent and are easily replaced. Is it so?
As a user of YouTube Music, quite possibly.
They probably still deserve raises.
It sounds like your job requires no talent and you could be easily replaced. Is it so?
Just because there are other people out there who can do the same job as you (or them) doesn't mean that it takes no skill, nor that replacing them can be done at a snap of the fingers. But nobody is irreplaceable. That's how companies see their employees. Even you.
Of course everyone deserves a raise and I do hope they get everything they're asking for, but some people are more easily replaceable than others and in this case there might just be nothing stopping them from being replaced. It sucks, but Google isn't technically required to negotiate.
So? The whole point of organizing is that under capitalism, corporations hold way more bargaining power than individuals. Pointing out that a corporation isn't "required" to cooperate is basically a non-statement.
That's a very defeatist attitude. In this case Google can just sign the contract to another company, but unions do work historically.
They "work historically" because workers fought "illegally" for years for the rights and protections that exist today. I don't understand how this is defeatist. I'm all for worker power, and I'm glad these people are trying to push the needle further.
Pointing out that the current state of the law isn't on their side is either "defeatist" because it has some implicit is/ought bias or implies that they won't change anything, or it's meaningless because they already know what they're fighting against.
I really didn't think we would ever see a return to the days of the robber barons. Now I think that era was but an open mic amateur hour opening for the headliner that's coming.
Google has never been quick to learn lessons, especially when it comes to its workers.
When it comes to their workers, the Big G does learn its lessons. That's why it's so able to keep screwing them over; they reason from the standpoint of "how do I make this not affect me?"
Must be why it keeps coming back to bite them in the ass
Google’s tech union crossed the picket line when their NYC building was getting asbestos removed by scabs. They refused to help the custodial union. They suck, too.
Once the body of that first billionaire hits the floor, they're gonna start dropping like flies.
NLRB seems to disagree. This will be an interesting case, I suspect ...
Can they automatically go union then? I thought there’s a new law about that.
is this what you're referring to?
What they should really do is pay musicians more.
Pay the execs more, you say? Sure thing!