The cuts end a yearlong strike by the workers.

Google cuts team of contractors who went on strike::Google previously said the team of YouTube Music contractors were not employees since they were hired by Cognizant.

  • Match!!English
    441·
    10 months ago

    A 2023 ruling by the NLRB clarified that contractors have the right to unionize

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.eeEnglish
      185·
      10 months ago

      Sure, but wouldn’t any union busting company not renew the contract

      • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        435·
        10 months ago

        This is the illegal part. Firing them because they unionized.

        It’s almost certain they can prove Google still needs these positions and the firing was motivated by this corrupt motive, not a business decision.

        • Azzu@lemm.eeEnglish
          254·
          10 months ago

          It’s almost certain they can’t. Motives are notoriously hard to prove, and they can just invent a plausible, legal, lie.

          • MiltownClowns@lemmy.worldEnglish
            711·
            10 months ago

            You know whats a really plausible reason? Every tech company in the world is cutting jobs by double digit pecentages.

            Its insane to think you have any leverage as a contractor for one of the most bloated companies in the history of man kind. They dont even have customer service, why do they need so many people! Stop reinventing texting and hire people to answer phones!

            • YamiYuki@lemmy.kde.socialEnglish
              4·
              10 months ago

              Its insane to think you have any leverage as a contractor for one of the most bloated companies in the history of man kind.

              Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, but this is the reality.

        • IllNess@infosec.pubEnglish
          0·
          10 months ago

          The team of more than 40 went on strike in February last year, demanding changes to Google’s return-to-work policy.

          Can they prove they are needed if they weren’t needed for over a year?

          “Contracts with our suppliers across the country routinely end on their natural expiry date.”

          Google or Alphabet (or whoever) probably gave Cognizant a contract with an expiration date for YouTube Music. After a year of being on strike, the contract expired. Does that still count as firing?

          Filling offices is a priority to companies. That priority is important enough to Google to not give the right to work remotely to these employees.

          • NotAtWork@startrek.websiteEnglish
            0·
            10 months ago

            The team of more than 40 went on strike in February last year, demanding changes to Google’s return-to-work policy.

            If Google’s return to work policy affects them, then they were probably employees misclassified as a contractor.

            Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:

            -Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?

            -Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)

            -Type of relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (that is, pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

            https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee

            • IllNess@infosec.pubEnglish
              0·
              10 months ago

              Thanks for the link and info. So I tried to find something dealing with hiring agencies at irs.gov using site:irs.gov but couldn’t find anything. For financials, shouldn’t that fall under Cognizant since they are the ones paying the workers?

              Cognizant chief communications officer Jeff DeMarrais said in an email to The Verge that the team will be given seven weeks of pay and opportunities to find another role within Cognizant.

              It seems like they are employees of Cognizant instead doing YouTube Music work.

                • IllNess@infosec.pubEnglish
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  Thank you for the info.

                  I really wish these articles were more specific to what the job titles of these employees are.

                  https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-RC-305751

                  INCLUDED: 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. Eligible to vote are those in the unit who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the issuance of this Decision.

                  EXCLUDED: Team Leads, temporary employees, seasonal employees, managerial employees, professional employees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

                  If their contracts have a set expiration like what Google claims then, as temporary or season employees, they are excluded from being part of the Alphabet Workers Union-Communications Workers of America.

        • Anomaline@lemmy.worldEnglish
          22·
          10 months ago

          Google isn’t their employer, it’s the contracting company. The contract not being renewed is inherently a business decision between two busines entities, which is probably going to result in the contracting company laying off the workers but that can’t be directly tied to Google because…Google didn’t hire these people, they hired a company that happened to employ them.

          Is it a loophole? Possibly, depending on the structure of the two businesses in question…but it’s very unlikely to be suddenly declared illegal, it’s been common practice in sectors for a while for basically that reason. Contractors get the shit end of the deal and that needs to be addressed directly instead of pretending they’re already protected by laws.