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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You really need a ukelele for your apologies.
What can I say, it kinda pisses me off that they set me up and can’t even answer the question.
Good news is that since I’m easily replaceable the next guy can worry about the perfect apology.
Removed by mod