Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Google IT

Watch the Moment 43 Unionized YouTube Contractors Were All Laid Off (msn.com) 178

An anonymous Slashdot reader shared this report from The Washington Post: A YouTube contractor was addressing the Austin City Council on Thursday, calling on them to urge Google to negotiate with his union, when a colleague interrupted him with jaw-dropping news: His 43-person team of contractors had all been laid off...

The YouTube workers, who work for Google and Cognizant, unanimously voted to unionize under the Alphabet Workers Union-CWA in April 2023. Since then, the workers say that Google has refused to bargain with them. Thursday's layoff signifies continued tensions between Google and its workers, some of whom in 2021 formed a union...

Workers had about 20 minutes to gather their belongings and leave the premises before they were considered trespassing.

Video footage of the moment is embedded at the top of the article. "I was speechless, shocked," said the contractor who'd been speaking. He told the Washington Post "I didn't know what to do. But angered, that was the main feeling." The council meeting was streaming live online and has since spread on social media. The contractors view the layoff as retaliation for unionizing, but Google and information technology subcontractor Cognizant said it was the normal end of a business contract.

The ability for layoffs to spread over social media highlights how the painful experience of a job loss is frequently being made public, from employees sharing recordings of Zoom meetings to posting about their unemployment. The increasing tension between YouTube's contractors and Google comes as massive layoffs continue to hit the tech industry — leaving workers uneasy and companies emboldened. Google already has had rounds of cuts the past two years.

Google has been in a long-running battle with many of its contractors as they seek the perks and high pay that full-time Google workers are accustomed to. The company has tens of thousands of contractors doing everything from food service to sales to writing code... Google maintains that Cognizant is responsible for the contractors' employment and working conditions, and therefore isn't responsible for bargaining with them. Cognizant said it is offering the workers seven weeks of paid time to explore other roles at the company and use its training resources.

Last year, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Cognizant and Google are joint employers of the contractors. In January, the NLRB sent a cease-and-desist letter to both employers for failing to bargain with the union. Since then the issue of joint employment, which would ultimately determine which company is responsible for bargaining, has landed in an appeals court and has yet to be ruled on.

"Workers say they don't have sick pay, receive minimal benefits and are paid as little as $19 an hour," according to the article, "forcing some to work multiple jobs to make ends meet." Sam Regan, a data analyst contractor for YouTube Music, told the Washington Post that he was one of the last workers to leave the meeting where the layoffs were announced.

"Upon leaving, he heard one of the security guards call the non-emergency police line to report trespassers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Watch the Moment 43 Unionized YouTube Contractors Were All Laid Off

Comments Filter:
  • by zmollusc ( 763634 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @12:41PM (#64284624)

    Just remember how little they care about people when you are applying for a job and they make promises about raises and promotions in the future.

    • by JustBoo ( 4351021 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @01:05PM (#64284680)
      That moment the World sees that Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Sundar Pichai THINK of themselves as ROYALTY and Sultans, and how DARE the Peons / Peasants / Serfs rise up against their Mighty Whims. How Dare They! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! they squeal. And so it is.
      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        The funny thing is those that call them left wingers. At least economically, they're quite right wing.

    • I would lay off all YouTube people too. Text-to-Video with OpenAI is going to replace a lot of jobs....

  • The fact that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @12:44PM (#64284630)

    Companies are scared to death of unions tells you everything.

    • by juancn ( 596002 )

      It also speaks that their roles weren't as important or valuable as they thought. If they were, the union would have worked, in this case, the math went the other way and they were made redundant.

      What I mean is that unionizing is a gamble, it will work if it's a role that's really needed by the company, but if it's not, if it's something that could easily be done remotely in any other country for much less money, tough luck.

  • "Sorry, your time has expired" is a poignant zinger to tell someone who has just lost their job.
    • by ichthus ( 72442 )
      After watching the video, my takeaway is that unions suck, because all of the members are forced to get the same hairdo.
  • They dont work for Google, they work for Cognizant. Their argument is with that company, not the company that sub-contracted. If google didnt want to negotiate after Cognizant formed a Union, who cares? I hate Google business practice, but....

    Has nothing to do with Unions or protections for workers. Shitty? Sure, cause Google has been doing Evil since they started. When you need to say "Do no evil" to remind yourself of your own nature to do evil -- its already lost.
    • The NLRB ruled otherwise. See summary.

      Google has everything to do with them.

      • ...and this is what will have the NLRB declared unconstitutional. I am not sure what the middle ground is; should the NLRB be able to determine what types of business arrangements are core to a company's function? Should companies have flexibility in using staffing agencies for temporary or cyclical needs? There really is a delicately balance there.

    • >to remind yourself of your own nature to do evil

      I'm going to dub this, "Calvinist Economics" :)

      hawk

  • That's cold. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @01:20PM (#64284712)

    Google and information technology subcontractor Cognizant said it was the normal end of a business contract.

    So... how many people have had contracts that ended with "you have 20 minutes to gather your belongings and leave the premise before we call the police"?

  • by SirDrinksAlot ( 226001 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @01:29PM (#64284736) Journal
    The contract not being renewed does not mean Google laid them off, they're still employed by Cognizant. If Cognizant lays them off because they don't have work it's not Google's responsibility to employ the contractors employees union or not. Saying this is Google's problem is asinine, it's not Googles problem it's Cognizant's.

    Clearly IANAL and probably a dumbass... But I've worked a number of contracts before and I've never felt entitled to make demands with the company I was contracted to by a contracting company. I never asked for more hours or pay from the contracted company, but I would with the company I worked for. I've even managed the work for my contracting company and I wouldn't ask the contracted company for more hours for my employees I'd ask my company. In the end the money for those hours come out of the contract and not from the 3rd party. If we were going to miss our service level agreement or metrics it would likely make financial sense to throw more hours at the problem than to take the penalty which was usually SIGNIFICANT, it would also mean we were more likely to get a renewal (and get the obligatory pizza party) because we kept the customer happy.

    How do they think this is supposed to work? These contractors don't work for Google, they work for the contracting company Cognizant. Why would the union employees negotiate with Google when they don't work for Google but they work for Cognizant? Cognizant would need to negotiate on the unions behalf with Google, not the Union employees negotiating on Cognizant's behalf with Google. If Cognizant was it self owned and operated by the unionized employees, then isn't Google negotiating the (corporate?) entity Cognizant and it doesn't matter that Cognizant's employees are unionized?

    Having worked in part on new contracts Google and Cognizant would set contract terms, like work performed, term period, and costs. Google would have contracted X dollars for Y work with W requirements (which could be anything from # of employees working, but especially SLAs) for Z years/months/days, beyond that they won't care how Cognizant accomplishes it. It's then Cognizant problem for them to work out how they do this work and make it financially viable. We wouldn't have taken a contract if it wasn't going to benefit us, when it's the employees that own the company I imagine all they want are the pay cheques but why would that change Google's position?
    • There are plenty of legitimate reasons to use contract companies, one of them is to ensure you have no issues getting rid of the excess staff when you're done with whatever you hired them for.

      However, just from the summary it sounds like these people were embedded into Google as if they were regular Google employees - in which case the use of a contract house is simply a way to avoid having these people on your own books directly and having to treat them with the minimum standards that apply to your own emp

    • by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @01:50PM (#64284780)

      Normally, yes, but the NLRB ruled otherwise. They say Google is responsible.

    • by Frobnicator ( 565869 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @01:52PM (#64284790) Journal

      In theory yes, in practice it's a common flaw that people sometimes litigate. There's enough money in it that lobbyists ensure it isn't fixed for the workers.

      In theory the company (in this case Google) gets a contract with another company (in this case Cognizant) for workers, and Cognizant pulls from it's enormous pool of talent to bring in workers for the job, then move the workers to the next job, then the next, then the next. The workers theoretically are employed for the long term, with the job being a short term gig in a long term stable employment.

      In practice, it is companies like Google using the contract company in lieu of regular employment contracts, hired only for the one project by Google, with skills needed only for the project ordered by Google, using tools provided by Google. By contracting with another business they can skirt around most employment and labor laws. They do a lot so it isn't their violation, they simply asked a business partner to do something, and the partner potentially committed the violation.

      As one example of many, large layoffs aren't Google's layoffs, Google is simply ending a business contract with another business so it isn't subject to Google issuing a WARN act notice.

    • by keltor ( 99721 ) * on Saturday March 02, 2024 @02:00PM (#64284810)
      There's an idea in labor law that if you're a "contractor" and the contractee has anything approaching individual control over your situation and "employment status" that you are a joint employee of both companies because each has control over your employment. This is pretty much the employment law everywhere. If this were just a service Cognizant was performing, but Cognizant controlled 100% of the people aspects, then there would be no discussion and there would be nothing to talk about. These deals are just ways for companies like Google, Microsoft, and the like to not have to pay benefits to their "warm body" employees that they view like cogs they can just replace with another cog. It should 100% be illegal. They also use contractors because of the tax deduction differences, so it's more tax advantaged as well.
    • I worked as an independent software contractor for 17 years, almost never for an agency and never for anything like Cognizant. Cognizant doesn't provide the top talent. When a junior software engineer starts with Cognizant they work on contract and then when they get enough experience, usually after a year or two they quit and get a higher paying job somewhere else. As an independent contractor you are to provide your own health/life/disability insurance. In the US you have to pay the employer and emplo

    • by kmahan ( 80459 )

      They work for Cognizant. All their benefits/pay/whatever is paid by Cognizant. AT&T is only responsible for whatever is stated in the contract.

      Long ago I worked for a big contracting company and was one of a group of engineers contracted to work at AT&T. Our AT&T supervisor was great and treated us well -- but he did make the point that "you're basically an expensive piece of office furniture" on his budget. The contract did allow for him to reward us financially -- but it was indirect. He'

  • by NobleNobbler ( 9626406 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @01:49PM (#64284768)

    They are talking about Cognizants now drastically reduced "bench" time where, once you're not on a project, you either find a new client or get laid off, totally automated.

    You get asked trivia by internal recruiters who know nothing and who call it a "work refusal" if you don't accept an interview for a devops position if you're a developer. If you're a developer, you get asked insulting questions until you miss a piece of trivia. Typically, they always choose a remote south asian over anyone in the US, because Cognizant makes so, so so much more money. They'll also ask you to modify your resume to suit the position (ie. fake credentials) vs. submit you "as is".

    Such an awful, awful place to be at. No doubt this was an agreement made that both Cognizant and Google were for. It's punishment for standing up to our dear corporate overlords.

  • Why are people doing this work for $19 an hour? Unless they are working remote from somewhere very cheap that's not going to cover their cost of living.

  • "Workers say they don't have sick pay, receive minimal benefits and are paid as little as $19 an hour," according to the article, "forcing some to work multiple jobs to make ends meet." Sam Regan, a data analyst contractor

    So, um, why work there at all? There are no jobs better?

    • There are job shops around me paying $30/hour with benefits to run CNC machines. They'll even pay for your training. But, nobody wants to work in a factory.

      • There are job shops around me paying $30/hour with benefits to run CNC machines. They'll even pay for your training. But, nobody wants to work in a factory.

        I don't get it. Why the hell not? I did. Work in a factory, I mean. I'm currently working from home as a consultant, with sounds cushy if you ignore all the years of sweat and long hours and travel that led up to it. Where did we as a workforce get the idea that we're just handed cushy jobs without having to put in the sweat first?

      • by Khyber ( 864651 )

        And most of those shops skimp on safety - like Rivian, whose shop is pure fucking hell, welders have no ventilation or safety respiration gear.

        Nobody wants to work in a factory because safety regulations don't get fucking enforced.

        • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

          Not sure how running a CNC is hell. You put the stock in. It runs. You pull the part out. You run it against a wheel brush for a few seconds. I helped my friend run one a few times. It's fun.

          These are jobs shops, not forges.

  • I wondered why every company doesn't just fire all the union people to get rid of them. In this case they're not employees of the company doing the firing. I'll bet their contract allowed Google to fire them "at will".

    Otherwise stuff like this should apply (and I assume prevent such an obvious "kill the union" tactic)...

    https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlr... [nlrb.gov]

    "Interfering with employee rights (Section 7 & 8(a)(1))
    Employees have the right to unionize, to join together to advance their interests as employees,

  • by jonfr ( 888673 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @05:12PM (#64285126)

    This is the sociopath way of doing business. This is a bad practice and its only favored because business today is full of sociopaths that do this type of thing. This is not going to save Google or other Tech companies when the time comes. As it is clear that current status is not going to last forever and this companies are going to end one day.

  • Support these workers with your wallet. There are plenty of alternatives to Google [restoreprivacy.com]'s offerings.

  • They don't actually work for google at all. Their company does.

    They have no rights at all or recourse...this is generally understood when outsourcing to work to subcontracts.

    They were fucking morons for going to the city council in the first place. Even more so for saying the word 'google' at any time in the discourse. They work for a sub-par shitstain company, that hires other shitstains, to do shitstain work. As a subcontractor you can be removed without cause, or even for cause - like the cause of "I h

    • by kenh ( 9056 )

      That Austin residents went to their city council to complain about their employer tells me all I need to know about folks in Austin. I just can't understand the thought process that has one treating their city council as if it were their employer's HR department...

      • I would guess that the city offers some sort of tax incentive to the company and that they were leveraging against that.

        I would also guess that the primary purpose was to be at a public forum to get attention (which they did). Thought that does make me very suspicious as to the timing of when they were fired. That feels very staged.

  • So they folded up the business unit. If Google and Cognizant were ruled to be co-employers of the workers, it sounds like they, perhaps, will get a severance payment partially shouldered by Google. Remains to be seen how all that plays out, of course. But given the trend to layoffs in the industry over the last few years, I don't know how much larger of a target you could possibly have painted on your backs.

    I'm not saying anybody should roll over and take abuse. Far from it. But when you've chosen the hill

  • by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Saturday March 02, 2024 @11:09PM (#64285554)

    That's the trade-off when you choose 1099 work over W-2 employment. As a contractor you get more freedom and independence on the job, ease of switching to new things if you get bored somewhere, and a significantly higher hourly rate than a full-time employee would earn doing similar work; plus overtime if you go past 8/40, which employees also don't get. And if you have a critical skill that the company needs now, Now, NOW; you can make a ton of money in a short time by building or fixing their stuff in a crisis. The downside is that, not being a full-time employee, you have less job security. Unions typically don't even want you on the site, much less in the union (Which makes this a *VERY* odd story.). You don't get the ISOs or RSUs that an employee gets. And you don't get the benefits package either.

    It's not for everybody. Personally, while I've done some contracting in the past, I prefer regular FTE work. But it's not as if you don't know what you're getting into when you choose to go the 1099 route.

  • As a contractor, you're expendable....when you're no longer needed, same as a temp service. Company calls the temp service to let them go. As a contractor, you never have the benefits of the company you work for, that's on the contractor agency. We had contractors/temps where I used to work and they were paid $5-10 more than us, w/o any benefits.

Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley

Working...