YouTube Music team laid off by Google while workers testified to Austin City Council about working conditions::Some workers learned of the YouTube Music layoffs while testifying to the Austin city council about Google’s refusal to negotiate with the union.

  • SuperIce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Cognizant, a professional services company that Alphabet contracted the YouTube Music team through, said in a statement that the workers were let go after their contract ended at its intended date, according to KXAN in Austin.

    A spokesperson for Google told Business Insider that Cognizant is responsible for ending the workers’ employment, not Google.

    “Contracts with our suppliers across the company routinely end on their natural expiry date, which was agreed to with Cognizant,” the company said in a statement.

    Not sure how much of the fault is from Google’s side here since the employees contracted from another company.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      104
      ·
      9 months ago

      I am not defending Google here, but Cognizant is trash. I run a firm of specialist and a bulk of our work is cleaning up after outfits like Cognizant , Infosys, etc.

      All that said, firing a group of 43 workers that chose to unionize during an Austin City Council meeting as it was being live streamed is all sorts of spicy. Google and Cognizant fucked up.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        How’s that work, is there lots of hair pulling? Or are you able to charge an arm and a leg and set your timelines because the clients don’t have much of a choice?

          • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            My complaints on quality of code, maintainability, et cetera are met with “they move faster”, “they have more expertise doing projects like this”, and “they help keep us lean”.

            This is all corpo speak for “they were cheap and their H1Bs were close to expiration”

    • net00@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      9 months ago

      If the team is finding out that their job ends on the same day, it’s totally Google’s doing, and not the vendor company.

      Google loves cheap, disposable workers, that why half of their workers are contractors.

      • ShunkW@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        9 months ago

        I mean, if you’re a contractor and they haven’t discussed extending more than a month ahead of time, expect your contract to end on its end date. That’s just common sense.

            • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              Cognizant employees don’t sign a contract. They are W2 employees, who are “contracted out” to other companies. The contract is between Cognizant and the third party. The employee literally never sees it.

              • ShunkW@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s not true. When they sign to work with a client, they’re given an initial end date. Worked with many of them throughout the years.

                • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I assure you, they are not. Unless it’s a one off project and not an ongoing project like YouTube music would be.

                  • ShunkW@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    And I assure you they are. We had dozens of contractors that were doing ongoing work, not project based. They were all given a contract with terms to sign that outlined the timeline. Sometimes they were extended, other times not.

              • Miaou@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                They have a contract with their employer, though. The problem here is not contracting, it’s this stupid at-will employment that allows this to happen

                • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  They are W2 employees. They have a contract insofar as any other W2 employer.

                  Unless you mean the employer and the third party, in this case Google, which I absolutely agree with.

                  And yeah, the at-will bs gets quite tiresome. People assume they are “safe” because they aren’t contracted, but when you’re contracted you can tie in early term fees and such, and you can still be fired at the drop of a hat.

            • Clent@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              The important part here is your signally that you do not side with workers. You are a class traitor. How you justify it does not matter.

              • ShunkW@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                Lol ok Hun. You tell me that when you need to pay bills and it’s the only offer on the table, idiot.

                • Clent@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  apparently you are the one in a position to pick and choose and look down on those who aren’t as clever as you.

                  • ShunkW@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    If you can’t be bothered to read a contract before you sign it, then yes, you’re not clever.

              • ShunkW@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                I can’t believe it’s controversial to say you should read a contract before you sign it.

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  When most contracts are full of legalise, hundreds of pages long, and are required to be signed off on as quickly as possible so that you can get the job you may have already quit your previous one for, reading and understanding every word isn’t always possible.

                  • ShunkW@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I’ve never seen an employment contact that complex and I’ve worked tons of contact gigs over my career, and been the hiring senior engineer on multiple others. They are not like that at all.

            • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              wow, that is so brave, you must be the protagonist! I keep meeting all the background characters and I am like these people suck

              • ShunkW@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                It’s brave to read a contract before you sign it? I guess I’m the bravest then, cuz not doing so is stupid.

          • XTornado@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            That could be the case, in any case it wouldn’t be Google fault, but Cognizant.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’ve worked at two employers who used the contractor loophole. At the first one, the length of the contract and extensions were never mentioned to me ever. The second one constantly played games with extension. At one point I was set to have my final week of employment, only for them to extend it over the weekend.

          I’ve been in the contractor shoes for way longer than I should have (which is zero), So as a hardfast rule, “expect your contract to end on its end date” simply doesn’t hold up. Corps like to play games with it, and leave employees out of the loop.

    • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 months ago

      The National Labor Review Board ruled that Google was a co-employer of these union members and, thus, ruled that both Google and Cognizant had to come to the table to hammer out a bargaining agreement with them. Google refused. When this council resolution was put forth, Katherine McAden of Google Austin emailed the Austin City Council members on 02/28/24 to ask them to postpone the vote to “give Google, and the City Council, time to fully understand the direction of this item and potential local outcomes.” The very next day (02/29/24), while two members were in the middle of testifying to the council, that was the exact moment Google fired the lot of them.

      I don’t see how much more open and shut you can get here.

      • PigsInClover@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Thank you for this. This should be the top comment.

        I wonder how the new Cemex framework affects this.

    • YⓄ乙 @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      9 months ago

      Lol corporate world is not for you my guy. They contract other companies specifically for this reason. Order cognizant to fire workers and when questioned , oooohh they were contractors. 🤷‍♀️

      • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is exactly what happened with these union members. The National Labor Review Board ruled that Google was a co-employer along with Cognizant, and they ruled that Google just come to the bargaining table with these union members. They refused. They emailed city council members asking for a postponement of their vote to give them time to sort stuff out, and it was granted. The very next day, the fired the entire union out of retaliation for speaking to the city council voicing their concerns.

      • RedFox@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        You have any idea the wide spread feelings on this?

        It sounds like that’s what we should be doing in more countries,.US.

        • ShunkW@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          9 months ago

          Oh the US has tried to fix this issue multiple times. The end result was many of us getting laid off after 18 months every time because they couldn’t extend our contacts any further by law. There’s no reason for a company to convert a contractor if they’re not required to.

          • Pika@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            that’s because they keep going at it from a timeline POV; I believe if they made required work time slots as a limitation against contract work (i.e if you are required to work between x-y daily) this issue would be resolved. There’s no real reason for many contract positions to be a static time slot, contractors are supposed to be fully flexible on their own time as long as the end product is correct and within SLA, thd only benefit to fixed scheduling is management level, so I think that would tip the scale onto employee instead of contractor

            • ShunkW@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              That’s really only true for independent contractors, not W2 contract work to be fair. And every 1099 contract I’ve worked I’ve always clarified that stipulation in writing. In the interest of working together I do agree to be on daily or semi daily standups to allow progress.

          • RedFox@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah, it’s frustrating when people in turn can’t find good medical insurance.

            The trade for sometimes higher pay or flexibility in assignments doesn’t work when you can’t afford insurance or other benefits.

            Assuming you were even being paid about permanent positions.

            • ShunkW@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah it’s really frustrating. I’m fortunately at a level where the contracting companies have to provide at least decent benefits to get employees. But contracting sucks. Often you’re restricted in what you can do, causing unnecessary delays to getting software done at the rate the company wants.

              I’ve been yelled at by upper management for not doing something I legally wasn’t allowed to. No apology when an employee on the call pointed it out of course.

              It’s a shit show. But my market is fucked right now so I’m about to go get a job at a grocery store or something and figure it out I guess.

              • Buttons@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Those work situations are the worst. It reminds me of the saying “you can be right, or you can get what you want, but not both”.

                You can correctly assert your contractor status and correctly point out that you’re not legally allowed to do a thing. You’re in the right, no doubt, but that doesn’t stop an unhappy executive from “letting you go” anyway.

    • Virulent@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Contactor staffing companies exist solely to get around employment regulations. Demonic industry

    • Pixelemme@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah I don’t understand why Google is being blamed here. If the contact ended with Cognizant then it is upto Cognizant to find other projects for the people who were part of the contract. That’s how it works with these companies. If CTS couldn’t find work in other projects then it’s on CTS and not on Google

      • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        The National Labor Review Board ruled that Google was a co-employer of these union members and, thus, ruled that both Google and Cognizant had to come to the table to hammer out a bargaining agreement with them. Google refused that order. When this council resolution was put forth, Katherine McAden of Google Austin emailed the Austin City Council members on 02/28/24 to ask them to postpone the vote to “give Google, and the City Council, time to fully understand the direction of this item and potential local outcomes.” The very next day (02/29/24), while two members were in the middle of testifying to the council, that was the exact moment Google fired the lot of them.

        I don’t see how much more open and shut you can get here.

        • Pixelemme@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I see. Thanks for this. Explains it more clearly. I thought the situation was more amicable than this.

    • kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Damn it, what am I supposed to do with this pitchfork now?

      But seriously, shitty misleading headline.

      • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        9 months ago

        If you watch the video, one of the union members is at the Council meeting speaking to the City Council and another union member walks up to him to inform him that they were laid off with immediate effect. The workers both seemed genuinely surprised that they were laid off.

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Use it.

        Don’t be fooled by layers of bureaucracy.

        As along as it lands in the soft belly of those in the owner class or their supporters, it has served it purpose.