Comment I don't think the union knows how employment works (Score 3, Insightful) 178
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?
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?
