• plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    1 year ago

    So Google, like Amazon, is trying to play the “they work for a subcontractor that only supports us, so it’s their fault, not ours” card. I really want to see the NLRB smack this pattern down hard and set an example for all the other companies to try to avoid unionization by way of not directly hiring people.

    • CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      NLRB changed their criteria for what is considered co-employment last month, widely broadening the definitions used to determine this status. Essentially, if a company has significant control (not just exclusive control) over any of a worker’s employment status or conditions, then they are considered a co-employer now. It used to be that a company needed exclusive or overriding control over another company’s employees to be considered a co-employer.

      I’m certain we are going to see more lawsuits and legal challenges from employees because of this. I’m pretty certain there already are lawsuits from some other Google contractors over this exact thing; they are providing a case that Google is their co-employer due to the control they have over every aspect of their work.

      • plz1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s excellent news, especially for the employees of Amazon subcontractors handling warehouse and delivery operations.