This is the best summary I could come up with:
More than 70% of the proposed bargaining unit — which includes 118 writers, graphic designers and launch coordinators who create internal and external Google content — were told in July that they will lose their jobs, according to a Thursday filing with the National Labor Relations Board.
The workers, whose jobs have included improving the quality of answers in Google’s search engine and artificial intelligence chatbot, are employed through the vendor Accenture Plc.
It has asked the NLRB to designate the internet giant a “joint employer” of the Accenture staff, meaning a company that exercises enough control over a group of workers to be liable for their treatment and, if they choose to unionize, obligated to negotiate with them.
The workers, who are based in Austin, Texas; the San Francisco Bay Area and elsewhere in the US, were told about the cuts during a livestreamed “town hall” that did not allow questions or comments, according to several employees who attended the session, who declined to be identified sharing non-public information.
On July 19, NLRB members in Washington DC upheld a regional director’s ruling that Alphabet was a joint employer of those workers, meaning the company is required to collectively bargain with them, a first in its history.
Laura Greene, a multimedia team leader, said she spent her time at work coordinating with full-time Google employees on content strategy, and that she had created internal white papers and infographics for people who report directly to Alphabet’s chief executive officer.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Don’t Be Evil.
Absolutely shocking to me that a multi billion dollar company would abuse their workers
Comments like this are so incredibly weak. If you’re not a bot or a troll, please realize that this low-hanging fruit brings zero value to this discussion.
This is called the normative-descriptive switch. Instead of arguing that union-busting is good or bad, you dismiss all arguments by sarcastically stating something everyone knows, i.e. big corporations tend to abuse workers. It almost reads like you’re making a substantial point, but you’re not.
Try this: multi billion dollar companies should not be allowed to abuse their workers.
Holy god my bad
Edit: You know initially I agreed with you, then I realized that your suggested comment accomplishes essentially the same thing.
Anyone would be able to infer from my comment that I don’t support the way that billion dollar companies are allowed to abuse their workers. It implicitly supports the idea that they should not be allowed to. Your suggestion contributes about as much to the discussion as my comment does, and to say that they are meaningfully different implies that people can’t interpret sarcasm.
Both my comment and your suggestion are saying something obvious, but so is the article. That’s the joke.
Eh, you’re both right.
You’re both saying the same thing, but your message was sarcastic/cynical and to an extent, self-defeatist.
I don’t have a horse in this race, but I also observe that comments like the one you made generally result in zero subsequent conversation of the root post’s content.
Just break it up, it’s too big to exist
