Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/02/21/im-feeling-lucky.html
…
5 Likes
14 Likes
For all my problems with Google (don’t get me started on product management), they do continue to scrape along for the title of least-worst tech monopoly.
4 Likes
Unless they capitulated on this as well(in which case it would be a fairly big part of the story), we should probably say “for employees” rather than “for workers”. Google uses a significant number of contractors(the perma-temp kind; they may also use the exigent-outside-specialist kind; but those are generally seen as very different for labor relations purposes).
Did they cave on contractors as well, or just direct employees?
2 Likes
I understand that google caved in because of sexual harassment scandals. Would they have ended forced arbitration if there had been no such scandals, we do not know. But workers’ rights do not stop at sexual harassment: pay, working conditions, health, the ability to unionize, etc… are also part of a work package and abuse related to these should be dealt by independent courts and not so-called kangaroo courts (which is what arbitration really is). Yet, politically, these workers’ rights are not as salable when devising a campaign to force a large company to change their abusive practices.
2 Likes
3 Likes
Related NY Times articles seems to state that it will flow to “workers” as well. All that said, if I were a G employee, I wouldn’t hold my breath. I’d want to see in writing what the replacement language in the employment contract actually says.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
