Evil has really crept in.
Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
201–210 of 258 posts
Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
#202Actually curious. Are these folks even paid by google? Or does google pay some contractor who then pays folks? Are the laws designed to cover temporary staff hired by google, or temporary staff hired by a contractor hired by google?
Google pays work agencies (like Adecco) that then pay workers.
The worker has a temporary employment contract with the agency, but reports directly to Google staff.
The laws are meant to cover temporary staff hired by a work agency hired by google.
Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exception proves the rule comes from Roman law: if there is a sign saying you can’t park here on Saturdays, it means that you can park here on any other day.
I was taught it comes from logic, and argumentation: the act of stating an exception proves a rule as stated (a rule is a claim to an axiom) is wrong. So it's in logic and philosophy, not Roman law.
If you’re reading a guide book and it specifically says: “Use spell X to ability kill this boss” the implication is you can’t instantly kill other bosses by using ability X.
Logically the statement says nothing beyond what it says, but implicitly by providing the exception you’re stating that the general rule is different.
It’s a perfectly rational linguistic argument, though often misused outside of that context.
Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
#204Atleast the European countries have laws that require equal pay for full-time vs contractors. Its about time the US instituted such laws too. It's just gross how companies get away with using contractors for the same job as full-timers but treat them like lepers that don't deserve equal pay or benefits.
Most of these laws were written in Europe when staff leasing from external agencies was legalized at the end of '90/early '00.
They were meant to avoid what you describe.
I don't know if they work well, but it's better than nothing.
Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
#205Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
#206> Google executives have been aware since at least May 2019 that the company was failing to comply with local laws in the UK, Europe and Asia that mandate temporary workers be paid equal rates to full-time employees performing similar work, internal Google documents and emails reviewed by the Guardian show. > But rather than immediately correct the errors, the company dragged its feet for more than two years, the doc…
As I keep saying: there’s nothing more dangerous than a company (or department in this case) that was once wildly profitable and is now merely profitable. It’s absurd that even at places like Google, which has effectively infinite money, there’s still this present attitude of not being able to afford paying workers. Nuts.
They are profitable exactly because they don't pay workers the worth they produce. Profit is literally that.
Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, at what point do their profits balloon enough that Google's moat is no longer intimidating enough to fend off a gold rush of people willing to pour heaps of money and ingenuity into outdoing their search product? I've been searching with Google since the beginning and it definitely feels worse than in the days of yore, yet they make more money than ever...
They don't make money at search, they make money on advertising.
Yes, a moat is not a profit centre, it is a cost centre. You appear to have misunderstood the point you replied to.
Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another commonly misused phrase is "begging the question" which you have done here. It means "assuming that which you need to prove." You have no proof that it was exceptional. All you have is one case . You have no idea what other people in pay disputes end up doing.
This kind of pedantry about which words people use to make an argument is literally garbage.
I think you mean figuratively garbage. Words can only be literally garbage if they're printed on a page which is then disposed of.
I mean, while we're being pedantic we may as well get it right.
Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't make any general statements about what happens to everyone, but in this particular case, I can't complain at all about HR's handling. That's kind of the exception that proves the rule , you think? That is, your outlining of the situation gives a strong suggestion that this sort of thing is common and unless the contractor has pull (say, a relative that works at Google), they can't do anything.
I've always thought the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is nonsense, btw. There's no such "proof."
The "rule" is the null hypothesis. The exception is a result about three standard deviations from the null hypothesis. Finding such an exception result means you can not reject the null hypothesis.
The argument is that not being able to reject the null hypothesis means that the null hypothesis is correct. This is an invalid argument. We're sorry but we can not accept your submission at this time.
Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I keep saying: there’s nothing more dangerous than a company (or department in this case) that was once wildly profitable and is now merely profitable. It’s absurd that even at places like Google, which has effectively infinite money, there’s still this present attitude of not being able to afford paying workers. Nuts.
They are profitable exactly because they don't pay workers the worth they produce. Profit is literally that.
Profit is the difference between the cost to produce a good or service and the revenue generated from it. Cost of labour is just one aspect of the cost to produce a good or service.
Google is exploitative because they don't fully compensate the value of labour used in production. This is wrong and damnable and illegal in any reasonable jurisdiction. Google is profitable. This is not wrong and commendable in most places. The concepts should not be conflated.