Alphabet Inc, the parent company of Google, has been accused of illegally terminating contract employment for Google Help workers amid a unionization push. The Alphabet Workers Union filed a complaint with the US labor board, alleging that more than 70% of the proposed bargaining unit were informed in July that they would lose their jobs. These workers, who include writers, graphic designers, and launch coordinators responsible for creating internal and external Google content, are employed through vendor Accenture Plc. However, organizers argue that Alphabet is their legal employer and should be designated as a joint employer with Accenture.
The Alphabet Workers Union claims that Alphabet’s decision to terminate the contract employment of Google Help workers is retaliatory and violates federal labor law, which prohibits retaliation against employees for organizing. Anjail Muhammad, one of the affected workers, states that the timing of the job cuts is highly suspicious, prompting the filing of an unfair labor practice charge against Google and Accenture. The workers argue that Alphabet exercises enough control over the Accenture staff to be held liable for their treatment and obligated to negotiate if they choose to unionize.
Accenture has not yet provided a comment on the allegations. When the job cuts were announced in July, the company stated that it supports its workers’ rights to form or join unions but claimed that the decisions had been made prior to any knowledge of potential union activity. Google, on the other hand, maintains that the organizing efforts are a matter between the workers and their employer, Accenture, and that they do not control their employment terms or working conditions.
The affected workers, based in various locations across the US, were informed about the job cuts during a livestreamed town hall meeting that did not allow for questions or comments. They later received an email stating that the project’s account team would be reduced gradually through November. Tahlia Kirk, a writer and team trainer, revealed that the layoffs would result in a significant reduction in the number of US-based employees working on the Accenture contract for Google, from around 130 to just 40. Kirk added that they have been instructed to train their replacements from the Philippines and India.
This dispute highlights the ongoing concerns about the treatment of contract staff by Alphabet. In April, a group of Alphabet contract workers employed by Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., working on YouTube Music in Texas, voted to unionize. Last month, NLRB members in Washington DC ruled that Alphabet was a joint employer of these workers, signaling that the company would be required to collectively bargain with them. However, Alphabet has indicated that it will still refuse to negotiate, leading to a potential legal battle in federal appeals court.
Workers who have spoken out against Alphabet’s treatment argue that the company exercises significant control over their day-to-day responsibilities. Laura Greene, a multimedia team leader, revealed that much of her work involves collaborating with full-time Google employees on content strategy, creating internal documents and graphics for individuals who report directly to Alphabet’s CEO. The workers claim that they have closer ties with Google employees than with Accenture managers, using proprietary systems, equipment, and even Google tech support when needed.
The complaint filed with the NLRB will be investigated by regional officials to determine whether Alphabet is a joint employer. If the claims have merit and a settlement cannot be reached, the case will be prosecuted before an agency judge, and the ruling can be appealed to the NLRB members in DC and federal appeals court.
Workers argue that Google and Accenture’s decision to cut a majority of jobs on the team will have a detrimental effect on the quality of content work, as experienced employees are replaced by overseas workers who require rushed training. The workers assert their federally protected right to unionize and accuse the companies of breaking the law if the layoffs were intended to prevent them from voting in the union election.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the treatment of contract workers within Alphabet Inc. As the company faces allegations of illegal terminations amid a unionization push, it remains to be seen how the dispute will be resolved and what impact it will have on the broader labor landscape.
