Around 2,300 cafeteria workers who work at dozens of Google campuses in the Bay Area, including the search giant’s main headquarters in Mountain View, have unionized.
The workers — who include dishwashers and food preparers who serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner for Google employees — voted last month to form a union after a campaign that’s been two years in the making, according to a source involved in the campaign.
[...]
The workers who voted to unionize earn wages that start at around $35,000 a year, according to a source familiar with the matter. And they say they don’t receive all the same benefits such as retirement plans that are standard for full-time Google employees.
[...]
Since Google contracts these on-site food service workers via a third party, they are technically employed by the multinational food service firm Compass Group, which staffs many of Google’s cafeterias through its subsidiary, Bon Appétit Management Company. Compass Group and the union are now in the process of negotiating a contract, according to sources.
[...]
The Google spokesperson also said food service workers employed by Compass at Google’s New York and Seattle area offices have unionized in the last two years with Unite Here.
Google Food is an impressive organization. I worked on a project that looked at automating some of their operations. They feed three meals a day and restock all the snacks and coffee etc for...
Google Food is an impressive organization. I worked on a project that looked at automating some of their operations. They feed three meals a day and restock all the snacks and coffee etc for thousands of people every day even just on the main campus. They have a central warehouse in Mountain View that looks like a Costco but it’s just shelves and shelves of their product. Every morning at like 3am they start loading pallets and bring them out to all the buildings, where workers then move product from the pallets to store rooms. From their they stock the break rooms with coffee, snacks, drinks, cereal, and fresh fruit. They also serve full meals in their kitchens. I’m fuzzy on the numbers but they must have 30 cafeterias in Mountain View that serve three meals a day.
It’s honestly a super impressive operation. But I worked in engineering as a contractor and it was really upsetting the way these food workers were treated as third class citizens despite their vital role. I’ve heard many food workers live in vehicles parked on the streets of Mountain View. Others commute from hours away.
I’m really really happy to see that they have unionized.
That is great news. Now the next step is for Google to decide to maintain the contract with Compass Group, who provides all of those staff. All Google would have to do is decide to phase out...
That is great news. Now the next step is for Google to decide to maintain the contract with Compass Group, who provides all of those staff. All Google would have to do is decide to phase out Compass Group as a service provider and those unionized employees would be no longer working at Google. I say this not to be a downer but to point out how out of date our employee protections are. With a little corporate dance routine half of our worker protections can just melt away. What does it matter if they unionize if the subcontractor they work for can have its contract not renewed?
From the article it doesn't look like Google has any plans to change contractors. Contractors in two other cities already unionized and they haven't done anything. I doubt they would do it unless...
From the article it doesn't look like Google has any plans to change contractors. Contractors in two other cities already unionized and they haven't done anything.
I doubt they would do it unless quality went down. While the cafeterias are a big expense, it's nothing compared to the salaries of the Google employees eating there, and keeping employees happy is important. Also, Google has enough PR problems already without inventing new ones. :-)
Yes, but let's be clear that this would be a PR problem and not a legal one. Google getting a round of bad press would be thin comfort as compared to the sort of financial settlement that would...
Yes, but let's be clear that this would be a PR problem and not a legal one. Google getting a round of bad press would be thin comfort as compared to the sort of financial settlement that would occur if a company directly fired their union employees en masse.
Well, yes, but I'm not clear on why that's important? There are lots of terrible things that companies legally could do but they have strong incentives not to do them. In California at least, most...
Well, yes, but I'm not clear on why that's important? There are lots of terrible things that companies legally could do but they have strong incentives not to do them. In California at least, most people are at-will employees, so they could lay off all their actual employees if they were into inexplicable self-damage.
There should be legal, or at least economic, protections that would prevent companies from doing shitty things to employees. Employees should not be beholden to companies' good will. That is an...
There should be legal, or at least economic, protections that would prevent companies from doing shitty things to employees. Employees should not be beholden to companies' good will. That is an unhealthy relationship, even if every single company did the right thing anyway. There are plenty of examples of companies in similar situations that fire a contracting company to get the lowest common denominator price (and quality). The very idea of companies contracting with other companies is currently unhealthy. Ideally, this allows companies to specialize and provide a better service, but in practice it allows companies to mass fire employees on a whim. This is even more true with staffing agencies. Employees should have a good employment experience, even if they don't work for a company that is shitty.
It seems odd to say that contracts are unhealthy, since the only alternative is to do everything yourself. Should companies be doing everything in-house, like hiring their own lawyers,...
It seems odd to say that contracts are unhealthy, since the only alternative is to do everything yourself. Should companies be doing everything in-house, like hiring their own lawyers, accountants, plumbers, mechanics, and cleaning staff as employees, or having employees do them that aren't trained to do it? That seems like quite a burden for small companies.
Maybe the unhealthy thing is having only one client, or too much business with one client, so if you lose their business you're screwed. If you're in business you should have contracts with multiple clients.
This is what I was trying to say, but it looks like I didn't say it very well. We have protections in place to prevent companies from mass firings on a whim, such as a new union, but there are no...
Maybe the unhealthy thing...
This is what I was trying to say, but it looks like I didn't say it very well. We have protections in place to prevent companies from mass firings on a whim, such as a new union, but there are no protections preventing a company from going with a new contractor. Then the old contractor can then lay off all of those workers with no consequences because there truly is no more work for them. There is no elegant solution to this problem, because, as you pointed out, outlawing contracting companies outright would have a lot of drawbacks. The only current solution I have is for the government to actively prosecute companies who misuse contracting companies. Maybe smarter people than I could come up with better solutions.
The idea of not allowing contracting companies to have only one contract in an area is interesting. I think it would work pretty well if a company could have many small contracts (small in terms of people) in a small area. If the company had many small and a few large contracts, it would still be bad news of one of the large contracts were cancelled. Either the company would have to do layoffs, or they would have to spread everyone over every other site, which would be a flood of new work.
Another interesting solution is what my current employer does. They contract out with another company, but when we switch contracting companies, all of the employees of the old company move to the new company. This decouples who is providing what service. The main company provides the jobs, and the contracting company provides additional recruitment, payroll, scheduling, management, training, and any necessary certifications. Now, the employees are incentivised to provide the best service to the main company, who is effectively their employer, and the contracting company is incentivised to provide the best ancillary services to the main company.
Interesting. More than a decade ago I worked at a small startup where we were all essentially contractors. We did it through a company called MyBizOffice that was officially our employer, giving...
Interesting. More than a decade ago I worked at a small startup where we were all essentially contractors. We did it through a company called MyBizOffice that was officially our employer, giving us a W-2, but they didn't find work for anyone, they just handled payroll and benefits. You could decide how much to contribute to your 401k and so on but it came out of whatever money you earned from your contracts, as did their fee, which I remember being pretty reasonable.
Looks like they are still around, but they changed their name to MBO Partners a while back.
I looked at their website and linked in page, and I am having trouble figuring out exactly what they offer. From what I can see, it seems like they allow companies to hire contractors, with all...
I looked at their website and linked in page, and I am having trouble figuring out exactly what they offer. From what I can see, it seems like they allow companies to hire contractors, with all the benefits that come with that, but for the contractors to get some of the benefits that come from being an employee, like retirement and, hopefully, more reliable pay from shitty companies. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, it seems like an interesting idea.
That's pretty much it. Although, when it comes to reliable pay, they won't find or negotiate contracts for you, but they will collect the money and do direct deposit. Or at least they didn't at...
That's pretty much it. Although, when it comes to reliable pay, they won't find or negotiate contracts for you, but they will collect the money and do direct deposit.
Or at least they didn't at the time. From their website, maybe they do more of that now?
Even just collection and DD is a pretty good benefit. I have a co-worker who got screwed out of some pay for some contract work. He doesn't want the hassle of collecting. From what he says, that...
Even just collection and DD is a pretty good benefit. I have a co-worker who got screwed out of some pay for some contract work. He doesn't want the hassle of collecting. From what he says, that is a fairly common practice. I wish the employees from this article luck. It sounds like Google is going to do the right thing, I just wish that they didn't have the option to do the wrong thing.
There's a moral disincentive, but Google doesn't seem like they have much of a moral center these days. Economically, there's a strong incentive to do this, and that seems to be enough for them....
There's a moral disincentive, but Google doesn't seem like they have much of a moral center these days. Economically, there's a strong incentive to do this, and that seems to be enough for them. All Google has to do is request proposals from some other company to provide the cafeteria staff and then go with a different, less expensive non-union company to provide that staffing the next time the contract is up for renewal. Minimal self-damage, new staff, lower overhead.
Also, you're comparing these people to Google employees, which they are not. If Google fired 2200+ employees, in addition to the difficulty of replacing them, their unemployment rates would skyrocket. In this case, using a separate company insulates them from any need to worry or care about these people.
Again, I'm not saying that they're going to do this, I'm just laying out how the diffusion of responsibility through the corporate structures makes it such that the solutions that have normally protected worker's rights have less and less power.
I really wish people would use correct wording for their titles. This one is a perfect BAD example. "Google's" isn't true. These are cafeteria workers AT Google facilities. They aren't even...
I really wish people would use correct wording for their titles. This one is a perfect BAD example.
"Google's" isn't true.
These are cafeteria workers AT Google facilities. They aren't even directly contracted by Google.
They are employees of a third-party company who is contracted by Google to provide services at Google facilities.
What these workers likely did is Unionize themselves and their employer out of the contract the Employer has with Google.
I wouldn't be surprise for AVI (American Vending Inc, which also provides cafeteria services for companies, e.g. Honda) to replace them.
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
I knew Google had a lot of employees, but enough to require 2300 people just to feed them is quite the surprise.
Google Food is an impressive organization. I worked on a project that looked at automating some of their operations. They feed three meals a day and restock all the snacks and coffee etc for thousands of people every day even just on the main campus. They have a central warehouse in Mountain View that looks like a Costco but it’s just shelves and shelves of their product. Every morning at like 3am they start loading pallets and bring them out to all the buildings, where workers then move product from the pallets to store rooms. From their they stock the break rooms with coffee, snacks, drinks, cereal, and fresh fruit. They also serve full meals in their kitchens. I’m fuzzy on the numbers but they must have 30 cafeterias in Mountain View that serve three meals a day.
It’s honestly a super impressive operation. But I worked in engineering as a contractor and it was really upsetting the way these food workers were treated as third class citizens despite their vital role. I’ve heard many food workers live in vehicles parked on the streets of Mountain View. Others commute from hours away.
I’m really really happy to see that they have unionized.
Well, Google's cafeterias are also free, like many tech companies, which means that more people eat more often than at other places.
That is great news. Now the next step is for Google to decide to maintain the contract with Compass Group, who provides all of those staff. All Google would have to do is decide to phase out Compass Group as a service provider and those unionized employees would be no longer working at Google. I say this not to be a downer but to point out how out of date our employee protections are. With a little corporate dance routine half of our worker protections can just melt away. What does it matter if they unionize if the subcontractor they work for can have its contract not renewed?
From the article it doesn't look like Google has any plans to change contractors. Contractors in two other cities already unionized and they haven't done anything.
I doubt they would do it unless quality went down. While the cafeterias are a big expense, it's nothing compared to the salaries of the Google employees eating there, and keeping employees happy is important. Also, Google has enough PR problems already without inventing new ones. :-)
Yes, but let's be clear that this would be a PR problem and not a legal one. Google getting a round of bad press would be thin comfort as compared to the sort of financial settlement that would occur if a company directly fired their union employees en masse.
Well, yes, but I'm not clear on why that's important? There are lots of terrible things that companies legally could do but they have strong incentives not to do them. In California at least, most people are at-will employees, so they could lay off all their actual employees if they were into inexplicable self-damage.
There should be legal, or at least economic, protections that would prevent companies from doing shitty things to employees. Employees should not be beholden to companies' good will. That is an unhealthy relationship, even if every single company did the right thing anyway. There are plenty of examples of companies in similar situations that fire a contracting company to get the lowest common denominator price (and quality). The very idea of companies contracting with other companies is currently unhealthy. Ideally, this allows companies to specialize and provide a better service, but in practice it allows companies to mass fire employees on a whim. This is even more true with staffing agencies. Employees should have a good employment experience, even if they don't work for a company that is shitty.
It seems odd to say that contracts are unhealthy, since the only alternative is to do everything yourself. Should companies be doing everything in-house, like hiring their own lawyers, accountants, plumbers, mechanics, and cleaning staff as employees, or having employees do them that aren't trained to do it? That seems like quite a burden for small companies.
Maybe the unhealthy thing is having only one client, or too much business with one client, so if you lose their business you're screwed. If you're in business you should have contracts with multiple clients.
This is what I was trying to say, but it looks like I didn't say it very well. We have protections in place to prevent companies from mass firings on a whim, such as a new union, but there are no protections preventing a company from going with a new contractor. Then the old contractor can then lay off all of those workers with no consequences because there truly is no more work for them. There is no elegant solution to this problem, because, as you pointed out, outlawing contracting companies outright would have a lot of drawbacks. The only current solution I have is for the government to actively prosecute companies who misuse contracting companies. Maybe smarter people than I could come up with better solutions.
The idea of not allowing contracting companies to have only one contract in an area is interesting. I think it would work pretty well if a company could have many small contracts (small in terms of people) in a small area. If the company had many small and a few large contracts, it would still be bad news of one of the large contracts were cancelled. Either the company would have to do layoffs, or they would have to spread everyone over every other site, which would be a flood of new work.
Another interesting solution is what my current employer does. They contract out with another company, but when we switch contracting companies, all of the employees of the old company move to the new company. This decouples who is providing what service. The main company provides the jobs, and the contracting company provides additional recruitment, payroll, scheduling, management, training, and any necessary certifications. Now, the employees are incentivised to provide the best service to the main company, who is effectively their employer, and the contracting company is incentivised to provide the best ancillary services to the main company.
Interesting. More than a decade ago I worked at a small startup where we were all essentially contractors. We did it through a company called MyBizOffice that was officially our employer, giving us a W-2, but they didn't find work for anyone, they just handled payroll and benefits. You could decide how much to contribute to your 401k and so on but it came out of whatever money you earned from your contracts, as did their fee, which I remember being pretty reasonable.
Looks like they are still around, but they changed their name to MBO Partners a while back.
I looked at their website and linked in page, and I am having trouble figuring out exactly what they offer. From what I can see, it seems like they allow companies to hire contractors, with all the benefits that come with that, but for the contractors to get some of the benefits that come from being an employee, like retirement and, hopefully, more reliable pay from shitty companies. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, it seems like an interesting idea.
That's pretty much it. Although, when it comes to reliable pay, they won't find or negotiate contracts for you, but they will collect the money and do direct deposit.
Or at least they didn't at the time. From their website, maybe they do more of that now?
Even just collection and DD is a pretty good benefit. I have a co-worker who got screwed out of some pay for some contract work. He doesn't want the hassle of collecting. From what he says, that is a fairly common practice. I wish the employees from this article luck. It sounds like Google is going to do the right thing, I just wish that they didn't have the option to do the wrong thing.
There's a moral disincentive, but Google doesn't seem like they have much of a moral center these days. Economically, there's a strong incentive to do this, and that seems to be enough for them. All Google has to do is request proposals from some other company to provide the cafeteria staff and then go with a different, less expensive non-union company to provide that staffing the next time the contract is up for renewal. Minimal self-damage, new staff, lower overhead.
Also, you're comparing these people to Google employees, which they are not. If Google fired 2200+ employees, in addition to the difficulty of replacing them, their unemployment rates would skyrocket. In this case, using a separate company insulates them from any need to worry or care about these people.
Again, I'm not saying that they're going to do this, I'm just laying out how the diffusion of responsibility through the corporate structures makes it such that the solutions that have normally protected worker's rights have less and less power.
I really wish people would use correct wording for their titles. This one is a perfect BAD example.
"Google's" isn't true.
These are cafeteria workers AT Google facilities. They aren't even directly contracted by Google.
They are employees of a third-party company who is contracted by Google to provide services at Google facilities.
What these workers likely did is Unionize themselves and their employer out of the contract the Employer has with Google.
I wouldn't be surprise for AVI (American Vending Inc, which also provides cafeteria services for companies, e.g. Honda) to replace them.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I intentionally chose the exact words I used for their meaning.