Chronology 2018

February 23: The union membership accepts Lionbridge's settlement proposal
March 26: The union sends the signed settlement proposal to NLRB
April 10: The union learns that the NLRB in DC has rejected the petition by Microsoft and Lionbridge to stop the investigation about the joint employment charges
April 18: In conformity with the settlement agreement the union confirms to NLRB the request to withdraw the charges against Microsoft and Lionbridge
April 19: email sent to former Tier1s about the settlement
April 22: post about Coding and coercion, an interview with Bjorn Westergard published in the magazine  Jacobin on April 18
April 25: opinion published in the NYT: Workers of Silicon Valley it's time to organize, by Kevin Roose
April 28: the settlement checks arrive
August 23 2018: Article by Josh Eidelson in Bloomberg News: Microsoft bug testers unionized. Then they were dismissed.
August 30: Paid parental leave matters: Microsoft will require 12 weeks of paid parental leave (2/3 of pay) announced by VP Dev Stahlkopf

Paid parental leave matters: Microsoft requires 12 weeks of paid parental leave for its contractors employees

The new paid parental leave requirement was announced in the Microsoft's blog by Corporate VP  Dev Stahlkopf with the headline: Paid parental leave matters. Read the interesting comments by Nat Levy in Geekwire, the Seattle Times (Rachel Lerman). Probably more to come. Congratulations to Microsoft's management for moving in the right direction. Now the questions should be asked to other big high tech companies (Google, FB, Amazon, etc): what are your paid parental leave requirements for your contractors? Still unresolved for Microsoft's contractors employees, and it does count: the status of the public holidays (about 10 per year). They should be additional paid time off coming on top of the 'at least 15 days' presently required, not included within the 15 days of PTO.

Our story according to Bloomberg-Businessweek

Here. RIP? By Josh Eidelson and Hassan Kanu on August 23, 2018

Employees of security firms working for Google and Facebook, ignored by the high tech robber barons

This excellent article by Kate Conger in Gizmodo explains why despite having a union they cannot extract any concession from their employers while Google and Facebook, who should be considered joint employers, do nothing to implement requirements that would protect people working for them. Shame on them. It's exactly what happened to us: Lionbridge and the other contractors only changed their policies because Microsoft forced them to do something to keep their contracts. We were laid off when Microsoft had enough of us winning our charges of joint employment to NLRB. But Google nor FB can send away their security officers. If not publicly exposed and shamed they can keep ignoring the situation, letting their contractors exploit the people who take care of their security :(
Spread the shame until they do the right thing: change their requirements for their contractors.

Is Tech finally realizing that contractors employees need benefits too?

In Fast Company magazine, this article about how Survey Monkey changed its standards and benefits requirements for its contractors employees. If they can do it, all the big ones can and should have done it long time ago. Who is going to put the pressure on all? Progressive shareholders? Concerned journalists/media? 

What does this mean? We hope you get it because we don't.

Cookies notification in European Union countries

European Union (EU) laws require you to give EU visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.

As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to help meet these regulations. Where is this notice? We could not see it. Maybe you'll be able to get it?

The notice lets visitors know about Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies on your blog, including Google Analytics and AdSense cookies. Learn about Google’s privacy practices and how Google uses data on partner sites.

About Silicon Valley but it could as well be Bellevue, Redmond and Seattle

From The Guardian.

Lionbridge mailed the settlement checks

Lionbridge mailed the settlement checks: many arrived on Saturday April 28. Let us know if you have not received yours.
temporaryworkersofamerica at gmail.com

Workers of Silicon Valley (and Puget Sound?) it's time to organize?

This opinion/article from the New York Times has no question marks. It's also interesting to read the comments (in a much less optimistic but maybe more realistic tone). Read also this.
Image by Glenn Harvey (for the NYT)

An interesting story about people trying to organize in high tech: Coding and coercion

In the magazine Jacobin. Many similarities with our own story: from illegally firing the first person who complains to outsourcing the whole lab to get rid of the union.

Email/letter sent to former Tier1s about the settlement

See the email/letter below, sent on April 19.

Request to withdraw charges against Microsoft and Lionbridge

On April 18, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, the union officially requests the NLRB to withdraw its charges against Microsoft and Lionbridge.
(Microsoft 19-CA-189865 & 189881; and Lionbridge, 19-CA-189868 & 189895).

NLRB decision against Microsoft and Lionbridge

On April 10 the union learns that the NLRB in DC a rejected the petition by Microsoft to try to block the investigation of our charges for joint employment. This decision arrives too late to have an impact on our settlement negotiation. The order from the NLRB is dated April 9. You can find the document online at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-189865 or see below.
Microsoft and Lionbridge had filed their petition one year earlier, on May 22, 2017.

On March 26 the union sends the signed settlement agreement to NLRB

Before this final signature there had been some back and forth with the NLRB as they were reviewing the proposed settlement.

On February 23rd, the union agrees to Lionbridge's proposal

After consulting with the board, members and outside advisers, the Union decided to accept Lionbridge's settlement proposal of February 19.