• hobovision@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s redundant because there’s basically a circular argument that G and C are using to not respond to the workers. Workers want to C negotiate with G on the terms of their work with G but C says they can’t because they’re just contracting with G. Then G says the workers can’t negotiate with G because they work for C. Both companies point the finger at the other as to why they can’t help and just give nothing back to the workers.

    • newDayRocks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The article is confusing but it sounds like the union wants both C and G at the table, but C and G both agree that C should be the employer and G doesn’t need to join the talks. So C is saying, if you really want G to join, you’ll have to wait until the appeals are finished.

      I’m guessing the union doesn’t want to negotiate with C, have C go to G with the terms and G refuse and just causing endless delays in a game of telephone bargaining.

    • Waltzy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems fairly obvious that they need to negotiate with their direct employer.