Do no evil... tomorrow.

<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/10/google-underpaid-workers-illegal-pay-disparity-documents>

Google has been illegally underpaying thousands of temporary workers in dozens 
of countries and delayed correcting the pay rates for more than two years as it 
attempted to cover up the problem, the Guardian can reveal.

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 documents show, citing concern about the increased 
cost to departments that rely heavily on temporary workers, potential exposure 
to legal claims, and fear of negative press attention.

Google executives and attorneys at one point pursued a plan to come into 
compliance slowly and at the least possible cost to itself, despite 
acknowledging that such a move was not “the correct outcome from a compliance 
perspective” and could place the staffing companies it contracts with “in a 
difficult position, legally and ethically”.

Google admitted the failures and said it would conduct an investigation after 
being contacted by the Guardian.

“While the team hasn’t increased the comparator rate benchmarks for some years, 
actual pay rates for temporary staff have increased numerous times in that 
period,” said Spyro Karetsos, Google’s chief compliance officer, in a 
statement. “Most temporary staff are paid significantly more than the 
comparator rates.

“Nevertheless, it’s clear that this process has not been handled consistent 
with the high standards to which we hold ourselves as a company. We’re doing a 
thorough review, and we’re committed to identifying and addressing any pay 
discrepancies that the team has not already addressed.

“And we’ll be conducting a review of our compliance practices in this area. In 
short, we’re going to figure out what went wrong here, why it happened, and 
we’re going to make it right.”

A whistleblower represented by Whistleblower Aid has filed a complaint about 
the alleged violations with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

While international labor law is not under the purview of the SEC, the 
complaint alleges that Google’s failure to disclose the pay parity liabilities, 
which it estimates could amount to $100m, constitute material misstatements in 
its quarterly financial reports, a violation of US securities law.

“The disclosure makes it clear that Google hasn’t just broken labor laws around 
the world, but has misled investors about major legal and financial 
liabilities,” said John Tye, founder and chief disclosure officer of 
Whistleblower Aid. “The lawful, anonymous whistleblower disclosure is a 
critical step toward ensuring that Google is held to account. We urge the SEC 
to bring an enforcement action against Google, and protect the rights of 
investors to receive complete and accurate information.”

The issue stems from Google’s extensive reliance on what it calls its “extended 
workforce”, as well as the plethora of local laws that govern how such workers 
must be treated in the dozens of countries where Google operates. Google 
maintains a workforce of more than 100,000 temps, vendors and contractors who 
are not directly employed by the company, but who perform work on its behalf, 
on tasks ranging from food service and security to coding and data analysis.

The vast majority of these workers are “vendors” who work on long-term projects 
that are wholly managed by the vendor company, such as content moderation, and 
have little interaction with Google employees.

But at any given time, Google also employs thousands of temporary workers. 
While they are paid by staffing agencies, temps report directly to Google 
managers. The departments that rely most heavily on temporary workers include 
recruiting, marketing, and Waymo, Google’s autonomous vehicle subsidiary. 
Globally, Google spends about $800m annually on temporary workers.

The use of contingent workers is common in the tech industry, but Google’s 
reliance on a “shadow workforce” that outnumbers its direct employee base has 
long drawn criticism from the company’s own employees, as well as politicians 
and labor unions.

More than 30 countries, including the UK, the EU member states, India, and 
Taiwan, have enacted “pay parity” or “equal treatment” laws that require 
temporary workers to be treated equally to full time employees (FTEs) who 
perform the same or similar work, according to Google’s internal guidance on 
the laws. The US, where the majority of Google’s temps are based, does not have 
any such protections.

In general, these laws require equivalent treatment of temps and FTEs when it 
comes to pay, hours, breaks, vacation, holidays, and certain perks. In the UK, 
pay parity is required after a 12-week qualifying period, for example, while in 
Ireland it is mandated from the first day of work. Some countries also mandate 
equivalency for benefits and bonuses.

The staffing agency and the hirer – in this case, Google – share the 
responsibility for ensuring equitable treatment, but it is the hirer’s 
responsibility to provide the agency accurate data about the pay rates.

In 2012 and 2013, Google undertook an exercise to map all its temporary roles 
in EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) with the comparable Google full-time 
roles, according to the internal memo. The exercise produced “comparator” rates 
that Google then provided to the staffing agencies that recruit and employ its 
temporary staff. The company performed a similar exercise for temp roles in 
APAC (Asia Pacific) in 2017.

Since those exercises were carried out, compensation for full-time Google 
employees has increased substantially. The median total compensation rose more 
than 38%, from $197,274 to $273,493, between 2017 and 2020, according to SEC 
filings.

But the comparator rates were never updated. “Ideally this would be done 
annually,” reads the internal Google memo on the issue, which acknowledges that 
it is Google’s obligation to keep the information up to date.

By 15 May 2019, the problem was known to Adrienne Crowther, the executive 
responsible for Google’s extended workforce team (xWS), her comments on the 
internal memo show.

“Yikes! This seems WAY too old,” she wrote in response to the “2012-2013” date 
of the comparator data.

“Agreed,” responded Alan Barry, a compliance manager for Google’s extended 
workforce team. Barry went on to suggest that xWS “refresh” the data as part of 
a larger project working on ensuring accurate mapping between temporary and 
full-time positions.
Scale of the problem

Given the very high turnover rate of temporary workers, the number of workers 
affected by Google’s failure could be in the tens of thousands. One document 
shows that, as of 16 February 2021, Google had 1,030 temporary workers in 
countries with pay parity laws, the largest numbers in the UK (343), India 
(222), Ireland (207) and Germany (59).

That document – an audit of countries with pay parity laws performed for Google 
by Deloitte – highlighted another problem with the company’s legal compliance. 
Deloitte reported that pay-parity laws had been enacted in 16 countries where 
Google was employing more than 350 temporary workers without providing equal 
treatment rates, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, 
Switzerland and Taiwan.

Google’s underpayments to its temporary workers are substantial. One internal 
analysis estimated that Google’s expenses for 1,200 temps in EMEA and APAC 
regions would need to increase by $17.3m to comply with pay parity laws, of 
which $12.65m would go to the temporary workers in increased wages and bonuses. 
(An additional $4.4m in costs would be the result of the estimated 35% markup 
that staffing agencies charge.)

But that analysis was based on a proposal to correct the rates for new hires 
only, without providing raises and back pay to existing and previous temp 
workers for the time they worked at the incorrect rates, suggesting that the 
total amount of lost wages to current and past workers is significantly higher.

Individual temps were paid between 12% and 50% less than they should have been, 
according to an internal memo also from February 2021.

Another document showed that temporary workers in Google’s human resources 
department in the UK were paid between £4.10 and £8.25 less per hour than they 
should have been, with some temps earning £14.17 instead of £18.27 and others 
earning £21.56 instead of £29.80.

Google’s delay in addressing the rates could hurt former temporary workers’ 
ability to seek redress. Under the UK’s Agency Worker Regulations 2010, temps 
can appeal to an Employment Tribunal if they believe their rights have been 
breached, but they must do so within three months. In Ireland, appeals to the 
Rights Commissioner are supposed to be made within six months.

“These agency workers have been the victims of wage theft,” said Matthew 
Creagh, an employment rights policy officer for the Trades Union Council, who 
criticized the UK’s lack of a state regulator to enforce worker protections. 
“How will they be compensated? Often the discussion veers towards punishing 
employers, which is good, but getting the agency workers their money is 
overlooked.”
Internal debate

Though executives in Google’s xWS department were aware by May 2019 that the 
company was failing to comply with the law and underpaying workers, the company 
did not move quickly to correct the rates and provide back wages to those who 
were owed them.

Instead, it spent at least two years continuing to pay out-of-date rates while 
it debated internally how to come back into legal compliance without admitting 
what had happened, documents and emails show.

Leaders of the xWS team appeared keenly aware that admitting the problem would 
damage its reputation within Google by causing headaches for departments whose 
budgets would be effected, as well as with the staffing agencies that are 
liable for providing pay parity. They also expressed interest in preventing 
existing and former temp workers from knowing they had been underpaid, in order 
to prevent claims for back pay.

By October 2020, xWS executives, including Crowther and Deepak Negi, another 
director, and Google’s employment counsels for EMEA and APAC had signed off on 
a plan to correct the rates, emails and documents show. The company would 
pursue a “natural correction” of the temp rates, whereby new joiners started at 
correct rates while existing temps remained at the lower rates, rather than an 
“immediate correction”, whereby all temps had their rates adjusted to the 
correct levels.

The plan had received support from executives and attorneys due to “the current 
low risk of a parity claim, the ability to correct rates and not make a great 
deal of noise, and the ability to correct rates without immediate substantial 
financial impact to [Google’s departments],” an xWS operations manager 
promoting it wrote in an email.

Some xWS staffers appear to have pushed back on the proposal, noting that it 
would result in groups of temps performing similar work earning significantly 
different wages. Some also worried that the staffing agencies, who are 
responsible for complying with pay parity laws, might ask questions about the 
changed rates, or even object.

But in an extraordinary December 2020 email, Barry, the attorney responsible 
for compliance in xWS, endorsed the “natural correction” despite acknowledging 
that it was insufficient.

“We know that the impacted workers are not on the correct 2020 rates, nor were 
they in 2019,” he wrote. “So, strictly speaking, from the point that we put 
ourselves on notice as to the correct comparator rate, it should apply to both 
the incumbents as well as the new joiners. To do otherwise may place our 
staffing partners in a difficult position, legally and ethically.”

“In my view, while [an immediate correction] does appear to be the correct 
outcome from a compliance perspective, I recognise the barriers to this,” Barry 
wrote. “The cost is significant and it would give rise to a flurry of 
noise/frustration on the part of the [Google departments] who have not 
accounted for the changed cost. I’m also not keen to invite the charge that 
we’ve allowed this situation to persist for so long that the correction 
required is significant … I am leaning towards favouring [the natural 
correction] – but with careful thought and consideration needed as to how we 
communicate it to the [staffing agencies].”

By February 2021, Barry and others were considering a third option beyond the 
“natural” and “immediate” corrections: applying the new rates to new joiners 
and existing temps and backdating the increases for the existing temps to their 
start date. (None of the options included providing back pay to temps who had 
been underpaid but no longer worked for Google.)

The memo suggests that Barry and the xWS team’s concerns remained primarily 
reputational. It includes guidance from Google’s employment lawyers that “the 
threat of litigation is greater than the prospect of actual litigation” since 
actual litigation would require temps to know that they were being underpaid, 
and by how much. “If and when they become aware they will seek recompense but 
will want to avoid litigation. Strategy should therefore be driven by an 
assessment of the internal PR/reputational risk and the risk of pay disparity 
becoming known within our temps population.”

Nevertheless, Barry argued that despite the “significant” financial cost and 
potential for criticism of xWS from Google and staffing agencies, he now 
believed that this third option was the best course.

“In my view – better to opt to for option three in a controlled fashion now, 
than in an uncontrolled fashion later,” he wrote.
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
[email protected]
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Reply via email to