Collective Bargaining History
We initially proposed the first round of collective bargaining on March 2nd, but the company designated March 22nd, after the voluntary retirement recommendation deadline of March 17th. In this meeting, they explained that the retirement recommendation was voluntary, that there would be no further rounds of retirement recommendations for the current targets, that the number of layoffs was decided by the project area leaders on a team basis, and that the targets comprised 6% of the total Alphabet workforce. However, no further explanation was provided about the company’s financial situation, they merely referred us to Investor Relations. The financial figures from Investor Relations showed a profit, which isn’t a satisfactory explanation. The company could not provide definitive answers about what would happen to employees who rejected the retirement recommendation, or the possibility of a second wave.
We proposed the second round of collective bargaining on April 4th, but the company designated a date more than a month later, May 9th. Despite asking again about the company’s financial situation, they said that the information was confidential and even the attendees were not informed. It is illegal and constitutes unfair labor practices for a person with the authority to respond to the labor union’s demands not to attend collective bargaining. There was also no explanation given about the target number for reductions, the number of targets in Google Japan, the number of targets on long-term leave, or the number of people who accepted the retirement recommendation.
May 31st is the retirement deadline for those who have accepted the retirement recommendation. We requested a third round of collective bargaining on May 9th in order to give those who may have accepted the retirement recommendation under the misunderstanding that they would be dismissed otherwise, a chance to make another decision with proper information. However, the company unilaterally ended the collective bargaining, stating there was no room for further dialogue.
We believe the root of the problem with these layoffs lies in the lack of two explanations: the necessity of the layoffs to the employees, and the future prospects for the targets. A healthy labor-management relationship is built through explanation and communication. Without explaining these key points in collective bargaining, it’s impossible to solve problems through dialogue. To make collective bargaining healthy, the law obliges companies to respond sincerely. We have requested relief from the Labor Commission to ensure that collective bargaining delivers the necessary information to employees.
The relief request to the Labor Commission is similar to a labor union lawsuit conducted by the labor union as an organization. It also involves legal fees. Your support, in the form of donations, can be a significant help.