We have always considered this proposal is very bad but since it does include the very minimal implementation of the 15 days of pto required by Microsoft we feel the employees should decide if they want it that way or not.
This Monday we polled our members (not all employees) with 4 questions:
1. Do you think Lionbridge proposal is a good proposal?
Yes: 3 No: 7
2. Are you going to approve Lionbridge proposal?
Yes: 6. No: 4
3. Do you think Microsoft is s joint employer with Lionbridge?
Yes: 8. No: 2
4. Do you think TWA should ask the National Labor RelationsBoard to determine if MSFT is a joint employer?
Yes: 9. No: 1
Therefore the union filed this afternoon, October 28, a charge with the NLRB against Microsoft as they refused to bargain as a joint employer.
There are many issues that remain uncertain about this procedure: we don't know if the tentative agreement proposed by Lionbridge will be ratified or refused. We don't know what could happen in either case in relation with the charge filed today.
From the poll numbers you can see the people strongly feel Microsoft is a joint employer. There is a significant resentment about the way Lionbridge offers so little and how Microsoft offers so little while giving away millions to its CEO and increasing the paid leaves benefits of its own direct employees but letting Lionbridge offer zero paid parental leave, nor any paid holidays for our families.
A CBS poll mentioned 80 per cent of Americans are in favor of paid parental leave. It's hard not to recall that Satya Nadella thought women should not ask for a raise. Does he also think his suppliers employees should not have any parental leave?
According to our estimates, providing paid parental leave to the two co-workers who became fathers at the end of 2014 would represent (for 4 weeks) about 10 cents more per hour and paid holidays about 80 cents more per hour.
We have had zero pay increase for the last 4 years (the pay ranges from $17 to $22 per hour).