[HN Gopher] Amazon Sends 'Vote No' Instructions to Unionizing Em...
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon Sends 'Vote No' Instructions to Unionizing Employees
Author : fireball_blaze
Score : 484 points
Date : 2021-02-25 14:48 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
| stevespang wrote:
| You can bet there are pinhole cameras installed near that box,
| Bezos has a feed going straight into his office . . .
| balabaster wrote:
| Full disclosure: I've always been anti-union for my own personal
| approach to life. I do see the value in unions, I've just always,
| to this point, been a go-it-alone-and-fight-my-own-battles kind
| of person. I don't want to be beholden to a union or their rules
| any more than I want to be beholden to an employer beyond my
| contractual obligations for which I'm paid.
|
| That said, people should take note of what happened when Walmart
| used these tactics. Employees then went on to suffer such things
| as zero hour contracts, contracts where time was just shy of the
| legal requirement to give them benefits, pay was no more than the
| minimum required in any given state/province and people became
| slaves to their jobs because they couldn't afford the time off to
| find other jobs because then they wouldn't be able to make ends
| meet or there were no other jobs so Walmart had zero incentive to
| pay any more than absolutely required to by law. etc. etc. etc.
| because humanity is only afforded if legally required [which I
| personally find disgusting].
|
| These are tactics to prevent a coalition of employees from having
| their rights heard and maintained... even with this coalition
| someone is fighting to maintain and win your rights(!!!!!)
| There's something very wrong with anyone having to fight for
| their rights to be given, but that's another discussion. In a
| commercial environment that allow employers to behave this way,
| where the only advantage to winning your rights is in a coalition
| of the workforce holding employers to account, unions absolutely
| must not only be allowed but must also be protected.
|
| Its okay if you're bullheaded enough or within your means enough
| to walk away if your rights aren't given fair consideration and
| honoured, but if you're in a position where you're a prisoner to
| your job, i.e. can't afford to take time off to find another
| job/other income, or there are no other jobs in your area and you
| don't have the means to leave etc. you don't have any bargaining
| chip.
|
| No employer should ever have the privilege of keeping you
| prisoner, nor preventing you from having a means to bargain for
| your very right to fair treatment.
|
| Amazon needs to be severely reprimanded for this and taught a
| lesson about what it means to honour employees' rights.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Anti-union tactics are so... nasty. It's crazy to me how any of
| this is even tried in the 21st century. It's so obviously wrong
| and in a ton of cases illegal, the only reason I can think of
| that this is done so aggressively is that these tactics are
| "effective" based on their invention in the early-to-mid 20th
| century, and nobody's bothered to try and innovate since.
|
| Does Amazon _really_ see unionization as an existential threat?
| Surely at some point, a company as large as Amazon or Walmart
| can handle a worker 's union.
|
| What other perceived "existential threats" are they handling
| with these kinds of tactics, that we just don't know about
| because it's not as public?
|
| (Disclaimer: I benefit substantially off of Walmart's continued
| ability to make money.)
| ImaCake wrote:
| The weird thing about this anti-union stuff is that there is
| fair argument to be made that Amazon would do just as well if
| they let them unionise and get what they wanted. Australia
| has a long history of strong unions and the result has been a
| strong economy and effectively run state. Same kind of thing
| in many other countries. Those of us outside of the US are
| often surprised by how little rights are given to workers
| there.
| tyingq wrote:
| You appear to perhaps be from the UK (saw "honour").
|
| Employees in the UK have quite a lot more protection by default
| than they do in the US. I do respect your go-it-alone-and-
| fight-my-own-battles position, but consider that you might feel
| differently if you were in a US "right to work" state.
| balabaster wrote:
| I don't know what it means to live in a "right to work"
| state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to
| reasonably paid employment?
|
| I don't understand how this situation could come to be. What
| if there were no employers? That situation can only occur if
| there are enough jobs to maintain gainful employment of every
| citizen of the state. In such a situation I would likely only
| remain around as long as there was work willing to pay me
| what I need to maintain a lifestyle to which I was attracted.
|
| I left Kamloops, BC in 2001 because the only jobs available
| there sucked (in my eyes). I was frowned upon as a snob
| because I turned down 3 union jobs which appeared to be the
| pinnacle of success in Kamloops at the time. I couldn't
| understand why that seemed to be the height of ambition
| there. I moved to Vancouver Island in the hope of better. I
| loved it there, but I left there in 2004, because again the
| only jobs available had shit pay and I couldn't afford any
| kind of enjoyable lifestyle. Now I live outside Toronto and
| enjoy a much more financially comfortable lifestyle... at the
| cost of an almost complete lack of scenery admittedly. I've
| never been one to stick around when the economic situation
| wasn't viable. I couldn't see myself sticking around in a
| "right to work" state if that's what it meant. I don't really
| see how it would change my opinion either.
| cujo wrote:
| Right-to-work effectively weakens unions, but is sold under
| the reasonable sounding rhetoric. The common pitch is
| something like...
|
| > Right-to-work means that you can work in a union trade
| without joining the union. Otherwise you have to join and
| pay the union to work in your profession. Why should you
| have to pay to work as a <insert profession here>? Support
| right-to-work!
|
| That's how I often see it sold. In the end, it means unions
| get weaker in industries that need them.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-
| work_law#Arguments_fo...
| twh270 wrote:
| I don't know how things work in the UK, but here in the
| states various bills/acts are often given misleading names
| because politics. In this case, "right to work" means,
| basically, the right to take a job without either having to
| join a union or being prohibited from joining a union.
|
| There's debate over what the impact of "right to work" is,
| and of course, what role unions should play.
|
| Another term that might interest you is "at will
| employment". This one means that your employer can fire you
| at any time for any reason that isn't illegal; and, you can
| leave your employer at any time for any reason that isn't
| illegal. This one is also argued intensely as to whether it
| is more favorable to the employer, employee, or neither.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| > I don't know what it means to live in a "right to work"
| state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to
| reasonably paid employment?
|
| It's the opposite! It means you can be fired for any reason
| whatsoever.
| arachnids wrote:
| "Right to work" is American euphemism for your employer
| being able to fire you at will for no cause
| yohannparis wrote:
| It mostly means that you are not forced to be part of a
| union to work. Which is something I agree with. But I
| highly encourage people to be part of an union.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| You can never be forced to join a union. Federal law
| forces unions to represent non members. "Right to work"
| means non members can force them to do it for free. Other
| states let unions force non members to pay for what the
| union is forced to provide them.
| unanswered wrote:
| This has nothing to do with "right to work".
|
| "Right to work" is literally the right to work for any
| employer who will have you regardless of whether you're
| in a union or not in a union.
|
| You should question where you got the misleading
| definition of "right to work" and _cui bono?_ by feeding
| you that misinformation.
| phabora wrote:
| Not really euphemism. More of an Orwellian term.
| Someone wrote:
| I guess "right to work" refers to
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law:
|
| _"In the context of U.S. labor politics, "right-to-work
| laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security
| agreements between employers and labor unions. Under these
| laws, employees in unionized workplaces are banned from
| negotiating contracts which force employees who are not
| union members to contribute to the costs of union
| representation."_
|
| So, in such states, the (union, employer) combo cannot
| force every employee to pay the union (employees can choose
| not to become a member, but still would have to pay them)
|
| I don't understand how that fits in the story, though. I
| guess the OP meant "at will"?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment): _"In
| U.S. labor law, at-will employment is an employer 's
| ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is,
| without having to establish "just cause" for termination),
| and without warning, as long as the reason is not
| illegal."_
| unanswered wrote:
| That is an incomplete and misleading definition of "at-
| will employment". The most important part of at-will
| employment is that the employee is allowed to leave their
| employer for any time, for any reason; i.e., they can't
| be forced to work for their employer even by contract. It
| is literally just an anti-slavery law, and yet somehow
| some folks have turned it into a bogeyman. Imagine being
| against an anti-slavery law because ____?
| whydoibother wrote:
| How is that the most important part? Slavery is already
| illegal outside of prisons. You know very well this is so
| companies can cut employees whenever they need to and not
| face legal repercussions.
| beowulfey wrote:
| Lol, an anti-slavery law? Better not tell Montana that,
| it would become a human rights atrocity overnight. They
| are not an at-will state.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > That is an incomplete and misleading definition of "at-
| will employment". The most important part of at-will
| employment is that the employee is allowed to leave their
| employer for any time, for any reason; i.e., they can't
| be forced to work for their employer even by contract. It
| is literally just an anti-slavery law, and yet somehow
| some folks have turned it into a bogeyman. Imagine being
| against an anti-slavery law because ____?
|
| Honestly, I'd say you're being more hyperbolic and
| misleading. At-will employment is "just an anti-slavery
| law?" I'm pretty sure that was already illegal before
| these laws, and at-will employment wasn't the mechanism
| for its abolition.
|
| My understanding is that the _actual effect_ of at-will
| employment laws wasn 't to free employees from jobs they
| didn't want, but to make their positions more precarious
| (e.g. previously employers had to give a good reason for
| termination or it was invalid, or at least give notice).
| sonofhans wrote:
| > I don't know what it means to live in a "right to work"
| state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to
| reasonably paid employment?
|
| It's Doublespeak. It's a union-busting law. Effectively, it
| means the opposite -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-
| to-work_law
| astrange wrote:
| Btw, in other countries that use sectoral bargaining
| systems this law wouldn't stop unionization, because the
| union contract applies across the industry rather than
| one company at a time. This makes it more impersonal, but
| companies are no longer motivated to stop unions because
| they'll become less competitive, and it works well enough
| in places like Denmark that they don't have minimum wage
| laws.
| xrendan wrote:
| I'd assume Canada since up here we've got a weird mix of
| americanisms and britishisms. Also, the state/province gives
| a bit away.
| balabaster wrote:
| You're both a little right. I grew up in the UK and lived
| there until I was 25, I've since worked and lived in the
| U.S. but now live and work in Canada.
| JPKab wrote:
| Something that adds insult to injury is the amount of moral
| posturing Amazon engages in when it comes to social justice
| issues.
|
| What could be a bigger social justice issue than paying working
| class people proper wages and benefits? It just screams out to
| me how hollow and PR driven their support of social justice
| organizations and initiatives is. And more importantly, the
| silence from these same social justice initiatives is
| deafening.
|
| I strongly suspect that paying working class employees more
| money would have a far higher positive impact on black
| communities than donating money to activist organizations.
| hpoe wrote:
| Almost like identity politics is used by those in power to
| distract us from real issues that have concrete impact on
| people's lives, instead fostering an us vs them attitude to
| keep us ignorant that both sides are being played by the same
| people.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Or... they actually do mean what they say, but don't
| connect the dots and ultimately have a bigger incentive to
| cognitively shift their perspective when it comes down to
| their own bottom line. Amazon as a company is about low
| prices made up by scale, and is famous for continuously
| optimizing costs. Humans are just one cost to optimize, and
| are likely a big one given the number of people involved
| for their business model. These are also not "corporate
| employees," which are also infamously not treated well, but
| the grunts that are low skilled and highly replaceable.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| This response has the echoes of so many dark parts of
| human history. If that's actually true, then Amazon needs
| to be destroyed for all our sake.
| sudosteph wrote:
| If it's destroyed, another retailer will take it's place.
| I worked at Target back in the day, and I still remember
| the onboarding videos they showed us. Half of it was
| ridiculous drivel about how much they love employees and
| support LGBT and minorities, and the other half was
| literal anti-union propaganda and fear-mongering. When it
| came right down to it, Target is just as happy to treat
| human workers as disposable tools as anyone else. Most
| every succesful retail company treats workers as unworthy
| of decent pay, benefits, or even human friendly
| scheduling.
| JPKab wrote:
| I used to do extensive data science work with various
| retailers, including Target, Walmart, and Amazon.
|
| Compared to Walmart, Target is absolutely abysmal on many
| fronts. The amount of wasted fuel caused by their
| horrifically inept logistics makes Walmart look like the
| Sierra Club. And they were the model for substituting
| low-impact inclusion messaging in place of actually
| treating workers decently.
|
| I live near Boulder, Colorado, and it was infuriating
| seeing friends of mine protesting and proudly stopping
| the construction of a Walmart, while happily shopping at
| Target and Amazon. People are absolute lemmings when it
| comes to "feel-good" activism. Hearing my rather hippyish
| and moralistic friend talk about "Walmart destroys small
| businesses" while noticing the pile of Amazon packages at
| her door is absolutely infuriating.
| leesalminen wrote:
| I also live near Boulder (Lyons what's up!) and also had
| a really hard time understanding all the vitriol towards
| building a Wal-Mart when Target is packed day in, day
| out.
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| The media targeting Wal-Mart allowed them to pump
| themselves up as a viable alternative. Also, people like
| their cutesy red and white commercials.
| sudosteph wrote:
| You're right about both - their marketing is really on
| point. But allow me to propose a few additional reasons
| for Target's popularity among suburban liberals:
|
| 1. Prices are slightly higher that Walmart, which keeps
| away the most budget conscious shoppers (ie, couponers &
| low-income people will go to walmart to stretch their
| money). Because lower-class shoppers are less visible at
| Target, middle-class shoppers flock to it, and even non-
| middle class people who can swing it may prefer it
| because it confers higher social status. (This is also
| why the common nickname for Target is "Tar - Jhey", aka,
| "Target" with a fake french accent to mock the
| aspirational bougieness of the brand).
|
| 2. Target has fairly aggressive policies about how long
| customers should have to wait in line (if there's more
| than 3 people waiting, the manager is supposed to call a
| sales floor person up to assist) + a policy on how long
| checkouts should take to complete (they actually give the
| cashier a pass/fail score that everyone can see after
| each checkout, and if the average is too low, it's
| grounds for dismissal). For the customer, this does mean
| a faster checkout. For the employees - it means more work
| interruptions and ultimately more work to do at closing.
|
| 3. Target doesn't even attempt to provide certain
| products and services that are culturally associated with
| rural/poor America. They don't sell guns, they don't cash
| checks, they don't have gardening centers.
| nexthash wrote:
| Identity politics and corporate posturing are two separate
| things. Everybody is trying to get an edge, including
| corporations trying to keep themselves prosperous. Identity
| politics is an idea about your identity playing into how
| you perceive politics. How this idea is used by different
| players is a whole different ballgame.
| smackmybishop wrote:
| https://observer.com/2020/04/amazon-whole-foods-anti-
| union-t...
|
| > Data collected in the heat map suggest that stores with low
| racial and ethnic diversity, especially those located in poor
| communities, are more likely to unionize.
| soperj wrote:
| So they were both reduced hours and beholden to their jobs with
| no time off?
| xphilter wrote:
| How is that contradictory?
| soperj wrote:
| if they have reduced hours, then they have time to find
| another job.
| ska wrote:
| What about irregular scheduling? Surely that can have a
| big impact on ability to find/keep other work I imagine.
| koolba wrote:
| Easily possible. Show up for one hour, ever other hour, to
| perform task X. I pay you for four hours and you need to be
| on call for eight daily.
| fastball wrote:
| So... quit?
| vertex-four wrote:
| When you're paid minimum wage in the US, and you're not
| permitted to perform a full-time job, you probably have to
| hold down multiple jobs; you probably also don't get things
| like healthcare from any of them.
|
| Zero hours contracts in theory mean you can refuse work (at
| least that's how it works in the U.K.), but obviously you're
| going to be fired for doing so, so you're essentially
| constantly on call for both/all your jobs.
| soperj wrote:
| if you have multiple jobs, then you clearly have time to
| find another job.
| dcrn wrote:
| Many times, if you're having to take on another job, you
| don't have the luxury of "time" to find the best one,
| e.g. pays well, has benefits, etc. You take the first or
| second job that comes to you and work for as much time as
| possible at that one as well. Speaking from experience,
| people don't take on multiple jobs just to work them for
| an hour or two a day.
| vertex-four wrote:
| If you have multiple jobs and must take every hour they
| ask of you, you clearly do not have time to find another
| job; you are very likely working more than a full-time
| job without adequate protections.
|
| Look, here's how it goes:
|
| 1) you have no job
|
| 2) you take the first job that comes your way, even if it
| doesn't actually pay enough to survive - a little money
| is better than no money
|
| 3) you take the second job that comes your way so that
| you can survive
|
| 4) you have no time to actually do anything towards
| getting a better job
|
| Understand?
|
| This is why jobs that pay less than what is needed to
| survive are bad for individuals and bad for society;
| people _have_ to take them. Nobody is going to help you
| survive otherwise.
| soperj wrote:
| if you have multiple jobs, you already have another job,
| so it was clearly possible.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| No. It means it's possible to find a second job when you
| only have one. It doesn't mean that once you've found a
| second job you still have time to search for an improved
| job.
| ruined wrote:
| no, working an additional job does not give you more
| hours in a day. rather it consumes time. what do you do
| at work?
| soperj wrote:
| I'm responding to what's written. If you have a job at
| walmart, they can't both have zero time to find another
| job because of being beholden to their job at walmart and
| have another job.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| ...but they can have zero time to find another job
| because of being beholden to their job at Walmart, _and_
| to the other job?
|
| You're saying they should keep the Walmart job and get
| rid of the other, and spend the time freed up searching
| for one that's full time and paid enough to replace both,
| right? But if you can't support yourself and your
| dependants on the Walmart job alone, then that's risky.
| soperj wrote:
| if they have the other job already, then they clearly had
| time. I'm not saying they should do anything. I'm saying
| it doesn't make sense that you can be beholden to a job
| because of too many hours, and have reduced hours. It's
| one or the other.
| astrange wrote:
| This is covered by search theory in economics.
| (economists do not use "supply and demand" for jobs,
| rather they consider things like search time and
| monopsony power.)
| balabaster wrote:
| Both situations applied to different people. I'd find it
| weirdly paradoxical for one person to find themselves in both
| situations simultaneously.
| wittyreference wrote:
| 39 hours + "you come running when we call or you lose it."
|
| It's just shy of full-time (to withhold benefits), but not
| exactly the same thing as a side gig. And you're bent over a
| barrel.
| phabora wrote:
| Some people are privileged enough to be able to get jobs where
| they don't need collective bargaining to get decently fair
| compensation and decent working conditions.
| passivate wrote:
| >Its okay if you're bullheaded enough or within your means
| enough to walk away if your rights aren't given fair
| consideration and honoured, but if you're in a position where
| you're a prisoner to your job, i.e. can't afford to take time
| off to find another job/other income, or there are no other
| jobs in your area and you don't have the means to leave etc.
| you don't have any bargaining chip.
|
| This is the core issue. Would a federal level solution work?
| Maybe then people won't feel like the only solution is to form
| a union.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Amazon's tactics in response to unionizing efforts been extremely
| revealing. Even if unionizing fails, I'm happy that it forced
| Amazon to show us all the level of contempt they have for their
| workforce.
| missedthecue wrote:
| To their workforce or to a potential cartel they'd be federally
| forced to deal with?
| mywittyname wrote:
| You mean the Board of Directors?
| [deleted]
| leafmeal wrote:
| A "cartel" that represents their workforce, so yes by proxy,
| their workforce.
| Frost1x wrote:
| That's pretty much every employer ever in our economic system.
| Your labor force is a necessary evil and means to an end in far
| too many business leaders' minds. Any way they can reduce labor
| cost, the better, unfortunately they have to tiptoe around laws
| to do it and invent new clever approaches to achieve the same
| ultimate goal: labor rights and wage supression.
|
| It's not just businesses though who are employers. If you've
| ever hired someone to do a contract job for you, say a plumber,
| electrician or some other small construction project, you
| probably thought about and devised all sorts of ways to reduce
| the time and material costs of their efforts to save you money.
| I see this happen with a lot of people. Our culture has a deep
| seated disregard for other humans when money is involved. For
| those who can easily afford the cost, I don't understand. For
| those who have to pay someone out of necessity but can't really
| afford the costs, I understand.
|
| Successful businesses fall into the former category. They are
| not charities, they have a profit motive and margin so they
| _can_ afford it otherwise they have a failing business model.
| It all becomes a matter of how much success of that model they
| want to share with those who make their model possible and how
| entitled they feel in deserving of reward for their models
| success. To me, a lot of it is sheer coincidence and luck. I
| say you should contribute back to those who enable and make you
| successful. It 's all about balance though, again, a business
| (well, most) isn't a charity and its reasonable to expect them
| to garner rewards for their efforts and success, whether it be
| luck or innovation and hard work based. A business also
| shouldn't be on the other extreme operating as a sweat shop
| driving down others rights to benefit those in charge.
|
| There's a healthy balance somewhere in between and many
| captains of industry or investors holding the purse strings
| seem to have forgotten this. In addition, hyper competitive
| markets have forced these sort of optimizations. If you take
| two identical businesses with identical cost structures,
| products, etc and one decides to better compete and lower costs
| to consumers, they can reduce their labor costs, then other
| participants in the market will have to follow suit to remain
| competitive or fail in a low cost driven society. So even if
| you understand the value of people and want to share the
| wealth, it would be quite difficult.
|
| The way to protect against this is through baseline legislation
| like minimum wage, overtime limits, etc. When all competitors
| in a market have to comply or be fined a cost with too high of
| risk (the punishments for violation need to be high to dissuade
| abuse), it's not possible to undercut your competitors in these
| aspects because you can't optimize beyond these constraints. We
| need more robust labor laws and enforcement to fix this issue,
| IMO. Let businesses optimize outside of labor because labor is
| already incredibly optimized as is and will only reduce quality
| of life for most if it continues the ongoing trend.
| minikites wrote:
| Every corporation has contempt for its workforce, it's why
| labor unions are so necessary.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Nearly every corporation has naked contempt for its "human
| resources", that's why it calls them, and the department
| responsible for minimizing the cost of exploiting them,
| "human resources".
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Indeed. It's a bit sad how us human resources often balk at
| accepting this fact.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| It varies.
|
| Not because some corporations are moral, but because happy
| workers are a good long-term strategy and many corporations
| are stuck with rolling short-term-ism. They reward the top
| tier on a three-ish year cycle, so executives only need to
| make the numbers go up for three years before exiting with a
| higher paying job and compensation via stock sales.
|
| The US has a massive issue in general with rolling corporate
| pump & dump. The whole stock market basically encourages it.
| That's why we see things like customer retention strategies
| that actually reduce re-subscriptions and hurt the long term
| reputations remaining popular (because the short term matters
| more to executives than the long term, even if the company
| burns down after they leave).
| rcxdude wrote:
| It varies because different industries and corporations
| have different power relationships with their employees and
| potential employees. If you work in tech, for example, then
| your statement of 'happy workers are a good long-term
| strategy' might be generally true, and you will work harder
| to retain talent both because supply of people who have the
| required skills is below demand and both losing an employee
| and taking a new one on is expensive due to the value of
| the institutional knowledge they hold. These workers hold a
| lot of power over their employer (both individually and as
| a whole), and they know it, so they can demand good
| compensation and treatment and get it.
|
| However a corporation which has a large amount of jobs
| which require little skill or job-specific training but a
| lot of effort may actually find the opposite is a good
| long-term strategy: they have a vast supply of potential
| employees and hiring and firing is cheap so they can work
| their employees hard to the point of burn-out and then fire
| and rehire the next batch. These workers have basically no
| power over their employer individually. Unions are
| effectively a way for these workers to exercise some power
| over their employer as a collective, to get what some
| workers essentially have automatically due to the labour
| market in which they work.
| willcipriano wrote:
| "I'll be gone, you'll be gone"[0]
|
| [0]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/IBGYBG
| minikites wrote:
| >happy workers are a good long-term strategy
|
| I always see this cited as a reason but it so rarely
| happens that it might as well be a Horatio Alger fable.
| It's not instructive or useful in our current reality and
| it would be like taking lessons from the workplace
| successes of Santa's elves.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Contrast Walmart and Costco, in terms of employee
| happiness and turnover.
| minikites wrote:
| >As of February 2021 Walmart has a market cap of $374.31
| B
|
| >As of February 2021 Costco has a market cap of $148.54 B
|
| https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-
| stock-si...
|
| >"We are troubled by [American's] wealth transfer of
| nearly $1 billion to its labor groups," Baker wrote in a
| note to clients.
|
| Treating employees well is punished by the market and
| neither Costco or American Airlines treat them
| particularly well, just less terribly than their
| competitors. A company necessarily has to treat its
| employees like shit in order to succeed.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| It depends on where in the world you are, what kind of
| work the company does, etc. It even depends on where
| within a country the company has its principal activity.
|
| Of course it is not necessarily the case that what works
| here in Norway would work in the US even if the legal
| framework were changed to support it.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Amazon has particular contempt. It's not limited to the floor
| workers; engineers get punted if they look like they may be
| more short-term trouble than they're worth. Contrast with a
| company like Google, that goes out of its way to hire the
| best they can and then retain them under the belief that an
| engineer invested in pays dividends down the road.
|
| Steve Yegge's accidentally-published blog post isn't the
| whole story, but it has a ring of truth to it.
|
| https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611
| ahelwer wrote:
| This Amazon union vote is one of the few things I see around me
| in the world where things have a chance of heading in the right
| direction. Truly hoping it succeeds and creates a nucleation
| event to stop our march into ever-more-innovative methods of
| worker exploitation.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I felt this was about Uber being told they had to treat drivers
| like employees in California too, and look how that turned out:
| A dystopian rule that lawmakers can't overturn to enable worker
| exploitation.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| These kinds of takes are always weird to me. Shouldn't it
| matter, at least a little, that the rule was what a 17-point
| majority of voters wanted? You don't have to personally agree
| with every democratic outcome, but it almost sounds like
| you're saying the results of a vote aren't legitimate if they
| go the wrong way.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| This is just an anecdote, but perhaps other people can
| comment, since the plural of anecdote is data...
|
| I personally know several people who voted for the
| proposition under the impression that it was a pro-worker
| proposition that would guarantee benefits for drivers.
| There were 3 other people for whom I explained the context
| around it (including the fact that it was preempting a
| flawed bill from the legislature) before they mailed their
| ballots in and they changed their vote.
|
| I also know several people who think that we should
| eliminate the rules for treating workers as employees in
| general, and they voted for the bill as well, so there's
| definitely some support. Its definitely clear from my point
| of view that a significant fraction of the people who voted
| for the proposition did so because they misunderstood what
| they were voting for.
|
| OTOH that's probably true about all ballot measures ever,
| and probably most legislation as well.
| ahelwer wrote:
| Well, this is where we see inequality as a force that
| perverts democracy. The side of capital has an enormous
| quantity of resources (by definition) that they use to
| influence electoral outcomes. So in a way, yes, the votes
| aren't very legitimate when the side of capital out-spends
| the side of labor by thirteen to one: https://www.latimes.c
| om/california/story/2020-10-16/skelton-...
| gradys wrote:
| Do you think there's any chance that this was actually
| what a majority of Californians wanted? You seem very
| confident that you know better what the voters wanted
| than they did.
|
| While differences in spending surely have some effect,
| spending isn't the only way to get the word out. I didn't
| measure, but I feel pretty confident that no more than
| 60% of the total communication about Prop 22 that I heard
| from any source was pro. I think it could have been a
| minority actually. For every PR firm the pro side hired,
| there were thousands of unpaid activists on the con side
| (which does say something positive about the con side!).
|
| I noticed you brought out the "lawmakers can't repeal"
| line. This is true, but also effectively standard for
| ballot measures in CA. In fact the default is that you
| can't repeal or change the law under any circumstances.
| This was one point that initially swayed me to vote
| "against", but once I learned that this was basically how
| all ballot measures work (including ones you support, I'm
| sure), I swung back to voting "for".
|
| For me, this was a difficult call, but I voted "for" on
| the basis of the net good for the entire pool of current
| drivers, admittedly at the expense of the smaller number
| of drivers who would have been able to drive under a
| better deal had this passed.
|
| The net effect this would have had on driver welfare is
| far from obvious, so it always bugs me when people assert
| that the only reason this passed by a 17 point margin is
| that people were tricked and confused by the ride sharing
| companies.
| ahelwer wrote:
| Hope you're happy with your decision, oh champion of the
| downtrodden https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2021/feb/18/uber-lyft-do...
| aspaceman wrote:
| Majority rule leads to tyranny of the minority. The
| majority, by definition, will be ignorant to some of the
| minority's needs.
|
| You'll note the issue of slavery wasn't put to a public
| vote to outlaw it. It was still of a struggle to outlaw
| as it was.
| [deleted]
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I think there's definitely a good chance a majority of
| Californians wanted it: Because a lot of Californians are
| blatantly unaware or unconcerned about how Uber takes
| advantage of their workers.
|
| All that most people, unfortunately, care about, is that
| they can open an app that solves a problem for them, and
| it's solved. They don't care about the people who are
| hurt in the process.
|
| And then, yeah, incredible spending on Uber's part is
| going to slide the scale a bit too.
|
| Look, if you put a vote out to say that Amazon workers
| are now indentured servants of Jeff Bezos and have to
| work for free and can never leave, but their Amazon
| purchases will all be 15% cheaper... the vote would pass,
| because the majority of people don't work at Amazon.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Elected officials not being able to turn over laws passed by
| popular vote is dystopian? It's kind of the opposite.
| ahelwer wrote:
| Well, that's electoral politics for ya. Without organized
| labor power to stand up to capital, things are close to a
| one-way ratchet.
| pitaj wrote:
| Classifying gig workers as employees was a terrible idea. Not
| to mention the law that did so had so many exclusions it was
| ridiculous.
|
| Generally, we should be moving away from linking health
| insurance and other benefits to employment.
| ahelwer wrote:
| Have you taken a look at a public health insurance exchange
| recently? Buying your own health insurance is a terrible
| deal. I'm self-employed so have had to deal with this
| myself. Nothing solidifies deep disdain for any politician
| who doesn't support Medicare for All faster than looking at
| that webpage of health insurance plans.
| pitaj wrote:
| There are a lot of reasons health insurance is way too
| expensive, but one of them is that many individuals are
| shielded from the true price because it's provided
| through their employer. This essentially removes downward
| price pressure from individuals.
|
| Having insurance tied to employment is bad for workers.
| It makes switching jobs far more difficult and stressful,
| and makes losing your job that much more of an issue.
| ahelwer wrote:
| Yes, I agree having insurance tied to employment is bad
| for workers. The conclusion is "therefore M4A", not
| "therefore everyone should buy their own insurance on a
| public exchange, paying half as much as their rent". You
| can use COBRA to stay on your job's health insurance when
| you leave it, which is not notably more expensive than
| the public exchange plans.
|
| The insurance market model for healthcare coverage is
| such a fractally broken failure that if you're still
| stuck on the stage of twisting some knobs and adjusting
| some levers in the hope that second-order market effects
| will improve things then there really is just nothing
| that will convince you to move on.
| jandrese wrote:
| Normally people create downward pressure on prices by not
| buying the product when it becomes overpriced. However
| with healthcare there is a captive market. Are you not
| going to get a cast put on a broken leg because the
| doctor wants to charge too much? Are you going to just
| opt out of cancer treatments and die?
|
| Healthcare is an area where market forces are inherently
| perverted because people often don't have a choice of not
| buying the service. This is why every sensible country
| uses a socialized system instead. Not only does it
| provide better service, but without the perverse market
| incentives and multiple layers of middlemen infesting the
| system it is much less expensive.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| You still have a choice between competing hospitals /
| doctors in a system where prices are not inflated for
| insurances' catalogues.
| shirakawasuna wrote:
| The best time to shop around for the best deal is after
| you've been hit by a car and are having trouble
| breathing.
| TimBurr wrote:
| That would be true iff prices were disclosed upfront and
| the pricing model was clear. I had a hospital experience
| recently where the surgeon provided one bill, the
| hospital a second, and the anesthesiologist a third.
|
| Only the surgeon's pricing was available ahead of time.
| The hospital provided an invoice at the time of surgery,
| marked as "SUBJECT TO CHANGE". The anesthesiologist
| himself didn't know how much his services would cost.
|
| Three weeks later, we're still watching invoices and
| insurance claims roll in.
|
| Medical tourism is a direct testament to inflated charges
| as a systematic problem. Finding a hospital with non-
| inflated costs requires crossing international borders.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| The real problem is that health insurance is overly
| expensive - mainly thanks to the relationship between gov
| / insurance. You should fix that; thinking that
| nationalising health care will fix the problem is just
| some politician's dream. The extra money needed for
| nationalised health care will have to come from somewhere
| - and because poor people don't have money and rich
| people are too good at eluding their tax obligations, the
| usual middle class will pay for it.
|
| I'd rather have a fully private market without national
| entities messing with the prices and charities for those
| who can't afford it.
|
| Of course, no politician will ever champion such a
| system, because it removes the gov from the equation,
| making them less powerful and needed by the masses that
| keep paying taxes.
| ahelwer wrote:
| I'm sorry but this is just a complete fantasy. The "extra
| money" for nationalized healthcare can come from taxes
| instead of premiums, and enormous efficiency gains with
| the elimination of N x N redundant billing departments &
| business units. It has worked all over the world. Your
| scheme has not, and is also immensely cruel to people who
| can't afford health insurance. Charity has never solved a
| social problem.
| jsmith45 wrote:
| I honestly never paid any attention to the law, but I
| really don't understand how it would be feasible to treat
| Uber drivers as W4 employees in the first place.
|
| What other sort of W4 job lets you chose both how many and
| which hours you want to work, and let you skip any
| assignments you don't want to complete? That honestly is so
| totally backwards to even how part time jobs work that I'm
| not convinced it would be viable.
| ahelwer wrote:
| Assuming you mean W-2 job. This arrangement is actually
| quite common for software engineering contractors. There
| are a number of "proxy" contracting companies (ex.
| iWorkGlobal) of which the independent contractor is a W-2
| employee, but the contractor really works on an hourly
| contract for a third-party company that is contracting
| with the proxy company. It has all the trappings of
| independent contracting where you can choose your own
| hours, renegotiate/modify the contract, whatever. It's
| common when contracting with tech giants.
| kristofferR wrote:
| People should really watch the Oscar winning documentary
| "American Factory", totally eye-opening in regards to the
| practices of union busting, among many things.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| This looks bad but companies with unions do this a lot. I
| remember seeing welcome packages for Delta Airlines employees
| where they tell them to not join the union and explaining why on
| their perspective is bad to do so.
|
| I'm not saying this is correct, but unions are rarely aligned
| with companies, so there is always going to be a perpetual fight
| between unions and companies that have them. You can't really
| expect Amazon to embrace unionization. They are in their right to
| try to disincentivize unionization if they believe it could be
| damaging for their business.
|
| Again. I'm not saying this is correct, but I guess that's the
| whole point of unionizing. If it were an easy fight, it wouldn't
| make sense to unionize.
|
| For the sake of transparency, I would disclose that I'm in
| principle anti-union but I understand why they exist and how can
| they be helpful, especially to employees who work low wage jobs
| and who could be vulnerable to abusive employment practices.
| A12-B wrote:
| They are quite literally not within their right to stop
| unionisation, as that is illegal. Also it looks bad because it
| is bad.
|
| btw, the line between 'disincentivising' and 'forcing' is
| decided arbitrarily by you. If they send text messages, block
| traffic lights, and screw with people's mailboxes, i think
| amazon crosses the line.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| Definitely not illegal. You think Amazon, one of the largest
| companies in the world, will engage in any anti-union
| campaign without consulting their lawyers on what's right and
| what's not? It's ok if this is doesn't sit well on you. As I
| said in the parent comment, if unions were easy they wouldn't
| make sense.
|
| Things companies that have unions or are dealing with
| unionization efforts can do [1]:
|
| - Describe the good features of working for your company,
| such as existing benefits, job security and steady work.
|
| - Remind them that signing union authorization cards doesn't
| mean they must vote for the union.
|
| - Inform them of the disadvantages of belonging to a union,
| such as the possibility of strikes, serving on picket lines,
| paying dues, fines and assessments.
|
| - Explain the meaning of the phrases "dues checkoff" and
| "union shop."
|
| - Inform them of any prior experience you've had with unions
| and what facts you know about the particular union that's
| trying to organize them.
|
| - Tell your employees how their wages and benefits compare
| with other unionized and nonunionized companies with less
| desirable packages.
|
| - Disclose the names of known gangsters or other undesirable
| elements who may be or have been active in the union,
| provided this is accurate information that can be verified by
| official sources.
|
| - Inform them that, insofar as their status with the company
| is concerned, they are free to join or not to join any
| organization they choose.
|
| - Express the hope that your employees vote against this or
| any union.
|
| [1] https://www.thehrspecialist.com/14099/unions-in-the-
| spotligh...
|
| Special emphasis on the last point. This is not me
| "arbitrarily" deciding anything. I don't even care that much
| about this. This is simply the other side of the coin.
| Companies can do this and therefore they do it. I have no
| personal feelings or strong opinions regarding unionization.
| I'm just showing the facts.
| A12-B wrote:
| When you break a law, you don't immediately go to jail. Its
| not a video game. There are about a million dollars and
| hurdles in the way of suing amazon for breaking labour
| laws. They are engaging in far more than just informing
| their employees of a no-vote. These are facts too.
|
| Things an employer can't do: - Engage in surveillance of
| employees to determine their views on the union.
|
| Christ dude, read the article and your own source.
| ahelwer wrote:
| > You think Amazon, one of the largest companies in the
| world, will engage in any anti-union campaign without
| consulting their lawyers on what's right and what's not?
|
| This is staggeringly naive about both how large companies &
| the legal system operate.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| Really? So you think corporations don't use their lawyers
| before they do things? They just go and do whatever
| without assessing the risks? I think is actually naive to
| think otherwise. You can still feel something is illegal
| even though you have the clear of your legal team. I'm
| not debating that. Also you could take decisions on gray
| areas against the advice of your lawyers. I'm not
| debating that either.
|
| I would like to understand your side? How is my take
| staggeringly naive?
| ahelwer wrote:
| If you've ever interacted with a lawyer you would know
| that "right vs not" is not a binary and all advice is
| tempered with discussion of risk. In this case, the risk
| is Amazon has action brought against it by the heavily
| neutered NLRB and possibly faces consequences many years
| down the road - consequences that clearly, to them, pale
| in comparison to the cost of having their workforce
| unionized. What you've said above basically amounts to
| "if a corporation does something, it must be legal,
| because corporations employ lawyers to tell them whether
| something is legal". Which is just straight false on the
| facts of history, and naive.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| That's not what I said. I'm saying that the baseline
| behavior is not illegal. The fundamentals of
| disincentivizing unions are legal. I don't know if this
| particular instance is illegal. On print doesn't sound
| good.
|
| I was replying to the parent commenter who seemed to
| think that desincentivizing union formation/joining is
| illegal which is clearly not.
|
| I agree with you that law isn't binary, but the final
| interpretation of a law is a binary decision. You engage
| on what you think is lawful behavior or you don't. If
| they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh
| the cons, and they believe they are operating within
| their legal rights.
| ahelwer wrote:
| > If they did this, they clearly think that the pros
| outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating
| within their legal rights.
|
| No, they don't necessarily believe they are operating
| within their legal rights. They believe the penalty for
| noncompliance with the law is low enough to be worth it.
| This is an important distinction, because it means we
| need much greater penalties for labor violations.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| Yeah. I agree. That is another possibility on why they
| decided to so this.
|
| The rewards of preventing unionization outweighs the
| penalties of engaging in unlawful behavior.
| ashtonbaker wrote:
| > You think Amazon, one of the largest companies in the
| world, will engage in any anti-union campaign without
| consulting their lawyers on what's right and what's not?
|
| What? You could conclude that anything that Amazon does is
| legal by this logic. I'm sure they /did/ consult their
| lawyers - not for lessons on "right" and "wrong", but to
| find exactly how to skirt or cross the legal line with an
| acceptable level of legal exposure.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| What you said is not very different from what I said.
| Read the other thread under the parent comment where we
| expanded/discussed with another commenter on some of your
| points.
| wccrawford wrote:
| I've yet to work for a big non-union company that didn't have
| _some_ anti-union literature or speech once in a while. It didn
| 't even matter if unionizing was in the employees best interest
| or not. The company knew it was _not_ in their best interest,
| and so they spoke out.
|
| I'm not at all surprised that Amazon is doing the same.
| duxup wrote:
| Call me crazy but I think the employer should get to make their
| case too.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| "As a trillion dollar company we can't afford better working
| conditions and pay for you"?
|
| The _only reason_ Amazon raised their fulfillment pay was
| because Bernie Sanders shamed them into it [1].
|
| [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+bernie+sanders+pay
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > The only reason Amazon raised their fulfillment pay was
| because Bernie Sanders shamed them into it
|
| I don't think this kind of claim, especially without
| evidence, is helpful. How do you know what their reasoning
| is? You're telling me on the one hand that this is a big
| powerful company and on the other hand saying they are easily
| cowed and susceptible to something as toothless as 'shame'.
| So which is it? My take is that companies are complex and
| make decisions based on many factors typically. You have no
| idea why they did or didn't do certain things, and it most
| likely has nothing to do with Sanders.
|
| Also consider that trillion Dollars is their market
| capitalization not liquid cash on their hand. I don't think
| being a trillion Dollar company changes what they can afford
| or who they should reward with their profits. Amazon is
| already paying market-leading wages for _unskilled labor_ and
| provides benefits. I don 't really expect them to pay any
| more than minimum wage if they have enough workers interested
| in their jobs, since this is not differentiated work. So the
| fact that they're doing anything more should be appreciated.
| I don't think it makes sense to twist that into a criticism.
| duxup wrote:
| I don't expect people to agree with their case, but they
| should get to make it.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| By making any case other than robust worker rights and fair
| compensation, they have demonstrated their culture and
| priorities as a corporation. But, by all means, I agree
| that one shouldn't stop their enemy when they're pointing a
| gun at their feet (edit: to clarify, this implies Amazon is
| making a strategic failure by fighting unionization
| efforts, at it reflects poorly on them).
| duxup wrote:
| You're hyperbole strikes me as ... kinda out there. Not
| sure anyone has guns pointed at anyone in this case.
| lovegoblin wrote:
| Did you genuinely not understand the "shooting oneself in
| the foot" metaphor?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Your comments strike me as unaware or complacent.
|
| https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2020/04/29/Leavin
| g-A...
|
| https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2020/05/06/Answer
| s
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon
| -wo...
|
| https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/youre-just-
| dispos...
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/am
| azo...
|
| https://nypost.com/2019/07/13/inside-the-hellish-workday-
| of-...
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696154/amazon-prime-
| day...
| duxup wrote:
| I simply don't think any of that matches the hyperbole.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| The humble footgun is not really a "gun" in that sense.
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/footgun
| gtaylor wrote:
| They've had plenty of time to change their behavior. The
| issues are well known at this point.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I don't expect people to agree with their case, but they
| should get to make it.
|
| Yeah, though the problem is that "case" is likely
| professionally polished FUD (if American Factory is any
| guide) hammered home in mandatory meeting after mandatory
| meeting. It's like if every voter was required to attend
| mandatory info sessions by Republican advocates for 20
| hours in the two weeks before an election, while listening
| to the Democratic advocates was voluntary and optional.
| duxup wrote:
| Did they pay them for those meetings?
| missedthecue wrote:
| You really think the only reason they increased their labor
| costs by billions is because a now irrelevant populist from
| Vermont doesn't like rich people?
| ModernMech wrote:
| Bernie Sanders is now the Chair of the Senate Budget
| Committee. He's not irrelevant, that's a position with
| actual power. His committee is the one from which the
| current 1.9T stimulus bill originates, for instance. That
| bill doesn't get passed without going through him first.
| That's far from irrelevant.
| missedthecue wrote:
| The degree of power he is still technically holding on to
| does not change my point.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Why? They are not part of the process.
| [deleted]
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| They have a right to. They just can't _stop_ people from doing
| certain things. The purpose of unionizing is to say "this
| company has been treating us unfairly and we're powerless to
| stop it. But together we could." If Amazon was treating its
| employees fairly, they'd be less inclined to unionize.
| nabilhat wrote:
| All employers are making their case at all times, throughout
| hiring, with pay rate consistency or discrepancy,
| communication, management, and culture. Union votes are an
| outcome of the case an employer has already made for
| themselves. Once the vote's on, it's going to be very difficult
| to refute the case they've been making for years.
|
| Taking ownership of the failures that led to the conditions
| which created support for the union vote in a substantial,
| committed, and convincing fashion is hard, but potentially an
| effective way for employers to change the direction of the case
| they've made to employees.
|
| Directly instructing employees to vote "no", lying about how
| unions work in their area, lying about the voting timeline,
| installing an easily surveillable special mailbox for union
| votes, and pressuring the government to alter traffic controls
| to prevent employees from being able to spend time outside the
| workplace during the union voting period - this is how Amazon
| has chosen to make their case.
| duxup wrote:
| 'lying about how unions work'. I've seen unions do the same.
| I was in a union where they promised to accomplish some
| things... didn't even try. Zero effort to do so, they simply
| chose not to.
|
| Amazon or any employer should still be able to make their
| case, even if they're wrong about some things ...
| TOGoS wrote:
| > 'lying about how unions work'. I've seen unions do the
| same. I was in a union where they promised to accomplish
| some things... didn't even try. Zero effort to do so, they
| simply chose not to.
|
| Indeed, a lot of unions, especially the big, old ones in
| the US, have become lazy and more interested in making nice
| deals with management than with sticking up for the
| workers.
|
| That said, the experience the workers get from the process
| of unionizing in the first place can give them the
| confidence they need to realize that the union bureaucracy
| isn't doing everything it can, and to pressure it to be
| better (by things like wildcat strikes, as the teachers in
| Virginia did very successfully a few years ago).
|
| > Amazon or any employer should still be able to make their
| case, even if they're wrong about some things ...
|
| I recommend re-reading the post you're responding to, which
| addressed that the first time you said it.
| justin66 wrote:
| There's a world of difference between making their case and
| instructing their employees on how and where they should
| vote and surveilling them while they do it.
| phabora wrote:
| Yes, for shame! When will America get to hear the side of the
| employer?
|
| Mabye the executive of Amazon could be allowed to post a little
| column in paper like the Washington Post. Maybe the owner of
| that paper wouldn't object to that idea.
| staticman2 wrote:
| I mean you either believe in morality or you don't.
|
| If you feel Amazon management isn't moral, they should repent
| and change their behavior, not "make their case."
| [deleted]
| duxup wrote:
| I don't think I understand what you're saying.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Imagine we lived in a world with moral consequences,
| perhaps the sort of world where evil people burn in hell or
| something like the twilight zone, where supernatural events
| strike down bad people, rather than the real world.
|
| Lying to people to try to get them to vote against their
| economic interests seems the sort of thing that lands
| people in hell or haunted by an evil doll in such a
| universe.
|
| "He's just making his case" doesn't really seem like sort
| of reasoning that would follow in a moral universe. The
| import thing is "is that case moral?"
| [deleted]
| ojnabieoot wrote:
| I don't think there's a single labor activist who disagrees
| with you. We aren't saying Amazon is forbidden from making
| their case, but rather that their specific behavior is
| unacceptably intimidating and misleading. We agree Amazon is
| allowed to argue that unions are bad (although I think the rank
| condescension and borderline dishonesty in the mailer is a
| legitimate news story - the thing about dues is a lie, Alabama
| is right-to-work).
|
| The problem as I see it are the two other things:
|
| - telling employees to vote by March 1st in a specific mailbox,
| even though the deadline is March 29th, is blatant intimidation
| (since management is clearly surveilling the mailbox and will
| know if you don't comply). If that's not illegal it really
| needs to be.
|
| - "Protect what you have" is a very suspicious and threatening
| message that suggests retaliation if workers unionize
| (especially given the last page in the mailer). I would say
| this is paranoid if we weren't talking about Amazon - they lost
| all presumptions of decency with the traffic light shenanigan.
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| do you think we should hear about tobacco health risks from
| cigarette companies?
|
| do you think we should accept climate science from fossil fuel
| companies?
| coolreader18 wrote:
| Read TFA - it's not just that Amazon is encouraging workers to
| vote no, they've set up mailboxes on-site that they're
| encouraging people to send their ballots with, making union
| organizers wary that Amazon is trying to keep tabs on who
| votes, even though it's supposed to be anonymous.
| duxup wrote:
| >making union organizers wary that Amazon is trying to keep
| tabs on who votes
|
| I can understand being wary, but that's all it is, wary.
| fireball_blaze wrote:
| How could you possibly know unless you are on the Amazon
| union busting team?
| chasd00 wrote:
| > making union organizers wary that Amazon is trying to keep
| tabs on who votes, even though it's supposed to be anonymous.
|
| heh if it passes and a union is formed i wonder how many
| "tabs" are going to be kept on employees who dare choose not
| to join. There's plenty of precedent for unions doing their
| own threatening and pressuring of employees to increase the
| coffers.
| tyingq wrote:
| If it were on equal grounding, or granted equal access, I'd
| agree.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Equal grounding would be that no one is in a union, or that
| the employees are in a union, and the companies are in a
| union of their own. So Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc all get
| to form their union to negotiate with Big Labour.
|
| Its not fair that Walmart and Amazon must compete against
| each other to buy labor but the sellers of labor can form a
| cartel protected by the federal government.
| tyingq wrote:
| I'm talking about things like the employer being able to
| put a mailbox at the place where employees exit, mailing
| things to their home addresses, putting posters on the
| walls at work, and so on.
| upofadown wrote:
| In much the same way that political parties should get to make
| their case inside the voting booth.
| Zealotux wrote:
| From a non-US point of view, this whole anti-union strategy from
| Amazon is somehow hilarious to witness on top of being sad. This
| kind of propaganda feels like its coming from another age, or
| dimension.
| pfortuny wrote:
| Which looks even worse than Victorian England and the factory
| workers (or the women at textile works)... So unbelievably
| immoral.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| In Europe, at least in some countries, forming a union is a
| right and there is no need to organise a ballot so companies
| can do much less to prevent it but they obviously still do all
| they can.
|
| As long as they act within the law it's fair game really
| because it's obviously not in a company's interest to have
| unions.
| walshemj wrote:
| Forming is one thing actually getting recognition is much
| harder.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Again, this depends on the country. Where forming an union
| is a right, the obligation for the company to recognise it
| may also be the law.
|
| For example on France there are unions at Amazon and they
| are recognised. Why? Because in law there is nothing Amazon
| can do about either.
|
| This is annoying for companies but it cuts down on the BS.
| onion2k wrote:
| I'm going to assume you're not in the UK, because this is
| straight out of UK government's playbook during the 70s and 80s
| when they were union busting the mining and engineering unions.
| The page on Wikipedia about the union leader Derek Robinson is
| an eye-opener (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Robinson_(trade_unionist...
| ) ... pay close attention to the work of MI5 in bringing his
| union activity to an end.
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| There was a pretty big smear campaign against Arthur Scargill
| too. https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2017-07-26/miners-
| strik...
| nabla9 wrote:
| The sadness is build into the US labor laws.
|
| The US has enterprise level bargaining (as does UK). In
| enterprise bargaining anything that helps workers hurts
| enterprises against their nonunionized competition. It's a bad
| system to have as a main method.
|
| Most other countries have versions of sectoral bargaining
| system, sometimes with some national and enterprise level
| aspects. Once you understand the difference, it's easier to
| understand why in the US unions and enterprises have so bad
| relationship.
| malf wrote:
| That explains a lot. Thanks!
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Right out of the 1900's in fact, gilded age part 2: technologic
| boogaloo.
| x2w8TGm8BSTd853 wrote:
| Are the Pinkertons fair game just like they are in Red Dead
| Redemption 2? Oh, my: but I don't have a horse. Hope this
| won't prevent me from taking part.
| faitswulff wrote:
| Amazon literally employs a union busting company from the last
| century (edit: from two centuries ago, apparently):
|
| > The Pinkerton National Detective Agency was founded as a
| private police force in Chicago in 1850, and quickly expanded
| its reach; its detectives initially focused on catching thieves
| and burglars, but soon became the bane of the labor movement
| for their work as enthusiastic, vicious strikebreakers.
| Throughout the Civil War era and in the decades after,
| Pinkerton operatives left their bloody mark on strikes,
| protests, and massacres, and gained a ruthless reputation for
| protecting the interests of capital by any means necessary.
|
| > [...]
|
| > The Pinkertons, who are now a subsidiary of Swedish security
| company Securitas AB, are reportedly cozying up to 2020's
| version of the Gilded Age robber baron: Silicon Valley tech
| bosses like billionaire vampire Jeff Bezos, who has hired the
| Pinkerton Detective Agency to reportedly surveil workers in at
| least one of Amazon's European warehouses and infiltrate its
| worksite, according to documents obtained by the publication.
|
| https://www.teenvogue.com/story/who-were-the-pinkertons
|
| And yes, that is a Teen Vogue link, and yes, it's worth
| reading.
| shmageggy wrote:
| I've seen Teen Vogue pop up a few times in recent years.
| Seems like a mix of deeper coverage is working out well for
| them https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/1
| 2/te...
| op03 wrote:
| The RWDSU has a long history of dealing with much worse - htt
| ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail,_Wholesale_and_Departme...
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| When Teen Vogue calls someone a "billionaire vampire", is
| that a compliment, or are vampires out again?
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| They call Bezos a vampire because he uses other peoples
| blood plasma to keep himself young and healthy.
|
| He's a fking vampire.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I thought it was because he sparkles in the sunlight.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Billionaire vampire is out, vampire billionaire is
| ambiguous though I think the YA romance industry has moved
| on since 2010.
| tyingq wrote:
| I do get the joke, but to balance it a bit, the writer is a
| freelancer, and does appear to have pretty good chops
| around labor issues. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimmkelly
| lovegoblin wrote:
| Yeah, Teen Vogue has plenty of solid journalism.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I'm genuinely not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Teen
| Vogue is certainly surprisingly serious, but my standard
| for "solid journalism" involves some attempt at
| neutrality and objectivity as opposed to hyper-partisan
| ideology marketed to children. To be quite clear, the
| overall modern media landscape is highly partisan and
| sensationalist; Teen Vogue mostly only stands out in that
| they're marketing their divisive ideology directly to
| children.
|
| EDIT: This is unsurprisingly attracting downvotes. I'm
| curious if people are objecting to the characterization
| of Teen Vogue as partisan and ideological or the
| implication that marketing divisive ideology to children
| is a social ill? Or perhaps that journalism should aspire
| toward the truth and not partisan advocacy?
| faitswulff wrote:
| Sure, I'll bite. I downvoted you because it's not
| partisanship or divisiveness that should be decried, but
| the immense wealth inequality in the United States. And
| perhaps Teen Vogue is progressive because that's where
| their readership already is, as opposed to them simply
| preying on a vulnerable population.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Thanks for responding. For what it's worth, _I fully
| agree that wealth inequality is one of the most important
| issues in America_. On many policy issues, I 'm
| _progressive_. But I just can 't get behind political
| propaganda ('advocacy', if that's easier to swallow)
| billing itself as 'journalism', which I believe should
| ultimately be about seeking the truth (and ergo a
| _pursuit_ of neutrality and objectivity). Journalism is
| most valuable when it hosts a _robust_ debate; when one
| party to the debate is consistently a stooge or a
| caricature, the "debate" is less than worthless. The
| ideals of neutrality and objectivity are _particularly_
| important when children are the audience--the objective
| should be teaching children to think for themselves, not
| teaching them what they ought to think. Once upon a time
| I understood these to be _progressive_ values.
| faitswulff wrote:
| You seem to be conflating neutrality and objectivity with
| bipartisanship. It's pretty obvious that there is only
| one party in the USA that even pretends to value
| neutrality and objectivity, and it's not the party that
| elected Donald Trump.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| No one is talking about bipartisanship. I chose my words
| deliberately; there is no subtext. :)
| shmageggy wrote:
| > _'journalism ', which I believe should ultimately be
| about seeking the truth (and ergo a pursuit of neutrality
| and objectivity)_
|
| This doesn't exist. I haven't yet given up hope that it
| could someday exist, but as far as I can tell it doesn't
| currently. Would love to be proven wrong though.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| A perfectly neutral and objective journalism hasn't
| existed, but the aspiration toward neutrality and
| objectivity _have_ existed and even been mainstream at
| points in our history. In my lifetime, it 's a relatively
| recent phenomena that media outlets were openly biased,
| viewing their function as "activism" rather than truth-
| seeking.
| lovegoblin wrote:
| I assure you it is not sarcastic at all.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying.
| kick wrote:
| Journalism was rarely feigning objectiveness: during the
| 1920s through the 1970s, some of the strongest voices in
| favor of labor were journalists. "Neutrality" is largely
| a construct, or meme, that has been pushed by Rupert
| Murdoch since he founded his "news" network. Naturally,
| his own properties are nowhere near objective, despite
| some people claiming WSJ magically escapes bias.
|
| Everything is naturally biased, the only distinction is
| whether an entity is open about their bias. This goes for
| anything: whether it was the _New York Times_ and _FOX_
| hawking for nearly every war during the 2000s, or it was
| _Newsweek_ favoring MLK Jr. and _Life_ describing his
| speeches with phrases like "demagogic slander" during
| the 1960s, everyone's naturally got an opinion. This
| doesn't stop applying when writing about a subject.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > Journalism was rarely feigning objectiveness
|
| Granted. The extent to which journalism is valuable is
| the extent to which it is neutral and objective. When it
| abandons even the pursuit of truth, it becomes a social
| ill.
|
| > Everything is naturally biased, the only distinction is
| whether an entity is open about their bias.
|
| I don't think this is true on any level of analysis
| (though it is one of the most popular and obvious of
| mistruths). At the individual level, one can choose to
| counterbalance his biases or commit himself to them. He
| can choose to lean on rhetoric or reason. He can debate
| against his most competent opponents or he can choose
| stooges. He can choose between straw men and steel men.
| He can choose to be honest (if fallible) or dishonest.
|
| At an organizational level, we can choose between
| orthodoxy and heterodoxy. We can have an ideological
| monoculture or a diverse culture. We can build a culture
| that calls out rhetoric and favors reason. The net result
| of a heterodox organization isn't the absolute lack of
| bias, but the bias is severely attenuated compared to the
| modern newsroom.
| tor11 wrote:
| funny.
| phabora wrote:
| The meaning is pretty straightforward to interpret.
|
| Vampires suck blood.
| fallingfrog wrote:
| The back of the union movement in the United States was pretty
| much broken when Ronald Reagan broke an air traffic controllers
| strike by firing 11,359 of them and replacing them with members
| of the military. He also imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring any
| striking worker. Then they decertified the union. Sent a
| message.
|
| Their justification for this was that the strike was illegal,
| after Reagan himself declared it illegal via an executive
| order.
|
| https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/05/reagan-fires-11-00...
| fallingfrog wrote:
| Edit: these kinds of strikes were evidently made illegal in
| 1955, by an act of Congress, it wasn't that Reagan simply
| declared it illegal.
| Google234 wrote:
| You are spreading fake news. From your article: " In 1955,
| Congress had made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-
| year jail term"
| fallingfrog wrote:
| Thank you, I missed that. Spreading falsehoods of any kind
| is not my intention.
| [deleted]
| TrackerFF wrote:
| In the US, almost everything boils down to money and special
| interest. Amazingly enough, unionization hasn't been outlawed,
| despite the massive efforts from industry.
| cat199 wrote:
| > Amazingly enough
|
| Not so amazing when you look at DNC backers, July 30, 1975,
| etc. More radical unions (e.g. IWW) tend to look at the
| 'mainstream' unions as 'bosses unions' or 'controlled
| opposition', and the more libertarian minded often similarly
| view the relationship between unions and capital as power
| plays by big corps to raise the 'free market' price of labor
| and consolidate power.
| walshemj wrote:
| From the UK the IWW is seen not as a real union but as a
| "club" - the is a direct quote to me from a DGS (Senior
| Union Officer)
|
| They do seem stuck cosplaying Edwardian trades union
| activists - instead of actually concentrating on the actual
| TU issues.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| The depressing part is that this is actually an improvement
| over the violence and intimidation tactics of America's past.
| The US has never been a particularly union supportive country.
|
| See:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
| pydry wrote:
| There's still time to return to the good old days when the
| boss called in a private air force to drop poison gas and
| bombs on striking workers.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Yes, this is a good reminder that the first areal attack on
| US soil was not Pearl Harbor, but was against striking
| workers in 1921 at the Battle of Blair Mountain.
|
| "By August 29 battle was fully joined. Chafin's men, though
| outnumbered, had the advantage of higher positions and
| better weaponry. Private planes were hired to drop homemade
| bombs on the miners. A combination of poison gas and
| explosive bombs left over from World War I were dropped in
| several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and
| Blair."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
|
| Someone else in the thread mentioned a revived push for
| "company towns", which is exactly what these workers were
| fighting against. Being fired from their company meant
| losing their job _and_ their house, since it was owned by
| the company. Honestly, it 's not much different from being
| fired in 2021 and losing your job _and_ your health
| insurance.
| scollet wrote:
| This is a good reminder that the Tulsa Massacre occurred
| about 4 months earlier.
| Nacdor wrote:
| Amazon uses agents from a company named Pinkerton to spy on
| their workers: https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp3yn/amazon-
| leaked-reports...
|
| No idea if it has any relation to the original Pinkerton
| strike-breakers, but using that name is pretty callous given
| its history.
| fl0wenol wrote:
| It is one and the same.
|
| What's more is that it isn't some sort of ironic twist of
| circumstances, it's just that there aren't a lot of
| organizations you can call for that kind of work at scale.
| FpUser wrote:
| Are Amazon employees really going to even read those leaflets?
| This is just too rich on Amazon's site. Like they really give a
| flying fuck about people saving those $500 in dues. C'mon, tell
| it to your house cat. It might actually believe you.
| sodality2 wrote:
| Detailed, 6 step instructions on how to open a ballot and mark
| no? Thanks, amazon. This is almost as scummy as asking the city
| to change traffic lights so union organizers have a harder time
| talking to workers in between shifts.
|
| https://www.al.com/business/2021/02/jefferson-county-now-say...
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| Unbelievable. This is petty shit you'd expect from 100+ years
| ago when companies were breaking strikes by killing people.
| Might as well rename this country to the Corporate States of
| America. No level of government has any backbone against the
| private sector.
| w0m wrote:
| That's a bit too far. Ignore unions; and amazon fixed traffic
| congestion leaving their complex. If a unionization effort is
| reliant on an unnecessary traffic jam to form - it's destined
| to fail.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Yes changing the timing of some traffic lights is exactly the
| same as killing people.
| damnyou wrote:
| Well, for its union busting efforts Amazon has been using
| spies from the literal, actual Pinkerton: https://www.googl
| e.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/amazon-...
|
| Yes, it's the same Pinkerton that did this:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike
|
| edit: Ah, I've been shadow banned. I probably offended the
| mods when I pointed out how much of a racist Scott Siskind
| was.
|
| Hey dang, you, by virtue of wanting to keep the community
| on this site over eradicating white supremacism from here
| -- you are a white supremacist.
| fireball_blaze wrote:
| Also reference Amazon's "Do it without dues" site:
|
| https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| "Be a Doer"
|
| I can't help but think if this
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJqr6LBFelI
|
| Can't imagine this word could be used unironically
| oliv__ wrote:
| That website feels like it should be in a museum
| sammorrowdrums wrote:
| I kind of want a parody site, like "doitwithoutshoes.com", my
| first thought had been "doitwithoutjews.com" given it sounds
| the same, but obviously it would have to be very tastefully
| done to not come across as cheap or anti-Semitic.
|
| The shoes idea works as you have to pay for them. Why pay for
| shoes? You know you get exactly the same benefits at Amazon
| while barefoot?
|
| A classic similar example used to be the "godhatesfigs.com"
| parody of the Westboro Baptist church's similar slogan (sadly
| gone now) - with a bible passage where Jesus curses a fig
| tree.
| dheera wrote:
| Maybe someone should start a second union without dues? That
| would leave Amazon with no way to argue.
| sokoloff wrote:
| But what would be in it for union leadership under such a
| structure? (Not to mention that unions also have some
| unavoidable expenses, even if you didn't have a bunch of
| highly-paid union leader mouths to feed.)
|
| Amazon would still find a way to argue. "If you're not a
| lowest performer, don't let a union negotiate for you and
| force your wages down to the lowest performing among you."
| or many other phrases that would appeal to those who think
| they're above the bottom already and plant fear that
| bargaining with the collective would lower their outcomes.
| dheera wrote:
| > But what would be in it for union leadership under such
| a structure?
|
| An ego boost? I mean this seriously -- people love being
| moderators of Subreddits and admins of online communities
| largely deep down for the ego boost.
|
| A union really needs not much more than a Discord server
| and maybe a Zoom membership to organize strikes and
| whatever else they need to do.
| flyt wrote:
| Unions need more than a Discord to organize. They may
| need to compensate union leadership for time taken to
| organize away from their work duties, pay for events, pay
| for mailers and other communications infrastructure, and
| of course pay for professionals like labor lawyers.
|
| No union will have much luck performing collective
| bargaining against Amazon without working alongside
| experienced lawyers.
|
| These costs don't have to be huge, but they aren't zero.
| dheera wrote:
| > pay for events
|
| What events? If it's to discuss a certain issue, that can
| be virtual and almost free. If it's a social event, meh,
| there are enough of those already and people can self-
| organize them. Hell for $500/month I could organize
| social events where everyone goes to Michelin 3-star
| restaurants every month and rants over gourmet dinners
| about their bosses.
|
| > pay for mailers and other communications infrastructure
|
| Use e-mail. I don't even check my snail mail box anyway
| unless someone tells me to expect something by e-mail,
| and even then when my snail mail box gets too full I
| usually just dump it all in the recycle bin, so it's not
| an effective way for a union to communicate with me.
|
| > and of course pay for professionals like labor lawyers.
|
| What if they just split the lawyer fees evenly?
|
| Assuming an experienced lawyer charges $1000/hr and
| spends 100 hours on a case, and there are 1 million
| people in the union, that amounts to about
| $0.10/person/case, a far cry from the $500/month they
| seem to be charging. Even if my numbers are off by a
| factor of 100 it would be only $10/person/case, and if
| the union won the case Amazon would probably have to pay
| the legal fees anyway.
|
| Although this may sound a bit naive I feel like
| $500/person/month sounds like there is some massive
| inefficiency in use of resources.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I think the $500 figure is the number that AMZN pulled
| out of a hat, and I think it is a yearly number, not a
| monthly one.
|
| That said, it sounds like you haven't dealt with the real
| world logistics of large groups of people. From both a
| practical and legal perspective, there is a lot to cover.
| The finances need to be kept up to date and audited. You
| mention, in jest, that you could bring all these people
| together for a dinner at that price. Getting 15 people to
| agree on a time and place for dinner is close to
| impossible if you've ever tried it. Nevermind getting a
| warehouse full of people to show up.
|
| 100 hours (2.5 weeks of labor) for lawyers to come to an
| agreement for the 1mm workers you cited? Not possible,
| especially with an adversary like amazon.
|
| Email as communication? Maybe, but does it qualify for
| legal matters? Voting? Have you ever tried to send a
| million emails? There's a reason that there is an entire
| industry built around bulk emails.
|
| A union is more like an independent HR office than
| anything else. Think of how many resources HR uses, and
| that gives you an idea of what a union needs
| estaseuropano wrote:
| Alright, split the fees! Now you need someone to count
| the days paid out, calculate how much each member has to
| pay, send payment requests, follow up, manage the
| account, ...
|
| A professional Union needs funds to do its work. Over
| time the benefits members get more than pay for the union
| dues. If there's a strike at least in Europe the union
| will also use the dues to cover the salary for the days
| striking.
|
| The imaginary alternative would be to have somebody do
| this for free in their evenings and on their weekends.
| Have you ever tried to manage even a class representative
| and budget for your kids' school or a little league or
| any other kind of long-term engagement? Already at that
| small scale things tend to break down quote easily and
| few stay involved more than a few years. How can you
| expect volunteer union reps to work 8h+/day, spend their
| nights writing legal briefs, researching, organising
| events, managing members and expenses, etc while being up
| against an army of professional lawyers?
|
| Unions brought the five day work week, end to child
| labour, 40/38 hour weeks, the right to breaks, vacations,
| medical leave, ... If you don't have those right now then
| that's likely because you are in a non-union workplace
| (and/or country).
| sokoloff wrote:
| > A professional Union needs funds to do its work.
|
| Absolutely true.
|
| > Over time the benefits members get more than pay for
| the union dues.
|
| That strikes me as an opinion that could use some
| supporting facts. It might be the case, but union fees
| are the same order of magnitude as many workers' savings
| rate. If the prospective member saved those fees over a
| lifetime, would they be better off?
|
| > If there's a strike at least in Europe the union will
| also use the dues to cover the salary for the days
| striking.
|
| That means that union members are buying insurance
| against there being a strike declared. Would they be
| better off to pay smaller dues and bear the risk
| themselves? If all possible strikes are union-wide, it
| seems like this insurance can only be a losing gamble for
| members, all the while creating a fat piggybank for union
| leaders to raid/drain.
| [deleted]
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| >If it's just a town hall to discuss a certain issue,
| that can be virtual.
|
| Virtual isn't the same as free.
|
| >Although this may sound a bit naive I feel like
| $500/person/month sounds like there is some massive
| inefficiency in use of resources.
|
| Nobody knows what the union dues will be if the union
| wins, but they will not be 500 per month. It might be a
| fair guess that they're 500 per year. About 20 per check
| if you get paid biweekly. The dues will be decided on by
| union members through some kind of democratic process.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Union dues are very typically 1 to 1.5% of pay.
| sodality2 wrote:
| >But what would be in it for union leadership under such
| a structure?
|
| Altruism maybe? The structure costs would probably be
| harder to cover than finding mad amazon workers who want
| to improve working standards
| mywittyname wrote:
| That would leave the job either half-complete, done by an
| overworked person, or available only to independently
| wealthy people.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| How will your second union enforce the contract you
| negotiate without lawyers? When you want to file a
| grievance, the shop steward walks you down to the nearest
| free legal aid office?
| [deleted]
| willcipriano wrote:
| Interestingly it looks like it was made with squarespace, I'd
| assume they would have people in house for something like
| this.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| It was probably made by an anti-union consulting firm
| they've hired. They don't do union-busting in house, they
| hire the experts.
| sangnoir wrote:
| The Pinkertons have been fighting workers for more than a
| century, I'm sure Amazon is disappointed Pinkertons can
| no longer gun down troublesome workers without
| consequences.
| rland wrote:
| Pinkerton entering the graphic design biz.
| throwanem wrote:
| In 1874, apparently, with the invention of the wanted
| poster:
| https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/6296
| valbaca wrote:
| HEY BHM1 DOERS, why pay almost $500 in dues? We've got you
| covered* with high wages, health care, vision, and dental
| benefits, as well as a safety committee and an appeals
| process. There's so much MORE you can do for your career and
| your family without paying dues. *Applies to regular full-
| time employees.
|
| IF YOU'RE PAYING DUES... it will be RESTRICTIVE meaning it
| won't be easy to be as helpful and social with each other. So
| be a DOER, stay friendly and get things done versus paying
| dues.
|
| (sic)
|
| ---
|
| Couldn't even include a stock-statement like "we got you
| covered" without a disclaimer.
|
| "won't be easy to be as helpful and social with each other"
| What the hell does that even mean? In a union you can't talk?
| As though you could be totally chatty before?
| sodality2 wrote:
| Which is hilarious, because talking during a shift is
| frowned upon even if it doesn't impact productivity. And if
| it does? Expect a call within the day
| aidenn0 wrote:
| It means if you join a union you can't work unpaid and off
| the clock to be "helpful and social" with your coworkers.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Wow, just wow. "Don't buy that dinner, don't buy those school
| supplies, don't buy those gifts because you won't have that
| almost $500 you paid in dues." It seems Amazon's main
| argument for why people shouldn't join a union is that
| Amazon's wages are so low that they cannot financially afford
| to.
|
| That's almost like saying
|
| "You're too poor to fight for your rights. Know your place."
| cbozeman wrote:
| "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
| must." - _History of the Peloponnesian War_ , Thucydides
| andrepd wrote:
| "But higher wages can buy many dinners."
|
| "Explain how!"
|
| "Money can be exchanged for goods and services"
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| But see, when your union negotiates, the result is
| uncertain. It might end up with you getting more money,
| with you getting the same amount of money, or with your
| union rep murdering a baby and then framing you for the
| crime. Do you really want to take that chance?
| aktschually wrote:
| Or it might end up with you losing your job to a robot.
| Bakary wrote:
| People will lose their jobs en masse regardless of
| unions. The concentration of wealth and capture of
| surplus that we will see in the coming decades will
| probably make feudalism look like child's play
| ozborn wrote:
| It's not a foregone conclusion. While I'm sure some in
| the gilded age or in the 1920s thought that, it didn't
| last forever.
| sodality2 wrote:
| Amazon will do that anyway if it's cheaper. It probably
| is cheaper, union or not.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Simpsons FTW
| missedthecue wrote:
| Kroger is unionized and they pay 1/2 of what Amazon does
| in my area. I don't think unionizing low skill work
| necessarily leads to higher wages
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| In the end, we can also expect that Amazon's money will
| some day be exchanged for robots, and most of these
| employees will lose the Amazon jobs.
| zepto wrote:
| Only if the robots join the Union!
| pwinnski wrote:
| And yet when comparing apples to apples, unionized
| workers apparently earn an average of 11.2% more[0].
|
| 0. https://www.epi.org/publication/why-unions-are-good-
| for-work...
| _jal wrote:
| > "You're too poor to fight for your rights. Know your
| place."
|
| Well, yes. The goal of an antiunion campaign is the
| demoralization/ disempowerment of the workforce.
|
| Notice also the recent push for "experimental polities",
| AKA company towns.
| CodeMage wrote:
| St. Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go, I owe my
| soul to the company store.
| nexthash wrote:
| For context about "experimental polities" like the failed
| Toronto SideWalk labs [1], I've linked an article below
| [2].
|
| [1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/07/sidewalk-labs-
| shuts-down-t...
|
| [2] https://theconversation.com/will-silicon-valleys-new-
| company...
| sodality2 wrote:
| I love this: "Make your voice heard! VOTE NOW AND VOTE NO."
| Those posters are all over the warehouses and it really feels
| like some 1984-esque parody.
| rkagerer wrote:
| I don't work there and I'm not a fan of unions but this
| makes me want to vote YES.
| tor11 wrote:
| voting is and has always been for sheep tho. no?
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I love this: "Make your voice heard! VOTE NOW AND VOTE
| NO." Those posters are all over the warehouses and it
| really feels like some 1984-esque parody.
|
| Make your voice heard! Tell Big Brother you love him!
| thiagocsf wrote:
| This site has an anti ad-block pop up that stops you from
| closing the browser window in iOS. Had to close the whole HN
| app to leave the in-app browser.
| duxup wrote:
| I got instructions from more than one party this past fall on
| how to fill out a ballot and mail it early and etc.
| rtpg wrote:
| It wasn't your boss telling you how to do that though. The
| direct power imbalance is pretty different, I think.
| statstutor wrote:
| Political campaigns remind everyone to vote (raise turnout)
| - including the people who are now indignant and will vote
| against you.
|
| It seems possible that Amazon may not have properly
| accounted for that.
| SilasX wrote:
| Then I don't understand the outrage. What's offensive about
| instructions on how to fill out a ballot _above and beyond_
| the fact of them asking you to vote no?
|
| The GGP seemed to think that there was something
| particularly bad about the detailed six page instructions.
| But the GP correctly pointed out they do the same thing in
| regular government elections (to milk as many voters as
| they can).
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| _> What's offensive about instructions on how to fill out
| a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to
| vote no?_
|
| Nothing. The outrage is about them telling you to vote
| no. If they were trying to help you fill out your ballot
| in good faith, there wouldn't be a problem.
| SilasX wrote:
| No. The OP was complaining about something _already
| assuming_ they 're telling you to vote no, meaning the OP
| was adding something on top of that. I was asking what
| that thing-on-top is. So it has to be something more
| than:
|
| >The outrage is about them telling you to vote no.
|
| Which, indeed, you correct yourself on in the next
| sentence, to say that the issue is that it pretends to be
| neutral ballot instructions, but, if followed, end in you
| voting no, and are thus misleading (just guessing --
| again, no one here seems to be making it easy to
| understand what they're objecting to).
|
| If so, it would have been helpful for the OP to
| communicate that the first time around. Remember rtpg
| joined in to clarify, but actually objected to something
| else, the power imbalance -- and yet s/he seemed to
| believe s/he was agreeing with the initial comment!
|
| Not everyone can read minds about what a speaker thinks
| is the most salient part, and we don't deserve to be
| ridiculed for asking.
|
| If you want others to be outraged, it helps to clearly
| communicate what they're supposed to be outraged about --
| starting form a clear model.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| I didn't correct myself. Did you look at the article? It
| doesn't purport to be neutral at all. There's a giant
| yellow sign that says "VOTE NO" with five bullet points
| about why you should vote against the union. The step-by-
| step instructions encourage you to vote no in three
| different places.
|
| There's no assumption or mind reading needed. To be
| honest, I don't see how OP could have been more clear:
|
| _> Detailed, 6 step instructions on how to open a ballot
| and mark no? Thanks, amazon._
| SilasX wrote:
| I'm not objecting to the article. I'm asking what the
| original comment was objecting to.
|
| We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to
| vote no. The OP was _adding_ to that, in criticism of
| Amazon, by saying there are detailed six page
| instructions on how to vote the way they want. But that
| doesn 't tell me what's to be outraged about -- as the
| first response noted, that is exactly what every other
| campaign does.
|
| If the OP _wasn 't_ claiming Amazon was outrageous
| _beyond_ the mere fact of asking for no, then why even
| bring up a six page instruction set?
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| You're reading too far into this. OP is just saying that
| Amazon's propaganda is slimy. Everyone else is on the
| same page here.
| SilasX wrote:
| So, it's only as slimy as every other organization that
| gives you ballot instructions. Not sure that's the
| message you were trying to send.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Someone noted that it's different when your employer
| tells you to vote in a certain way vs. a random political
| party. That's where you entered the conversation, so I'm
| not sure how that's getting lost.
| SilasX wrote:
| I guess what's "getting lost" is the fact that the
| original comment says nothing about that, and how that
| part has nothing to do with all the kvetching about "omg
| six detailed pages!" -- you know, the focus of that very
| comment.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| At this point I don't really know how to respond other
| than, again, everyone else is on the same page here.
| SilasX wrote:
| All such people are so blinded by the outrage they can't
| take a few seconds to make clear what they're actually
| outraged about in way that can convince others to join
| them? Yeah, sounds about right.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| You don't need to make things clear if everyone already
| knows what everyone else is talking about.
|
| After an explanation _that you clearly understood_ , I'm
| not sure why you're still complaining about
| conversational opacity.
| SilasX wrote:
| No, I didn't get any coherent explanation of what the OP
| was objecting to, after offering charitable
| interpretations that were rejected.
|
| Edit: I did get some _completely separate, independent_
| arguments, if that's what you mean, but I'm saying I got
| no explanation of the original comment.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| The original comment (at least, I _think_ I went far
| enough up-thread) said that teaching somebody how to vote
| and to vote _in your favour_ , when you have power over
| them, is sleazy.
| sidlls wrote:
| Your analogy is off: if you suggested that government
| officials sent police offers with instructions on how to
| vote it'd be closer to what is the case when an employer
| instructs its employees to do something work related
| (vote "no" on the union, in this case).
| beowulfey wrote:
| The outrage is at the inclusion of "make sure to vote
| no!" as a part of the seemingly well meaning
| instructions.
| duxup wrote:
| If we argue that what is wrong about the situation is the
| 'balance of power'... would that mean then no employer
| should be able to make their case when it comes to such
| situation because the balance of power wouldn't be fair?
|
| That seems weird.
|
| And unions once established have their own balance of
| power, and that's not in favor of the individual.
| SllX wrote:
| That is weird.
|
| The literal purpose of a corporation in all its
| varieties, for profit, non-profit, co-op, S Corp, C Corp
| etc. is to pool the resources of its owners and serve
| their interests.
|
| Unions are just another type of corporation.
| cperciva wrote:
| > Unions are just another type of corporation.
|
| No, unions are not just another type of corporation. They
| are a _very special_ type of corporation: One which is
| exempt from anti-trust laws.
| SllX wrote:
| Subject to antitrust law is not an inherent property of a
| corporation. Antitrust law is a statutory construct, as
| are the tax benefits of incorporation.
|
| What you're failing to understand is that while there are
| different types if corporations as legal constructs, with
| differing advantages and disadvantages mostly related to
| their overall tax liability, a corporation in the general
| sense is just a group of people come together for a
| common goal. Usually that goal is profits. You join up
| with 5 people putting in 20% of the money, you are
| entitled to 20% of the future proceeds.
|
| So if you take a distribution of $1000, all other
| shareholders holding equal shares, they must also take a
| distribution of $1000, or equal to their share of equity
| in the company.
|
| A union has a different structure, different legal
| privileges and burdens, and different goals, but
| fundamentally it is a group of people with a common goal.
| I think where they tend to fall down is that unions can
| grow so large that the power is so diffused amongst
| individual members that even people in unions may come to
| resent the union more than their employer, particularly
| if they are always in the minority on union issues. In
| which case they might find they are actually more in
| alignment with their employers rather than their union
| leaders.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Is that even true? Quick Google searches seem to show
| several instances of antitrust accusations against non-
| profits including trade unions and professional
| associations. There does seem to be a basic exemption for
| trade unions, but it seems that trade unions can lose
| that exemption for behaving in certain ways.
| [deleted]
| cperciva wrote:
| Sure, there are exceptions. But the _entire purpose_ of
| labour unions is to engage in anti-competitive behaviour.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| With or without a union, there are no laws I am aware of
| that prohibit workers cooperating to get higher wages
| from employers.
|
| That does not violate anti-trust law in the US. It is not
| a special exemption the union has, it doesn't violate
| anti-trust law in the US even if there isn't a union
| involved, for employees to "collude" to get higher wages.
|
| Or if there are such laws I'm not aware of, feel free to
| share. But I gather you think it ought to be illegal?
| Why?
| tshaddox wrote:
| Can you elaborate on that? I don't understand what's
| inherently anti-competitive about labor unions, unless
| you think that any time humans organize themselves is
| anti-competitive and the only thing that counts as
| competitive is a total lack of organization and
| cooperation above the level of the individual.
| duxup wrote:
| >serve their interests.
|
| Serve the interests of the majority... and even like a
| corporation sometimes they don't even manage to do that.
|
| Human organizations kinda stink sometimes, although I
| wouldn't really endorse another kind...
| SllX wrote:
| Correct. People who hold more equity have more control.
| This is easily seen in small businesses on the Balance
| Sheet with only one or two owners, you can quickly
| determine who put more money into the business, assuming
| no investors.
|
| This becomes more complex as you go from small business
| to startup with investors to a larger business, but the
| principles remain the same.
|
| Nobody starts a business to have others dictate to them
| what to do with their business, and to be told whose
| interests they should really be serving. I'm not sure why
| you would expect that to change just because the company
| in question is valued at over a trillion.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Unions serve the interests of the people with power in
| the union. If those interests don't align with yours, the
| union may be working against you and you may not want to
| get involved.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| How is this different to corporations?
|
| What would an organisation that serves your interests
| look like?
|
| Why don't you try to start one - and see how corporate
| management responds?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Why don't you try to start one
|
| Why should I? You can start an organisation if you want,
| but you'd need to argue why it's in my interest if you
| want me to lend what little individual power I have. And
| the employer can present their arguments as well, which
| is fine. But if you think I'm going to trust you've got
| my interests at heart just because you're not my
| employer, then you're delusional. Why should I trust you
| more than them?
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| On the other hand, the employer never ever serves your
| interest. Rachel has a something to say about performance
| reviews recently:
| https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2021/02/19/perf/
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > On the other hand, the employer never ever serves your
| interest.
|
| Their interests may align to mine even if they're doing
| it for their own benefit. And if the union's interests
| don't align to mine, then I'm better off without the
| union and with the employer.
|
| I don't think that's a hypothetical scenario, either.
|
| For example if the union wants to pay by seniority and
| the employer wants to pay by results, and I have low
| seniority but good results, who am I better aligned with?
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| Common experience is that performance reviews are
| bullshit and that scores are determined by warm fuzzies
| and management's political needs. Rachel has story after
| story. If you are politically astute, by all means don't
| join the union, but all this talk about "results" doesn't
| sound as if you are.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Do you not have the imagination to think of any situation
| where the majority of workers may want something that's
| not in your interests?
|
| For example you morally support allowing new people to
| enter your field but the union is mostly comprised of
| more established people and they vote for credentialism
| to restrict supply.
|
| Probably I'm very aligned with my employer on wanting to
| lower barriers to entry for the field!
| danShumway wrote:
| > Probably I'm very aligned with my employer on wanting
| to lower barriers to entry for the field!
|
| Well... until you start looking at advancing into upper
| management and realize that seniority-based hiring
| decisions and credentialism are very often in the best
| interest of the established managers and higher-ups.
|
| In most large companies, the people making hiring
| decisions in upper management probably don't want to
| lower barriers of entry for their fields. They want to
| hire people who look like them, who have gone to the same
| schools as them and worked the same jobs as them, and
| they want to set up a performance system that makes it
| hard for them to get fired or demoted.
|
| It's easy to make the mistake of thinking of corporations
| like they're some kind of impartial oiled machine, but
| the reality is that they're made of people who are just
| as biologically prone as anyone else is to forming
| cliques and gatekeeping their own jobs.
| _jal wrote:
| > Do you not have the imagination
|
| Why the rudeness?
|
| I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment
| with your ethics from unions in return for your support
| ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being
| somewhat aligned with your employer.
|
| You seem to already have chosen a tribal affiliation.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Why the rudeness?
|
| You said I since I didn't agree with you I must not be
| politically astute so I returned the favour!
|
| > I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment
| with your ethics from unions in return for your support
| ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being
| somewhat aligned with your employer.
|
| But my employer pays me. And they're an essential part of
| the agreement. The union wants me to _pay them_ , and
| they're optional, so yes I expect them to do a better job
| aligning to me otherwise why bother with them? What is
| the point joining a union, lending them what little power
| you have, as well as actually giving them money, if they
| aren't very aligned?
|
| My current work negotiation is me and my employer. I have
| what I want and my employer has what they want. Why
| involve a third party, who may want something completely
| different, possibly morally offensive to me? Why do that?
|
| I guess you're going to say 'because the union acts in
| your interest'. Well, let me tell you - there's a whole
| world of people out there offering to 'act in my
| interest' in return for something. Most of them are
| charlatans. Beware.
| _jal wrote:
| > You said I since I didn't agree with you I must not be
| politically astute
|
| No, I did not. If you can't be bothered to keep track of
| whom you're talking to, I'm done with you.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > No, I did not.
|
| The person I was replying to said it. You asked why I was
| rude to them.
| SllX wrote:
| You can leave a company and get a new job. That's a good
| time to renegotiate your terms of employment. You can
| even use the impending threat of your departure as a
| negotiating tactic.
|
| Unions complicate an otherwise cut and dry relationship
| of your employer trying to extract value from you and you
| trying to extract value from your employer until you
| reach an equilibrium.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| _Do you not have the imagination to think of any
| situation where the majority of workers may want
| something that 's not in your interests?_
|
| Consensus-building and making of viable compromises has
| always been part of governance, any institution comprises
| people with diverse, sometimes competing interests.
|
| That said, the usual workplace conflict between employee
| and management is about working conditions and promotion.
| And for that it's useful to have a paid witness on _your_
| side, because HR is always working for the employer.
|
| Codes of conduct are fashionable these days, but at the
| end of the day they are upheld by HR, which will always
| work in favour of the company.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > And for that it's usuful to have a paid witness on your
| side
|
| But I'm not sure the union is going to be on my side. I
| know that's their pitch, but lots of people claim they
| want to act on my behalf - I'd be a fool to trust most of
| them!
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| _But I 'm not sure the union is going to be on my side._
|
| If you aren't, check the agreements the union has with
| you and your employer. These are contracts with
| enforceable terms and are upheld.
| creaturemachine wrote:
| The union will always be on your side, it's their reason
| for existing and what you're paying them for. They will
| support the most indefensible position you can throw at
| them because it's their job.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > The union will always be on your side
|
| This just isn't true.
|
| If I'm a junior worker in a union with a pay-by-seniority
| agreement because the majority of workers are senior,
| then they aren't on my side are they? They're on the side
| of the majority senior workers. They're on the side
| against me and my aspirations to get paid more.
| leesalminen wrote:
| I'd recommend talking with employees of my local
| unionized Kroger, especially younger employees. The union
| is not always on their side. Benefits are heavily skewed
| to older employees by virtue of having more working-age
| years.
| SllX wrote:
| I don't disagree.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| There may be a line to walk here, but the balance of
| power really does matter. The Republican Party might send
| me a flyer saying "if you vote for Democrats, it'll be
| very bad for you" (or vice-versa), but they're not in an
| explicit contractual relationship with me that my income
| depends on. If my _employer_ sends me a flyer saying "if
| you vote to unionize, it'll be very bad for you" that's
| clearly got some very different implications to it. They
| may both be raising the spectre of what happens if the
| vote doesn't go their way, but only one of them carries
| an implicit threat.
|
| Should employers be able to make an anti-union case? I'd
| have to say yes on free speech grounds, but I'd also say
| that they really should be subject to more restrictions
| on what kind of anti-union organizing they can do than
| the union should be on what kind of pro-union organizing
| they can do. Yes, that's deliberately giving the union an
| advantage -- but, again, management has the advantage of
| being the side that literally writes the checks.
|
| > unions once established have their own balance of
| power, and that's not in favor of the individual.
|
| I mean, that's kind of the point, in a way, isn't it? The
| employee/employer power balance is almost always weighted
| toward the employer, because the employee alone _is_ one
| individual and the employer is a corporation. Employees
| acting as a collective are theoretically on more equal
| footing. That doesn 't guarantee every single individual
| employee will support every collective action the union
| makes.
| fastball wrote:
| Not unless your boss knows how you vote.
| mc32 wrote:
| Like some unions tell their members to vote for this or
| that party?
|
| I'm still waiting for the Teachers' Union to endorse the
| Libertarian party one day soon -I'm sure it's gonna happen.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Why would the TU endorse the Libertarian Party when the
| LP has done exactly zero for teachers, and has never said
| or done anything to imply it has any interest whatsoever
| in the lives of teachers?
|
| It's a very revealing tell that this is even being asked.
|
| Generally, why do Libertarians seem to act as if Rest of
| World owes them, but relationships are solely for their
| personal benefit with no reciprocity of any kind?
| mc32 wrote:
| It's tongue in cheek. We know the TU isn't shy about
| which party they want their members to vote for.
|
| I'm also not surprised how Amazon wants their members to
| vote either.
| duxup wrote:
| I'm waiting for the Libertarian party to embrace drivers
| licenses ;)
| syshum wrote:
| We would if drivers licenses where limited in scope and
| purpose to only proving ones ability to operate safely on
| the public road ways.
| mc32 wrote:
| It's a very large tent party though sparse in density.
|
| Some of us see the need for aspects of regulation and
| frameworks, others prefer the more idealist semi
| pastoralist view of the world. I'm more in the Johnson
| camp ;)
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >It's a very large tent party though sparse in density.
|
| I'm not so sure about that.
|
| I have _strong_ libertarian (small 'l') leanings,
| specifically that government should stay the hell out of
| people's lives and bodies as much as possible. And that
| humans should be free to do pretty much whatever they
| want as long as they don't interfere with others doing
| the same.
|
| But that's where I part ways with the Libertarian (big
| 'L') Party.
|
| Because I do believe that, human nature being what it is,
| that the government does have a role to play in helping
| those who are disadvantaged in our society.
|
| What's more, I believe that government has a role to play
| in evening the playing field and attempting to make sure
| that everyone has equal _opportunity_ to succeed in our
| society.
|
| The Libertarian Party doesn't believe in any of that, so
| I have no interest in supporting them.
|
| I'd note that privatized _everything_ (not saying you
| support that) isn 't libertarian at all. Rather it's
| anarcho-capitalism[0], which would completely destroy our
| society.
|
| While the implementation of the idea that minorities
| should be protected against the "tyranny of the majority"
| by the government has been pretty poor in the US, it has
| improved somewhat in recent years.
|
| I look forward to that progress continuing. And the
| Libertarian Party won't be the one's that help us do
| that.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
| munk-a wrote:
| That's pretty much precisely where I stand as well. When
| you talk about personal freedoms the right to unlimited
| action is something that could only potentially be given
| to a single person, since at a certain point your actions
| begin to encroach on the freedoms of others. As an
| example the right to freely murder requires that other
| persons surrender their right to not be murdered - so,
| like most of life, the two extremes are extremely
| detrimental and sanity lies in the middle path.
| maedla wrote:
| They are too worried about the toaster licenses
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Unions are at least nominally directly elected by their
| constituents and beholden to them, which is why they are
| protected when engaging in politics.
|
| If you think they do not represent them, then maybe the
| solution is to develop better union structures that are
| more democratic and representative.
|
| But by and large, teachers do not support the Libertarian
| party and instead favour the Democratic party, quite
| heavily in fact. So why is it wrong that their alignment
| follows their base?
| mc32 wrote:
| Agree with your points.
|
| However, using that line of thinking people voluntarily
| join a company too.
|
| Often to work for a company with union rep one HAS to
| join, whether one agrees or not, so it's not entirely
| voluntary in a strict sense.
|
| All this said, I do believe Amazon is treating their
| warehouse workers unfairly and they deserve pushback
| though I admit I do not favor bringing in a Union due to
| my past member experiences with them.
| moioci wrote:
| The one time I worked in a union shop, I was told that I
| didn't have to join, but I did have to pay dues. If I
| chose to join, there were certain benefits provided by
| the union to members (optical coverage IIRC).
| kennywinker wrote:
| > people voluntarily join a company too
|
| A choice between starvation and warehouse job at amazon
| where you're penalized for taking a bathroom break is not
| a choice made freely.
| mc32 wrote:
| I agree. We need better labor laws. I just don't like
| having a middle woman or man in there because they have
| other motives.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| How do you get better labor laws without middle men
| groups lobbying? The same Amazon workers have neither the
| time nor energy themselves.
| mc32 wrote:
| In SV parlance unions are rent seekers. They are a
| bandaid over the symptom not the cure.
| munk-a wrote:
| I agree but I have yet to see a better solution than
| unions. Companies will constantly use their influence to
| erode workers' rights and unions do levy a constant cost
| on society but it's a cost that's being paid to counter
| that otherwise imbalanced influence.
|
| To repurpose a famous Churchill quote "Unions are the
| worst solution to labour equality except all the others
| that have been tried before."
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Unions do not rent seek. They provide value to society
| via higher wages and act as a counterbalance to
| externalities from capital.
|
| They are indeed not a cure, but the cure to the symptoms
| we are seeing is nothing short of a total overhaul of the
| capitalist system, which is both not politically
| feasible, and requires something like unions to make
| politically feasible to begin with. That is because by
| definition such a change even if it was in the larger
| interests of society wouldn't be in the interests of
| capital.
| mc32 wrote:
| There were and are workers' unions in communist
| countries. They didn't always have their worker' best
| interests in mind. Often they were a tool of the
| communist state to control workers. In addition sometimes
| you had student movements pitted against workers' unions
| and so on.
|
| Exploitation or at the minimum the potential for it
| exists in every economic system. It's not a feature
| exclusive to capitalism as much as people dream it to be
| so. Even in a barter economy, can I not take advantage of
| another worker? Of course I can!
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I never said that we should install Soviet
| socialism/state-capitalism, it's not a good system.
|
| Workers unions in socialist countries were basically
| illegal, there was only one legally allowed union pretty
| much. In the Soviet Union the role of labour unions were
| mostly for the state to resolve interpersonal problems,
| and in theory to allow the state to receive feedback from
| employees to optimize production, but not in practice due
| to dysfunctions because of the broken political and
| economic framework.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Minimum wage laws and excess credentialing can definitely
| be considered rent seeking.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Those activities only fit the definition of rent-seeking
| if you consider the value of labor as only what the
| market will bear. By that logic, if I offer a job at
| $5/hour and someone takes it, any attempt by that
| employee to get paid above $5 is "rent-seeking".
|
| But that brings us right back to my original point: if my
| choice is starvation, or $5/hour, I'm going to take the
| $5, but that's a coercive choice. I was forced into it by
| the threat of death. Now explain to me how that's
| different from holding a gun to someone and forcing them
| to work?
|
| So an attempt to increase the cost of labor (minimum
| wages, credentialing/protectionism) is an attempt to
| extract the true value of labor, even though the threat
| of death-by-starvation remains. Like a previous commenter
| said - unless we want to radically re-org our society
| that threat of death is irreducible.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Minimum wage laws are unrelated to unions, and prevent
| corporate rent seeking in welfare states.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| "There were and are workers' unions in communist
| countries." Most independent unions in those countries
| were/are destroyed. The "unions" in China, etc. or the
| former USSR were/are essentially arms of the Stalinist
| Communist Parties, and rarely if ever have any political
| independence or ability to oppose the employer (the
| state, or a company that the state has given privileges
| to).
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I completely agree with you, but I think you might have
| replied to the wrong post.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| There is a huge difference. People have no choice but to
| work, and once you are employed, you cannot have any
| democratic control over the company.
|
| In contrast, for the union, even if you were forced to
| join, you'd still have democratic control over the union
| itself.
|
| So there is a big difference. It's the difference between
| choosing in which dictatorship to live and living in a
| (sometimes direct!) democracy.
| syshum wrote:
| The libertarian party supports School Choice, Actual
| Education for children, and less protectionism based on
| "seniority"
|
| So it is no wonder that unionized teachers would oppose
| the Libertarian Party, libertarians want children to get
| a good education and allow parents to choose the type of
| education their child gets, taking away large amounts of
| power from Teachers who believe they should supplant
| parents and "know better".
|
| This has never been more clear than in the Age of COVID
| where the hypocrisy of Teachers and their union has been
| on full display with their refusal to teacher (aka their
| job)
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| At best it's _very_ arguable whether school choice
| results in children getting a better education.
| mc32 wrote:
| I dunno. School isn't primarily about academics. It's
| mostly about moulding pupils, their minds to their
| current society. It's mostly political in that sense.
| Whether it's patriotism, community building, stressing
| this over that, etc.
|
| The three Rs are kind of incidental.
|
| Now to be clear, we do need to grow up to be functional
| adults, but public schooling is not the only one option
| to achieve that.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| To be clear -- when people refer to "school choice", they
| usually mean a system that funnels taxpayer dollars to
| private schools based on student attendance. Similarly,
| when people oppose "school choice", they usually oppose
| that appropriation of public funds specifically, not
| public school alternatives in general.
|
| It's a sneaky name designed to make you conflate the two.
| leesalminen wrote:
| I always thought that school choice means a system that
| funnels taxpayer dollars to any school, public or
| private, based on student attendance. Parents can choose
| to send their children to public school, if they feel the
| outcome will be superior to alternatives.
| syshum wrote:
| That is what school choice is,
|
| Every parent has a voucher, that voucher can be redeemed
| at a school of their choice, could be the public school,
| could be a private school, etc.
| munk-a wrote:
| It is important to note that that voucher only has a
| fixed value so those parents choosing to send their
| children to private schools still need to make up the
| difference out of pocket. That results in a wide variety
| of school choice for the rich and a smaller number of
| choices for those less well off. This voucher results in
| funds being diverted from public schools while the
| capacity requirements on those public schools may not be
| impacted but there is a larger issue IMO. If the more
| influential parents move their children to private
| schools then the amount that voucher should cover becomes
| less important and various parties can argue to shrink
| the voucher as a cost saving measure - that will end up
| strongly effecting those residents with less wealth since
| the money they are paying toward the value of that
| voucher is being multiplied due to the effect of
| progressive taxation brackets - while the more affluent
| residents will end up paying less money overall the
| smaller the voucher is since their tax revenue is going
| to subsidize school vouchers at large.
|
| School vouchers can easily lead toward incentivizing
| minimizing education spending.
|
| Oh also, private schools are often not held to the same
| standards of avoiding religious teaching as public
| schools are (by virtue of being a public service). The
| result is that the vouchers can end up funding religious
| education, but that's a whole other can of worms.
| syshum wrote:
| It is worth noting that many area;s where this has been
| tried the private schools were more than capable of
| providing better education for the same money that the
| public schools do since the public schools are wasteful
| and have no incentive to spend tax payer money wisely
|
| It is completely false to charatice a school choice
| program as "more choices for the rich" as the rich
| already have those choices, poor and middle class people
| have zero choice because their money has already been
| taken to fund the public schools. redirecting this money
| to better more efficient systems is preferred and gives
| the poor and middle class choice that is normally
| reserved for the wealthy
|
| >> This voucher results in funds being diverted from
| public schools
|
| yes, that is by design and the desired outcome of
| libertarians.
|
| >>Oh also, private schools are often not held to the same
| standards of avoiding religious teaching as public
| schools are (by virtue of being a public service). The
| result is that the vouchers can end up funding religious
| education, but that's a whole other can of worms.
|
| Another red herring and strawman, but I (and most
| libertarian) are fine with the limited amount of
| religious education that would result from school choice
| if it means dismantling the failed and unethical public
| school system we have today.
|
| I am sure you are a huge supporter of the Public School
| System and see nothing systemically wrong with it. We
| disagree with this position
| munk-a wrote:
| > I am sure you are a huge supporter of the Public School
| System and see nothing systemically wrong with it. We
| disagree with this position.
|
| I do actually see a lot wrong with the school system, I
| think the fact that education is largely funded from
| local property taxes goes strongly against most ideals
| around American opportunity and that the highly localized
| management means that a cartel of local officials can run
| a system into the ground with only limited options
| available to the DoEd to address is quite problematic.
|
| There's a bunch of things wrong with the school system,
| certainly, but I can't see how partial privatization
| would do anything but exacerbate the issues.
| [deleted]
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Public schools are by definition taxpayer funded, so I
| wouldn't describe allocating tax money to them as
| "funneling". And of course, absent school choice
| policies, parents are _still_ free to send their children
| to private school -- they just wouldn 't receive public
| funds to do so (which is why the name is sneaky). But
| yes, you're correct.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| If you are trying to espouse the virtues of
| Libertarianism I would say you're not doing a very good
| job.
| syshum wrote:
| People here are already set in their political tribes, if
| you were already a libertarian (or republican) then you
| just agreed with my post. If you are an Authoritarian you
| just down voted it.
|
| Nothing I say will change anyone's minds on this topic,
| it is one of those things where no amount of data or
| facts will change minds. You either believe in a
| unionized Public school that only fails because we do not
| spend enough money, or you recognize that giving a
| monopoly over education to a group of people based on
| geography will always result in bad outcomes no matter
| how much money you spend.
| worker767424 wrote:
| One thing I'd like to see is competing unions. The UAW
| supplies labor to the big three US automakers, putting
| them in an unfair negotiating advantage; the UAW can
| easily bully them around. The UAW ultimately hurt
| themselves because it put the Big Three at a big
| competitive disadvantage. Some manufacturing left for
| right-to-work states, and some business left for (mostly)
| Japanese automakers.
| mc32 wrote:
| I think that could help. Some unions at least, like the
| UAW shoot themselves in the foot. It's very adversarial
| from both sides and often the worker in the middle is the
| one who loses out. Example the steel industry. They made
| labor so expensive the companies folded. Admittedly the
| industry ran aged inefficient systems that made their
| process uncompetitive. But the Union only cared about
| protecting itself. The companies only cared about
| immediate profits.
| jjk166 wrote:
| That's not at all what happened to the steel industry.
| 50% of all US steel production capacity has been built in
| the past 30 years and steel production has seen
| continuous and massive improvements in productivity. In
| 1920 it took 3 man-hours of labor to produce 1 ton of
| steel in the US, now 1 man-hour produces 300 tons. The
| contraction in steel employment during the 70s coincided
| with a recession and the development of the electric arc
| furnace. From 1974 to 1999, global steel industry
| employment fell by 1.5 Million people with large
| decreases both in developed countries and developing
| countries like Brazil and South Africa as employment per
| ton of production fell everywhere. The actions of one
| union in one country had nothing to do with it.
| mc32 wrote:
| Old outdated technology (not sure about the stance the
| unions had back then on productivity improvements that
| would lower headcount) plus outsized pay demands for the
| given the productivity.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Old and outdated compared to what? Outsized pay demands
| compared to whom? Everyone around the world switched to
| the new technology at the same time. Employment per
| production fell everywhere simultaneously. This was not a
| case of labor becoming too expensive, it was a case of
| labor becoming unnecessary.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| In other countries (e.g. the UK), this is exactly how
| unions work.
| sodality2 wrote:
| Did they tell you which way to vote, though? And giving
| reasoning for why (this actually wouldn't surprise me)?
| duxup wrote:
| Yes they told me exactly who I should vote for and why.
| sodality2 wrote:
| Hm. In my opinion that isn't as bad, but I can't put my
| finger on why.
|
| This is one reason:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26263866
| duxup wrote:
| I thought it was weird, but I can't imagine a basis for
| not allowing that.
|
| Even if it was someone's boss... they too get to talk /
| have an opinion... even if I think it is wrong. I've
| certainly worked for employers who I thought had some
| very wrong ideas, I still did my own thing voting wise.
| kedean wrote:
| IMO the key difference is that you were getting mail from
| political parties. I think the correct comparison would
| be if the US government were sending you mail instructing
| you on how to vote for the party already in power.
| There's a big difference between the party pleading its
| case to you and the government itself endorsing that
| party. I think Amazon's power over employees makes it
| more like the latter, although neither is a perfect
| analogy.
|
| If I had gotten mailers last year directly from the
| United States government instructing me "how to re-elect
| Donald J. Trump", I would have been livid. Individual
| within the company should be able to make their case for
| why they think unionization is bad, but I don't think the
| company itself gets a say in this.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Why is one group (union activists) allowed to take such action
| but the other group isn't? I am not sure I see anything
| "scummy" in this.
| sodality2 wrote:
| They are allowed to. That is why they did. Just as I am
| allowed to call them scummy for it
| fastball wrote:
| You know what they meant. Why is one scummy and the other
| not?
| sodality2 wrote:
| Amazon is strong-arming workers into voting no with
| propaganda posters, unions typically hurt amazon (else
| why would they fight so hard against it), and typically
| help the workers. Do you not see the problem here? I
| don't mean to say unions are always right. I see anti-
| union sentiment from the very company that would be hurt
| by it to be very much allowed. But since I believe in
| worker's rights and can see firsthand how poorly they are
| treated, I see it as scummy.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Just to be clear, this is a double standard based on your
| priors.
|
| Vote No propaganda is bad because unions are good.
|
| Vote Yes propaganda is good because unions are good.
|
| If you are not convinced that unions age good in the
| first place, then it all falls apart.
| deelowe wrote:
| I think an important detail that's needed here is how long the
| traffic back up issue has been a problem and when amazon
| requested it be change. If this has been an issue for years and
| amazon only recently requested the change, that's pretty
| scummy.
| sodality2 wrote:
| "This action was taken on Dec. 15, 2020 after being notified
| by Amazon of traffic delays. The action taken is routine for
| traffic signal operations, in that signal timing plans are
| adjusted to be as efficient as possible." Doesn't say how
| long it was a problem though.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| I can't believe some of these actions being taken by Amazon don't
| violate the NLRA. Maybe they've done the math and have concluded
| that any protentional penalties will cost less than allowing a
| fair shake at a union or maybe they think the recently packed
| courts will tend to favor corporate interests over workers'
| rights.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| There are a couple mentions but no top comments: Amazon has
| installed a mailbox at their facility, this mail piece
| specifically says to use it.
|
| AND this mail piece says 'BE DONE by 3/1' when workers have until
| the end of the month to vote (context: amazon must stop anti-
| union mandatory meetings etc during voting).
|
| This could be a legal violation & is a big deal. I think at a
| minimum breaks the spirit of the NLRB mail-in voting ruling.
|
| HN seems to consider big tech = oppressive surveillance. I'll let
| you draw your own conclusions.
|
| This is also the latest in a long list of extreme tactics some
| aren't mentioned in this article. To name a few:
|
| Amazon also fired an activist who was speaking out. It's been
| reported Amzn has been penalizing pro-union employees with
| baseless and unfair management penalties/'strikes' and purposeful
| last minute over-time demands as punishment. Digital
| surveillance. Management basically stalking associates in break
| rooms, asking if they are only there to organize and attorneys
| and consultants drawing graph person relationship research charts
| to map their employees. A big propaganda push online & a pretty
| successful press drive - most of these articles Amazon gets many
| inches of positive talking points.
|
| https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18277322/amazon-fired-warehous...
| https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/how-amazon-is-fighting-back-...
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/02/amazon-...
| A12-B wrote:
| The core of the issue is that people don't believe a company
| that big would break the law so easily. In reality it's the
| opposite: When you're that big breaking the law becomes really
| easy because you have the strongest legal defence. Amazon won't
| see a single minute of court time for this.
| runarberg wrote:
| As well as penalties diminishes as size grows. A small
| company might go bankrupt by a medium to large lawsuit or a
| large fine, while a large company can easily weather it off.
|
| If a small to medium company invests heavily in something
| illegal and they are forced to stop with all the lost revenue
| that follows it would be devastating. For a large company,
| not so much. They can afford to fight a legal battle that
| delays when they should stop, in the meantime their illegal
| activity might have already yielded success.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| To add to that, fines can and do bankrupt small businesses. I
| cannot remember the last time a big company went bankrupt by
| fines. Breaking the law poses existential threat to small
| businesses, not large enterprises.
| notriddle wrote:
| Fines should be proportional to income. They're supposed to
| be a deterrent, not a revenue source.
| rodgerd wrote:
| This is why surveillance capitalists tried to rally the
| Valley against the GDPR: fines based on global income
| could be effective, which is unacceptable to companies
| used to treating breaking the law as a minor cost of
| doing business.
| zapita wrote:
| This is such an important point. And sadly it appears
| that they have been successful. The sentiment on GDPR in
| SV seems to be overwhelmingly negative, for all the wrong
| reasons I believe.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| What's funny is that the GDPR is pretty universally well-
| liked, or at least accepted as a necessary evil in my
| European tech bubble...
| rendall wrote:
| Speaking as an American living in Europe, I love GDPR.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| I agree with this idea and thinkeit should extend to
| personal fines like speeding tickets, but I can see large
| companies offshoring illegal work to small contracting
| companies or shell corporations
| Retric wrote:
| Companies play a lot of games to minimize income for tax
| reasons. Allowing them do do the same with fines is
| unreasonable.
|
| It's actually fairly difficult to get an objective
| measurement of a companies size. Go by total sales and
| industries with high profit margins look much smaller. Go
| by number of employees and retail looks vastly larger
| than tech companies etc.
| [deleted]
| staticautomatic wrote:
| They hired actual fucking Pinkertons, which says enough about
| how aggressive they are. The gloves have been off for a while
| now.
| secfirstmd wrote:
| Pinkerton are the corporate security company of choice for a
| lot of organisations...including Facebook
| harry8 wrote:
| Things that don't make me feel better about something:
|
| "No it's actually ok, facebook also does it."
| lovegoblin wrote:
| And one with a long, long history of violent union busting.
| wooptoo wrote:
| Here we can see the vicious beast hunting its prey. It's getting
| desperate now.
| JCM9 wrote:
| I have mixed feelings about unions. While there's no question
| that unions played an important role in labor rights during the
| 20th century, in the 21st century unions now seems to be more a
| part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
| [deleted]
| Animats wrote:
| Better coverage than Vice, in The Guardian.[1]
|
| Interestingly, there is now a global union, based in Switzerland,
| that's organizing multinationals. They're up to 20 million
| members.[2] They've been able to organize two US gig-worker
| companies, Manpower and Kelly Services.
|
| They have a brochure on Amazon: "Essentially irresponsible".[3]
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/23/amazon-
| be...
|
| [2] https://uniglobalunion.org/about-us/global-agreements
|
| [3]
| https://uniglobalunion.org/sites/default/files/attachments/p...
| whydoyoucare wrote:
| I am of the firm belief that Unions are a thing that are
| extremely good in theory, but rarely work out in practice. They
| kill innovation, profits and skills and turns a competitive
| workforce into a mediocre one. :-(
| wickedsickeune wrote:
| They kill innovation in worker exploitation :(
|
| > turns a competitive workforce into a mediocre one
|
| Because the people employed in Amazon warehouses will stop self
| improving and being competitive, but only if they join a union.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| At a minimum, the credible threat of unionization is necessary
| to protect worker's rights. Amazon treated employees in a way
| that made it clear that they did not see the threat as
| credible. If Amazon gets destroyed by unionization, maybe the
| next company will treat their employees better.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I agree. But it turns out that the _absence_ of unions doesn 't
| work out in practice, either...
| [deleted]
| enraged_camel wrote:
| Innovation and profits aren't the only things that matter in
| life. Unions are the result of the same movement that gave us
| things like 40-hour workweeks and two day weekends.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| This is cargo cult logic.
| amelius wrote:
| From the perspective of who are you talking?
|
| CEO or blue-collar worker?
| jeanjogr wrote:
| I have never been able to quite grasp what it means to "unionize"
| in the US.
|
| Here in my country, unions work like political parties (which I
| understand is not exactly enticing right now):
|
| - you are free to join or not
|
| - there are elected workers' representatives whether there are
| unions are not
|
| - unions serve to organize workers for action and representatives
| elections, support candidates, and provide additional services as
| well
|
| In this context, there is no one big vote to unionize or not, and
| no "union jobs". How does it work in the US?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| In the US, when a company unionizes a job class, all applicable
| employees must then pay the union for representing them in
| negotiations. Only one union can represent a class of workers.
|
| In 27/50 states workers who opt out of union membership loose
| the power to vote in union matters, but still are governed by
| union negotiations and must pay the unions "agency fees" for
| representing them. They no longer have to pay for political
| campaigning and lobbying by the union on other activism.
|
| In 23/50 states, workers can not opt out of union dues and the
| union can spend the dues to campaign for political figures and
| issues.
|
| Unions generally support Democratic politicians and agendas,
| and unions have high approval Among members of the Democratic
| Party. Republican Party members disfavor unions and resent
| obligatory union dues used to fund the party they do not
| support.
|
| I much prefer the European concept of unions, where employees
| can pick and choose between different options
| pseudalopex wrote:
| You're confused. 27 states allow non members to pay nothing.
| 23 allow agency fees. 0 allow charging non members for
| political activities.
| rendang wrote:
| Not knowing what country you are in, I would bet that the
| situation of unions there ultimately is a result of the global
| labor movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, which came to be
| via strikes and grassroots union organizing activities.
| random5634 wrote:
| The US is a bit different.
|
| 1) Many unions are govt unions - think police, prison guard,
| teachers.
|
| 2) For closed shop states, if a union wins election, EVERYONE
| has to join the union.
|
| 3) A history of corruption in unions in some cases.
|
| 4) There is a perception in the US that unions and lazy workers
| overlap.
|
| Teachers unions, prison guard unions, police unions - they need
| to have some real good examples of the successes unions can
| bring. Internationally (at least in EU in my experience) there
| really are those. In the US it's a bit muddied.
|
| The latest example I saw, a parent wanted to try and get
| schools to reopen. Union called them racist -
|
| "she was being racist and not considering "the needs of
| brown/black families who 'predominantly want to stay home' as
| evidenced by the several months old OUSD survey that was sent
| out to all district parents."
|
| Stuff like this is kind of eye rolling. The union starts
| calling folks racist for wanting their kids in school? Do the
| black/brown folks they are speaking for even agree with these
| claims?
| pseudalopex wrote:
| All states are open shop or agency shop. Federal law
| prohibits closed shop.
| stewx wrote:
| How is Amazon allowed to say "A union cannot deliver greater job
| security or better wages and benefits"? It's presented as a
| factual statement, but, at best, it's the company's opinion, and
| at worst it's a blatant lie.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Some colleagues asked me when I will start a company 'cause they
| want to join me. My dream of that company is that if a union is
| even needed, I have failed and that company needs to close.
|
| I understand why some people want unions. I also know about a
| very long history of unions either completely destroying
| companies or having a negative influence over them, including the
| countries in Europe like my own. Long term unions become a
| parasitic entity that has the main purpose to continue its
| existence for the profit of the union leaders and nobody else and
| using all the influence to achieve that goal, even if the host is
| negatively impacted.
| phabora wrote:
| Your dream has two outcomes:
|
| 1. You get outcompeted by other companies that look out for
| Number One, namely the bottom line
|
| 2. You get surrounded by an entourage of corporate sycophants
| that nurture your lie about how your company is so benevolent
| that no worker representation is necessary
| stakkur wrote:
| Amazon's tactics eerily resemble early coal mining union busters:
| disinformation, veiled threats, Pinkerton agents, etc.
| simsla wrote:
| I hope enough people vote yes.
|
| The way FC workers are treated is not ok. It's the main blemish
| on a company I otherwise respect. "Other companies treat FC staff
| like shit too" is not an excuse.
|
| Disclaimer: Work for Amazon (corp / tech side). Opinion my own,
| obviously.
| [deleted]
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > "Other companies treat FC staff like shit too" is not an
| excuse.
|
| How is this not an excuse? Most people would switch to
| Walmart/Target/Bestbuy or any other retailer if the price on
| Amazon is higher.
| simsla wrote:
| It's not just about wages. I think Amazon has actually made
| great strides by raising their minimum wages to $15/h.
| According to US stats the monetary benefit from unionising is
| about +11% on average. By offering twice the federal minimum,
| it's possible that Amazon is already above that. Now, you can
| argue that minimum wage should be higher still, but that's a
| separate discussion.
|
| I don't think we should pretend that FC jobs will ever be
| super high paying or enviable jobs, but there are other ways
| to improve worker conditions. e.g. In some FC's, people
| allegedly have to walk for 20 minutes to reach a toilet.
| That's easily fixed. Making sure people don't have to choose
| between feeding their families and casting a vote in the
| election is another example. In general, even for a low skill
| job, pressure shouldn't be so high as to burn people out.
|
| I think some FCs might actually have decent worker
| conditions. Others don't. As you alluded to, a company has
| financial interests that may not align with worker interests,
| which is why I think this needs to be approached in a
| structural way. Like Bezos himself once said: "Good
| intentions don't work; you need good mechanisms to make
| anything happen."
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >which is why I think this needs to be approached in a
| structural way.
|
| The answer is federal legislation. How break time, overtime
| after certain # of work hours in a day, parental leave.
|
| If we want people to have a certain quality of life at
| work, I don't see any purpose directing any energy at
| certain large employers. All efforts should be direct to
| politicians, who we can vote in, to provide that quality of
| life at work.
| simsla wrote:
| I do agree that a top-down approach is preferable, but in
| the meantime I still see self-organising and collective
| bargaining as a good thing.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The down side is politicians can point to whatever
| pittance the workers win in their negotiations and say
| market forces are working.
| criddell wrote:
| I wonder how price sensitive Amazon shoppers actually are. I
| know I buy from there mostly because of the low friction and
| wide selection. I rarely check prices.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I'm assuming the people working at Amazon are capable of
| figuring that out, and since the prices on Amazon are not
| higher than the other retailers, they have concluded their
| customers are price sensitive.
|
| Otherwise Amazon is leaving money on the table by not
| already charging higher prices, which is a bet I would not
| make.
| Bedon292 wrote:
| I have many times found things more expensive on Amazon
| than other sources. Most of that I put down to shipping
| being factored into their prices, vs added in at the end
| for online retailers or just being aggregated across the
| whole inventory of physical retailers. But a big factor
| is time to me is time. I can get this thing for $2
| cheaper at the store, but then it would be a dedicated
| trip out for something I can have on my doorstep in the
| morning.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Twitch (owned by Amazon) is also apparently targeting Alabama
| residents with anti-union ads:
|
| https://twitter.com/moreperfectus/status/1364318690271969285
| williesleg wrote:
| Bunch of commies
| RicoElectrico wrote:
| News about Amazon's treatment of workers invariably makes me
| angry, and I'm not even from USA.
|
| Just do something about it. Take the nuclear option.
| jhanschoo wrote:
| One of the instructions not caught by the article asks that you
| write your name on the envelope else it won't be counted. Is that
| really the case? Alongside the new mailbox it looks like a way to
| track who has voted.
| technofiend wrote:
| I'm kinda surprised Amazon hasn't taken the opposite approach and
| just said you want a union? Fine, here's our opening position.
| [deleted]
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| Imagine if the person who was assigned or in charge to do the
| printing and distribution of these instruction leaflets was pro
| union. There is an odd aversion to unions in the US. I find the
| "do not book that dinner" metaphor fitting. Bezos and Musk will
| book it for you instead. How do people not see a pattern that
| some of the richest people out there exploit the workforce the
| most(urinate in bottle at Amazon, safety and hours at tesla etc)
| are fiercely opposing unions?
|
| You know who has pretty good unions? The police departments, ask
| them about it.
| kache_ wrote:
| wagie wagie get back in cagie
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| It's amazing how little HN readers understand about unions. A
| company is an organization that has some positive and some
| negative aspects.
|
| And believe it or not, a union is also an organization with some
| negative and positive aspects.
|
| The difference is, once you have a union in an organization its
| very hard to dislodge it no matter how dysfunctional it gets.
|
| I would suggest HN readers read about what UAW did in the auto
| industry, particularly the way the auto union functioned at the
| Toyota NUMA plant in California.
|
| Then they should read about the corruption at the Teamsters (I'm
| sure you have heard about the collusion between union bosses like
| Hoffa and the Mafia). The high profile corruption is just the tip
| of the iceberg. Even your local teachers union has a tremendous
| amount of nepotism and corruption ... its not at all
| meritocratic.
|
| And the worst part about a union is that it turns the workplace
| from a zone where we are evaluated based on our output into a
| zone where politics dominates when it comes time for compensation
| and promotion discussions.
|
| I will never again work in a unionized workplace ... and thanks
| to getting an education and learning how to program I will
| thankfully not have to do it ever again.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| > The difference is, once you have a union in an organization
| its very hard to dislodge it no matter how dysfunctional it
| gets.
|
| In comparison to a business? With a union I have some voting
| power. With a business I have zero power.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| Companies are always rising and falling. Consumers vote with
| their dollars.
| [deleted]
| sodality2 wrote:
| >I would suggest HN readers read about what UAW did in the auto
| industry, particularly the way the auto union functioned at the
| Toyota NUMA plant in California.
|
| Link some, first results I get for UAW + auto industry are
| propagandized anti-union sites and Toyota's own press release
| about how they're proud to give more money to the team.
| rtkwe wrote:
| If we're going to go back in time to talk about Hoffa era
| unions why stop there, companies used to prefer gunning down
| their striking/organizing employees with Pinkerton agents
| rather than give benefits of any kind.
|
| With a union there's some democratic influence. You're only
| option for changing the company is to leave if you're anywhere
| below VP level.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Personally I like the idea of worker representation on the board
| of directors, with enough representation that they don't just get
| steamrolled by other board members as a potentially viable
| solution to worker concerns.
|
| I think people should be treated pretty well in a job setting, my
| thought is that well treated employees while costing more
| actually wind up producing for the business well in excess of the
| expense and much more than when treated like parts as well as it
| imo just being the ethical thing to do.
|
| I've only heard negative things from friends who have worked in
| unions or with unionized employees and I understand things vary
| greatly union to union so I'm skeptical of how overall beneficial
| they are to normal workers, high performing workers and the
| business which ultimately they work for. They largely seem like
| ways for certain outspoken individuals to consolidate power and
| become another vehicle for corruption and stagnation, much like
| already broken corporate structure.
|
| All of that said this may be the only avenue possible at the
| moment as nothing in the US screams major labor reforms to me and
| no larger business seems willing to try to experiment with other
| solutions.
| phabora wrote:
| High-performers (read: well-payed workers) like to complain
| about the nefarious corrupting influence of unions but seldom
| consider the case that the high-performers (read: upper-middle
| class) might have a vested interest in the corrupt status quo
| where the majority of workers facilitate their high-performing
| (read: privileged) lifestyles.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| You are confusing skill with access to capital.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| I mean all the anecdotes I have come from electricians and
| county paid groundskeepers and who also happen to be my close
| friends so I'd have to say your assertion if not false in
| totality is false in this case for certain.
|
| Edit: Oh and a general contractor or two.
| maxehmookau wrote:
| Ugh, this is disgusting and so patronising.
|
| Edit: Also, why are "union avoidance consultants" a thing? The US
| needs to fix its culture around unions. That's absolutely wild.
| falcolas wrote:
| Why pay your employees when you can pay a consultant to show
| how to keep your employee costs low?
|
| /s
| hn8788 wrote:
| My father used to work at a facility that actually paid non-
| union employees more than union employees. It was at a remote
| location, so any sort of strike would have cost tons of money
| with no way to get replacements in. Any time the union
| negotiated a raise, the company gave the non-union employees
| a bigger raise, because the extra cost was worth not having
| to worry about a strike shutting everything down.
| youareostriches wrote:
| So in other words, all workers at the company still
| benefitted from having a union.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| IF your company thinks spending $X on keeping you from
| unionizing is worth it then the benefit to you is at least
| ($X+1)/$num_workers to unionize.
| chasd00 wrote:
| do you have any idea how big the num_workers number is? I'd
| wager for the average employee the benefit will be
| neagative, as in paycheck - union dues. The real benefit
| goes to the union bosses as num_workers * union_dues.
| bjoli wrote:
| Now, I am not very up to date on statistics, but
| unionised workers have traditionally earned about 10%
| more than non-uniomized ones in the US since at least the
| 80s. The article mentions 11%, which seems in line with
| what I know since before.
|
| I doubt any union would charge anywhere near that much.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Amazon's own literature says "almost $500" in dues[1]. If
| they get a 10% pay increase, then everyone making more
| than $5k comes out ahead. Everyone making $10k or more
| comes out more ahead than the union. The union bosses
| probably come out the most ahead because that $500 * (a
| lot of workers) goes to (a small number of union
| management types).
|
| It's hopefully obvious that the union makes it better for
| at least the lower 50% of performers. It seems likely to
| me that it makes things better for more like the bottom
| 90% of performers or more. A lot of anti-union literature
| is based upon the fact that most people think they are
| above average.
|
| 1: https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/
| phone8675309 wrote:
| $500 in dues per year is around $20 per paycheck if
| you're paid twice a month or every two weeks. The
| increase in benefits and working conditions might well be
| worth that, depending on the job.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Unions are so unpopular even with people that in theory support
| unions. Look at the normal, non in power, peoples response to
| unions at any mid/large tech company.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Disclaimer: I've a pro union Vermont raised Bernie loving
| person. But its impossible to see any recent unionization
| effort and not see the majority of people who are skeptical
| at best and sucking in and repeating the company propaganda
| at worst.
| pbourke wrote:
| And yet there are many software and tech people who are part
| of unions such as in the public sector or specialist unions
| like SPEEA for aerospace.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Depending on where you're from, there have been cases of
| corruption or incompetence.
|
| Unions are not magically good.
| goostavos wrote:
| Spending some of my early career in Las Vegas and
| Philadelphia really destroyed by youthful view of unions as
| a unquestionable force for good.
|
| One thing which can said with absolute certainty: they're
| not a structure which breeds efficiency.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| 100%. Not all unions are created equally. Most people who
| have had union employees have stories about employees who
| knew they were not going to lose their job, easily, so
| they didn't do a lot.
|
| But if unions were more common place would there be more
| efficiency or more in the average union? Would it be
| better for many people to have some job security instead
| of a company having efficiency?
| phone8675309 wrote:
| Union Avoidance Consultants, historically, have been Pinkertons
| with machine guns that would not hesitate to gun down union
| leaders, so, if anything, this is a soft touch approach.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Amazon's union avoidance efforts involve Pinkertons; they
| haven't brought out machine guns yet. Though, to be fair,
| that's probably not kindness on Amazons part so much as a
| change in the legal environment since that was common.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-spies-
| worke...
| lazide wrote:
| It has been a ebb and flow [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/His
| tory_of_union_busting_in_...], but in general it's fair to say
| that Unions won the battle in Europe and lost it in the United
| States.
|
| Lots of analysis could be done around the macro-socio-economics
| of the why, but in general I believe it's because of the
| availability of remote, work starved populations, historically
| concentrated capital, and ease (from a cultural and legal
| perspective) of moving businesses and doing intracountry trade,
| have meant there was generally always a place industry could
| move, get what they want (including cheap labor), and sell to
| the same customer base or maket. Labor loses a lot of power
| when the company can just up and go somewhere else. This has
| historically been harder in Europe due to historically hard
| border controls and strong national identities - it will be
| interesting to see how this shakes out in the EU!
|
| This is obviously not absolute (or Labor would not have gotten
| the power it has now, which is still non trivial in the US),
| but it is much more the case than Europe, where Labor has been
| able to dictate terms for awhile, and movements related to this
| problem were major contributors to the world wars.
|
| One could also make arguments around shortage of labor in
| Europe due to deaths from the many world wars (which had only a
| minor impact on the US), or the world wars weakening the
| established sources of Capital or control in Europe more than
| the US, or shifts in population phenotypes due to mass
| migration to the Americas and susceptibility to certain types
| of working conditions or living styles (are children of folks
| who immigrate for work more like to move for jobs and take
| harsh living conditions as part of the deal?).
|
| Overall, it's hard to not notice that no one seems to actually
| be enforcing labor laws designed to protect workers, or that
| Labor isn't organizing effectively and using it's muscle. That
| may be changing, but especially on the low end it seems kinda
| unlikely right now.
| btown wrote:
| The US has had an "us vs. them" mindset towards unions since
| the 19th century:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
|
| Back then, titans of industry hired Pinkertons to attack and
| kill striking workers. Now, they buy media companies and tech
| companies that are designed to incentivize viewers to violently
| threaten the politicians and organizers who support striking
| workers. It's the same continuum, just evolved in subtlety.
| durnygbur wrote:
| > Now, they buy media companies and tech companies that are
| designed to incentivize viewers
|
| Now they still hire Pinkerton to know what the employees are
| up to -\\_(tsu)_/- [1]
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-
| reportedly-h...
| tor11 wrote:
| unions are useful for managing and firing in bulk.
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| I don't think that's caused from the culture around unions so
| much as it's caused by the culture around capitalism. There are
| plenty of scummy niches that people have found ways of getting
| paid for. Everything from consultants to show your company how
| to layoff people to religious leaders and snake oil salesmen
| and conmen. It's a big spectrum.
| proverbialbunny wrote:
| Does anyone have an alternative site they go to to buy household
| goods than amazon.com? Mostly kitchen supplies.
|
| Amazon often sells items lower quality than Walmart. It sucks and
| it feels like they have a monopoly. I'd rather shop anywhere
| else.
|
| edit: Maybe https://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/ ? I haven't bought
| anything there, but I might try it if there are not better
| recommendations.
| thebigspacefuck wrote:
| Target is pretty good. One of my local Kroger has a large
| household goods section. Both have curbside pickup or delivery
| and prices are decent.
| jonathantf2 wrote:
| Interesting that the site they're linking in that booklet is
| hosted on Squarespace and not AWS.
| lucasmullens wrote:
| How does this not backfire? At Google I'm just sitting on the
| sidelines with the whole union thing, but if they sent me
| something like this I'd join and support the union immediately.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| That doesn't make any sense. You're saying you have made some
| sort of value judgement, presumably based on logic and
| information, but if someone sends you a piece of propaganda
| you'd totally change your position? You don' t play poker, do
| you?
| willcipriano wrote:
| > That doesn't make any sense. You're saying you have made
| some sort of value judgement, presumably based on logic and
| information, but if someone sends you a piece of propaganda
| you'd totally change your position? You don' t play poker, do
| you?
|
| Sending out propaganda is a new piece of information. When
| someone is trying really hard to get you to believe
| something, or act in a particular way, that in and of itself
| is informative. You don't play Magic The Gathering, do you?
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Forget Magic (though I appreciate the reference), this is
| like basic strategic thinking. Especially when there is a
| clear motive for the opponent (Amazon) to behave the way
| they are with little but trust they will do the right thing
| for you (worker).
| [deleted]
| praestigiare wrote:
| It makes sense if you consider your company sending you
| propaganda to be additional information relevant to whether
| you can trust them, and so you review your decision, which is
| a perfectly rational response.
| EliRivers wrote:
| I expect he's human, rather than Homo Economicus.
|
| Many humans, when treated with contempt and addressed as if
| he's a gullible moron by someone who patronisingly tries to
| lead him into a decision explicitly to that patronising
| jerk's advantage, often dislikes it to the point of
| generating what we might call the "fuck you, I won't do what
| you tell me" response. People who play poker yet somehow
| aren't familiar with humans will struggle playing against
| them.
| ahelwer wrote:
| This is a pretty interesting question, and I think prods at
| other questions about the actual form that tech worker unions
| will take - especially in big companies like Google. Will they
| be actual organized units capable of orchestrating coordinated
| action to withhold labor for improvement of material
| conditions? Or will they just be a sort of caucus that issue
| statements about political issues at work and occasionally
| organize an afternoon walkout? If the latter, this isn't the
| sort of thing that will bother management very much. Certainly
| not at the existential level of "some of the stock
| dividend/buyback money will have to be redirected from
| shareholders to workers, my GOD"
| grumple wrote:
| We might not notice the tech workers walking out at google.
| It's not like they provide support.
|
| At AWS - we'd definitely notice, because their support is
| really good.
|
| > Will they be actual organized units capable of
| orchestrating coordinated action to withhold labor for
| improvement of material conditions?
|
| Developers have the money to withstand very long strikes if
| needed. I think there's a lot of power in that.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think employee walkouts will bother management quite a bit.
| And compensation/benefit issues _are_ political ones.
| lorax_108 wrote:
| unions FTW!
| durnygbur wrote:
| Is this for real? They really sent post with instructions on who
| should one vote for?
| Spivak wrote:
| Have you never received a voting guide from the local chapter
| of your political party?
| durnygbur wrote:
| no, never
| abstractbarista wrote:
| What happens to the people who didn't want to pay in, if the
| union does get set up? Will they be forced to have money taken
| from them to continue working there?
|
| I'd probably quit if some organization suddenly started siphoning
| my paycheck. Sure unionize if you want, and I'll strike with you
| over issues, but that doesn't require my payment to accomplish.
|
| I am very thankful to live in a right to work state where nobody
| can forcibly steal the fruits of my labor.
| ketzo wrote:
| Unions don't ask for dues just to grift you. At a minimum, any
| half-competent union should be able to tell you how they're
| going to get you more than your dues in value from the union.
| This could be actual increased pay, benefits, or other value
| from collective organization.
|
| No one is trying to steal anything from you. Unions are _for
| workers_. If you think Amazon is in your corner more than a
| union would be, I would consider reevaluating that idea.\
|
| All that said: almost no unionized workplace that I know of has
| a situation where you are _required_ to be part of the union to
| work there, so no, you won 't be forced. For example, U.S.
| federal employees have huge, long-lived unions with a lot of
| prominence, and only 26% of federal employees actually belong
| to a union.
| abstractbarista wrote:
| Thanks for clearing this up for me. I was under the
| impression that if a union was started where I work, I could
| be forced to pay in if I want to remain employed there.
|
| Amazon certainly isn't on the side of its workers. No company
| is. They want maximum work for minimum pay. Workers want
| maximum pay for minimum work. I've always found the labor
| market to be an entertaining fight between the two.
|
| I think the part hanging me up most is what the dues could go
| to. Theoretically speaking, I'm down to pay some folks to
| represent me and fight in meetings with <employer>. But, I
| don't believe in paying dues to keep members afloat when
| they're not working (striking, etc.). I believe that's my
| responsibility to stay solvent. All my life I've forced
| myself to spend far less than I make in pursuit of this.
| ketzo wrote:
| I'm _absolutely_ not a lawyer or a union expert; I 'm just
| some guy on an orange website, so take everything I say
| with a grain of salt.
|
| But the sentiment you're expressing is one of the #1 tools
| in the anti-union-propaganda belt, and for good reason:
| nobody wants to be forced!
|
| Honestly, you're the kind of person who would be really
| helpful in a union meeting! You bring up great points: some
| industries really need to be able to pay people to strike,
| but others don't. Where do we fit in (whoever "we" is)? And
| knowing where your dues are going _is_ important; anybody
| trying to hide that kind of information is immediately
| suspect.
|
| > All my life I've forced myself to spend far less than I
| make in pursuit of [solvency].
|
| Not to go totally Marxist on you... but some would say that
| this is because you live in a deeply capitalist, anti-
| worker society, and that strong unions are just one piece
| in a potential society-wide safety net that would mean
| people could just spend the money they make without having
| to worry about sudden and catastrophic destitution.
|
| In an ideal world, I personally would _love_ if people who
| found themselves out of work had a third party (potentially
| comprised of other workers in their field) that could
| support them while they got back on their feet.
| tor11 wrote:
| > Unions are for workers
|
| funny.
| ketzo wrote:
| ....why?
|
| I understand that there are shitty unions out there. But my
| statement seems pretty factual for the idea of unions as a
| whole.
| [deleted]
| db48x wrote:
| Yea, in most states you can't be forced to join a union, and
| dues are for the maintenance of the union. Only members pay for
| it.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| A slim majority of 27/50 states. Even in those states, non-
| union employees can be forced to pay the union "agency fees"
| for representation costs, but not dues which can be spent on
| political agenda.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-
| work_law#:~:text=In%2....
| pseudalopex wrote:
| You're confused. 27 states allow paying nothing. 23 states
| allow agency fees. 0 force non members to fund political
| activities.
| dominotw wrote:
| wouldnt it be better to fix 'trail period' laws so thats possible
| hikerclimber wrote:
| i think amazon is a corrupt company. just like most of wall
| street. I hope stocks go to 0. and same with bonds in the U.S. so
| the entire economy collapses.
| Macha wrote:
| Something I don't understand about US unions
|
| I often see mandatory dues being brought up as arguments against
| unions in the US. I've never heard of that practice here, so I
| looked and it is in fact illegal here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#Council_of_Europe based
| on the freedom of association (which also covers freedom of _not_
| associating).
|
| There's also no requirement for employers to negotiate or
| recognise unions. Usually if sufficient members of the company
| are in a union the employer will negotiate pay terms with them -
| they don't have a requirement too, though of course the union can
| strike to bring them to the negotiating table. Some employers
| might make a single negotiation with the union and use that as
| the basis for their pay grades or other terms, though again,
| there's no requirement for them to do so.
|
| What I don't understand is why US unions don't embrace that - if
| they don't adopt the "mandatory membership" part, surely the
| opposition to their existence has less to argue for. You don't
| need a big vote, members just join, and if there's enough of them
| they can bring employers to the negotiating table. Yes, you can
| get freeloaders, but that seems preferable to having no union for
| the employees that need it most.
|
| I'm in tech, so there's not much call for the unionisation of
| tech in my country. But that's because it's a seller's market, an
| individual tech worker often has more leeway to insist on
| improvements to their pay or conditions than a factory worker and
| both sides know it. it's why e.g. you get management apologising
| for 9:30am meetings if a visiting exec is in town and they want
| to impress but arrive at 9:10am to the factory or mcdonalds and
| expect an unpleasant meeting with your supervisor. (Also if you
| were lucky, you knew that you were rosted for 9am the week
| before)
|
| Most people from my school days, and even my father are in jobs
| like this. If I was too, I would totally be in a union. Part of
| me wonders if in tech we really should be too to have the
| infrastructure in place if a time comes when the market for tech
| work is dramatically different. Certainly given the state of
| unions and low wage employment conditions in my country, if I
| hadn't been lucky to have something I was interested in and had
| aptitude for pay so well, I would join a union if I had to work
| on it.
|
| I know people like to harp on about examples like the US auto
| industry or UK mining industry where strong insistence of
| worker's rights was arguably a contributor to the industry in
| those countries going under, but it's not clear to me that
| industries like call centers or retail where that didn't happen
| have had much better outcomes for employees. Better outcomes for
| the businesses operating them, sure, employees, ehh...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-25 23:02 UTC)