[HN Gopher] Inspired by Alabama's union battle, Amazon workers e...
___________________________________________________________________
Inspired by Alabama's union battle, Amazon workers elsewhere
consider organizing
Author : blinding-streak
Score : 192 points
Date : 2021-03-09 14:09 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| granzymes wrote:
| Will Amazon just close the warehouse if it votes to unionize?
| [deleted]
| sct202 wrote:
| They might pull the old oops the plumbing broke and is
| unfixable excuse. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-
| shut-5-stores-ove...
| batmaniam wrote:
| That story was from 2015. Was there ever a resolution, 6
| years later?
| [deleted]
| dehrmann wrote:
| This is an interesting time for this. On one hand, the massive
| increase in sales and staffing gives workers more leverage, but
| on the other, they're unskilled, unemployment is still high, and
| sales might contract some once people have ordered everything
| they want or things start reopening.
| skynet-9000 wrote:
| Incorrect title. Nothing in the title about workers elsewhere
| being inspired.
|
| Wapo title: Amazon fights aggressively to defeat union drive in
| Alabama, fearing a coming wave
|
| Subtitle: Amazon's relentless push to beat back a union drive
| among warehouse workers mirrors the company's past efforts to
| oppose unions in Seattle, New York, Canada and the United Kingdom
| blinding-streak wrote:
| The title I posted was the title of the story at the time on
| WaPo. Story titles change often on news sites. Look at the
| archive link, you'll see the correct title (shortened for HN
| limits) was used:
|
| https://archive.vn/NqWET
| [deleted]
| minikites wrote:
| It says a lot about how effective unions are by how vehemently
| Amazon and most other companies fight against them. If unions
| were as dysfunctional as conservatives claim they are, Amazon
| wouldn't be spending this much money or fighting this hard.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The same could be said about any change really, but especially
| when it will affect a business' bottom line. Look at the fight
| against raising the minimum wage at any amount, not just the
| current $15/hour fight. The fight to bring corporate offshore
| money back, the fight against pollution, etc. If any regulation
| is going to cost a business money, there will always be a
| fight. Doing the right thing is not normally free to implement.
| swebs wrote:
| The majority of conservatives I know are in trade unions. Visit
| middle America someday.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Why are unions given any special allowance in law? I feel like
| unions are just a separate service company, but with a monopoly
| granted by the law. If people want to "organize", why not form
| their own service company that contracts out their labor? That
| way the company they're leaving is still allowed choice in who
| they work with and under what conditions. Otherwise, the entire
| notion feels like a serious abridgement on the freedom of those
| who own the company.
| jariel wrote:
| Unions are given rights due to asymmetries in power.
|
| Professionals with credentials have some power in the market,
| they can command a price.
|
| Unskilled labour cannot. Without regulations, they would be
| paid $2 an hour, i.e. what the market will bear.
|
| If you thought the 'Dollar Store' was cheap, imagine the '25
| cent store' - where people survive on extreme minimums.
|
| Favellas and tiny illegal homes pop up, without plumbing etc.
| and entire mini-industries are created around the ultra-low
| working class.
|
| A $1 Trillion dollar corporation has 'all the power' an
| individual has none, and it's existential: 'work for just
| enough wages to barely keep you alive or die'. That's what the
| market will push towards and a lot of people will think that
| it's fair.
|
| The market allocates money based on power. That's it. In a
| purely market based anything, if you don't have power - you
| die, or close to it.
|
| People living in favelas with no plumbing can't hope to send
| their children to school etc. so it creates generational
| problems.
|
| This is why we have minimum wage, safety laws, anti-
| discrimination etc.
|
| That said - unions can often be a detriment and their power can
| be good only for the members and nobody else. It's not a black
| and white issue.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| I get the asymmetry in power but I also feel that imbalance
| is fair because the power is earned, by creating value for
| others and being successful in the market. There are also
| different companies competing with each other and creating
| choice for both labor and consumers (and where there isn't
| competition, we should enforce anti-trust laws).
|
| What I don't get is how unions are any different from the
| kind of local monopoly we dislike in cable companies, or a
| cartel (when a union operates broadly across an industry).
| They inhibit competition and choice, and limit liquidity in
| the labor market through their policies. They override
| individual freedoms - and I don't mean just for the
| corporation who is forced into a contract with them, but also
| because they force everyone else who wants to work to join
| their organization and pay dues. Often time, paying dues also
| means supporting these organizations' activities that go
| beyond bargaining for working conditions or wages. For
| example, the NEA (the main teachers union, which is the
| largest union in the US) frequently engages in politics and
| adopts progressive political positions as their official
| positions/guiding principles. This type of monolithic
| centralization feels undesirable to me for the same reason
| monopolies feel undesirable.
|
| In my opinion, the balance would be better if we let people
| organize without reprisal but requiring that what results is
| simply a separate entity (a separate company) who is selling
| their labor and has to survive based on their economic
| competitiveness. That way there is still choice and
| competition in labor.
|
| As for the dire picture you paint of favelas - maybe there's
| some minimum safety net we need to provide (which we have in
| the form of welfare, SNAP, and more). But if we're talking
| about generational issues - I also feel people should not
| have children if they cannot afford to raise them well.
| Otherwise, what we're saying is that people can keep
| supplying unskilled laborers and the rest of society is
| obligated to employ them at certain wages or otherwise
| support them. That seems unfair to me in a different way.
| donaldo wrote:
| Seems unlikely that everyone making minimum wage would
| suddenly be making $2 if there was no minimum wage. What's
| your reasoning? If it was a pure race to the bottom then why
| aren't SWEs paid min wage?
| jariel wrote:
| SWE's have bargaining power, $100K is their market rate.
|
| Those without any leverage whatsoever, unskilled workers
| rate will be the 'absolute minimum required to survive'.
|
| Somewhere around $2/hour over the long haul. Millions of
| people living in tiny, one room apartments, without basic
| amenities.
|
| We know people will accept this to survive because they do,
| all around the world.
| donaldo wrote:
| Yeah that makes sense and I agree with the sentiment. But
| unemployment seems pretty low in the US so it doesn't
| seem like there's enough supply and lack of demand to
| warrant wages dropping that much. I agree it could drop
| but was wondering if $2 was just random guess or backed
| by anything.
| jariel wrote:
| Oh, $2 is a guess, I don't know the number, but it's low.
|
| Factors are non-market issue such as social welfare
| programs, incidental wealth (i.e. kids with upper middle
| class parents, living at home choosing not to work),
| general attitudes, the difficulty of the labour (outside
| vs. inside), the relative buying power of the $2 (i.e. in
| a remote area, it may be possible to have 'micro homes'
| and get by, and social acceptance.
|
| Wages for undocumented labour might be a hint at the
| number though that's probably more than $2, my bet is
| that's somewhere north of $6-8 right now.
|
| My $2 take is 'long view' i.e. we see favelas in Brazil,
| people will accept that quality of life unless there are
| institutional pressures otherwise.
|
| Also consider that the unemployment rate does not count
| those who have stopped looking for work.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Why are unions given any special allowance in law?
|
| Because people got tires of capitalist exploitation enabled by
| the combination of the balance of wealth in capitalism and the
| absence of those special allowances.
|
| > I feel like unions are just a separate service company
|
| They aren't, in fact, and your feelings don't change that.
|
| > but with a monopoly granted by the law.
|
| Unions may be granted a monopoly with very tightly defined
| scope with a prescribed mechanism for removal, but unions exist
| without such monopolies (unions can be formed and exist before
| winning a certification election.)
|
| > If people want to "organize", why not form their own service
| company that contracts out their labor?
|
| That's called a labor cooperative, and it's a completely
| different thing than a union. Unions exist _within_ labor coops
| (and many organizations promoting labor coops promote
| unionization both in general and within coops.)
|
| > Otherwise, the entire notion feels like a serious abridgement
| on the freedom of those who own the company.
|
| Insofar as the "freedom" of capitalist property rights are--
| both in practice and, despite some facially class-neutral post-
| hoc rationalizations, in the original motivation for which they
| were sought by the mercantile class against the traditional
| structure of the feudal economy a mechanism by--a mechanism by
| which a particular narrow class exercise dominant power over
| the rest of society, that's the whole point of not only
| legally-empowered unions, and also the rest of the changes
| since the peak of capitalism in the late 19th Century by which
| the developed world has abandoned pure capitalism for the
| modern mixed economy.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Because unions lobby more than almost anyone else.
|
| https://i2.wp.com/mercatus.org/sites/default/files/totalcont...
|
| But yes, their entire purpose is to form a cartel in order to
| extract rent from the buyers of labor.
| gruez wrote:
| >Because unions lobby more than almost anyone else.
|
| That might be true in the past, but it doesn't seem to be the
| case anymore. see for instance the numbers for 2020:
| https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-
| organizat...
| advisedwang wrote:
| The law gives unions rights essentially as a political deal in
| exchange for other restrictions on unions. In exchange for the
| law forcing companies to bargain with unions and giving some
| protections:
|
| * Unions can't strike when they have a contract in place
|
| * Unions can't strike in solidarity with each other (ie the
| teamsters can't strike to help a longshorement strike)
|
| * There can't be more than one union covering the same
| workforce
|
| * Unions must give advance notice of strikes
|
| etc
| gruez wrote:
| >* Unions can't strike when they have a contract in place
|
| shouldn't that be covered by contract law? eg. if company A
| enters into a contract with company B to supply them with
| widgets, then company A decides to "strike", they'd get sued
| for breach of contract. Doesn't the same apply to labor
| contracts?
| blinding-streak wrote:
| For reference, Amazon's anti-union site:
| https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/
| elliekelly wrote:
| > HEY BHM1 DOERS, why pay almost $500 in dues? We've got you
| covered*
|
| This made me laugh. _Of course_ they 've got an asterisk next
| to their promise. But the site itself is just sad. The points
| made are "justified" with completely unrelated FUD:
|
| > 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.
|
| This sentence doesn't make any logical sense.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Tag each word or short phrase with a sentiment and a
| referent. The sense will appear.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| Solidarity with all those who are voting to unionize. Hopefully
| they can all vote without threats or interference from Amazon.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| Amazon is spending tens of millions trying to crush this.
| Honestly, that warehouse is probably the most outright hostile
| place to work in America. The mainstream
| (cnn/fox/msnbc/nyt/wsj) reporting on this isn't great, but
| there are a bunch of lefty podcasts covering the unionization
| with great insights and interviews.
| jcpham2 wrote:
| Roll Tide ya'll. This was already happening in the Automotive
| industry same state as well for years since Honda and Mercedes
| came.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| Good. I hope against hope that Amazon's publicity blitz on this
| backfires. I was a little astonished at how ham-fisted their
| messaging was: "Don't let evil unions take your dues money!"
|
| It felt like they thought their workers were stupid, or at least,
| easily connived into making choices against their own interest. I
| think there's a good chance they get proven wrong.
|
| Edit, to add: An employee could absolutely decide against a union
| on ideological grounds or because it doesn't make sense for their
| personal situation - my point here is more that Amazon's approach
| seems to think their employees are rubes who will do whatever the
| bright posters say they should.
| canadianfella wrote:
| What does hope against hope mean?
| fossuser wrote:
| The documentary that won the Oscar last year, "American
| Factory", is worth watching. The company in the movie brings in
| some consulting firm and requires employees to go to classes
| about why unions are bad during work hours.
|
| There are legitimate reasons to dislike unions, but the reason
| companies rely on these "ham-fisted" tactics is because the
| employees are generally less sophisticated than people on HN
| and the tactics work.
| bumby wrote:
| > _the employees are generally less sophisticated than people
| on HN_
|
| Can you define what you mean by "less sophisticated" and what
| you think drives this discrepancy?
|
| The irony to me is that I see a lot of comments on HN that
| would indicate many don't have much knowledge of how unions
| work, so I don't know that the claim of sophistication holds
| true in every domain
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not pretending HN is some super knowledgeable
| group that knows everything about everything.
|
| It's more base level of education. I think it's worth
| watching to see what I mean.
| bumby wrote:
| I've seen it but didn't have that same takeaway
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Well, the reason their messaging can be so direct is that
| there's a legitimate difference of opinion here. I'd kinda
| argue that your description of Amazon can be better applied to
| union organizers, who seem to have a pervasive attitude that
| any worker who opposes a union must have been tricked or
| bullied into their position. Some people legitimately believe
| that a union might be bad for their interests, and they're the
| ones Amazon is trying to reach - the confidently pro-union
| employees will probably vote for one regardless of how Amazon
| presents their case.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| > I'd kinda argue that your description of Amazon can be
| better applied to union organizers, who seem to have a
| pervasive attitude that any worker who opposes a union must
| have been tricked or bullied into their position
|
| I can't speak for union organizers, as I'm not one, but I
| don't think this is exactly how one sees people who're acting
| against their own interests. It's more of a
| frustration/confusion/concern they don't have all the facts.
|
| It's absolutely possible for someone to have all the relevant
| information at hand, and make a decision I wouldn't make. I
| think what's got me more surprised is the blunt and obviously
| propagandistic way Amazon is messaging on this; I think they
| risk coming off cartoonishly corporate/self-interested.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Yeah, I made this comment before having seen Amazon's site
| linked downthread. I'm sympathetic to the position the
| original commenter described, but I don't know who the
| target audience is supposed to be for quips like
|
| > 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.
|
| Who's going to take this messaging seriously?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| There are already plenty of people (workers included) who
| think unions allow some workers to freeload while other
| workers pick up the slack.
|
| Like political advertising, the point of most of the
| messaging on both sides is not aimed at changing minds,
| it is aimed at getting supporters fired up to turn out.
| serial_dev wrote:
| > It felt like they thought their workers were stupid
|
| In my opinion, they have spies, moles, agents amongst the
| workers. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those agents are in
| important positions, and they could be then now requested to do
| something stupid.
|
| If they don't have these agents, they could also just approach
| someone now.
|
| They could offer them something to do something outrageous or
| negative for the movement. Then, they also control various
| media outlets where they talk about it in every news segment.
|
| I'm pretty sure there is some serious intelligence operations
| in the background,why would they leave this to chance?
| ivraatiems wrote:
| > In my opinion, they have spies, moles, agents amongst the
| workers. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those agents are
| in important positions, and they could be then now requested
| to do something stupid.
|
| Oh, I agree. I'm sure you are right. I'm just surprised that
| with all that intelligence, the path they chose to take was
| so blunt.
|
| Either they're missing something, or I am - only time will
| tell, I guess.
| batmaniam wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure there is some serious intelligence
| operations in the background, why would they leave this to
| chance?
|
| Yeah, they're not gonna leave it to chance. It's pretty
| wonderous to watch, really. They're gonna pull every card
| they have. Take these, for instance:
|
| Amazon got in touch with the city and changed the traffic
| light patterns to make traffic worse for union voters:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287191/amazon-
| alabama-w...
|
| And even installed an official postal box on their site so
| they can monitor who is voting for later
| scrutiny/intimidation:
|
| https://www.al.com/business/2021/02/mailbox-stirs-
| controvers...
|
| Oh, and Amazon sponsored their busy employee's working time
| to make them attend mandatory sessions on why unions are bad:
|
| https://www.al.com/news/2021/02/alabama-amazon-employees-
| pus...
| nitrogen wrote:
| _> > Amazon got in touch with the city and changed the
| traffic light patterns to make traffic worse for union
| voters:_
|
| _> On December 15th, the county increased the green light
| duration in an effort to clear workers off the worksite
| faster. There's no indication that the county was aware of
| the ongoing organizing drive or any effect the traffic
| light changes might have on the effort._
|
| Improving traffic flow is somehow now an anti-union
| activity?
| pm90 wrote:
| The risk of doing this is that if it gets discovered (a big
| if) then there can be even more backlash. It may also be
| fodder for actual lawsuits.
|
| They may still decide to do it. But there are potential
| costs.
| serial_dev wrote:
| I think they were already discovered
| https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-agency-
| spie...
| throwawaysea wrote:
| How common is this really? Does it happen to political
| parties, for example? I feel like there might be some law
| being broken when it comes to this sort of espionage but I am
| not sure.
| efficax wrote:
| It's the standard anti union playbook: you're giving up your
| power to negotiate as an individual! we're a family! you'll
| have to pay dues now!
|
| The fact is that there is no solid argument against
| unionization in an industry like warehouse work. Anything the
| union might do wrong the bosses might do as well, except in the
| union the worker can vote and influence those decisions.
|
| The reason the arguments are so dumb is that there aren't any
| downsides to the union vs not having a union. Unions aren't
| perfect but they're almost always better than not having one
| acomjean wrote:
| Grad students voted at my school to unionize. I wasn't In the
| thick of it (not grad student) but the anti union messaging
| was subtle and more effective then I thought it would be.
| They still voted to unionize but it wasn't a slam dunk.
|
| All staff here benefit because we get some of the union
| benefits even though we're not union eligible.
| whoisburbansky wrote:
| What was the anti union messaging in question, I'm curious?
| acomjean wrote:
| I was subtle questions on posters put up, about
| controlling your own destiny, not paying "dues to
| Harvard/ autoworkers union". They were kinda amorphous. I
| forget the exact wording but it played up graduate
| students tendency to be competitive. One anti group was
| name "liberals against Unionization of Graduate Level
| Students".
|
| edit: They left the anti-union web page up:
|
| https://criticalgsu.wordpress.com/six-arguments/
|
| https://s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails.thecrimson.com/photos
| /20...
|
| You can see a couple of the unit-untion posters in the
| slide show. There were lots of
| others.https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2018/04/union-
| election
| bumby wrote:
| Do you have to pay agency fees ? (lower dues for non-union
| members who benefit from the Union policies)
| acomjean wrote:
| No. Some of the unions negotiated some inexpensive
| tuitions and the university gave that to everyone (so I
| was told)..
| random5634 wrote:
| Oddly, one complaint workers have about unions is they keep
| on workers who don't work or are lazy. Interestingly OTHER
| WORKERS are annoyed by this.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Oddly? Have you ever been on a team with a few people who
| were just phoning it in, while you weren't? It's pretty
| annoying.
| random5634 wrote:
| Yes, but after a while if it's not getting fixed I just
| quit! The pay differences are usually token - one of my
| earlier jobs this happened, and when I found out the
| other person was getting paid more than me I was super
| bothered!
| meepmorp wrote:
| >Yes, but after a while if it's not getting fixed I just
| quit!
|
| Unionization doesn't remove this ability, you know.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah, but the argument is that in a unionized workforce
| people are incentivized to 'phone it in' because it's
| hard to fire them.
|
| Unions and collective bargaining at their best give the
| employees leverage for better pay and profit share. They
| do create bad incentives around making it hard to fire
| bad employees and making things slow.
| [deleted]
| pydry wrote:
| People complain about lazy workers and favoritism in every
| workplace.
|
| The boss is only interested when they don't have unilateral
| control over who gets fired and why.
| random5634 wrote:
| Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired
| by the boss - because there is an overlap of interests.
|
| Saying the boss is not interested is totally not true.
| When I went to school we ALL knew (even the kids) that
| one teacher simply basically did not teach. It didn't
| matter they were totally protected. Principle would have
| fired them in a minute. Old white dude, massive
| seniority, union officer I think so he also may have
| gotten time off teaching for that ? Anyways, the rest of
| the teachers were amazing, but imagine you are a female
| minority teacher having to deal with extra class sizes
| because of this dufus. At least when I was growing up the
| union officers was an old boys club situation.
| pydry wrote:
| >Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired
| by the boss
|
| I can recall _so_ many counter examples. Relatives,
| drinking buddies, snitches, people whom the boss was
| somewhat in awe of because they saw them as "rock
| stars", people for whom firing would have reflected badly
| on the boss, people who were good at pulling the wool
| over his eyes.
|
| Generally the people I've seen fired were for
| insubordination not laziness - often they worked much
| harder than other workers.
| random5634 wrote:
| Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen that
| happen to, and there is a natural result - good workers
| leave and the business dies.
|
| If you think Amazon is hiring based on this - fantastic,
| they are doomed by only hiring lazy drinking buddies and
| relatives. Reality? Amazon has probably a very driven
| workforce and working culture. But maybe you are right
| it's all just a bunch of drinking buddies.
| bumby wrote:
| > _Fantastic - then the business goes under._
|
| Curious if this means you are against public sector
| unions? I.e., where the organization can't "go under" or,
| if it does, it may represent a real public risk
| KittenInABox wrote:
| > Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen
| that happen to, and there is a natural result - good
| workers leave and the business dies.
|
| No different than if a union doesn't kick out shitty
| union members no? The same still holds true. Anything a
| bad union does, a bad boss can do, at least with a union
| you have a vote.
| random5634 wrote:
| This has already happened in America - many union based
| orgs become totally noncompetitive and had bankruptcies
| and layoffs rather than blowing away the "drinking
| buddies" businesses. In the private sector unions now
| only have a small fraction of jobs (I think < 10% now?)
|
| Unions work much better in public sector where they can't
| go out of business. Police unions, prison guard unions,
| teacher unions etc. I wouldn't say service or
| accountability is that great in these systems.
| david-cako wrote:
| Amazon is super metric-driven. It would be interesting to
| see unions come back with a metric-driven approach that
| helps workers, gives power to individual warehouses, comes
| across as "Amazonian", and makes corporate cream.
| random5634 wrote:
| Didn't the new york teachers union start a charter school
| in new york to show that they could operate something
| effectively? Anyone know how that worked. That might be a
| good example for union success?
| Rule35 wrote:
| Unions are a tool from when jobs could kill you, or were in
| exploitative company towns. They're a very big hammer to use
| for things you can do on your own, and when there are many
| other jobs to take. But they come with a lot of drawbacks
| that are more obvious the less useful their main mission is.
|
| Pretty much every union becomes a job protection scheme where
| bad workers are protected from being fired, and they feel the
| need to speak politically for the workers in broader issues
| than simple worker safety, etc.
|
| In today's climate it seems like they'd feel the need to act
| like school administrators, policing nonsense and being a
| bigger threat to your job than the management. The union
| would probably be refusing to box Dr Seuss books, etc.
|
| Considering that Amazon workers are paid fairly well, and
| treated well (pee stories notwithstanding), it's not an open
| and shut decision as it would be for other jobs.
| efficax wrote:
| Why don't you ask the union organizers in the Alabama union
| drive what they are hoping for.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/23/amazon-
| be...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/us/politics/amazon-
| union-...
|
| * Improved safety and a system for reporting safety issues
| without fear of retaliation
|
| * Improved working conditions in general: many amazon
| warehouses are not airconditioned and get so hot in the
| summers they park an ambulance outside for when someone
| collapses from heat stroke.
|
| * Job security. currently you can be fired without cause,
| or with causes like falling behind on the absurd production
| quotas. With a union you have due process to protect your
| job.
|
| * More breaks (imagine only getting ONE break, 4 hours into
| the work day). I'm a healthy, able bodied person, but what
| if I need to pee more than once in 4 hours?
|
| * Contractual pay and benefits. Sure they pay $15/hr now
| and offer benefits. What's stopping them from cutting that
| wage or cutting those benefits if costs from another sector
| cut into profits? Nothing
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Pretty much everything you said was false, and I'm not
| surprised a throwaway account was created to spread those
| falsehoods.
|
| Amazon warehouse workers are not paid well or even fairly
| well. They are not treated well. Amazon does its absolute
| best to treat its workers exactly as well as the minimum
| required by law, and even then it regularly attempts to cut
| back on even that. It took _more than a decade_ for Amazon
| to install A /C units in its SoCal warehouses, even though
| those facilities are located in an area with 100+ degree
| summer temperatures.
|
| Also, school administrators aren't generally part of a
| union. The teachers are, and they weren't the ones behind
| Dr. Seuss. (And on that note, the teachers are not
| responsible for Dr. Seuss being a huge racist who
| incorporated disgustingly racist imagery in children's
| books.)
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| What do Amazon workers want that they don't already have
| though? Aren't they already some of the highest compensated
| "low-level" workers in the industry?
|
| Is it higher wages they want? Better benefits? Work less
| hours? What does "better working conditions" logistically
| break down to?
| efficax wrote:
| They raised wages to head off worker organization.
|
| Just to start: maybe they could get bathroom breaks!
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-
| warehouse...
| toxik wrote:
| Assertion 1: they have enough as it is, and should not seek
| collective bargaining as a sign of loyalty or something.
|
| Ridiculous. If they're well-treated now, it is not by the
| benevolence of the company, but more likely because they
| could be paid much more and still turn a handsome profit.
|
| Assertion 2: not being the bottom of the barrel means
| improvement is not to be sought.
|
| Clearly a ridiculous position again: others having a shitty
| situation does not mean that you should count your
| blessings and stop seeking improvement.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Put it into numbers. How much would you like to see an
| Amazon warehouse worker make? Remember, mom + pop
| warehouses need to be competitive too. They don't have a
| multi-billion dollar "cloud platform" to move profits
| from around.
|
| I'm guessing Amazon already pays between $15-$17/hr. What
| would you like to see, $20? $25? Wouldn't that just push
| Amazon to automate harder/faster, putting these people
| from $15/hr -> $0/hr when they are out of a job
| altogether when it vanishes?
| [deleted]
| eplanit wrote:
| It's a great time to be a roboticist.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Hypothetically the union could negotiate for $0.01/hour
| less than what a robot would cost., which would be an
| improvement over $0.01/hour more than the bare minimum an
| individual worker of a certain skillset would accept.
| ed312 wrote:
| This is already happening - there is an absolute glut of
| warehouse robotics companies at this point. Mostly in
| adding robotics to legacy warehouses. New warehouses will
| almost exclusively be built with automation in mind.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Then it sounds like the workers are on the way out even
| if they don't unionize, so there's not much to lose.
| toast0 wrote:
| Automation is a cost optimization thing. If the union
| raises Amazon's costs, it pushes up the automation time
| frame. And if the union doesn't raise Amazon's costs, it
| probably didn't provide the workers any benefits.
|
| Then the question for workers becomes would you like to
| have this job for longer with current conditions or for
| less time with better conditions.
|
| I don't think an Amazon warehouse worker union is going
| to be able to get any sort of long term job availability
| promises from Amazon (but I could be wrong, of course).
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Very easy position to take if you're not a warehouse work
| worker that thinks a union is a difference between you
| losing your job
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Unless the first step by the union is to forbid the use of
| robots. A union's first mandate is to protect jobs. Any
| technology that replaces union members with machinery is
| open to direct attack.
|
| I have seen this in the entertainment industry. Newsrooms
| wanted to replace camera people with what were effectively
| industrial robots that moved the cameras around the studio
| as needed. Unions put up all sort of barriers, as is their
| mandate. Similar fights happened when projectionists were
| replaced by digital tech.
| solsane wrote:
| IMO, this would be a bad outcome for all parties
| involved. The jobs being replaced are highly tedious, ie,
| fold the box, put the thing in the box, repeat for next 8
| hrs. Those displaced would likely find better jobs.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> IMO, this would be a bad outcome for all parties
| involved.
|
| Tell that to the "party" who is going to be fired. We can
| go on about the economic impacts of mechanization, what
| is good or not for the business, we can even talk about
| the rise of AI. None of that matters. The core of a union
| is protecting the current jobs of their current workers.
| That means standing up for people who are going to lose
| their job regardless of the cause.
| bumby wrote:
| > _Those displaced would likely find better jobs._
|
| The article refutes this to an extent. One of the
| interviewees works at Amazon for ~$15/hr despite having
| previously work in an automotive plant for ~$23/hr,
| implying that they don't exactly have a much choice to
| find better jobs but settle for whatever they can get
| thereisnospork wrote:
| Agreed - but this is exactly the sort of thing unions
| have and do argue for[0] because the union's incentives
| don't align with the company's and the economy as a
| whole.
|
| [0] https://www.westport-news.com/news/article/Marty-the-
| robot-d...
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Then the warehouse will get built right across state
| lines or actually be owned and operated by a subsidiary.
| bumby wrote:
| Keep in mind the Union and Company enter a _contract_.
| The Union can't just enact any policy they want.
|
| With that said, I imagine a "no robot" policy would be a
| non-starter for Amazon to enter into such a contract
| sandworm101 wrote:
| "Never robots" would indeed be totally unworkable, but a
| union could easily argue for a specific number of human
| workers per square foot of warehouse space. Local
| governments would likely want to support such a scheme as
| it keeps money local. I imagine insurance companies have
| an opinion too on minimum manning levels for automated
| facilities.
| bumby wrote:
| They could but I would be skeptical if it would work. I'm
| speaking from previous robotics experience in auto
| assembly plants with heavy and established unions. Even
| then, line employment was decimated by robots.
| DavidPeiffer wrote:
| >Unless the first step by the union is to forbid the use
| of robots. A union's first mandate is to protect jobs.
| Any technology that replaces union members with machinery
| is open to direct attack.
|
| UPS is an interesting similar example along these lines.
| They have seen dramatic increases in deliveries per
| driver over the last ~30 years due to many process
| improvements.
|
| I attended a talk by Jack Levis, a now retired leader on
| their delivery optimization system. One thing the union
| negotiated for was driver pay to scaling along with
| packages delivered. As a result, drivers can reasonably
| make 100k with some overtime.
| _huayra_ wrote:
| This is what I always tell people who are considering whether
| to join a union or believe the corporate overlords: why would
| the company be going so hard in the paint to get you to NOT
| join the union? Do you think they would be spewing propaganda
| against people at work joining a disc golf team that required
| dues? Even if they give you a last-minute raise to dissuade
| you from joining a union, it's only because they know that a
| union would mean an even higher raise!
|
| Whenever the selfish faux-self-bootstrapping "fascist lite"
| folks come out against raising the minimum wage by pointing
| to countries that don't have it (e.g. many Scandinavian
| countries iirc) saying "see? you can have high wages without
| a minimum wage". Well sure, we don't need a minimum wage if
| we had a heavily unionized workforce like pretty much all of
| those countries!
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| > why would the company be going so hard in the paint to
| get you to NOT join the union
|
| I don't think this is a very compelling argument.
|
| In general, many things are good for both the employer and
| employee, or bad for both employer and employee. For
| example, the employer and employee probably both agree on
| whether a government subsidy for the industry is good for
| them.
|
| Suppose someone was proposing that 1% of wages at a factory
| be set on fire in the dumpster out back. You'd expect both
| the employee and the employer to oppose that. The employee
| wants that 1% and the employer doesn't want to have to
| raise wages 1% to prevent their employees from going to
| work somewhere else where 1% of wages aren't being set on
| fire.
|
| If you believe the employer's argument that unions aren't
| useful and basically just exist to fund their own
| operations through dues, then it's analogous to the "light
| 1% of the wages on fire" scenario.
| cperciva wrote:
| _Do you think they would be spewing propaganda against
| people at work joining a disc golf team that required
| dues?_
|
| They might if some people voting to join a disc golf team
| resulted in everyone else being forced to pay dues despite
| not being interested in disc golf.
| raegis wrote:
| The supreme court (USA) ruled that you no longer have to
| pay dues (or the equivalent) if you are not a member of
| the union.
| bumby wrote:
| Are you referring to _Janus v AFSCME_?
|
| I may be wrong but I thought that only applies to public
| sector unions, so it may not apply to the Amazon case
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _It felt like they thought their workers were stupid..._
|
| They sure want to make them look like stupid:
|
| _VICE News reveal company executives discussed a plan to smear
| fired warehouse employee Christian Smalls._
|
| _" He's not smart, or articulate, and to the extent the press
| wants to focus on us versus him, we will be in a much stronger
| PR position than simply explaining for the umpteenth time how
| we're trying to protect workers," wrote Amazon General Counsel
| David Zapolsky in notes from the meeting forwarded widely in
| the company._
|
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dm8bx/leaked-amazon-memo-de...
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Eh, the top complaint I have heard from people who are union
| members is that they take money for very little.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| What do you think they are basing that on? Maybe they should
| talk to their union.
|
| There are bad unions out there, but I don't think they're a
| majority.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| These people are government workers who are angry if the
| union doesn't win them a raise every year (and they won't
| as I live in a province which is very suspicious of
| government and nobody cares if they get a raise). So they
| instead just want their dues back.
| bumby wrote:
| I think there's an argument that public unions are a very
| different animal for a variety of reasons that may not
| make for an appropriate comparison.
|
| For example, it may be illegal for public servants to
| strike. The government may not go out of "business".
| Civil servants tend to skew towards white collar
| professions. Point being, there are a different set of
| incentives and tactics in pubic vs private unions
| asdff wrote:
| Regular raises are not guaranteed for nonunion workers.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Yes, but their thinking is that if they don't get a
| raise, they should pay what non-union workers pay.
| lambda_obrien wrote:
| I always remembered how I hated unions for taking all those
| dues, but then I actually joined one and it was like 30
| bucks a paycheck on a 3k paycheck, so like 1 percent. In
| exchange, my boss never asked me to stay late, work on
| weekends, or do several other categories of things that I
| routinely get asked now when I have no union. Additionally,
| I never had any issues with my job or boss doing anything
| illegal, but if I had, there were lawyers and reps waiting
| around to help me get my problems solved.
|
| I wish I was in a union now.
| coredog64 wrote:
| I think the complaint comes from lower wage positions.
| The concrete example I recall is someone who worked part
| time in a grocery store. All the benefits of the union
| only accrued to full time workers. And hours went by
| seniority, so unless the older workers didn't want the
| work, you were stuck with the short end of the stick.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I sometimes wonder about statements like this. Like when Uber
| and Lyft were hamfisted about their messaging around Prop 22.
| It's like the online world (universally against Prop 22) is
| inhabited by a significantly distinct group from the real world
| (mildly for Prop 22).
|
| I think the truth is that absolute karma counting (i.e. 5000
| up, 4900 down is a -100 comment) makes things appear more
| significantly skewed than they are.
| chaganated wrote:
| how quiet you all are...
| codekansas wrote:
| Is there am American industry that is heavily unionized that is
| globally competitive? Education, policing, auto manufacturing,
| and steel come to mind for me as both heavily unionized and
| significantly poorer quality in America relative to comparable
| peers. Maybe the entertainment industry though? I'm genuinely
| curious
| asdff wrote:
| I'd argue autoworkers and steel workers in America probably die
| less than their more productive and globally competitive peers
| in countries like China.
| igorstellar wrote:
| The original question was about industry competitiveness.
| First thing that comes to mind is Google but their unionizing
| is just starting.
| schnevets wrote:
| And let's not forget automotive unions exist in Japan,
| Germany, and other countries that dominate the industry.
| woodgrainz wrote:
| Most large newspapers in the US are unionized. Like the NY
| Times (https://www.nyguild.org/) and the Washington Post
| (https://postguild.org/) for example. News orgs are obviously
| facing difficult times but many journalists are in unions.
| blang wrote:
| The NBA
| cma wrote:
| American Medical Association and various state medical boards,
| various legal bars, AICPA, CFA Institute, various academic
| accreditation institutes form a kind of network that even
| accredits colleges that still practice alumni preference
| (almost all of them)--a sort of union seniority rule that
| extends beyond into familial offspring.
|
| Most upper-middle class stuff is heavily protected by union
| like organizations, many of which restrict membership count and
| lobby against immigration in their field based on maintaining
| salary levels and their standards of living.
| pg_bot wrote:
| None of these are unions, what you are referring to is
| occupational licensing and professional associations.
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| Two things:
|
| 1. Many labor organizations do not consider police and prison
| guard unions to be legitimate labor unions, because police
| represent and enforce the interests of the ruling class not of
| the labor class and have historically been weaponized
| footsoldiers brought in specifically to brutalize organized
| labor movements. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-to-know-
| police-unions-l... has a moderately good exposition of the
| subject. If you don't like overt editorial politicization, skip
| the first paragraph.
|
| 2. I think you have to clarify what you mean by "competitive".
| If you start from the premise that no advancement or profit is
| worth stepping on the necks of people with less power, then the
| only metric that makes sense for evaluating organized labor is
| fair treatment of the laborers. You will _of_course_ get more
| coal out of the ground faster and cheaper if, for instance, you
| use slaves or have zero rules protecting the health and safety
| of the miners. But you get that exactly by abusing the health
| and safety of the miners. So does one value cheap coal or not
| killing people? If one values only price above all else, then
| of course treating laborers well comes at a cost. I don't think
| we have a general sense that Chinese labor is treated well
| despite being an economic powerhouse because everything from
| there is cheaper and we just _really_ love to externalize
| costs. Also, don't we regularly have scandals where steel from
| China fails to meet some quality standard and causes bridges
| and buildings to collapse? Is it competitive to produce
| something dangerous for less money? If less up-front cost is
| the primary goal, then yes. Should that be the goal?
| dublinben wrote:
| The US major professional sports leagues are all unionized.[0]
| Upcoming exceptions like UFC are notorious for their
| exploitation of athletes.[1]
|
| [0] https://libguides.rutgers.edu/c.php?g=336678&p=2267003
|
| [1] https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2020/4/1/21201936/ufc-
| coronaviru...
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Is there am American industry that is heavily unionized that
| is globally competitive?
|
| Hollywood.
|
| Everyone from the highest paid stars to the set-builders are
| union members - you literally cannot say a word on film if
| you're not union, and Hollywood is globally competitive in
| spite of (or because of?) this. The talent is still able to
| negotiate individually (a common, yet inaccurate aspersion
| thrown at unions is that someone will take over role of
| negotiations - but that's just for the _baseline_ )
|
| For contrast, the ancillary VFX industry is _not_ unionized,
| and there are endless horror stories of exploitation there.
| antattack wrote:
| Recently I came to realization that unions may be an obstacle to
| $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare and overall improvement of
| work environment.
|
| It seems backwards at first, unions after all are supposed to
| protect the workers. However, union to exist needs a reason for
| people to join and that reason is that they negotiate better
| wages and better healthcare, for example.
|
| This is not a speculation on my part but direct observation of
| Democratic primaries, Manchin's opposition to 15 minimum's wage
| and local union negotiations.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| Some people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the
| light.
| pydry wrote:
| Joe Manchin gets money from finance and real estate, not labor
| unions.
|
| United mine workers seems to be the one (minor) exception, and
| it's about 1% of what he gets.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I hadn't realized this before, but unions have a similar effect
| as a minimum wage. They both set a floor wage where if you're
| at or above the floor, you're doing some version of OK, but if
| you're not, you have a significantly sketchier work situation
| making significantly less than that floor. They both act to
| stratify the workforce.
| coredog64 wrote:
| The ACA's "Cadillac Tax" was extremely unpopular with unions as
| it was a direct attack on a benefit they had negotiated instead
| of wages.
| whatshisface wrote:
| One solution is always opposed to all alternative solutions,
| but that does not mean that any of the solutions are opposed to
| solving the problem.
| moftz wrote:
| When something like universal healthcare or a $15 min wage goes
| into law, it's one less thing the union has to negotiate for.
| The union doesn't have to give up a certain number of sick days
| to make sure workers are getting $15/hr because its now non-
| negotiable. The end goal of a union is to not to need to exist,
| that workers are protected enough that they don't have to
| engage in collective bargaining.
| tablespoon wrote:
| That's nonsense. The movement for $15 minimum wage is _also_ a
| movement union rights: https://fightfor15.org/why-we-strike/:
|
| > We know striking works. By standing up and going on strike
| for $15/hr and union rights we won $70 billion in raises for 24
| million people across the country -- more than 30 percent of
| the nation's workforce.
|
| It also partners with major unions:
| https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/fight-
| for-15-teams-u...:
|
| > The campaign marks just how influential Fight for 15 has
| become since it formed in 2012. Working in partnership with
| SEIU and other advocacy groups, its workers have helped drive
| minimum wage increases in multiple states...
|
| Also, your contrarian thinking seems to carry the assumption
| that the union organizations are somehow independent of their
| membership and are more interested in the organization's
| selfish interests than the achievement of its goals, which I
| think is generally not true. If that was true, I think you'd
| need a situation where the union was both 1) a monopoly and 2)
| undemocratic, because union members are basically customers of
| their union, and those are the conditions an organization needs
| to exploit its customers.
| antattack wrote:
| For one example see culinary union and Bernie Sanders
| primaries in Nevada. [1]
|
| [1] https://theintercept.com/2020/02/23/culinary-workers-
| bucked-...
|
| I also know few instances where worker unions negotiated
| better benefits, wages for existing members while letting
| employer hire new employees at lower wages as a compromise.
| tablespoon wrote:
| Even your own link has this:
|
| > That is probably why other union leaders, like the SEIU's
| Mary Kay Henry and Association of Flight Attendants-CWA's
| Sara Nelson, support Medicare for All. The advocacy group
| Labor for Single Payer lists 21 unions who support it. But
| the controversy lingers, kept alive in part by politicians
| who oppose Medicare For All.
|
| It's not always very clear whether one healthcare plan
| would be better than another, especially when the details
| haven't actually been worked out for the replacement. It
| sounds like the Culinary Workers Union has built an
| impressive healthcare system, and wants to be sure their
| members don't have their healthcare downgraded under a new
| plan.
|
| Increased wages are much more clear cut. It's not like
| union employees making $30/hr are going to get their wages
| reset to the minimum because that was increased to $15/hr.
|
| > I also know few instances where worker unions negotiated
| better benefits, wages for existing members while letting
| employer hire new employees at lower wages as a compromise.
|
| And that's likely because those unions were in weak
| negotiating positions, not because (like you were
| originally proposing) they wanted to stand in the way of
| better worker benefits to make themselves more attractive
| in comparison. IIRC, those lower-paid new hires are _also_
| represented by the same union.
| jariel wrote:
| "This is not a speculation "
|
| It's total speculation.
| savant_penguin wrote:
| If unions are indeed so positive why do they have to force people
| into paying them dues? (Aka NY teachers unions)
|
| I'm sure many other organizations would love the power to force
| people into their subscriptions. And I'm sure their high ranking
| officials would come up with incredibly good reasons as to why
| they are absolutely essential to social justice or whatever
| tablespoon wrote:
| Same reason taxes aren't optional: freeloading.
| Context_free wrote:
| If corporations are indeed so positive why do they have to
| force people into paying them dividend profits? (Aka Fortune
| 500)
|
| I'm sure many other organizations would love the power to force
| people into their subscriptions. And I'm sure their high
| ranking officials would come up with incredibly good reasons as
| to why they are absolutely essential to social justice or
| whatever.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _force people into paying them dividend profits? (Aka
| Fortune 500)_
|
| What?
| nannal wrote:
| Isn't WaPo owned by Amazon's ex-ceo Jeff Bezos, I'd be concerned
| about a conflict of interest with regard to its reporting on the
| matter.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#The_Washington_Post
| granzymes wrote:
| > (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The
| Washington Post.)
|
| Every Post article about Amazon includes that disclaimer.
| nannal wrote:
| Once, a third of the way down the page. But sure it is there.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Newspapers need to cater to people who don't bother read
| the article?
| johnchristopher wrote:
| Of course they should. They make the titles of their
| articles very public and what they choose to report on or
| not is an important metadata.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| If this article were anti-Union, or pro-Amazon, there might
| be a case for concern. But after reading it, it seems
| somewhat pro-Union (not outright, but nothing anti-union
| that I saw) and anti-Amazon's tactics (is this mailbox in
| the parking lot legit? Amazon was being intimidating by
| putting police officers outside a warehouse during a walk
| out). Not the sort of piece you'd expect if Bezos was heavy
| handed in editorial control over the Post.
| pydry wrote:
| It benefits them more to maintain the appearance of
| objectivity while controlling the messaging.
|
| Good PR doesn't try to hide mistakes that are out in the
| open and will try to maintain the pretence of
| objectivity.
|
| It would be interesting to see how much WaPo gets the
| benefit of the doubt when reporting on Amazon here vis a
| vis RT reporting on Russia:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=rt.com
| setr wrote:
| The problem with this argument is that Washington Post
| could be 100% objective and your argument would remain
| the same. I'm not sure there was anything they could that
| would alleviate your concern, except removing bezos as
| owner altogether -- because anything they do could
| potentially benefit bezos (partly because he got some
| kind of relationship to pretty much everything at this
| point)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-09 23:02 UTC)