[HN Gopher] Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama
Author : cwwc
Score : 422 points
Date : 2021-04-09 15:15 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| delecti wrote:
| So, leaving aside why someone would or would not want to join a
| union, why is this a majority vote? If 49% of a workforce wants
| to unionize, why can't they?
| [deleted]
| vidarh wrote:
| They can, but members-only unions of the type most common in
| e.g. Europe have mostly disappeared in the US after the
| National Labour Relations Act 1935 made the current system
| possible.
|
| On one hand I can see why it was attractive for unions to push
| for it, given how brutal anti-union efforts were in the US, but
| it seems to over time have had the effect of making unions
| focus on drives to win workplace by workplace and ignoring
| places they don't see a chance of winning a full-on
| unionisation vote.
| moioci wrote:
| Not a lawyer or organized labor person, but a favorable vote
| would turn the warehouse into a "union shop," where the union
| negotiates on behalf of everyone, member or not, with regard to
| wages and working conditions and collects dues from everyone,
| member or not. In my very limited experience, the union offers
| some benefit like vision coverage to encourage people to join.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| Mostly correct, although Alabama is a "right to work" state
| which means you cannot be forced to join a union in order to
| take a job. You may be compelled to pay "agency fees" which
| are generally lower than full membership dues, though.
| underseacables wrote:
| Without force the unions can't exist. It's like a lot of things
| with government involvement: Unless you are forced to do it,
| many people, especially if money is involved, will eventually
| decide not to. So in order for the union to survive and have
| power they have to force everyone to join, everyone to pay, and
| everyone submit to its system whether they like it or not. What
| I see in this union vote is that people didn't want to give up
| their autonomy to someone else. I think anything that asks
| citizens to give up some kind of autonomy - especially now - is
| going to incite people negatively.
| vidarh wrote:
| Unions operate on a voluntary membership only basis most
| places, and plenty of countries with such systems have far
| higher unionisation rates than the US.
| tarquinpussy wrote:
| For an American libertarian, fairy stories about how the
| think the world _would_ work count for much more than
| looking at how things actually work in other places.
| tarquinpussy wrote:
| I love how libertarians come in with this kind of fairy story
| as if there aren't real world examples to look at. Here in
| England nobody forces you to join a union, it's still
| voluntary, and lots of people are members.
| teawrecks wrote:
| IANAL but my understand is that it's the difference between the
| company being allowed to fire those individuals for not doing
| what is asked of them, and being legally required to negotiate
| with them.
| intrasight wrote:
| If (when) we have firing decisions made by AI, and anyone -
| including senior managers and founders can be fired, I'll be
| those folk would (will) take a difference stance on unions.
| ipsocannibal wrote:
| Archive link: https://archive.is/DZZay
| redkoala wrote:
| Unions don't always contribute to a better outcome for their
| workers, and it looks like working conditions wasn't a strong
| enough driver for the majority of the workers. It's hard to
| motivate a vote for unions when Amazon pays double the federal
| minimum wage.
| noobermin wrote:
| Perhaps but this ignores the million+ dollar campaign Amazon
| leveraged to push people to vote no. It's not like it explains
| all the vote but it's definitely a component.
| musingsole wrote:
| I have little expectation that a propaganda campaign could
| meaningfully shift worker-voter perspectives for this
| specific vote. They're working off of the old propaganda over
| the past decades and their perspectives on the ground. The
| recent ads and such we're seeing are about the greater
| narrative and trying to set the stage for union-votes 5-10
| years from now.
| _jal wrote:
| > Unions don't always contribute to a better outcome for their
| workers
|
| You can say this about anything.
|
| Getting a job doesn't always contribute to a better outcome for
| the unemployed.
|
| Getting healthcare doesn't always contribute to better health
| outcomes.
|
| Getting housing after being homeless doesn't always lead to a
| better life.
|
| > It's hard to motivate a vote for unions when Amazon pays
| double the federal minimum wage.
|
| So many people repeating the same things over and over.
| geodel wrote:
| > So many people repeating the same things over and over.
|
| So you can tell something new. I am not sure if blue collar
| workers are looking for total revolution to overthrow this
| capitalistic system.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Yeah, but this is the problem with the current debate around
| unions. Pro-union individuals aren't willing to say, "Unions
| have some serious drawbacks" and anti-union individuals
| aren't willing to say, "Unions solve some critical issues for
| modern employees".
|
| Instead, both sides (rightfully) call each other out on their
| biases and no voter feels able to trust either side.
| kethinov wrote:
| That's a false dichotomy. The solution to a badly run union
| is to run it better, not dissolve it and surrender all your
| power to your boss, just as the solution to a badly run
| republic is to elect better leaders, not abandon democracy
| and go back to the bad old days of monarchy. Unions are
| workplace democracy. Opposing them is by definition
| supporting workplace monarchy.
| lawnchair_larry wrote:
| This is extremely ideological to the point of simply
| being untrue. The best outcome for everyone is no union
| and a supportive employer that gives you a fair deal so
| you don't want one. Unions are a huge tradeoff and better
| as a last resort.
| kethinov wrote:
| "The best outcome is no democracy and a benevolent king
| that gives you a fair deal so you don't want elections.
| Democracy has huge tradeoffs and is better only as a last
| resort."
|
| You're right. It's ideological. And you're on the wrong
| side of it.
| _jal wrote:
| > The best outcome for everyone
|
| You state it as if it is somehow obvious, but really need
| to show your work here.
|
| If it is just some reductionist claim about not having a
| third party consuming resources, that's almost too silly
| to respond to. But if you also want to forbid employers
| from hiring lawyers, at least you'd then be consistent.
| 8fGTBjZxBcHq wrote:
| I don't see how "you should just hope for an employer who
| is benevolent in spite of every possible economic
| incentive otherwise" is less idealogically motivated.
|
| But anyway yes in my case it is idealogical and I won't
| dispute that at all. Anything that reduces the power of
| companies or increases the power of works is something I
| favor regardless of political practicality.
| slantedview wrote:
| > The best outcome for everyone is no union and a
| supportive employer that gives you a fair deal so you
| don't want one
|
| This is extreme wishful thinking. The very nature of
| corporations like Amazon is in conflict with giving
| workers a "fair deal". Thus, exploitative labor practices
| exist.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't think the debate is over whether there has ever
| been any benefit or downside from any union, but rather
| what the _expected net benefit or downside_ is from any
| given union, and perhaps even more importantly, what rights
| union organizers, union opponents, and workers ought to
| have.
|
| I think it's pretty silly to quibble over whether someone
| will answer gotcha questions like "can you name one
| good/bad thing that has ever happened in a unionized/non-
| unionized workplace." That's just not relevant.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I'm not talking about whether or not unions are
| objectively good or bad. I'm talking about perception. If
| one side is attempting to withhold facts are that obvious
| and self-evident, then no one is going to trust that side
| even if they're objectively right.
|
| Consider Obamacare. Objectively, it was an awesome law
| that covered millions of previously uninsured Americans.
| However, it was a PR disaster because people were told
| they could keep their plans and their premiums wouldn't
| increase. Because of how impossible it was to lie about
| those two things and because the Obama administration
| lied about them anyway, people greatly distrusted
| Obamacare, even though most of them actually liked the
| law and its outcomes.
|
| Similarly, if a worker is told by a pro-union advocate
| that no one will lose their job with a union but that
| worker also readily sees that many workers lose their
| jobs when unions cause companies to collapse, that worker
| is going to feel lied to despite knowing that union
| membership is probably in their best interests.
| mjfl wrote:
| A lot of unions ended up being just another means for the mafia
| to steal from the poor, skimming off the top of pensions funds
| and the like. Similar corruption exists today. It is
| inevitable.
| objclxt wrote:
| > Similar corruption exists today. It is inevitable.
|
| OK, so if it's inevitably why hasn't this happened to the
| creative unions in Hollywood like SAG, WGA, the DGA, and the
| PGA?
| musingsole wrote:
| Are...are you holding up Hollywood as an example of pure,
| legal employee protections? You know, the industry largely
| stood up by largescale money laundering schemes?
| atat7024 wrote:
| Which shark do you trust to protect you?
| jhbadger wrote:
| The one you can vote for leadership. Unions are imperfect,
| but they are democracies. Corporations on the other hand
| are feudal. You don't get to vote Bezos into power as a
| worker -- he's just the lord of the manor. Some nobles are
| good and some nobles are bad, but the serfs have no say.
| lawnchair_larry wrote:
| I hate how the term privilege is thrown around these
| days, but man, this bizarre narrative reeks of privilege
| and some marxist fantasy.
|
| Bezos is in his position because of his competency. He
| built the thing. Democracy is not a virtue in a
| workplace.
| jhbadger wrote:
| When people say a CEO "built" their company, I'm reminded
| of when people say the Pharoh Kufu "built" the Great
| Pyramid. It kind of ignores the people who did the actual
| work.
|
| He's the CEO because he had a lot of money from Wall
| Street and could hire his staff. He was never tested on
| his competency. The real world is not a meritocracy.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > [Bezos] was never tested on his competency.
|
| This is extremely naive. There are lots of failed CEOs
| and failed companies. Amazon survived AND grew over 20
| years while actively fighting off competition from
| Walmart, Google, etc.
| jhbadger wrote:
| But luck is a major factor in this. If in ten years,
| Amazon tanks, history will say Bezos was a bad CEO. There
| is never a real demonstration that skill is involved.
| Some companies win and some companies lose.
| mjfl wrote:
| In 10 years it's more likely that the US govt will
| declare bankruptcy than Amazon.
| mjfl wrote:
| The employees of Amazon have never been slaves and the
| comparison is disingenuous. Saying he was never tested on
| his competency is ridiculous. There were literally
| millions of people in the USA richer than Bezos at the
| time he started Amazon. There are many people on Wall
| Street who were *orders of magnitude* richer than Bezos
| that tried to start internet companies that crashed and
| burned.
| koshnaranek wrote:
| These laws and regulations developed not just randomly
| but because corporations treated workers almost like
| slaves.
| musingsole wrote:
| > but they are democracies
|
| I really don't like democracy mixing with my business.
| It's the best, terrible system we have for when we have
| no other choice but to come to a mutual decision. But it
| really should be your last option.
| claudiawerner wrote:
| I'm not sure why it should be my last option. There are
| several problems with autocratic leadership, one of which
| is that many times, the whims of the autocrat are
| fundamentally at odds with the good of the people he
| manages.
| musingsole wrote:
| Many times, maybe, but I suppose I'm arguing it's a
| corner case.
|
| Perhaps that those power structures are so natural to us
| implies just how successful they've been in our history.
| And not in the sense that fear is a good motivator, but
| because the reality is that most principals aren't all
| that far removed from their agents.
| zenron wrote:
| Why are people in comments treating Bessemer as small town
| America. It is a part of the greater Birmingham area and Job
| opportunities abound. It's 10 or 15 minutes from
| Healthcare/Banking center clad Birmingham. If you can stomach the
| crime between Bessemer and parts of Hueytown, you can make an
| absolute boat load of money. I live like 15 minutes from Bessemer
| myself and have had to go there or through there many times.
| sb057 wrote:
| >It's 10 or 15 minutes from Healthcare/Banking center clad
| Birmingham.
|
| Notoriously easy industries for the working class poor to get
| into.
| aarongray wrote:
| Speaking as someone who lives adjacent to Bessemer but who does
| not work at Amazon, you need to understand that Bessemer is a
| dying city, a slum. These were the best paying jobs that many of
| these workers had had in their entire lives, it is no wonder that
| a majority of them decided not to bite the hand that was feeding
| them.
| slantedview wrote:
| > These were the best paying jobs that many of these workers
| had had in their entire lives
|
| Until they get hurt on the job and Amazon fires them for
| failure to show up to work:
|
| https://revealnews.org/article/how-amazon-hid-its-safety-cri...
| jandrese wrote:
| I had a feeling most people were looking at this as a vote for
| yes is a vote to close the warehouse. They would never see the
| benefit of the union because Amazon would just close the whole
| place down before they let other distribution centers see what
| a union can do.
| dTal wrote:
| Perhaps they read the cautionary tale of "Why there is no
| moloch13":
|
| https://everything2.com/title/Why+there+is+no+moloch13
| asdff wrote:
| Amazon moving into these impovershed areas, becoming the
| majority employer, and having absolute influence over the local
| governance and electorate they themselves employ makes these
| places _de facto_ a company town. Brilliant move, totally evil
| genius move, but brilliant.
| musingsole wrote:
| Carpetbaggers carpetbagging is a story as old as time. At
| least they're creating jobs and distributing money into the
| community. It's not like there's a long list of others who
| would willingly pick up the slack if they went elsewhere.
| gruez wrote:
| So let me get this straight: companies _shouldn 't_ be
| investing money into revitalizing impoverished areas?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's complicated. When you're the only game in town you
| enter an ethical gray area where the community is your
| hostage. Things seem alright now but what happens when the
| mines run dry?
| akira2501 wrote:
| > companies shouldn't be investing money into revitalizing
| impoverished areas?
|
| Isn't that what taxes are for?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Where do you think taxes come from?
| tablespoon wrote:
| > So let me get this straight: companies shouldn't be
| investing money into revitalizing impoverished areas?
|
| No, they should do so, just not be so exploitative about it
| (e.g. deliberately going into areas full of desperate
| people, for the reason of using that desperation to exert
| maximum control with minimum accountability).
| missedthecue wrote:
| The lowest paid person at Amazon is earning _well_ over
| the median wage in Bessemer, Alabama.
|
| Amazon could probably have no problem staffing the center
| at $11/hr there, but they're paying $18-$22 instead. How
| on earth can you define that as 'exploitation'? It's
| borderline charity, given the observable labor market
| equilibrium there.
| lupire wrote:
| Is the lowest Amazon job as easy and safe as the below
| median jobs in Bessemer?
|
| Speedwalking an Amazon warehouse carrying objects, run by
| hyper-optimizing automation that times tasks to the
| second, is different from leaning on idle cash register
| at McDonalds, or slowly pushing a vacuum cleaner.
| uoaei wrote:
| Paying someone more money does not make working
| conditions less exploitative.
| mariksolo wrote:
| So your issue is specifically with the mindset of the
| company, not the actions themselves? Why would a company
| ever do anything out of the goodness of their hearts?
| Shouldn't we just be looking at the result of them
| following market incentives?
| praptak wrote:
| Of course companies don't do anything out of the goodness
| of their hearts. Companies will do as much evil as they
| are allowed to and as much good as they are forced to.
|
| The society should act accordingly.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| This assumes that everything that is benefits a company
| is evil and everything that hurts a company is good.
|
| Luckily, this isn't true. There are absolutely areas
| where companies can do good and profit. Moving good jobs
| into a blighted area is a classic example of a win-win.
| The company gets low wages, and residents get some of the
| best jobs they have access to.
| mariksolo wrote:
| You're missing my point on purpose.
|
| I am trying to say there is a contradiction in what you
| are saying. You claim to want companies to move into
| impoverished areas, but also say doing that is evil. No
| company has ever moved into an impoverished area to help
| people, they have always done so out of self interest.
|
| So which do you want, companies to move into impoverished
| areas (acting evil), or not (acting good, according to
| you).
| praptak wrote:
| I want strong labor protection laws everywhere, so that
| poor regions don't have to compete on allowing companies
| to exploit the local workforce.
| awillen wrote:
| Like a $15 minimum wage? The one Amazon is paying?
| lupire wrote:
| And paying for time spent in security checkpoints, and
| not counting "walking from workstation to break room" as
| break time, and compensation for workplace injuries.
| mariksolo wrote:
| You've completely changed the direction of the argument.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| So, I think I mostly agree with your stances here, but I
| take major issue with this:
|
| > Why would a company ever do anything out of the
| goodness of their hearts?
|
| Because a company is made of people. I won't fault a
| company for following market incentives, but questions
| like yours sometimes imply that a company _shouldn 't_ do
| anything out of the goodness of their heart. Then you get
| people saying stuff like the company's goal must be to
| maximize shareholder value and stuff, and getting angry
| when a company does something out of the goodness of
| their hearts, which I take issue with. <end rant>
| mariksolo wrote:
| You're right, I could have phrased it better.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Have you ever shopped around for lower pricing? The
| collective population of the world does this when we
| chose to purchase things for cheaper prices made in
| countries with more lax environmental and labor laws.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Have you ever shopped around for lower pricing?
|
| It's one thing to shop for a lower price, it's quite
| another to notice someone's desperate and take advantage.
|
| > The collective population of the world does this when
| we chose to purchase things for cheaper prices made in
| countries with more lax environmental and labor laws.
|
| An a lot of people object to that, too, and they often
| lack the power to make any other decision.
| bluGill wrote:
| When you shop around for price you are shopping around
| for someone to exploit with the lower price. There is no
| difference, zero sum, if you get a product for less,
| somewhere in the world someone got less money.
| clevergadget wrote:
| intentionally missing the point about the amount of control
| in the hands of unelected management but ok kid
| snarf21 wrote:
| The way to solve this is with Federal worker's rights reforms
| specifically around working conditions. It is hard to see
| that happening with the government very pro-corporation right
| now.
| johncessna wrote:
| That's what they did in Seattle.
| galkk wrote:
| Amazon is situated in Seattle, and the incompetence and
| corruption of goverment here is well-known.
|
| I wouldn't search for evil intent in those moves.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| One person earning $15 Amazon in Bessemer is solidly middle
| class for that town.
|
| https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/07/22/worst-cities...
| temp8964 wrote:
| Imagining a federal $15 minimum wage will easily level up
| everyone in the town to middle class... (sarcasm)
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| Rightly so, but the issue is that the conditions pertaining
| to work in an Amazon warehouse do not lend themselves to
| being the kind of work one can do for decades+. People burn
| out, their legs grow week, and they get no insurance benefits
| for physical therapy, and that sort of thing. It's just not a
| sustainable job for most people, sadly.
| khc wrote:
| is it different from manufacturing work or work in service
| industry?
| macintux wrote:
| Amazon is infamous for absolutely driving their warehouse
| employees into the ground.
|
| I suspect manufacturing is somewhat less casual about
| their employees' health because much of it is unionized,
| and training is more difficult. Warehouse workers are
| considered disposable.
|
| And the service industry is light years easier than
| warehouse work, at least based on my time in both.
| [deleted]
| bradj wrote:
| Just as comparison, an entry level firefighter in Bessemer
| makes about $12/hour starting out.
| https://www.pbjcal.org/documents/salary/03BS/firefighter.pdf
| snarf21 wrote:
| "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His
| Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It" - Upton Sinclair
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| If Amazon is a monopsonist in the labor market, it's crazy not
| to unionize.
| lmilcin wrote:
| I wonder how much of this is strategy.
|
| Find a dying city with huge unemployment. No problem finding
| workers for a factory where most employees don't require
| anything more than ability to walk and read.
| lupire wrote:
| That's a complicated way of saying "open shop where labor is
| cheap".
|
| This why we need national and international coordination on
| minimum wage and minimum work environment laws.
| lmilcin wrote:
| I think Amazon fulfillment centers are a special case. Most
| people working there either move packages around or drive a
| truck. At least that is my understanding, somebody with
| better/first hand knowledge would be welcome to share.
|
| Normally having a huge employer would be a boon to the
| city, but most of these people are going to be working for
| close to minimum wage and Amazon most likely negotiated
| with the city so they don't have to pay a dime.
| ystad wrote:
| It's exploitation- people are attracted by $15/hour work.
| Unfortunately, the work in unsustainable on your body.
| Eventually you go on disability. This seems to be biggest
| complaint [1]
|
| 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-
| wo...
| fredstarr wrote:
| Reasonable point of view. However, have you asked why Bessemer
| is a dying city and/or a slum? Was it always a slum? Were there
| no businesses there since it was founded and incorporated?
|
| And if it was such a hell hole, why did Amazon choose to open a
| warehouse there? Out of the goodness of their hearts? We need
| to ask questions as to why Amazon had to become a "savior" for
| the City of Bessemer. Not just focusing on effects but looking
| into causes too!
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| Bessemer appears to be in the outskirts of Birmingham. Seems
| like a reasonable place to put a fulfillment center: land is
| cheaper than somewhere more central (but a warehouse doesn't
| need to be located on expensive, high demand, centrally
| located land). It's also probably a reasonable commute
| distance for many in the Birmingham metro area.
| stefan_ wrote:
| All the while, the hand was spending many multiples of their
| yearly income on telling them all the things they would have to
| go without when paying $500 in dues yearly.
|
| America is utterly rotten.
| anchpop wrote:
| Are you saying the campaign cost multiples of their yearly
| labor expenditure, or the whole plan multiples of the yearly
| pay for one employee? If it's the latter I don't see how it
| makes them rotten. That's an incredibly small expenditure,
| much less than would be paid in dues for instance
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| What exactly would the retribution from Amazon look like, had
| this passed? They can't pick up the fulfillment center and move
| it somewhere else (without inconvenience, time, and expense, of
| course). They will need workers willing to travel to Bessemer
| for work, which presumably are people who live near or adjacent
| to Bessemer.
| slantedview wrote:
| You're right, but obviously the fear of retribution was
| enough to influence the vote.
| sct202 wrote:
| They could suck up the losses of closing a 1 year old
| warehouse to send a signal. Walmart has claimed unfixable
| plumbing problems at union stores and closed them in the
| past.
| psds2 wrote:
| They also stopped selling fresh meat through a butcher
| window all across the US when the butchers unionized.
| sokoloff wrote:
| If in their judgment, it became not in their best
| interests economically for them to continue doing it,
| what else would have them do?
| kodah wrote:
| I've lived periods of life in different cultures, income
| levels, etc... It's interesting how people see things in such a
| binary sense (eg: x is good while y is bad, universally).
| Everyone does it and it presents itself differently in each
| perspective, but it's been an interesting watch.
|
| As I've grown older I've tried to resist the urge to marry
| myself to these stark beliefs. Following this thread there's a
| lot of good information on what those competing perspectives
| actually entail. In my current area, which is mostly liberals
| of varying degrees, unions are almost universally championed.
| If you ask about the downsides or present an example of how
| they can be bad you can face people who think you're some kind
| of oppressor, or that you _must_ be conservative. Where I 'm
| from, which is mostly various flavors of conservativism the
| mention of unions causes similar outrage but in the other
| direction. If you mention how a union _could be_ useful or
| various implementations that are non-stock (such as unions that
| don 't try to practice authoritarian control over pay and just
| maintain representation for working conditions) then you'll be
| demonized for being a socialist. I used to think, "these are
| bad people of varying variety" but I've come to understand
| they're just people without experience in each other's
| geography and problem set, so it becomes easier to speak
| dogmatically.
|
| Sometimes a union can be good, sometimes it can be bad,
| sometimes it's a bit of both pending nuance and implementation
| details, but at the end of the day this is a truth: the only
| people whose opinion matters is the people whose lives it will
| directly affect.
| FredPret wrote:
| Ah, nuanced centrism. The golden midway. This is where
| progress is made.
| Diederich wrote:
| Wow, you're not kidding.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer,_Alabama#Economy
|
| "Crime increased following the rise in unemployment and social
| disruption from the decline of manufacturing industries in the
| area. As of 2019 Bessemer ranks first in terms of violent
| crimes for US cities with 25,000 or more people."
|
| Population has fallen from its peak in 1970 of 33k to 26k
| today.
|
| Thanks for the reference.
|
| EDIT: Also home to the world's oldest chicken, who lived 16
| years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_(chicken)
| kryogen1c wrote:
| > Also home to the world's oldest chicken, who lived 16 years
|
| _frowns in Colorado_
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken
| Bluestein wrote:
| I hereby humbly move to make Matilda the Chicken (or Mike,
| the Headless) the oficial Amazon mascot. Votes welcome :)
| Funny enough, I have no heavenly idea how, I had actually
| run into the article on poor Mike before.-
| Further edit: Come to think, poor Mike the "headless" would
| be a great mascot for -at least- AWS, for obvious, ssh-
| related reasons :)
| FearlessNebula wrote:
| I'm stupid, but why does unemployment cause violent crime?
| lsiebert wrote:
| When people don't have legally acquired money to exchange
| for things they need like food, they turn to other means to
| acquire those things.
|
| Also when people believe that they can't, by legal and
| socially acceptable means, thrive, their belief in the
| current social order is undermined. A lot of society
| operates on trust in fundamental fairness; for people who
| find that life is fundamentally unfair, that trust is
| eroded, sometimes permanently.
| fooey wrote:
| Hungry people don't just quietly starve to death,
| especially if they have other people depending on them.
| [deleted]
| jandrese wrote:
| Are you asking why people who have run out of money might
| turn to stealing? Even if you are trying to be nonviolent a
| life of crime is hard and eventually you'll find yourself
| in a situation where you have to use violence because there
| is nothing else to turn to. You certainly can't go to the
| cops.
| macintux wrote:
| Plus, once you have a felony on your record, your job
| prospects go to absolute shit, so it's hard to avoid
| crime as a way to survive.
| zwkrt wrote:
| You're not stupid you've just never had to deal with a real
| actual problem in your life.
|
| Unemployment is a cause of or certainly concomitant with
| having very high stress and a very poor outlook on the
| future. In a town like Bessemer the thought process is
| something like "I don't have a job, I'm not going to get
| one, I have no money, and this situation is not going to
| change." And it's not just you thinking this, you see your
| friends and family having the same problems. You reach out
| for help but after a while the good graces of others run
| out. So do unemployment checks.
|
| After a few months you get evicted, so no one else will
| rent to you, and you are either homeless or at least not in
| control of your living situation. A slum lord may be
| involved. The food bank (which was already not a great
| source of food) is now useless since you need a kitchen to
| make most of the raw supplies they hand out.
|
| The stress and pressure to take care of ones self and ones
| family under these conditions often leads so serious mental
| health issues, drug use, and domestic violence. For some it
| leads to other crimes like stealing, mostly stealing food
| or stealing things to buy food and drugs. You see your
| friends falling victim to these issues, getting arrested,
| dying of exposure, or losing themselves to mental illness.
| Prospects don't look good.
| mjevans wrote:
| No way out either. In a literal sense. There's no
| national program for helping people relocate to areas
| where they can have a meaningful job, a home that's
| affordable to OWN, and hopefully also community as a
| result. I'm NOT saying it should be forced, I'm saying it
| should be an option.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| There have been plenty of attempts to do so...but if you
| thought cache invalidation was a hard problem, welcome to
| sociology.
|
| One of the most infamous is/was New York City's SOTA
| program [1], which attempted to relocate and provide one
| year's rent for people from NYC's shelters. They
| basically shipped families and individuals out of state
| to other cities, hoping they'd find a job and affordable
| housing there. NYC is an economic powerhouse if you're
| credentialed and high enough on the treadmill to make it
| work, but not an area you want to start out with nothing;
| you can imagine that someone had the bright idea that
| there are cheap houses and entry-level manufacturing jobs
| in other growing cities, someone homeless and jobless
| might have a better chance of integrating into society
| than panhandling on Wall St.
|
| The program met with outrage from the destination cities
| whenever anyone (utterly broke, with a history of
| homelessness, with no local family or connections...the
| program worked for some but did not for others) ended up
| in trouble and the locals found out they'd come from NYC.
| Turns out a lot of people would rather have their bright
| and bustling new-money "innovation hubs" and "tech
| corridors" unsullied by undesirables from dying cities.
|
| It's one thing to turn a saloon and general store into a
| quaint Old West ghost town when the gold mine runs out.
| It's another to turn dying cities that once had
| populations of millions working in bustling industries of
| rail, coal, steel, or automotive manufacturing (like
| Bessemer, named after the inventor of the Bessemer steel
| converter, or other cities like St Louis, Detroit,
| Cleveland, Gary, Flint, Dayton, etc.) into not just the
| current Rust Belt cities but an enormous ghost
| metropolis.
|
| 1: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/hra/help/sota.page
| bsanr2 wrote:
| No national program to build where people are, either.
| Which is a shame, because we're the country that built
| the Interstate Highway System, and a national rail system
| before it. The truth is that the hyper-local nature of
| our politics leads to disparity as much as it does
| prosperity, and the two often go hand-in-hand. There are
| too many rich towns filled with professionals and
| managers with a nearby slum that supplies all of the
| menial and service labor, but we're probably not ready to
| talk about what the remedy to that looks like, and I'm
| not certain we ever will be.
| zenron wrote:
| I think you may be projecting here. There are
| millionaires living in Bessemer. Bessemer is right next
| to down town Birmingham, Hoover, Homewood, Fultondale,
| Gardendale, Chelsea and a not too long drive from
| Tuscaloosa. There is so much money here for most
| industries. The cost of living in the GBA isn't much at
| all especially north on I65. Also, while it is true
| Bessemer is more or less impoverished in the city it has
| some really beautiful outskirts. People who live there
| absolutely do not have to work there.
| cheeze wrote:
| > you've just never had to deal with a real actual
| problem in your life
|
| I don't follow how you made that assumption about OP of
| the comment
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Meh; a bit patronizing but I get the point he was trying
| to make quickly and succinctly - problems are relative;
| somebody who's been close to a desperate situation WILL
| have much more of an intuitive/experiential understanding
| of the issue, options, temptations, emotions, constraints
| involved.
|
| (noting there's a difference between "I'm a student
| living with parents, I'd like a job but can't get one so
| I'm unemployed" and "I have 3 kids and a sickly partner
| and I'm overdue on rent and I'm unemployed and I have no
| social/family safety net")
|
| I wouldn't call it "not having a real actual problem" -
| again, it's relative and so on; but a charitable read as
| "never been on brink of famine/poverty" may be a good
| interpretation?
| relaxing wrote:
| You wouldn't ask that question if you had.
| gambiting wrote:
| But that's still rudely assuming that there is only one
| kind of " real actual problem in your life", meaning =
| problem with money and/or unemployment.
|
| Is having to make a decision to take your child off life
| support a "real actual problem in your life"? How about
| being told that your visa won't be renewed and you have
| to leave your entire life, job, friends and family behind
| and move somewhere else? Is that a "real actual problem
| in your life"? How about a cancer diagnosis? A cheating
| spouse?
|
| Not all "real actual problems" in life have to be related
| to money - you can have plenty of it and still be in an
| extremely difficult and distressing situation in your
| life, which won't naturally lead to increase in
| violence(cancer diagnosis is probably one of the worst
| events you can have in your life and yet I cannot imagine
| it's corellated to increase in violence rates at all). I
| frankly also find the attitude of the previous poster to
| be condescening and jugemental.
| croh wrote:
| Agree with you. Real hard time starts when you lose REAL
| hope about future.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| Starve your self for a week. Hunger will make you do things
| you never thought you would/could do.
| soledades wrote:
| Unemployment -> desperation -> crime
| natchy wrote:
| True, also add extra time on your hands. Poverty +
| boredom.
| chad_strategic wrote:
| Unemployment -> desperation = Revolution or Riots or
| Crime or Terrorism
| markdown wrote:
| It doesn't in developed countries, because they have a
| strong social safety net.
|
| But in countries going through late stage capitalism, if
| you don't have a job, you have to rob your neighbour to
| eat.
| yardie wrote:
| Unemployment itself doesn't cause crime, but unemployment
| and a weak social safety net will definitely cause crime.
| I've lived in Western Europe countries with absurdly high
| unemployment rates, to this American, >10%, 25% youth, and
| I never felt unsafe, mostly. You got a stipend, subsidized
| housing, and job training.
|
| But in the US, unemployment, desperation, and easy access
| to firearms can be a big problem.
|
| BTW, I'm still shocked by the casualness of people who
| threaten to shoot me. Or like to show they are armed in an
| attempt to intimidate me.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| Except there are two problems with this theory. One
| unemployment is just as correlated with crimes of passion
| as it is crimes of opportunity. There's no reason why a
| lack of job training should lead to rape.
|
| Two is that America's high crime rates well preceded the
| advent of the modern welfare state. New York had much
| higher crime than London even in the 19th century at the
| height of Victorian social Darwinism and Dickensian work
| houses. If anything the disparity has actually
| _decreased_ in the post war period.
|
| The short answer is America, and in fact the Western
| Hemisphere in general, is just a much more violent
| society at its roots than the Old World.
| curryst wrote:
| > One unemployment is just as correlated with crimes of
| passion as it is crimes of opportunity. There's no reason
| why a lack of job training should lead to rape.
|
| I think there is a clear reason: nihilism and depression.
| If you have resigned yourself to being unemployed and
| impoverished forever, what difference does it make
| whether you're in jail or not? It's the same reason we
| argue that jailing the homeless is pointless. They don't
| care; life in prison might even be better in terms of
| quality of life. Sure, there's less freedom, but the
| poorer you are, the less the delta in freedom is. You
| don't have access to a lot of the freedom that
| financially healthy people have to begin with. Jailing
| them is like trying to drown a fish. We don't have any
| functional punishments for people who don't care about
| their life (I'm not advocating that we try to invent
| some).
|
| You mentioned rape specifically. The prevailing theory
| afaik is that rape is about control over someone else
| rather than sexual gratification. There are plenty of
| ways to have sex; the floor on sex worker prices is
| shockingly low. Doubly so in extremely poor areas. It's
| not shocking to me that people with almost no control
| over their lives would lash out in ways that grant them
| control, or at least a feeling of control. If you're poor
| and have no safety net, you have little control over your
| housing (can't afford to move), your job (don't have a
| rainy day fund to tell your boss to fuck off), your food
| (you eat what's cheap, or what the food bank will give
| you), your money (you're lucky if you even have enough to
| pay bills, much less have money left over that you can
| pick what to do with), etc. Your life becomes a constant
| chain of being shunted around and manipulated by people
| who do have money.
|
| Crimes of opportunity are an attempt to lift yourself out
| of poverty. Crimes of passion are an attempt to cope with
| the struggles of living a life that you have almost no
| control over.
|
| I'm not attempting to absolve anyone of responsibility
| for their actions, but I can see how someone would make
| that choice.
|
| Also, suicide is an act of passion, and it's highly
| correlated with unemployment.
| antonf wrote:
| > much more violent society at its roots than the Old
| World
|
| I am originally from Russia, but live in US. I actually
| feel safer in US than in Russia.
|
| It is far easier to get assaulted as result of road rage
| or because somebody don't like how you dress in Russia.
| Hopefully Russia have stricter gun laws, so it's less
| lethal.
| squidlogic wrote:
| As a US native I've never had someone threaten to shoot
| me or show me they were armed to intimidate me. I'm not
| exactly living a sheltered life either.
|
| I have a few questions, sorry if this sounds like a lot
| I'm just really curious.
|
| What city are you in where this happens? What are you
| doing to provoke this kind of behavior? Why haven't you
| moved away to somewhere safer?
| WalterBright wrote:
| I have. Seattle. I was mugged by 3 armed teenage
| hoodlums. It was a long time ago, but I still have a bad
| reaction when people come up behind me.
| mattlondon wrote:
| In my experience it happens a fair bit at the long, long,
| long immigration lines at US air ports if you are not a
| US citizen. Guards fondling their gun holster and
| shouting at people for using a phone or sitting on the
| floor after queuing for 3 or 4 hours. Welcome to America.
| I guess you don't experience this if you are a US native.
|
| And also obviously it happens frequently in SF from the
| homeless people. That is probably more worrying as they
| potentially have "nothing to lose"
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I have traveled extensively to the US (I am French),
| probably 10+ times a year. The way people are "welcomed"
| to the US is horrible - I felt like this only in Russia.
|
| Once the border officer asked me (or rather - barked at
| me) "why are you coming to the US?", to what I said "for
| business".
|
| "For how long?" - to what I answered "for 3 days"
|
| He then asks "why so short?" to what I answered "I swear
| if I could squeeze it to one day I would gladly come and
| go not to spend money in a country that is so welcoming"
| (it was a very long, tiring flight and I really wanted to
| go to the hotel, afer having queued up for 2 hours)
|
| He told me that I should not reply like this, to what I
| said that this is the truth. We had a small staring
| contest and he let me go.
|
| The other similar case in Russia was when the border
| guard was yelling at me for not having my passport number
| printed on my ticket (yes, I do not know either), to
| which I yelled back to kick me out of their country with
| a "never return" stamp because I am fed up enough to have
| a week-end ruined with tha travel. I showed him my hands
| together (as in "handcuff me") and he pushed me into
| Russia. The stay was great, people were great.
| lhorie wrote:
| Had a strange experience in my last entry into the US
| myself. I have a Canadian passport, but have a US green
| card.
|
| Officer (in a rather rude tone): "what were you doing in
| Canada?"
|
| Me (sleepy and a bit disoriented): "sorry?"
|
| Officer (suddenly seems to realize that he has my green
| card in front of him): "Never mind, you're good to go"
|
| My best guess is that he was just too conditioned to
| grasp at straws for reasons to give people a hard time,
| until realizing he couldn't deny entry to a green card
| holder.
| yardie wrote:
| > "I swear if I could squeeze it to one day I would
| gladly come and go not to spend money in a country that
| is so welcoming"
|
| This is what greeted my family every time we came to the
| US. Which fucked up ICE agent will we get this time? Most
| of them were pleasant but it only takes 1 asshole in the
| bunch to ruin a great holiday.
|
| And no matter what they say, Canada's ICE weren't much
| better.
| filoleg wrote:
| Yeah, I (as a US immigrant) personally had way more
| problems with Canadian ICE than the US one.
|
| Semi-relevant anecdote: I was traveling in my car with my
| mom and sister to Vancouver BC from Seattle (back when I
| was not a US citizen yet). Canadian officer at the border
| was more than just inquisitive. He asked who i was, where
| i worked, which team i worked on, what specific product I
| worked on and what specifically I did (which was already
| making me feel uncomfortable, because the product wasn't
| public back then, so I wasn't really allowed to talk
| about it in general). The questioning itself took like 10
| mins and was absolutely unnecessary. Not even mentioning
| how aggressive he was, I felt like I was an inch away
| from being escorted to their "office" for additional
| questioning. And I am saying that as someone who doesn't
| usually feel threatened much by any interactions with
| officers.
|
| On the way back into the US, however, it was buttery
| smooth. The officer confiscated the grapes my mother
| tried bringing back with her (despite me urging her not
| to do so), and he was extremely apologetic about it. Then
| he said "welcome home", and that was it. Took less than a
| minute overall.
|
| Not trying to generalize anything from this, as, of
| course, the experiences differ wildly between individual
| border officers and such. I just thought it was an
| interesting semi-relevant anecdote.
| selestify wrote:
| Wow, as a US citizen I've faced much more scrutiny from
| Canadian border agents than US ones. Also at the border
| between Vancouver and Seattle.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Given that Americans are generally warm and approachable,
| it is quite surprising just how hostile their border
| officials.
| Diederich wrote:
| I grew up in south-central Los Angeles in the 1970s and
| 1980s and I witnessed several incidents of gun violence,
| one of which was fatal, and I was personally fired at on
| two different occasions. These were all gang related,
| random acts of violence, though neither myself nor
| anybody I happened to be near at the time was in a gang.
|
| > What are you doing to provoke this kind of behavior?
|
| Standing on the sidewalk, hanging out with friends.
|
| > Why haven't you moved away to somewhere safer?
|
| I left when I was 18.
|
| I'd be happy to entertain any additional questions you or
| others might have.
| selestify wrote:
| That's nuts, thanks for sharing.
|
| Would you happen to know why gangs would bother doing
| random acts of violence against teenagers standing on the
| sidewalk? I'd heard that the Italian mafia at least likes
| to keep themselves out of the public eye, interesting
| that other gangs don't.
| yardie wrote:
| Miami. A city with notoriously bad drivers some of them
| armed. It's better now but was a hell of a lot worse when
| I was growing up, the 90s. But you can pick any major
| city and ask a local where not to go, and just don't go
| there.
|
| Driving, riding my bike, walking. When I was a kid simply
| walking to school was enough. But people will threaten to
| shoot you for turning, not driving fast enough, merging,
| stopping, not stopping. Riding a bike in the right lane.
|
| Growing up down here you get used to it. Far too many
| Americans have access to guns. Hopefully, they only use
| it on themselves. But even if only 1% of gun owners were
| certifiable crazy, that's still over a 1 million unhinged
| individuals.
|
| I moved to Europe for a time. But career and family
| brought me back here. And I like money :-)
| kenjackson wrote:
| Road rage is definitely the fastest escalation path I've
| seen in the US. Do other countries have road rage the way
| the US does?
| subsubzero wrote:
| >BTW, I'm still shocked by the casualness of people who
| threaten to shoot me. Or like to show they are armed in
| an attempt to intimidate me.
|
| What? Where in the US do you live? I've lived in the US
| my entire life and never, not once has anyone ever
| threatened to shoot me. Thats a felony in itself and I am
| really surprised by that.
| yardie wrote:
| If you commute long enough through places of high poverty
| you'll have some stories. I'd get a gun pulled on me for
| driving. I'd also have friends and colleagues brag to me
| about pulling guns on other drivers. I'd tell them they
| were crazy but in their mind it's a completely valid
| reaction.
| ameister14 wrote:
| I had a guy threaten to shoot me in Kentucky once when I
| was working with him on the Ohio River - more of a 'I
| have a rifle in my truck' than a 'pointing a gun at you'
| kind of a threat though.
| Diederich wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26755014
|
| The US is a big, diverse place with a lot of history.
| hdctambien wrote:
| It's used as a joke in a lot of circles. "My daughter's
| old enough to date, I better clean my gun"
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| No income > can't pay bills or buy necessities >
| desperation > mild panic & muddied thinking while looking
| for any way to make money > overrides the inner restraint
| against crime.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Choices are about incentives. If you feel you've got
| nothing to lose you're willing to risk it all.
| tombert wrote:
| I think being really broke greatly hinders your ability to
| think rationally.
|
| I never committed any violent crimes, but I know throughout
| most of 2016 I was really really broke (about $15,000
| credit card debt, 3 months of unpaid rent, a lawsuit from
| my landlord for the back rent). In the process I debated
| reaching out to one of those payday loan places, despite
| the fact that I _knew_ they were scams. My desperate brain
| was overriding my logical brain.
|
| I can only assume I'm not unique in this fact; if it comes
| down to mugging someone or not eating for a week, I'm not
| 100% sure which option I would choose. I would like to
| think that I would never hurt someone, but since 2017 or
| so, I've had a pretty privileged life.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Sounds like it hints at a nasty feedback loop. "Are they
| stuck in financial trouble because of poor impulse
| control or are they stuck with poor impulse control
| because of financial trouble?" Singular they that is.
|
| It is easier to think long term while feeling secure but
| not thinking long term can lead to becoming insecure. Not
| trying to make any moral or blame judgements here - just
| pondering origins of problems and solutions.
| tguedes wrote:
| This used to be a debate and it's really not anymore. It
| was primarily the right that used to argue that the
| reason people committed crime was because of their
| attitudes and social norms. But with over the last few
| decades, large parts of white Midwest and Appalachia are
| facing the exact same circumstances that inner cities
| faced for decades. So even some conservatives have
| started to agree with the side of crime follows economics
| rather than economics follows crime.
| tombert wrote:
| I won't speak for anyone else, but I feel that I normally
| have reasonably good impulse control, even in 2016; I got
| into debt because a company I was working for ended up
| not paying me for multiple months and then shut down, and
| I didn't have much savings.
|
| I think my lack of impulse control came as a direct cause
| of me being broke. I had previously never seriously
| considered any kind of payday loan because I knew they
| were multi-thousand-percent levels of interest, but that
| part of my brain wasn't the one thinking. When faced with
| a really tough situation, I think it's common for your
| "survivalist" side to kick in.
|
| I never actually did get the payday loan because I was
| able to (begrudgingly) get a loan from my stepfather-in-
| law for the back rent, and I very luckily landed a
| decent-paying job shortly afterwards.
|
| I was absolutely one of the lucky ones. It's not hard at
| all for me to envision a universe where I was stuck in an
| endless cycle of debt, and honestly I still have
| nightmares about that time occasionally. Not fun.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > In the process I debated reaching out to one of those
| payday loan places, despite the fact that I knew they
| were scams.
|
| Because they're not, the idea that they are is
| paternalistic bullshit from the kind of people who get
| their news from John Oliver.
|
| Debt can be dangerous, and payday loans are
| commensurately more so due to their high rates. But debt
| is a _tool_, and just like middle- and upper-income folks
| can use it to prevent disaster or rationally extend
| themselves, lower-income people can too. Not having
| access to credit isn't a _good_ thing per se.
|
| Whenever people have actually bothered to look into the
| use of payday loans instead of pearl-clutching about how
| the poor don't know what's good for them, they've found
| that much of the clientele is making rational decisions.
| As bad as a high-interest loan sounds to privileged
| sensibilities, the alternative is often worse. It's just
| more diffuse and thus easier to ignore.
| tombert wrote:
| I guess I am one of those kind of people who get their
| news from John Oliver.
|
| Maybe I was being a bit hyperbolic when I said "scam"
| since they usually do what they advertise. Let me
| rephrase: they have ridiculously high interest rates that
| can lead to difficult-to-escape debt, and they are
| predatory towards desperate people, hence why you usually
| see them in poorer neighborhoods.
|
| Debt is absolutely a tool and I wasn't claiming
| otherwise, so when I said "scam", what I really meant was
| "the worst possible way to leverage debt".
| tw04 wrote:
| Spoken like someone who has never lived paycheck to
| paycheck and been caught in a debt spiral.
|
| You are correct, not having access to credit is a bad
| thing. But having access to predatory credit is a WORSE
| thing. There's a reason we outlawed indentured slavery
| and "company scrip", and payday loans are a half a step
| up from that situation.
| gambiting wrote:
| The reason why payday loans are allowed is that just like
| with drugs - outlawing them doesn't mean people don't
| seek them out. It's better to have access to a legal and
| well regulated payday lender business, rather than
| letting people borrow money from the "pay us back or
| else" kind. And they absolutely will, desperate people
| will seek out desperate solutions.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > Spoken like someone who has never lived paycheck to
| paycheck and been caught in a debt spiral.
|
| Respectfully, go fuck yourself, you know nothing about
| me. You don't even seem to know what _you're_ talking
| about: poverty spirals don't disappear when you remove
| access to credit. I'm all for regulating payday lenders:
| the industry can be riven with fraud and rate regulation
| on the margins can smooth out the tradeoff between
| expanded credit access and debt traps. But my comment was
| in response to a comment claiming that they're always
| scams; spend five minutes educating yourself and you'll
| find plenty of examples of people who've actually
| bothered to look at the lives of people on the demand
| side of payday loans, like this New Yorker
| journalists[1].
|
| It takes a lot of privilege and callous disregard for the
| poor to arrive at the idiocy of claiming that it's always
| a _good_ thing to remove a bad option from someone with
| only bad options.
|
| [1] https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-
| good-are-pa...
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Your arguments are entirely theoretical while ignoring
| the fact that payday loan businesses are regularly shut
| down for fraud. Just because debt as a concept isn't
| flawed doesn't mean the people selling debt are moral.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Tucker_(businessman)
|
| Likewise, just because I post one extreme example of
| payday loan businesses being a fraud doesn't invalidate
| the entire industry. As a whole though, I feel the
| industry is quite scummy and often scammy.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > Your arguments are entirely theoretical while ignoring
| the fact that payday loan businesses are regularly shut
| down for fraud
|
| I alluded to empirical evidence of their usefulness.
| Here's a study from the FDIC[1]. It's dated, but there
| are structural conclusions about the way payday loans
| work and why their rates are so high.
|
| I don't see the relevance of specific payday lenders
| being shut down for fraud. Individual cases of fraud
| should be cracked down upon, and its widespread
| prevalence in an industry suggests that regulation is
| potentially a good idea. But neither of these
| automatically negate the usefulness of a service, just as
| the bad behavior of the banking industry doesn't make a
| bank account useless.
|
| > Likewise, just because I post one extreme example of
| payday loan businesses being a fraud doesn't invalidate
| the entire industry.
|
| Yes, this is my point. The comment I responded to and
| that I quoted from said:
|
| > I debated reaching out to one of those payday loan
| places, despite the fact that I knew they were scams
|
| The point of my comment is that they can be useful, and
| the GP's shame at considering an option he "knew" was a
| scam is unwarranted and down to midwit elites who are
| quick to fuck the poor over in the name of paternalistic,
| performative virtue, but never bother to understand them
| as agents making decisions that are sometimes
| unintuitively rational.
|
| [1] https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/cfr/2005/wp2005/
| 2005-09...
| smiley1437 wrote:
| I'm sorry but in Ontario, prior to January 1, 2017, the
| charge was $21 per $100 advanced, an effective interest
| rate of _14,299%_ (not a typo)
|
| That's not using debt as a 'tool', that is weaponizing it
| against those can't fend for themselves.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Honest question -- what's stopping anyone from entering
| the market, offering much lower interest rates than that,
| and outcompeting all existing participants?
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| In principle, the debt market charges rates that are
| commensurate with the risk of repayment. Some studies[0]
| show a relatively high default rate for payday loans.
| Moreover, the people who borrow from these facilities
| likely have very poor credit scores.
|
| That's not a comment on the fairness of the rate charged.
| But if there is a sufficient amount of competition among
| lenders, and they were effectively regulated and
| monitored, we could expect their rates are enough to
| allow them to make a reasonable profit in spite of the
| risk of default.
|
| [0] https://thehill.com/regulation/237538-borrowers-
| default-on-n...
| kenniskrag wrote:
| In some country consumer credits are regulated and the
| interest rate is capped. Also it is not legal in some
| country to grant a credit if the lender cant't pay it
| back (e.g. in the european union)
| gambiting wrote:
| >> Also it is not legal in some country to grant a credit
| if the lender cant't pay it back (e.g. in the european
| union
|
| European Union is not a country and every member state
| has their own rules regulating this, there isn't one
| payday lenders rulebook across the entire EU.
|
| As for what you said - it's true, except that it boils
| down to a checkbox on the form "are you able to make
| repayments on this loan?" and that's about it, that takes
| care of the legal side of things.
| GhostVII wrote:
| I agree that there are cases where a payday loan is a
| good option, and that if people behaved rationally it
| would be objectively better to have that option than to
| not have it. The problem is that people don't behave
| rationally. And behaving irrationally isn't isolated to
| poor people (lots of people get 96 month loans on
| expensive cars they can't afford), but it hurts them the
| most.
|
| Reminds me of an anecdote from poor African countries.
| Farmers would buy fertilizer months before they needed
| it, even though it is logically better for them to save
| that money and only buy the fertilizer when they needed
| it (assuming the price of the fertilizer was constant).
| But they knew if they had the money the would be tempted
| to spend it in the meantime, so they bought it early to
| avoid the temptation.
|
| Payday loans can encourage people to take out a loan and
| spend money even in cases where it would be better for
| them to find an alternative.
| tombert wrote:
| Sure, but it almost seems like you are justifying
| predatory behavior. When people are really desperate
| they'll do anything to survive, and providing a 14000%
| loan to people feels like you're just exploiting people's
| survivalist instincts.
|
| Also, a lot of these payday loans are just flat-out
| illegal. If you look up usury laws in the US, they
| typically cap interest at somewhere around ~25% per
| year[1], and the highest I could find was on the order of
| 400% per year [2]. I didn't check every state so it's
| possible there are some that don't have any caps, but my
| point is that very often these payday loans are literally
| breaking the law by charging absurd interest rates.
|
| [1] https://paydayloaninfo.org/state-information/40 [2]
| https://paydayloaninfo.org/state-information/17
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Having access / option for credit may be a good thing.
| Using a loan rationally may be a good thing.
|
| Not sure where you get _your_ news /experience from ;),
| but I don't see how any of those arguments apply to
| payday loan places - in every country, city, society I've
| lived in, they a) were shut down for fraud and
| exploitation anytime anybody bothered to look &
| investigate b) are universally demonstrated and proven to
| prey upon those who can least afford it. These are not
| benevolent capitalists trying to help those who nobody
| else would help - the owners are shameless sharks
| exploiting and manipulating people into a vicious cycle.
|
| (FWIW I'm not going to downvote, I actually upvoted -
| your perspective is interesting and must as I may
| disagree I'd like to hear more and maybe be educated,
| rather than shut the debate down; but I'd like to see
| some "counter-John-Oliver" studies and stats to go
| against the ones I think most of us have seen)
|
| Edit: I mean heck, like with smoking, government here
| will try their best to talk you out of it; you can still
| do it, as an adult human being... but it's just a bad,
| bad idea
|
| https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-
| agency/services/...
| [deleted]
| xcambar wrote:
| Thanks for the honest story, congrats on pulling yourself
| out of debt and into (quoting you) privileged life.
|
| I see the HN crowd as rather monotonic, and thanks to
| stories like yours, it shows me wrong, and that's for the
| best.
| tombert wrote:
| Thanks. It wasn't easy but to be honest having a high-
| paying engineering job certainly helps. I have no idea
| how I would have escaped that cycle if I had a lower-
| paying job.
| godfreyantonell wrote:
| Good for you. I like seeing stories like this, especially
| in here.
| hoophoop wrote:
| > I think being really broke greatly hinders your ability
| to think rationally.
|
| No: being really broke _can_ cause a lot of anxiety that
| _can_ lead to irrational behavior.
|
| But often a person has to choose between homelessness and
| crime and picks the latter _as a rational choice_ , given
| the alternative.
|
| So please don't assume poor = "crazy" = criminal, it's a
| bit unkind.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| Among other things, unemployment is bad for your city's tax
| base.
|
| Law enforcement can probably withstand some budget cuts
| before public safety suffers, and leaders probably cut
| other things first, but at some point it might have an
| effect.
| yuppie_scum wrote:
| The easiest way to answer this is to just say go watch The
| Wire.
| kpennell wrote:
| thx for the chicken edit
| echelon wrote:
| A surprisingly detailed Wikipedia article.
|
| Random internet serendipity, shift in topic and mood. We
| live in such an interesting and strange universe.
| [deleted]
| labster wrote:
| What the cluck?
| nimbius wrote:
| >a majority of them decided not to bite the hand that was
| feeding them.
|
| How did we as a nation go from the land of the free, a chicken
| in every pot and a car in every garage, to "beg for scraps or
| you will starve."
| paxys wrote:
| > land of the free, a chicken in every pot and a car in every
| garage
|
| All of this has always been propaganda, nothing more. The
| average unskilled worker has never had a good life in
| America.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Has the average unskilled worker "had a good life" at any
| time or place in the Earth's history?
| yeetman21 wrote:
| who the fuck is begging for scraps. with 15$ an hour they are
| living like kings in their hometown, above the median income
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| No one is living like kings on $15 per hour anywhere in the
| US. Unless your definition of kings includes lack of
| retirement security, income security, health security, and
| working back breaking shift work at odd hours. They will
| especially be vulnerable in their 50 to 65 years, when they
| will become unemployable for manual labor work.
|
| They'll be able to put a roof over their head, and not
| worry about their kids' next meal or maybe even their kid
| breaking their arm. But they're not going to advance to the
| next rung of the socioeconomic ladder.
| lolinder wrote:
| Above the median income in a small town doesn't mean you've
| got a great absolute standard of living, it just means
| you're better off than others in your town.
|
| If a company can sell its products two towns over for 2x
| the price Bessemer can afford, it's not going to slash
| prices in Bessemer just because _everyone_ there is poor.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Black people might object to the US once being "land of the
| free." In fact, almost every unskilled worker might.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| The hand feeds them in exchange of their work. It's not some
| benevolent entity providing out of goodness.
|
| They voted to allow the "hand" to maximize exploitation without
| restraint.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| What would Amazon do if they did Unionize? Move the warehouse?
| bena wrote:
| Possible. As others have noted, WalMart has done similar
| things.
|
| I think a retail/warehouse workers' union only really works
| if it's a national sort with local chapters so that a company
| can't hire except through a union.
|
| I'm not saying such a situation isn't rife with its own
| problems, but as long as these unions are essentially on a
| per-location basis, a company with the resources can always
| close one location and open up down the street to avoid the
| union.
| bluGill wrote:
| Unions need several things to work: two of the big ones are
| a job such that you cannot replace someone easily; and a
| sense that "we are all in it together".
|
| If you don't have the first it is easy to replace anyone
| striking, and the union doesn't have power. If you don't
| have the second the better employees will want more money
| and so they won't work with the lesser ones
|
| In retail it is generally easy to replace people. It only
| takes a few minutes of training and the new person will
| figure it out.
|
| In retail there are a lot of different jobs. People who can
| do more (and have been around longer) are worth more. Many
| of the jobs do have metrics that can be measured to say who
| is better. While the pay this results in isn't much more,
| it is enough.
|
| That isn't to say you need the above to have a union. There
| are counter examples that work, but they are less powerful
| than unions that have those factors because they find it
| harder to get everyone to stand together.
|
| As such retail unions have trouble working. It is too easy
| to hire someone else if they go on strike.
| jandrese wrote:
| Yes. This is why unions have to be big to be effective. The
| union has to be big enough to cover anywhere the company
| might be able to move to. This is why the Teamsters work so
| well, you can't outsource US trucking to Namibia.
|
| This is also why the UAW started dying once containerized
| shipping made it practical to move factories overseas.
| Shivetya wrote:
| I am asking for it but what the hell.
|
| I was a union member back in the last 1980s through 1990s
| early. I was in a low skilled job where we paid our dues and
| got exactly nothing for it. Oh we had a wonderful contract that
| specified it all. It was great for basically keeping anyone new
| boxed in. Each quarter if we were lucky we got a visit by our
| local union rep in her Mercedes which cost more than many of us
| made a year. So I am so not a big union supporter and lean
| against them.
|
| On another personal note, they spent decades harassing my
| uncles, now cousins industrial roofing business calling OSHA
| and other inspectors out to where even the OSHA representatives
| joked about it. It became a coffee break for them. All this
| over a company with less than thirty people at max.
|
| So while they may have some application on higher paid jobs
| when you are low wage there isn't much they do for you other
| than suck two hours of wages or more from you each month.
|
| People here glorify unions have no experience with them at the
| level that would have been seen in Amazon. They have these
| grandiose ideas how everyone benefits. Oh don't get me wrong,
| you are likely to get some changes that are beneficial, but in
| the end you are still exactly where you are before but now its
| all in nice pretty print writing which spells out exactly how
| you aren't going anywhere fast. Oh, don't forget the monthly
| payout (could be weekly in some places) and don't expect much
| if you ever actually reach strike stage.
| uoaei wrote:
| This is what happens when union reps are in bed with the
| company they're supposedly holding to account. It happens
| because of corruption and nepotism, not because of
| unionization.
|
| I might recommend to watch _Waiting For Lefty_ to understand
| the distinction.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Unions also start boxing out new experienced employees. The
| railroads have no way to bring in experienced workers from
| other industries because everyone is mandated a certain
| starting wage by the union...entry level wages ($50k) plus
| overtime. Looks exactly like regulatory capture.
| temp667 wrote:
| You see this in a lot of industries that are unionized, if
| you move across the country or have a life change and are
| in a unionized environment you can be screwed by a) losing
| seniority and b) comp can drop.
|
| Had a friend who was a pilot. Personal situation - moved,
| wanted to live in base rather than deadhead yadda yadda -
| you start off at ground zero at the new airline - literally
| next to guys with no time on type (and you could have
| thousands of hours on type - which is years of work).
| 2bitencryption wrote:
| This may be a bit of an ignorant question, but...
|
| Are "dying cities/slums" a purely American phenomenon, in terms
| of rich first-world countries?
|
| Is there similarly a "rust belt" in Germany, of cities that had
| an economic collapse after manufacturing died out? Are there
| rich European countries with flailing cities that devolve into
| crime and poverty? Does Europe have its own Bessemers,
| Detroits? (though I do hear Detroit isn't as bad as it's made
| out to be)
| INTPenis wrote:
| Lots of dead industry in Sweden too because there was a major
| shift during the 90s and 2000s that remotely located industry
| in the Swedish forest could not keep up with.
|
| I don't know more details, I am only speaking
| observationally. Someone else might tell you why this
| happened.
|
| I would assume it has to do with globalization and other
| nations being more competitive than local business.
| rm_-rf_slash wrote:
| Chinese cities in the northeast Yellow Sea area (like Dalian)
| were historically industrial centers, but are now somewhat of
| a Chinese rust belt while the industrial gravity has moved
| south (ex: Shenzhen, Chongqing).
| willcipriano wrote:
| >Are "dying cities/slums" a purely American phenomenon, in
| terms of rich first-world countries?
|
| The UK definitely has declining factory towns (often called
| mill towns there) similar to the US. Northern England is like
| that for the most part. Less of a rust belt and more of a
| rust hat.
| mc32 wrote:
| I believe the Ruhr valley experienced some rust belt like
| phenomena. Abandoned factories and such, but not like NAm.
| Germany's economic might rests on their mittelstand midsized
| businesses (KMU) typically family owned or run and which are
| to some extent protected by the gov.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| In the former "rust belt" of Germany unemployement rate is
| higher (~12%) compared to the rest of Germany (~6%). And
| although we had social reforms in the 2000s cutting
| unemployment benefits - today with unemployment benefits,
| "free" health care and social security payments you can live
| from (though should be higher), areas with higher
| unemployment are not comparable to the US.
|
| (Also German carmakers have - at least until now - done much
| better than Detroit for a variety of reasons).
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Yeah, outside of Berlin a lot of eastern German states/cities
| have lost people IIRC.
| Darmody wrote:
| It happens everywhere or almost everywhere in the West. Some
| country simply lose population due migration to other
| countries.
|
| Inside immigration is also big. Small towns/cities are losing
| population while big cities/capitals are rapidly growing. We
| have hundreds of towns that once had thousands inhabitants
| and now they barely have a couple hundred and haven't seen a
| kid in more than a decade.
|
| But as far as I know, there's no Detroits in Europe. The
| cities with most crimes are also the ones that are attracting
| more people and immigrants. The abandoned places are quiet
| and peaceful.
|
| There's also growing trend of trying to revive those places
| by people that just can't take big cities anymore or people
| who work for home, etc. Why would they pay a huge chunk of
| their salary for a crappy shared flat on the city when they
| can live on a nice house with garden only 5 hours away?
| sfvisser wrote:
| Oh yes.
|
| Charleroi Belgium comes to mind. Once a prosperous
| industrious town, now the glory is gone. Recently read
| somewhere there is a bit of revival, culturally at least.
| Economically I'm not sure. A bit like Detroit maybe.
| dna_polymerase wrote:
| > Is there similarly a "rust belt" in Germany
|
| Not yet, but we are doing out best to deliver that in the
| near future \s
|
| What we do have is sort of a coal belt. The Ruhr Area, where
| coal mining used to be big but has died out. Some regions did
| not recover from the closing of mines, Gelsenkirchen for
| example.
| busterarm wrote:
| No.
|
| Most of Japan is dying as nearly its entire population moves
| to Tokyo.
|
| And that's only a slight sprinkle of hyperbole. Other regions
| are sustained only by tourism or by other industries where
| the average worker age is past 60.
| Lammy wrote:
| America's "Rust Belt" cities all tend to have one thing in
| common: a large black population that originally migrated
| there in the 20th century for industrial jobs that largely no
| longer exist. Think Detroit with the auto industry. Camden NJ
| with New York Ship, Victor, and Campbell's Soup. Gary Indiana
| with US Steel, etc etc:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Works
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_Ameri.
| ..
| cat199 wrote:
| > America's "Rust Belt" cities all tend to have one thing
| in common
|
| Not anti union, but these also had high union activity,
| which some explain as a cause of their 'rustification' as
| companies moved production elsewhere (like Alabama) to
| avoid.
| Lammy wrote:
| Yes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Negro_Labor_Counci
| l
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Negro_Labor_Congre
| ss
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Revolutionary_Bla
| ck_...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Revolutionary_Union_M
| ove...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_Black_Trade_Un
| ion...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Brotherhood_of_Wor
| ker...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_of_Sleeping_Car
| _Po... (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_
| Commission_v._Pullman.... )
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_o
| f_R...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro_Actors_Guild_of_Ameri
| ca
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro_Labor_Committee
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| HN should reformat wiki links to jump straight to the
| page title, since these long lists render identically
| before you open the thread.
| jandrese wrote:
| Not even Alabama but overseas where not only is there no
| union, but companies can get away with paying starvation
| wages to effective slaves. How an American is going to
| compete with a guy willing to work for $0.50/day on an 18
| hour shift 7 days a week is a mystery. He doesn't even
| ask for healthcare, and when he dies of exhaustion there
| are hundreds more waiting to take his place because
| that's a huge amount of money for them.
|
| One of the few things I think Trump got right is when he
| brought tariffs back. If you want companies to keep jobs
| in the US you have to make the labor cost just as much no
| matter where you find it. Otherwise it is just a race to
| the bottom.
| Glawen wrote:
| we have dying cities and poverty in Europe, but it does not
| devolve into crime. Each city in Europe have at least a
| suburb where crime is more prevalent, poverty is a
| contributing factor but not the only one.
| dvdkon wrote:
| I don't have any first-hand experience, but here in the Czech
| Republic (not rich by any means, but still pretty up there)
| there are some places that have the reputation of ghettos.
| They're mostly located in border areas, which had a sizeable
| German population a were annexed by nazi Germany. After World
| War 2, most of the Germans were driven out and "resettled"
| under the communist regime. Add heavy industry and mining
| activity sometimes destroying the original towns and you can
| see how the region might not be the most cheerful place.
| Someone also had the brilliant idea of moving all the Roma
| from a town to a separate ghetto, which turned out as
| expected.
|
| It's not that any city is altogether full of crime and
| poverty, personally I'd say they're just less desirable with
| full-on "crime and poverty" being noticeable only in some
| hotspots (but then again, I don't live there and only ever
| visit for short periods of time, so really all I can say is
| "it doesn't seem _that_ bad ").
| gruez wrote:
| You mean something like this?
| https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/italy-one-euro-homes-
| cast...
| charlescearl wrote:
| As someone whose great uncles worked in the steel factories
| nearby, whose parents before that labored in the cotton fields,
| I can also testify the multi-century efforts of Black workers
| who fought the "hands that was fedding them". America's
| Johannesburg [1] and Hammer and Hoe [2] for reference.
|
| [1] https://ugapress.org/book/9780820356273/americas-
| johannesbur...
|
| [2] https://uncpress.org/book/9781469625485/hammer-and-hoe/
| lupire wrote:
| That gets harder as capital gets easier to move.
| fartcannon wrote:
| What a tragic way to frame it. The USA (and all the world
| governments) need to take care of it's poor people better so
| they don't have to choose indentured servitude over poverty.
|
| Edit: Added the bit about all the world governments
| ActorNightly wrote:
| USA needs better education so that people understand
| economics and labor markets, so they wont calling paid
| positions indentured servitude.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I imagine GP is being facetious
| fartcannon wrote:
| I'm from Canada, but certainly education on economics would
| be amazingly helpful, I agree.
| psychometry wrote:
| We need better education so that people stop voting against
| their own self-interest, in union elections and generally.
| macrowhat wrote:
| I used to make comments like this when I was young, but
| then I grew old and gained wisdom instead.
| gruez wrote:
| ...or maybe they just have differences in opinion to you?
| claudiawerner wrote:
| That's entirely possible, and very likely. However, that
| does not do away with rationality completely. For some
| given situations, with data on the situation and a set of
| options, we can deduce pretty quickly what is rational to
| do, what is right to do, and what is in one's interest to
| do. This is how we (and that includes me and you) are
| able to criticize people on those grounds all the time.
| If someone is poor and has a choice between buying a
| stereo system and saving the money in a high-interest
| bank account, I doubt you'd have any problem saying that
| it's in their self interest to do one of those options
| and not the other. Economists talk about the principles
| of economic rationality all the time.
|
| So yeah, you can have your own opinion. That doesn't mean
| that the opinion is beyond criticism, nor does it mean
| it's a rational thought out opinion from all points of
| view, considering all the facts.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| What you call irrational is often a difference in views
| and life axioms (which as you probably know can't be
| proven).
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| You mean like all those inner city women who constantly
| vote for gun control despite easy access to hot lead
| being the best way they can protect themselves from
| violence?
|
| Or are we talking about the hicks that vote against
| government healthcare and social safety nets despite the
| fact that they would themselves benefit?
|
| "Voting against their interest" is just how the ivory
| tower crowd derides the poor for sticking to their
| ideological guns even when it doesn't benefit them. The
| poor have opinions and beliefs and making sacrifices in
| the name of their beliefs does not make them stupid.
| _huayra_ wrote:
| The scope of what you're considering to be their
| "ideological guns" is very historically recent. Before
| the Southern Strategy [0], the things that people
| typically associate with these "hicks" in rural parts of
| the US were not politicized; most of these hot-button
| ideological issues were considered to not be the domain
| of politics (e.g. abortion).
|
| In fact, the people who were the first "rednecks" would
| most likely reject all of the fascist bootlicking that
| goes on for most conservatives (not that neoliberal
| bootlicking is better, just less prevalent; I don't see
| hordes of foaming-at-the-mouth Biden supporters screaming
| adoration about Biden with some goofy flags and apparel
| on the street corners, while I still see the Trump folks
| doing the same cult worship of their new "god"). The
| original rednecks were miners who violently opposed
| capitalist exploitation [1]. This culminated in the
| battle of Blair Mountain [2], in which miners living in
| exploitative conditions violently rebelled against the
| authoritarian private police (the "Pinkertons") in their
| attempt to form a union. This is also the first time that
| aerial bombardment is used on American soil (preceding
| Pearl Harbor).
|
| Needless to say, I think the original "rednecks" have
| nothing in common with those who pretend to espouse some
| sort of "rural identity"; the original rednecks would not
| have looked to the state to force their own restrictive
| ideas of living on other people.
|
| It's fine for people to have their own opinions about
| these things, but when these people who stick to their
| ideological guns do so in the face of facts (e.g. all of
| the cult-of-trump people who intellectually contort
| themselves to see him as some skilled businessman when he
| has a history littered with business failures, including
| losing money on a casino!), it's a little difficult to
| respect their opinions; this is especially true when
| their opinions are incoherent (e.g. the GOP celebrating
| Goya and that my pillow guy for "getting involved in
| politics" when it benefits them, while deriding companies
| looking to boycott states that plan to impose Draconian
| voter suppressing laws to "stay out of politics") and
| involve restricting the liberties of other people to
| comport with their own strict world view (e.g.
| restricting the right of other people to get same-sex
| married, as though that is somehow an "attack" on hetero
| marriage).
|
| Ultimately it's about being able to accept new evidence
| and change one's mind, which I think these people who
| vote against their own interest (hicks or not) are not
| wont to do. Just as not all people in the GOP are
| fascists, but all fascists vote for GOP candidates, not
| all people towards the liberal end of the political
| spectrum are open to new ideas and changing their mind,
| but all people who are open to learning and change are on
| the liberal side of the political spectrum.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [1]
| https://www.appalachianhistory.net/2009/08/original-
| redneck-... [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > making sacrifices in the name of their beliefs does not
| make them stupid.
|
| Most of them are not aware that they are making
| sacrifices, though. They were convinced that the only
| alternative is communism.
| JackFr wrote:
| Or in other words, we need to indoctrinate people so that
| they vote the way I think they should.
| kethinov wrote:
| I prefer indoctrination that improves people's wages and
| working conditions as opposed to the present anti-union
| indoctrination that only serves to empower bosses at
| workers' expense.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > I prefer indoctrination
|
| Interesting, so you prefer people who don't use their own
| brains.
| lazide wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that if labor costs in Bessemer AL ==
| Labor costs in another location, say.... Seattle?
| Bessemer, AL wouldn't have the worry about the anti union
| indoctrination and would have to worry about starving
| again.
|
| For these communities, these are well paid jobs with
| great benefits compared to what they would otherwise
| have.
| kethinov wrote:
| Saying you don't need a union because your wages are good
| is like saying you don't need democracy because the king
| is nice to you. All that can change very quickly, and
| when it does, you're going to want the power that
| collective bargaining gives you in those negotiations.
| lazide wrote:
| Not disagreeing with you - if you have a mortgage and
| kids keeping you somewhere and a king that will abandon
| you and leave you to starve if you vote for Democracy -
| you can die on that hill if you want to, and the King
| probably won't care. He'll move next Area over, have the
| same or better deal, and you and your kids will starve.
|
| At that point the question is - why should you starve so
| someone else can be happy about Unions?
|
| These issues only get solved with society wide action.
| The poor sap casting their single vote here can't afford
| to make this call on their own, and they're just happy
| their particular king is generous enough to grace them
| and not more abusive. Because there are a LOT of more
| abusive ones , and they've probably seen that first hand
| unlike most of the posters here.
| JackFr wrote:
| Is it beyond your imagination that perhaps those workers
| have a better idea of their own self-interest than you
| do? I understand that you're well intentioned but you
| need to consider that someone can be an informed,
| intelligent person of goodwill and come to a conclusion
| that is different than yours.
|
| And while I don't know you, I'm gonna assume that you
| don't work for Amazon in Bessemer. Neither do I. So our
| responses to the situation might just be more about us
| and our baggage, than the actual facts on the ground in
| Alabama.
| kethinov wrote:
| Anyone who doesn't want higher wages or better working
| conditions isn't defining their self-interest very
| rationally. And anyone who doesn't believe the union is
| the best way to get there is probably being persuaded by
| anti-union propaganda rather than sound arguments.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Anyone who doesn't want higher wages or better working
| conditions isn't defining their self-interest very
| rationally.
|
| higher wages or better working conditions don't happen in
| a vacuum. Thinking it's a godsend or something is the
| definition of not thinking rationally.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Anyone who doesn't want higher wages or better working
| conditions
|
| But there are trade-offs, such as now having to answer to
| a union as well as to an employer, and anyway what makes
| you so certain the union will achieve their goals?
|
| If I claim that if you vote for me I'll turn your water
| into wine, and you turn me down, are you voting against
| your self-interest, or are you just not confident I'll
| achieve what I'm claiming and thinking I'm a bit of a
| fool so not wanting anything to do with me?
| diag wrote:
| How long do you think people will survive if they aren't
| working? Not calling employment servitude is dishonest.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| By that definition, who on this entire planet is not an
| indentured servant?
| xwolfi wrote:
| Well reality so far is that things will stay unbalanced for a
| while.
|
| I come from a shit city in France, a former textile
| powerhouse that lost everthing after the war when it became
| automated abroad and we couldnt compete. And I moved to Hong
| Kong years ago.
|
| Well... between this city and my new one, there's such an
| imbalance, I think I wish a few companies were trying to
| enslave people back home to teach them something else than
| shooting heroin and cheating on social insurance... And the
| French gov cant fix it, they can't make people clever and
| useful just with money and will...
| dominotw wrote:
| > The USA (and all the world governments) need to take care
| of it's poor people better
|
| I believe The USA spends most on social welfare than any
| other country.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| The amount of money spent doesn't mean anything. The US
| also pays insane amounts for their health system but the
| result is a system that's far more expensive than in other
| countries.
| dominotw wrote:
| > These were the best paying jobs that many of these
| workers had had in their entire lives
|
| What does that have to do with health system
| metters wrote:
| You believe so, but at least Wikipedia says the US are 22nd
| per capita (which is more relevant than the total spending)
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social
| _...
| dominotw wrote:
| > Wikipedia says the US are 22nd per capita
|
| I see USA at 10 in per capita section in your wiki link.
| weaksauce wrote:
| so either way the us is not at position number 1... at
| that point it doesn't matter.
| dominotw wrote:
| ok
| afiori wrote:
| Yang had a nice plan for that :(
| mixedCase wrote:
| And no sustainable way to fund it.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| I don't get how people keep saying this. A UBI is
| effectively a tax credit. You fund it with higher nominal
| rates. These mostly cancel out for working people,
| netting to zero in the middle. People at the top pay on
| net so that people at the bottom receive on net.
|
| It's completely sustainable and is effectively just a
| simplification and improvement of the status quo of
| having unemployment insurance and a bunch of means-tested
| benefits for low income people, but without the poverty
| traps, perverse incentives and excessive bureaucracy.
| mixedCase wrote:
| a) Crunch the numbers, find out how much you need. If you
| don't have exact, precise numbers and a precise plan on
| how to get to that number, the idea is worth nothing
| since you don't even have a starting point to analyze
| viability. People who have run the numbers tend to
| realize how inviable it is. Those who don't, also think
| you can just endlessly print money or just tax people
| more until you get to the happy number. Which leads to b)
|
| b) Observe the real world, see what happens when you
| "just increase tax rate". You'll find that very often
| when you increase taxes you actually end up collecting
| less, as more people decide to illegally dodge taxes or
| simply close up shop.
|
| Given a country's economic output, laws, culture and a
| thousand other factors, there's a hidden function that
| determines the maximum tax rate you can employ where
| anything more than that is counter-productive with both
| short-term and long-term results, the latter often
| including reputational damage that can be nigh impossible
| to repair, soft-capping your economy far below what it
| could've been. See: Laffer Curve, and the shining example
| that is Argentina.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Crunch the numbers, find out how much you need. If you
| don't have exact, precise numbers and a precise plan on
| how to get to that number, the idea is worth nothing
| since you don't even have a starting point to analyze
| viability.
|
| Mean personal income in the US is ~$54,000:
|
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MAPAINUSA646N
|
| For a $12,000 UBI that would yield a flat tax rate of
| ~22%.
|
| In real life it's more complicated than that, but not so
| much more complicated that the number is going to be off
| by an order of magnitude. It's completely viable. People
| are _already_ paying nominal rates that high.
|
| > Observe the real world, see what happens when you "just
| increase tax rate". You'll find that very often when you
| increase taxes you actually end up collecting less, as
| more people decide to illegally dodge taxes or simply
| close up shop.
|
| The primary causes of this are that higher taxes give
| people less money to spend which hurts the economy and
| that higher marginal rates deter working.
|
| A UBI is a transfer payment, so on net nobody has any
| less money to spend and in practice people with less
| money would have slightly more and those people are more
| likely to spend it. So this factor goes _in favor_ of
| economic growth.
|
| Meanwhile half the point of the UBI is to get rid of the
| crazy marginal rate cliffs created by means-tested
| benefits programs. The status quo deters work more than a
| UBI would, e.g. you lose unemployment if you take a job.
| Terrible incentives that would go away.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Higher marginal rates also reduce marginal outsourcing of
| labor. At a 40% combined federal and state rate, in order
| to pay a tradesperson $150 to come do some minor repair
| task at my house, I have to go out and earn an extra $250
| to get that repair job done as compared to doing it
| myself.
|
| Make the combined marginal rate 60% and now I have to go
| earn $375 in order to have $150 extra to pay for the
| labor for that repair. For the equivalent of $375 in
| wages for a service call, there's a lot of things I'll
| bother to learn how to tackle myself.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Again, a UBI will in many cases _reduce_ marginal rates,
| because no more means testing. Right now if you want to
| hire a maid to clean your house, you have to overcome the
| loss of government benefits to them from taking on more
| work hours.
|
| Meanwhile at the top the difference would be less than an
| increase from 40% to 60% because the UBI is replacing all
| of these other programs which would no longer have to be
| funded, or could be made strict alternatives to the UBI
| which would make the UBI less expensive.
| sokoloff wrote:
| People whose marginal tax rates would be reduced by the
| implementation of a UBI are probably not hiring maids
| either before or after the implementation of UBI.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's not the employer, it's the maid.
|
| To get the maid to show up, you have to cause their bank
| balance to increase by at least $10, after taxes. If the
| government is taking 80% of what you pay them away in
| food, housing and education assistance, you have to pay
| $50 to get them their $10. Get their real marginal rate
| _down_ to 40% and you can pay $20 while they enjoy a
| surplus of $2.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Marginal rates are weird because you can compare your
| marginal rate against every decision, but at that point,
| you aren't comparing every dollar earned to every dollar
| spend, so effective rates seem to be more useful
| (marginal would be useful if I was considering working
| more, I think). Anyways, as someone with a high effective
| tax rate, I'm totally fine only keeping 60% (or keeping
| 40% if we added another 20), if in return we all got UBI.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > For a $12,000 UBI that would yield a flat tax rate of
| ~22%.
|
| Yes. And that is absolutely monstrously huge. You just
| doubled the US tax rate!
|
| Sure, you could cut spending elsewhere, or whatever, but
| once you do a program that is on the scale of literally
| doubling the US tax rate, you are definitely at a point
| where the costs of the program are very high, and likely
| unviable.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The total tax burden in the US (federal, state, local;
| income, sales, property) is closer to 50%, and most to
| all of the 22% would be in replacement of existing
| programs.
|
| (Half the funding for many of the existing programs don't
| even show up in the federal budget, even though they're
| federal programs, because the feds condition the program
| on the state government providing matching funds, but the
| state's taxpayers don't get any refund of their federal
| taxes if the state doesn't implement the program. So the
| states are coerced into funding inefficient programs, and
| those would go away.)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _most to all of the 22% would be in replacement of
| existing programs_
|
| I think people are reasonably skeptical of this part.
| I've never seen someone show me the math around how all
| those programs would be rendered redundant by a UBI.
| Before getting to the political problem of dismantling
| benefits, some of which pay out more than $12,000 a year
| and have a vocal, sympathetic minority willing to fight
| for them.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _I think people are reasonably skeptical of this part_
|
| I think that understates it: some enormous fraction (like
| 45%) of federal government spending is for retirees
| (Social Security, Medicare and government funded pension)
| who represent only about 15% of the population.
|
| That's the unsquareable circle for UBI.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Before getting to the political problem of dismantling
| benefits, some of which pay out more than $12,000 a year
| and have a vocal, sympathetic minority willing to fight
| for them.
|
| The best way to handle this is to give people a one-time
| election of whether they want the UBI. If they want the
| UBI, they're disqualified from _all_ of these other
| programs, for life.
|
| Then nearly everyone picks the UBI. The person receiving
| $500 from other programs certainly does, so does the
| person receiving $10,000, probably even the person
| receiving $12,500 because they get to avoid doing the
| paperwork every year for all the other programs.
|
| You're left with the negligible percentage of people who
| actually receive non-trivially more than $12,000 under
| other programs, representing a minority of the existing
| funding. This could also be assisted by dropping some of
| the less sympathetic programs immediately and further
| reducing the number of people on the other side of the
| $12,000 line. And the percentage shrinks over time,
| because someone picks the UBI at age 18 and then 10 years
| later discovers they might have received $16,000 this
| year from some other set of programs, but they've already
| made their choice. After a few years the other programs
| have so few people using them that there is no political
| will to continue them at all.
|
| And recall that one such program is social security,
| which is currently funded by a 12.4% tax. That by itself
| is more than half the way to 22%. And all the existing
| retirees who choose that over the UBI would then not have
| to be paid the UBI.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| We are no where close to reaching the top of the Laffer
| curve, and we never have been. It is a non issue for
| economists.
| bhupy wrote:
| I can try to give you a theoretical tax breakdown using
| real numbers.
|
| In 2018, the household income quintiles were as follows
| (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-
| income-...)
|
| Lowest quintile mean: $13,775
|
| Second quintile mean: $37,923
|
| Third quintile mean: $63,572
|
| Fourth quintile mean: $101,570
|
| Highest quintile mean: $233,895
|
| There were about 159M employed persons in the US in the
| most recent high (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-
| states/employed-persons), about 50% of the US population.
| We want our UBI to cover everybody.
|
| To make this simple, because quintiles comprise an
| equally populated group of people, let's imagine that
| instead of there being ~32M people per quintile, that our
| nation has 10 people, where 5 people don't work, and each
| of the remaining 5 falls into one of the quintiles.
|
| If we wanted to define a UBI of $18,000 per person, we
| need to somehow come up with $18,000 * 10 == $180,000 to
| distribute to everyone equally.
|
| If we fund this progressively, each individual would have
| to pay:
|
| Unemployed #1: 0 (statistically, a child)
|
| Unemployed #2: 0 (statistically, a child)
|
| Unemployed #3: 0 (statistically, a retiree)
|
| Unemployed #4: 0 (statistically, a retiree)
|
| Unemployed #5: 0 (statistically, a disabled person or
| stay-at-home caretaker)
|
| Lowest: $8,000
|
| Second: $12,000
|
| Third: $21,000
|
| Fourth: $36,000
|
| Highest: $103,000
|
| Total revenue: $180,000
|
| Then consider that everyone here is receiving back 18,000
| under the UBI. The highest quintile earner's net take-
| home is, thus 233,895-103,000+18,000 == $148,895, which
| effectively renders their effective tax rate approx 36%.
| If you run this breakdown across all quintiles:
|
| Unemployed #1-5: $0 - $0 + 18,000 == $18,000
|
| Lowest: $13,775 - $8,000 + $18,000 == $23,775 (effective
| tax -73%)
|
| Second: $37,923 - $12,000 + $18,000 == $43,923 (effective
| tax -16%)
|
| Third: $63,572 - $21,000 + $18,000 == $60,572 (effective
| tax 6%)
|
| Fourth: $101,570 - $36,000 + $18,000 == $83,570
| (effective tax 18%)
|
| Highest: $233,895 - $103,000 + $18,000 == $148,895
| (effective tax 36%)
|
| You'll notice that the top 2 pay a tax rate that's
| comparable to today's. We wouldn't necessarily need to
| increase everyone's taxes by the above amount, because
| there's some wiggle room in the Federal budget. Examples:
| we can probably eliminate Social Security (which would
| just be replaced by the UBI), EITC/CTC (basically already
| a BI), and food stamps (ditto). Medicare, which is an in-
| kind benefit, can either be eliminated, or it can
| continue to exist but be paid for by the UBI. Ditto
| Medicaid.
|
| Also notice that because the lowest quintile still ends
| up with more than the unemployed person after their
| taxes, there isn't a disincentive to work.
|
| This math also assumes that we're giving people $1,500
| per month, and also assumes that children will receive
| the same amount as adults -- a UBI may only pay $1,000
| per month to adults, and $500 per month to children, in
| which case the effective tax rates would be lower.
|
| This math also assumes there is 0 VAT. This math also
| ignores payroll taxes, which account for 35% of the
| current Federal revenue.
|
| We can play with different levels of progressivity and
| generosity, but the idea is the same. We can scale up
| from single-person quintiles to million-person quintiles,
| but the percentages don't change.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Perusing the Wikipedia page for the Laffer Curve
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), it seems
| that most studies find we could double our current tax
| rates and still be on the left of the peak (65%-70%).
| Given that our current federal revenue is appr. $3.5
| trillion, it seems we could afford Yang's $2.8 trillion
| in UBI without issue.
|
| Source for UBI total cost: https://freedom-dividend.com/
| note: I ignored his ~$0.9 trillion in predicted
| savings/economic growth but that would lessen the bill
| even more.
| trianglesphere wrote:
| You can ballpark these numbers just fine. 500/mo UBI for
| 350 Million recipients is $2.1T per year. US GDP prior
| the pandemic was ~20T. Expenditures were about 4.4
| trillion, revenue was 3.5 trillion (2019 numbers).
|
| 500/mo or 1k/mo UBI does require raising taxes and
| consolidating programs (a polite way of saying cutting).
| At 500/mo you'd raise the total tax rate (as of GDP), but
| it'd not be an unreasonable raise (as compared to 2k/mo
| UBI for all citizens which would need taxes at 40% of US
| GDP).
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| We get China to buy our bonds forever :)
| lazide wrote:
| Definitely have seen and experienced the same thing - but
| hey, if we succeed in banning cash, no one can dodge
| taxes?
|
| It also removes a huge relief valve for large segments of
| the population to survive that can't meet the bar
| demanded of the 'normal' workers.
| brippalcharrid wrote:
| Are you sure this is realistic, or would it end up being
| a net negative for people earning above $20k-$25k? There
| are a lot of people who are opting out of paid
| employment, one way or another, under the current model.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The people at the top will move to a tax haven.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Unless they're going to stop using banks with branches in
| New York, that's not going to help a ton if the IRS gets
| funded.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| Good. Let them. They don't produce anything.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The nice thing about a UBI is that it's still progressive
| even if funded by a flat tax, like VAT, because with the
| UBI it's still a net transfer to lower income people. How
| are the people at the top going to avoid VAT? By moving
| all their customers to a tax haven?
|
| Also, in this context "the top" is anything above the
| middle. Are lawyers and petroleum engineers going to move
| to a tax haven?
| curryst wrote:
| > Are lawyers and petroleum engineers going to move to a
| tax haven?
|
| Yes? I'm not a particularly special engineer, and a
| significant part of my decision to leave California was
| the income tax. I'm certainly not alone there.
|
| Also bear in mind that "tax haven" is a relative term.
| Canada can become a tax haven if their taxes are lower
| than ours. Europe can be a tax haven if their taxes are
| lower. If my net income in the US (taking into account
| higher salaries) comes out the same as what I would make
| in Europe, I'm moving to Europe. I'd much rather have the
| safety net than UBI.
| dllthomas wrote:
| > The nice thing about a UBI is that it's still
| progressive even if funded by a flat tax.
|
| I think this takes more thought. I agree that we want a
| progressive curve, and that UBI-with-a-flat-tax gives us
| a progressive curve, but I don't think we've established
| that it gives us the curve we want. Moving from the ideal
| curve to the (potentially) less than ideal curve for the
| sake of easier enforcement may still be worth it, and may
| still produce a system that we'd prefer to the current
| one, but we have to actually establish that.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| UBI-with-a-flat-tax gives a very nice curve, and on top
| of that you can make it arbitrarily more or less
| progressive by adjusting the amount of the UBI. A larger
| UBI with a higher flat tax rate is more progressive.
|
| It's mostly just not that compatible with confiscatory-
| level taxes on very high income people, but the cause of
| the trouble there was never really the taxes (once they
| were paying the same rates as ordinary people). The
| problem there is regulatory capture and inadequate
| antitrust enforcement leading to abusive consolidated
| corporate empires.
| dllthomas wrote:
| > UBI-with-a-flat-tax gives a very nice curve
|
| It gives a family of curves, and as you say you have a
| knob you can turn...
|
| I don't have a strong opinion about exactly what shape
| the curve should have, but I do have a strong opinion
| that it's probably important and I've noticed a tendency
| (first in myself!) for UBI proponents to be satisfied
| having checked the "it's a progressive curve" box without
| having looked carefully at whether it can produce the
| particular progressive curve we (more broadly) want.
|
| Edited to add: I suppose if we do find that we need
| people to be taking home marginally more for the first N
| dollars earned, we could add a rebate based on reported
| income. Small fraud ("I reported a little more than I
| actually made") winds up pretty bounded in the amount it
| can walk off with; larger fraud ("I invented 500 people
| who are reporting income") isn't that much bigger a
| concern than it would already be with a UBI since the
| maximum rebate is probably much smaller than the stipend
| that would otherwise be expected. Note that I'm not
| calling for this, just exploring the space.
| shytey wrote:
| People who move abroad still have to pay taxes in the US,
| unless they renounce citizenship.
|
| Some remote workers who can might do that but I doubt
| very many.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > People who move abroad still have to pay taxes in the
| US, unless they renounce citizenship.
|
| There are almost no countries in the world that milk
| their citizens that way.
|
| Two exceptions I know of: - USistan
| - Eritrea
|
| Nice company you guys keep over there.
| bit_logic wrote:
| Are you just saying that or did you look at his proposed
| plan? It included VAT and other ways to make it
| sustainable.
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| I agree though. If we ever want to have a chance at closing
| the gap between low and middle classes, then we need a basic
| income for people making under a certain income. Taking away
| the hardships of deciding whether to put gas in your car or
| get groceries isn't a decision someone should have to make.
| An extra $500-1K per month for those people would make a
| world of difference and ease a lot of those everyday
| decisions.
|
| The utopia would be having low income housing running on
| solar with affordable EV's for people under a certain income
| level as well. Combined with a basic income, it would
| certainly make a huge decrease in poverty and allow these
| people to bootstrap themselves into the middle class.
|
| EDIT: for poor math skills. lol
| ptomato wrote:
| > we just had several trillion dollar stimulus bills that
| could've given every person in the country a million
| dollars
|
| damn, didn't know covid killed 99% of the US population.
| rough.
| FredPret wrote:
| It's ironic that, in a post promoting basic income, you
| make an error in arithmetic amounting to hundreds of
| trillions of dollars
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Can I ask where you heard that we could have given every
| person in the country a million each? I've seen that quoted
| all over the place, and can't figure out why, given that
| it's off by a factor of about a hundred.
| repsilat wrote:
| > _could 've given every person in the country a million
| dollars each_
|
| That'd be $329 trillion[1], which is on the order of 100x
| what we spent.
|
| 1: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%241+million%2Fper
| son+...
| geitir wrote:
| That's completely incorrect. If you take the us population
| over 18, that is 209 million. If we assumed 5% are wealthy,
| that's 198 million who would need to get 1 million dollars.
| If you multiply 1 million by 198 million, you 198 trillion
| dollars.
| kukx wrote:
| The people need to take care of themselves first, then their
| family, then their immediate surrounding, then their region
| and their country. Reversing the dependency on a large scale
| is not sustainable. Someone's right is someone else
| responsibility, for someone to receive money, someone else
| has to provide it. The government is a middleman in this
| transaction that wastes a substantial share of the value in
| the process.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| The problem with the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"
| thinking is that it ignores being born into the problem.
| Sure, some people can work their way out of a rut that
| their parents were in, but the majority can't.
| kukx wrote:
| Sure, there are limits to the extend in which people can
| take care of themselves. For example if they are born
| with a low IQ they may never be able to do provide a net
| benefit to any job or almost any job. So that they are
| effectively unemployable. But if you are able to do
| anything of benefit to the society then you should do it.
| And having a job is the way to do it and be sustainable.
| stcredzero wrote:
| _The problem with the "pull yourself up by your
| bootstraps" thinking is that it ignores being born into
| the problem._
|
| This is both right and wrong. Asian immigrants are
| notorious for arriving on foreign shores, penniless, then
| winding up owning businesses and sending their kids to
| top tier schools. The problem isn't being born into not
| having money and things. The problem is being born into
| an environment that sets children up for future failure.
|
| The good news, is that such cultural practices aren't
| attached to race or ethnicity and so can be learned and
| adopted. There are historical precedents for this.
|
| The bad news, is that other cultural practices can do the
| opposite, and insulate groups of people against things
| like valuing education and a work ethic.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| All immigrants work hard. That's how they ended up here.
| _huayra_ wrote:
| Most people who are immigrants have almost by definition
| a better-than-average work ethic. You can see this if you
| know a bunch of people from country X when you live in
| country Y (where Y is usually a country "better off" than
| X), and then you go visit country X. You'll see that the
| "expats from X" you see while living in Y may be of a
| higher caliber (e.g. entrepreneurial, in your example),
| the people who did not expatriate do not often contain
| the same values.
|
| As someone who lived in the US for a long time and now
| lives in Europe, I can tell you that all of the Americans
| I've met over here (who are not vacationing) are
| incredibly driven and entrepreneurial. They do not at all
| reflect the average American back in the US (e.g. I don't
| know a single Trump supporter over here; the Democrats
| Abroad caucus typically goes far more liberal than any
| state, supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016 by a very wide
| margin).
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| > _I can tell you that all of the Americans I 've met
| over here (who are not vacationing) are incredibly driven
| and entrepreneurial. They do not at all reflect the
| average American back in the US (e.g. I don't know a
| single Trump supporter over here;_
|
| This is a strange observation to me because Trump did
| _very_ well with the small business owner demographics.
|
| https://news.gallup.com/poll/284396/small-business-
| owners-hi...
| _huayra_ wrote:
| I would guess that the interests of SMB owners for US
| residents and expats differ. SMB owners in the US
| probably think more short-term and think that policies
| from Trump will help them (which they may, but will
| ultimately continue the steady decline of the US
| workforce, e.g. lack of a social safety net, upward
| mobility, lack of education, a broken patchwork of
| poorly-maintained car-centric infrastructure).
|
| SMB owners who are US citizens abroad, however, are
| driven by primarily one thing, regardless of party
| affiliation: who will be most likely to support a rewrite
| of the punitive tax laws that the US places on its
| expatriate citizens (which no country other than Eritrea
| does).
| luckylion wrote:
| Not sure how true that generalization is. If you look at
| Germany, you'll see high unemployment rates (and less
| education) among immigrants from Turkey and Arabian
| countries, while you'll see significantly more success on
| all fronts for immigrants from e.g. Vietnam.
| curryst wrote:
| > If you look at Germany, you'll see high unemployment
| rates (and less education) among immigrants from Turkey
| and Arabian countries, while you'll see significantly
| more success on all fronts for immigrants from e.g.
| Vietnam.
|
| Are refugees counted as immigrants? A lot of the refugees
| from Syria come through Turkey, so I'm curious if that's
| throwing off the numbers.
|
| Refugees and immigrants aren't really comparable. The
| most stark difference is that refugees can (and likely
| will) be sent back when their country stabilizes enough.
| If you're a refugee, there's little point in building up
| a new life when you know it will all come to an end.
| luckylion wrote:
| > Are refugees counted as immigrants? A lot of the
| refugees from Syria come through Turkey, so I'm curious
| if that's throwing off the numbers.
|
| No, it's about immigrants from Turkey (who came mostly in
| the 60ies as regular working migrants to both feed
| Germany's hunger for workers and buy Turkey's entry into
| NATO). The Vietnamese on the other hand were often
| refugees, much poorer and with much less support.
|
| There aren't any relevant numbers about the migrant
| crisis '15 yet, it's too recent to get meaningful
| statistics.
|
| > The most stark difference is that refugees can (and
| likely will) be sent back when their country stabilizes
| enough.
|
| True, but that very rarely happens in Germany. It's
| considered cruel to deport someone who has lived in
| Germany for a few years.
|
| Deportations of asylum seekers usually only happen for
| so-called "safe countries", e.g. Balkan states, when the
| request for asylum is denied.
| _huayra_ wrote:
| I think both can be true: people who emigrate from a
| country to pursue better career / life opportunities
| typically are more industrious in my experience than are
| those who do not (on average; there are plenty of people
| who don't emigrate who are just as industrious; it's just
| that those who are NOT industrious do not emigrate at
| all), while at the same time some immigrants will differ
| in industriousness based on their country of origin.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Not just that, but if we rank everyone, some people will
| inevitably be worse than others. Should those at the
| bottom be condemned to poverty?
| stcredzero wrote:
| _Should those at the bottom be condemned to poverty?_
|
| The lesson of the GINI coefficient and the psychology of
| relative wealth, is that absolute, material well being
| isn't the issue. The issue is whether people _think_ the
| cards are so stacked against them, that they will never
| win.
|
| So the answer is no. We know that condemning those at the
| bottom will result in civil unrest. Everyone needs to
| live in dignity, or there will be violence. Psychology
| has pretty much determined this to be a fact of human
| nature.
|
| However, this doesn't mean we should have equity. People
| should be rewarded, and people should also have something
| to strive for. It's the dignity of the common person
| which has been eroded over time.
| suprfsat wrote:
| That's pretty much the main political divide in our
| country. Should poor people have it better off, or worse
| off?
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| That is an argument and such bad spirit.
|
| The actual discussion is about _the degree_ of which
| government should handle re-distributing wealth to the
| lower class and _to what degree_ the middle and upper
| class is responsible.
|
| The "divide" is that politicians on both sides who's
| actions don't always match their stated positions.
| clevergadget wrote:
| yeah as long as they keep the conversation on the
| extremes they never have to give up anything. If you ask
| them to give up a 4th car for someone to have food then
| they are evil for saying no. So they say "Oh we have to
| give up EVERYTHING and live in the DIRT because of your
| RADICAL EXTREMISM!"
| specialist wrote:
| > _Someone 's right is someone else responsibility_
|
| I don't follow. What are some examples of this?
| mariksolo wrote:
| If college is free (or loans are forgiven), people who
| never went to college would have to subsidize those who
| did.
|
| If healthcare is free, people who are healthy have to pay
| healthcare for those who aren't.
|
| I'm not taking a stance one way or the other on these
| issues, just trying to illustrate the argument.
| specialist wrote:
| Ok, thanks. IIRC, that's called collectivism.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
| flavius29663 wrote:
| $15 an hour is more than you can get in almost any place in
| Europe or the world for unskilled labor, what are you talking
| about?
| quijoteuniv wrote:
| While that might be right,You are not taking into account
| that in Europe you get free healthcare & education.
| fearling wrote:
| Education is free up til college in the US and the
| healthcare for Amazon warehouse workers is the same as
| for their engineers and Jeff Bezos.
| cwwc wrote:
| And education is free at almost all Ivy's if you're below
| a 100K or so salary family.
|
| That said: prereq is you're bonkers smart.
| bhupy wrote:
| The same is true at the in-state universities. At that
| salary, your kid can study at University of Alabama (a
| perfectly fine institution with great campus life)
| basically for free.
| naturalauction wrote:
| The University of Alabama also has surprisingly good
| merit scholarships for students who are from out of
| state. I was considering going there and they offered me
| full tuition + 2 years of housing covered + some other
| grants (and I wasn't even that good of a student,
| definitely not Ivy caliber).
| whimsicalism wrote:
| *and do not have significant assets or college savings
| stcredzero wrote:
| _That said: prereq is you're bonkers smart._
|
| Meh. I went to an Ivy league, as did my sister. My wife
| was a grad student at Stanford. My classmates were
| clever, but they weren't _that_ smart! The standardized
| test scores can be improved with work.
|
| As for standing out with your essay and CV, I remember a
| talk from an admissions officer from Harvard. His take
| was that it's easy to stand out from 99% of students just
| by actually _doing real, substantive work_. He wasn 't
| talking about the stuff that's _designed_ to be a student
| CV stuffer to impress admissions. Do actual, substantive
| work.
|
| Something like a substantive contribution to a scientific
| field. Amateurs can still do this. Maybe run a real
| business. The example this admissions officer gave was
| someone who dropped out of High School, got a GED, then
| started repairing motorcycle engines. Then, you also need
| to make sure your essay is well written, which is another
| skill which can be learned. Relate your experience back
| to the academic opportunity, and how this would enable
| you to benefit society.
|
| There is a problem with this way of thinking of
| admissions: If you do pursue it in earnest, you might
| well decide to skip university entirely.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| To some extent, I wonder if the perception that your
| peers aren't _that_ smart is just due to getting adapted
| to your environment.
|
| I went to an Ivy coming from an inner city public school
| and I found it a big culture shock in terms of both how
| well behaved people were in classrooms and also how
| quick/smart people were to grasp what I was saying and
| build on it. By the time I was a senior, I had lapsed to
| the "people here actually aren't that smart" line of
| thought - but I wonder if I just got used to being around
| more intelligent people.
| _huayra_ wrote:
| I did not go to an Ivy, but I went to the 1-2 ranked
| public institution in the US (for CS). The baseline is
| definitely higher, but there is a big gap between people
| who got there by their own grit and determination and
| people who got there almost helplessly due to a tidal
| wave of fortunate circumstances (e.g. parents were in
| sweng, went to cushy private schools that inflated
| grades, "did" a bunch of charity work / extracurriculars
| to pad their resume for college).
|
| The "not smart" people are the latter category: they can
| still pick things up quickly, but they viewed getting
| into the institution as the last hurdle they'll have to
| go through in order to be set for life. They just coasted
| and got Cs and didn't really care about learning new
| stuff because they knew the university's name on their
| degree alone would land them some cushy PM job where they
| wouldn't need that pesky coding ability every again).
|
| It was actually infuriating because I really enjoy CS and
| getting paired up with these folks who were born with a
| silver spoon in their mouths but didn't care was
| disappointing. Most of them were uncomfortable with the
| mental struggle of doing difficult group projects, often
| just showing up for the "design session" but skipping out
| on most of the coding. I made a lot of enemies out of
| them when I told the profs to look at my (GPG-signed) git
| commits and consider how they want to distribute grading
| points.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > I made a lot of enemies out of them when I told the
| profs to look at my (GPG-signed) git commits and consider
| how they want to distribute grading points.
|
| I laughed. Did it change something in the end?
| _huayra_ wrote:
| In most cases it did: I even wrote a python script to use
| matplotlib to generate a few "contribution graphs" like
| one sees on github. That visual was usually enough to
| tell the profs to not give my teammates any credit when
| they didn't do diddly squat for code.
|
| I learned most of the "defensive git" tricks during this
| time because I caught one of these guys trying to rewrite
| history to claim credit for my commit. That guy got
| referred to the university's "ya dun messed up bigtime"
| committee (I forget the actual title) and I think he was
| kicked out for academic dishonesty. Ever since then I gpg
| sign all my commits!
| stcredzero wrote:
| I was in a group project for a Psychology of Business
| class. This 4th string quarterback/son of a politician or
| some such just told us on the 1st day, "Well, considering
| we're graded as a group, I want to tell you I don't care
| what grade I get, so you guys are doing all of the work!"
| stcredzero wrote:
| _To some extent, I wonder if the perception that your
| peers aren 't that smart is just due to getting adapted
| to your environment._
|
| I've met people who I would describe as _" bonkers
| smart"_, as the comment I was replying to had it. That
| is, people who are literally 2-3 times faster at getting
| to the next step, and just leave the entire room behind,
| when the room contains a dozen graduate students. They
| are not _that_ common, even in a place that 's supposed
| to be populated by the intellectual elite.
|
| _how well behaved people were in classrooms and also how
| quick /smart people were to grasp what I was saying and
| build on it_
|
| These are just skills/habits that can be learned!
| nathanappere wrote:
| You mean costs the same and as a result is entirely a
| function of how well you're paid in order to be able to
| afford better coverage?
| bhupy wrote:
| No, exactly the opposite. ERISA is a Federal law that
| strictly regulates how plan fiduciaries can operate
| employer-sponsored health plans. A key element of ERISA
| is that an employer cannot offer more generous benefits
| to some employers over other; everyone in the company
| must be offered the same plans, and within each plan,
| every beneficiary must be treated the same.
| deckard1 wrote:
| prior to the No Surprises Act just signed (and maybe
| after too?) ERISA allowed for balance billing. Which
| means not even California laws against balance billing
| would apply.
|
| For anyone not living in the permanently-fucked US, an
| explanation: your health insurance covers you for "in
| network" doctors at an "in network" hospital. If you go
| to an "in network" hospital you would assume (wrongly)
| that you are fully covered. But no. Some random
| anesthesiologist can come into your room, provide their
| service for 20 minutes, and stick you with a $5,000 bill
| because they are "out of network". And you have ERISA
| insurance and you are just plain fucked.
|
| Anyone getting health services in the US must hang a sign
| on their door saying "In Network Only". I'm 100% serious.
| Every person that walks in your room must be vetted. And
| good luck if they can't find an "in network" surgeon for
| that emergency service or whatever.
| bhupy wrote:
| Full disclosure: I work in this industry and am a claims
| adjuster on fiduciary plans that fall under ERISA
|
| Everything you're saying is partially correct, but it
| heavily depends on the specifics of the plan. FAANG
| companies, in particular, typically have extremely
| generous PPO plans that offer 0 co-insurance and broad
| networks. You're correct that, out-of-network, balance
| billing may occur, but Amazon's plans have networks so
| broad that this is unlikely to happen.
|
| In addition, if you look at Amazon's plan documentation,
| they also offer a Kaiser HMO for which none of this
| applies.
|
| There's a lot that can be improved around price
| transparency, but Amazon is one of the few companies that
| offers Cadillac gold-standard insurance, and because
| ERISA requires that all employees receive the same
| benefits, this extends to their full-time warehouse
| workers too.
| deckard1 wrote:
| > but it heavily depends on the specifics of the plan
|
| > Amazon's plans have networks so broad that this is
| unlikely to happen
|
| I mean, this doesn't sound reassuring you know.
| "unlikely" and "depends on the specifics". That's kind of
| the problem. No one knows what is covered and what is
| not. Billing in the US is this labyrinthine thing where
| hospitals, doctors, and insurance all seem to be making
| it up as they go along in conjunction with whatever they
| _feel_ are the laws and whatever they _feel_ like they
| can get away with. Leaving it up to the patient to appeal
| after appeal after appeal on a flood of bills they will
| receive, depending on their operation or service.
|
| You can't even get a detailed bill out of some of these
| places. The doctors vanish and you're literally stuck
| talking to one of those robocalling bill collector
| agencies, which probably has a PO Box in fucking Alaska.
| It's shady as hell. All of it.
| bhupy wrote:
| Believe me, you're preaching to the choir. I personally
| adjudicate claims, and some of the stuff I see is
| downright asinine.
|
| All that being said...
|
| > I mean, this doesn't sound reassuring you know.
| "unlikely" and "depends on the specifics". That's kind of
| the problem. No one knows what is covered and what is
| not.
|
| The "likelihood" of this happening, while probabilistic,
| isn't purely random. I found this tweet by a health
| policy expert to perfectly capture the status quo:
| https://twitter.com/CPopeHC/status/1234510323425652737
|
| "American healthcare in short: ~60% (in good employer
| plans, generous state Medicaid, or M.Adv/Medigap) have
| the best healthcare in the world. ~30% have insurance
| with gaps/risk of big bills. ~10% uninsured must rely on
| uncompensated care, go without treatment, or risk
| bankruptcy
|
| The strength of M4A proposals is that they begin with an
| understanding that the 40% exist and need things fixed.
| Their weakness is that they pretend that the 60% don't,
| and threaten to take away what they have."
|
| Amazon is, pretty reliably, part of that 60%; it offers
| some of _the best_ employer health coverage out there.
| Like, it doesn 't even compare to public health plans in
| a lot of the world.
|
| All of the problems you brought up (labyrinthine systems,
| appeal processes, bill collector agencies in Alaska) are
| real problems that you and I agree need to be solved, but
| they're also problems that don't afflict beneficiaries of
| generous plans paid for by rich companies, and that's
| what we're talking about in the context of Amazon
| Warehouse workers.
| kolinko wrote:
| So, what the parent said - they offer various plans, and
| engineers can choose the more expensive ones, and line
| workers less expensive ones.
| bhupy wrote:
| Most FAANG companies cover all of the premium amount. The
| only difference is in the deductible. Some engineers
| might choose a higher deductible plan so that they can
| take advantage of an HSA and enjoy the triple tax
| advantage. Warehouse workers are probably better off
| choosing the $0 deductible HMO plan that Amazon offers.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It means the employer has to offer a sufficiently
| generous benefit so that enough of the company's lower
| income employees sign up for it, such that it passes non
| discrimination testing rules. Which means the health
| insurance benefit must be good enough that even the lower
| paid employees find it makes sense to sign up for it.
| fearling wrote:
| Decide for yourself how to think about affording these
| plans: https://www.amazon.jobs/en/landing_pages/benefitso
| verview-us
| j7ake wrote:
| Healthcare isn't free in most countries in Europe.
|
| Germany and Netherlands for example the payment is in the
| order of 100 euros a month for health insurance.
| bhupy wrote:
| The warehouse workers get the same (extremely generous)
| healthcare as every other Amazon employee (due to ERISA).
|
| And even if they didn't, through the Affordable Care Act,
| someone at that income level can buy a "Gold" plan with
| low deductibles for $75/month. Obviously for Amazon
| workers, that's irrelevant.
|
| K-12 education is free, and once you factor in-state
| tuition and FAFSA, university is also basically free for
| anyone that continues to make minimum wage throughout
| their career.
| starlust2 wrote:
| Neither of the options you listed is free.
| bhupy wrote:
| Sure, and healthcare isn't "literally free" in loads of
| high standard of living first world countries. In France,
| for example, there's a 20% coinsurance that's paid on all
| treatments. With a few exceptions, most single payer
| countries have co-pays.
|
| Amazon's plans can be found here: https://www.amazon.jobs
| /en/landing_pages/benefitsoverview-us
|
| These plans are extended to every single Amazon employee,
| including the warehouse workers. Most of the warehouse
| workers we're talking about would probably choose the
| Kaiser HMO that has $0 deductible and 100% coverage; all
| they would pay is $30 co-pay. This is more or less how
| the single payer healthcare works in Australia, for
| example.
| [deleted]
| dangoor wrote:
| > Most of the warehouse workers we're talking about would
| probably choose the Kaiser HMO that has $0 deductible and
| 100% coverage;
|
| No. We're talking about workers in Alabama, and Kaiser is
| listed on that very page as regional: Kaiser Permanente
| HMO (California, Colorado, D.C., Maryland, Virginia,
| Washington)
|
| I'm assuming Amazon charges employees some portion of the
| insurance premium, as most employers do? Also, there's
| this:
|
| > Amazon's benefits can vary by location, the number of
| regularly scheduled hours you work, length of employment,
| and job status such as seasonal or temporary employment.
| bhupy wrote:
| Kaiser operates in Alabama too, just FYI.
|
| You're correct that there's regional variation, but
| that's mostly a function of the medical networks. For
| instance, UHC's network may have more coverage in the
| Northeast than Blue Cross Blue Shield (or vice versa).
|
| Ultimately, as full-time employees, Amazon's warehouse
| workers are entitled to the exact same health insurance
| as their white collar counterparts sitting in the
| offices, and they offer extremely above average Cadillac
| health insurance.
| dangoor wrote:
| > Kaiser operates in Alabama too, just FYI
|
| I didn't think so. My company offers us Kaiser as an
| option as well, but only for folks in states where Kaiser
| operates (I'm in Michigan). I thought one of the
| distinctive features of Kaiser is that they offer
| insurance _and_ have their own clinics.
|
| Regardless, the point of Amazon offering quality
| healthcare plans to the warehouse workers is still great
| to hear!
| panta wrote:
| In Europe free healthcare is guaranteed even if you lose
| your job, and there are essentially no limitations (if
| you need an expensive treatment, you get it, no matter
| what).
| ekianjo wrote:
| > In Europe free healthcare is guaranteed
|
| Utterly false as a general rule, and free is not as
| glamorous as you make it sound like. Some doctors will
| refuse to see patients who are on the free healthcare
| system, too.
|
| > if you need an expensive treatment
|
| Yeah, if you can wait for it. Ever heard of surgery that
| sometimes take a year to reserve? Well that's the
| standard in Europe for certain conditions.
| avereveard wrote:
| > even if
|
| Bullshit. In Italy only the lowest income brackets get
| free healthcare, everyone else has various degree of
| copay. And even then you get terrible services, with
| queues several months long for exams and quality far
| inferior from what you get going trough the private
| sector.
|
| And when I worked and lived in Dublin, same story, I had
| to pay 270EUR for using emergency services at a public
| hospital and was lucky to have them covered by the
| private insurance my employer provided.
| panta wrote:
| In Italy copay is very limited, almost symbolic, even for
| those in the highest income brackets. As you point out
| wait times can be (very) long for exams (at least when
| there is no indication of urgency), but for
| serious/complex procedures the quality is way higher in
| the public sector than in the private one.
| avereveard wrote:
| Bullshit. Plenty procedures aren't even covered, as soon
| as you're slightly out of the commonest procedures and
| you want some quality healthcare you're going to pay, and
| part yourself from thousands euros.
|
| Proper dental procedures, substitutive hormone therapy,
| plenty rate stuff require specialists or medicines that
| mutua doesn't pass. heck if you have a condition that
| require a specialist during pregnancy you're going to
| have to pay everything out of your money to avoid the
| random ginecologist rotation, to the tune of
| 120EUR+/visit, and you're going to need ten or more if
| any complication arises.
|
| This is the typical uninformed comment from some ableist
| that never actually had to suffer from the Italian
| healthcare beyond the most basic services.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| That's a very general statement which is false in some
| countries (e.g. in Poland unless you are a child or
| elderly and are unemployed, you are going to pay out of
| your own pocket)
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| >lose your job
|
| >are unemployed
|
| Well, yes?
| yourmom2 wrote:
| They don't have cash for copays and all the other
| american nonsense so it's not really the same thing.
| smithza wrote:
| Also, population for the city is near 25k. A small
| fraction of those folks enjoy the benefits of this
| healthcare given by working for Amazon.
|
| Furthermore, it is a bad historical precedent to rely on
| employers for healthcare. This was a poor side-effect of
| the wage-hike stoppages during WWII that was later tax-
| exempted through federal law. It was never well thought
| out.
|
| Finally, how many people in this town feel they have
| equal opportunity for social mobility? Decades of
| economic stagnation and degradation have thrown any
| plausible arguments towards a "meritocracy/American
| dream/everyone has an equal chance at success" out the
| window.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| Wtf?
|
| I need more information about that health care plan. Last
| time I looked at the market I was looking at worse
| premiums, coverage, and limits and making garbage pay.
|
| My plan is $500/mo from me and $1500 from my employer
| with, iirc, 8000 max oop
|
| Edit: I reviewed the plans they offer. Mine is
| significantly better, excluding the max oop. Anyone know
| what the costs are for for the plans?
| pxx wrote:
| This is incredibly expensive compared to the Amazon plan.
|
| You understand that you are paying more in premiums than
| the premium _plus_ out-of-pocket maximums of these plans,
| right?
|
| A quick Google search gives
| https://www.premera.com/documents/042884.pdf which
| indicates $31 per month (or $14.31 per biweekly pay
| period), which is $372 per _year_, plus Amazon refunds
| $500 into your HSA.
|
| There is no way your plan could be better for you,
| regardless of your circumstances. You start off more than
| $6000 in the hole compared to the Amazon plan.
| resto49 wrote:
| From past experience at Amazon, it's anywhere from $20 to
| $80 per month for individual coverage.
|
| I honestly have trouble believing yours is "significantly
| better". One of the Amazon plans is a $300/year
| deductible with $2,300/year oop, and costs $80/month, and
| Amazon contributes $500/year towards your HRA. Another
| plan has no deductible, and $1,500/year oop. Those are
| some of the best healthcare insurance plans I've ever
| seen in the US, period. I'd believe it if yours was about
| the same, but it's pretty difficult to be "significantly
| better" than those.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| Between less/no copays and specific services my employer
| covers directly my plan is significantly better for me
| and my circumstances. My previous employer had virtually
| identical coverage with higher oop and monthly payment.
| Just a perk of being in a strong union I guess.
|
| E: I'd love to see the official coverage breakdown offers
| with prices if anyone has them please share, email in
| profile if you don't want to share publicly.
| foepys wrote:
| Do they get free university with an interest free loan of
| which they only have to pay 50% and only up to 10,000EUR
| back? And 20+ days vacation days plus 6 weeks paid sick
| leave plus 18 months job guarantee in case of a longer
| healing process while being paid 60% of their last wage?
| Plus 1-2 years unemployment benefits, also at 60% of last
| wage? Plus 60% paid for up to a year in case of being on
| furlough during a pandemic? Plus parental leave of 12+2
| months at 67% of last wage? Plus full health care
| regardless of being employed? Plus no deductibles,
| limits, or copay for any health issue?
|
| Talking about Germany here by the way.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Talking about Germany here by the way.
|
| Talking about the wealthiest country in Europe. I'm glad
| you are not cherry picking your data when you expose
| facts.
| splitstud wrote:
| I'll take the lower tax rate, thanks
| murderfs wrote:
| Do they get coronavirus vaccines?
| whoknew1122 wrote:
| You're conflating FAFSA and Pell Grants. FAFSA is an
| application for student aid. Pell Grants are the federal
| government grants given to low-income students. The
| lifetime limit for Pell Grants is $6,3465. As a low-
| income student, you may also be eligible for Stafford
| loans, which are federal subsidized loans. Subsidized
| meaning that the government pays for any interest accrued
| while you're a part time student, in your six-month post-
| graduation grace period, or other deferred status.
|
| The estimated cost of attendance at one of the closest
| public universities, the University of Alabama at
| Birmingham, has a yearly estimated cost of attendance of
| $28,695 for in-state students.
|
| University isn't 'basically free' for low income
| students. My parents lived below the poverty line their
| entire lives. I graduated with my bachelor's degree and
| $80k worth of loan debt.
|
| Sure low-income students might be eligible for needs-
| based grants and scholarships offered at their college.
| But federal support for low-income students is pitiful
| and college for those students is a far cry from free.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| If you were below the poverty line when you attended
| university you could've attended most state schools for
| free.
| whoknew1122 wrote:
| Tell that to my student loans. You can try to lie to
| others, but you're not going to gaslight me.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| You fucked up. Could've attended college for free, but
| decided not to.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| No one's saying it's impossible for someone like to you
| spend $80k on a four year degree, just that you don't
| have to.
| resto49 wrote:
| What you're talking about is highly variable based on
| college choice and location. Federally, the student aid
| situation isn't great, but there are many universities
| that will fully cover all tuition (and sometimes more) if
| you are under a certain income threshold. See: University
| of Texas.
|
| You're also narrowly scoping this to talking about one of
| the largest and fanciest universities in the state.
| Meanwhile, there are plenty of other colleges in the area
| that cost fractions of Bama. And of note, Amazon actually
| pays for up to 95% of tuition/fees for warehouse workers
| who choose to pursue associates degrees.
|
| There are certainly societal problems in the US regarding
| education costs and healthcare, but these are both areas
| where Amazon is actually providing for its workers way,
| way above what the federal government provides, and even
| way above what is normal for most Americans (the health
| insurance that Amazon warehouse workers get is likely
| better than the health insurance of most of the people
| posting in this thread). This is the kind of stuff that
| needs to be kept in mind to understand why Bessemer
| residents don't all see Amazon as evil.
| whoknew1122 wrote:
| >"but there are many universities that will fully cover
| all tuition (and sometimes more) if you are under a
| certain income threshold. See: University of Texas."
|
| The University of Texas's program is: 1.) Recent 2.)
| Covers students enrolled at the time the program went
| into affect. It doesn't cover recently-graduated
| students. 3.) Only covers Texas residents (meaning it's
| irrelevant to a conversation about Amazon employees in
| Alabama) 4.) Only covers tuition, not cost of living.
| Cost of living, of course, is more than half of total
| cost of attendance at the University of Texas.
|
| Go ahead. Ask me how I know what it's like to be a low-
| income student at the University of Texas.
|
| > "You're also narrowly scoping this to talking about one
| of the largest and fanciest universities in the state."
|
| I scoped it to one of two public universities near
| Bessemer, Alabama. UAB isn't the flagship campus, the
| University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. By the way, the
| other public university near Bessemer is the University
| of Montevallo. It has a cost of attendance of 27,845 per
| year for in-state students.
|
| > "And of note, Amazon actually pays for up to 95% of
| tuition/fees for warehouse workers who choose to pursue
| associates degrees."
|
| Is that generous? Yeah. To some extent. But keep in mind
| the following:
|
| 1.) It only applies to associates degrees. 2.) The yearly
| payout is $3,000 (for full-time employees, half that for
| part time) 3.) You have to have worked for a year to be
| eligible 4.) Amazon only covers certain degrees
|
| You also have to continue working a demanding job with
| irregular hours. It's not nothing, I agree. But I've
| worked other non-skilled jobs with much more generous
| tuition reimbursement packages (including, but not
| limited to: eligibility for dependents, unrestricted
| major choice, applicability to four-year degrees, and
| more generous yearly maximums).
|
| > "This is the kind of stuff that needs to be kept in
| mind to understand why Bessemer residents don't all see
| Amazon as evil."
|
| I never said anything about Amazon being evil, or whether
| Bessemer residents see Amazon as evil. In fact, if you
| look at my posting history, I've been very upfront that I
| am an employee of Amazon.
|
| Further, 'not being evil' and 'providing more then the
| federal (or state governments)' is a very low bar to
| cross. It doesn't obviate the need for a union.
| happilyFIREd wrote:
| _You're also narrowly scoping this to talking about one
| of the largest and fanciest universities in the state._
| Wow, so low-income students should not aspire to go to
| schools as 'fancy' as U of Alabama?
|
| Infuriatingly disingenuous argument.
| resto49 wrote:
| Did anyone say anything even close to that?
|
| Talk about an argument being disingenuous. Don't put
| words in my mouth.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| >University isn't 'basically free' for low income
| students. My parents lived below the poverty line their
| entire lives. I graduated with my bachelor's degree and
| $80k worth of loan debt.
|
| You must have done something dumb.
| spectramax wrote:
| I went to college (University of Georgia) with Pell
| Grants for free. 100% free including lodging and dining,
| both Bachelors + Masters in Physics. My parents were
| unemployed at the time and we interviewed at the deans
| office for the grant, I clearly remember when my father
| broke down in tears. I had to borrow friend's books, use
| the library scanner to create PDFs of the pages that were
| important - couldn't afford textbooks.
|
| I am eternally grateful for the FAFSA/Pell Grant program.
| Without it, I wouldn't be conducting fundamental science
| and getting paid 6 figures.
|
| I know this is N=1 sample size, just wanted to put it out
| there.
|
| I think college should be free _only_ for people that
| cannot afford it. Rich kids should pay.
| bhupy wrote:
| I went to Georgia Tech, and another _huge_ advantage in
| Georgia is the HOPE and Zell-Miller scholarships. IMO a
| model that should be replicated by other States in the
| Union.
| spectramax wrote:
| Oh yea, I also had HOPE scholarship I remembered now. It
| required minimum GPA from highschool if I recall.
|
| Here is some more information:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship
| bhupy wrote:
| Sorry to hear that you had $80k worth of debt, that's
| certainly a lot. It's also several standard deviations
| above the median. The median student loan debt in the US
| is about $17,000 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedm
| an/2020/02/03/student...).
|
| In Alabama, you can actually use the net price calculator
| here: https://financialaid.ua.edu/net-price-calculator/
|
| For a family of 2 that earns minimum wage tuition goes as
| low as $8,000/year in total, and that's excluding any
| Federal grants or loans.
|
| Generally speaking, sticker price != net price for the
| vast majority of students: https://www.manhattan-
| institute.org/new-approach-curbing-col...
|
| From the link: "The average annual net cost at a four-
| year public college has grown by almost 81% beyond
| inflation over the past decade, to $3,870."
|
| Again, I'm sorry to hear about your personal experience;
| it's totally valid. It's, however, not representative of
| the median or the majority of the lower class.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| > For a family of 2 that earns minimum wage tuition goes
| as low as $8,000/year in total, and that's excluding any
| Federal grants or loans.
|
| To rephrase: "For a family of 2 that earns minimum wage,
| tuition remains more than 50% of your gross income."
| bhupy wrote:
| That's ignoring Federal grants. Once you factor in all
| external grants, the _median_ per-year tuition is half of
| that, if you read the last link. And that 's the
| _median_. The bottom quintile is ostensibly much less.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Tuition also does not reflect the full cost of attendance
| (books, materials can be hundreds or even thousands a
| semester, depending on your major, and housing can in
| some cases exceed tuition[0]).
|
| The same source notes that the net TFRB (which I'm
| reading as cost of attendance, as it isn't defined
| anywhere) is $15,500, with $6,500 in grants. Or a CoA of
| ~$9,000 annually. This remains above the 50% number I
| mentioned.
|
| And it's worth noting that these grants aren't solely
| federal grants. Universities (and states) offer all kinds
| of non-need-based aid. The one I'm familiar with, since
| I'm from Georgia, is the Hope scholarship.
|
| This grant offers 6-10K per year, which is amazing,
| unless you lose it part way through your education (by
| failing to maintain what can be a fairly difficult GPA
| requirement). I nearly lost it my first year. That would
| have been an additional cost of ~20K over the remainder
| of my education. That was stressful for me, an upper
| middle class person with financially responsible parents
| who had decent savings for my education.
|
| That kind of stress would be compounded for someone who
| started in more dire financial straits, and who was more
| heavily relying on the grant money.
|
| [0]: And while some people can live at home, this is not
| available to many people, and can negatively impact your
| ability to network and build a social support network
| with peers at university, which is extremely valuable.
| bhupy wrote:
| I'm from Georgia as well (I went to Georgia Tech).
|
| In addition to HOPE, you also have Zell-Miller which is
| even more generous (covers housing, food, and books).
|
| The fact that Georgia's aid is tied to merit is a system
| that I personally agree with, but understand why someone
| might not. It's something that the voters of each State
| should litigate.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| FWIW when I said 6-10K a year, I was including Zell on
| the upper end of that, and it does a great job of helping
| the people it helps, and as far as I know is one of the
| superior grant programs in the US (which is to say,
| you'll have less support in most other states).
|
| > (I went to Georgia Tech)
|
| Then you're probably familiar with at least part of the
| controversy: maintaining the Zell/HOPE GPA requirement at
| GT is _difficult_. So for an above average, but not
| exceptional student, or a student who doesn 't have a
| strong support network, the rational decision can be to
| go to a worse school because maintaining the GPA
| requirement will be easier.
|
| That means UGA (or State or KSU) over Tech for many
| people. I think that there are a variety of reasons
| that's a misalignment of incentives (and thankfully there
| seems to be some improvements happening in this area).
| bhupy wrote:
| > So for an above average, but not exceptional student,
| or a student who doesn't have a strong support network,
| the rational decision can be to go to a worse school
| because maintaining the GPA requirement will be easier.
|
| Yes, and I don't see a problem with that. The best
| schools are for the best students. This response
| shouldn't surprise you, coming from an alumna of Georgia
| Tech, which is an extremely rigorous and prestigious
| school.
|
| I understand that values differ, but at some point,
| personal responsibility and merit need to count for
| something.
|
| If the net result of this is that an unexceptional poor
| student ends up going to KSU or Georgia State instead of
| Georgia Tech, I'm okay with that. KSU and Georgia State
| are perfectly fine schools, and its graduates go on to
| lead perfectly fine lives outside of poverty. I recommend
| playing with this tool which allows you to see, for every
| single school and major, what the earnings vs debt is:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-college-graduates-
| make-th...
|
| Not everyone is entitled to go to Georgia Tech (or MIT or
| Harvard) for free; and there are plenty of middle-of-the-
| lane universities that provide opportunities for
| unexceptional students, at little to no cost.
| kmlx wrote:
| free? they're paid for by taxes.
| wolfsayswof wrote:
| That and more: 1. universal disability benefits 2.
| usually min 20 days of vacation 3. pension 4.
| unemployment benefits incomparable to the US 5. unpaid
| overtime is usually taboo
|
| I live in the US (originally from EU) and I don't like
| people arguing the EU healthcare sucks without
| experiencing it themselves.
|
| No matter what your job/status is, you don't have to be
| scared to see any doctor - dentist, specialist, eye
| doctor...
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Well, specifics vary; like in the U.K. - good luck on
| finding an NHS dentist. Virtually everyone I knew in the
| U.K. had private dentistry despite it putatively being
| covered by the NHS.
| plexman wrote:
| Free? Nothing is free, what do you mean? Healthcare and
| education don't grow on trees. Dublin income tax is
| between 30% to 40%, you pay one way or another.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The _you_ paying taxes in question might be different
| from the _you_ that is unable to afford healthcare.
| zajio1am wrote:
| > You are not taking into account that in Europe you get
| free healthcare
|
| Single payer health care is not necessary 'free'. Here in
| Czechia one pays mandatory 'health tax/insurance' in
| addition to regular income tax. But still (IMHO) better
| than US system.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > free healthcare & education.
|
| Not everywhere in Europe, and "free healthcare" is
| largely a myth. It's free until it's not. You need
| glasses? Out of your pocket, and it's super expensive.
| You need to stay in hospital? It's not going to be
| anywhere free. And they will kick you out as soon as they
| can as they are starving for beds and resources. Good
| luck with that.
|
| Sure, you can always go to the emergencies to get free
| treatment, and wait 10 hours to see someone who is
| overworked to diagnose your issues.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| $15 an hour is what you get in Eastern Europe as a senior
| software developer.
|
| But yes, it comes with affordable healthcare, free
| education, longer vacation, and maternity leave.
| francilien wrote:
| Lidl in Germany has a minimum starting salary of 12,50EUR
| per hour. With other benefits like 30 days of vacation.
|
| https://jobs.lidl.de/lidl-als-
| arbeitgeber/mindesteinstiegslo...
| flavius29663 wrote:
| so...that's about 15 dollars. Do you consider them to be
| slaves too?
| avs733 wrote:
| I love the label unskilled.
|
| I don't think most of my colleagues in academia could
| physically complete a shift in an Amazon warehouse. Is that
| a skill?
|
| The labels unskilled and entry level are used to depress
| wage expectations not accurately represent the requirements
| of the work performed because the work is deemed to be of
| low economic value.
| lazide wrote:
| It is called unskilled because there is no particular set
| of unusual credentials, rare talents, or uncommon
| training required. The entry bar is very low in that
| respect.
|
| It doesn't mean, and has never meant it was easy work or
| anyone could survive doing it for long - rather that the
| necessary skills (for the majority of the population who
| doesn't already have them by dint of existing) can be
| taught in about 5 minutes by someone not trained in
| teaching it to you.
|
| Ditch digging is 'unskilled' because anyone who can
| figure out a shovel can do it, and theoretically any
| random passerby could do it (for a time) to a competent
| degree. This is unlike a 'skilled' trade, or craft such
| as electrical work, surveying, etc.
|
| It's something very few people could actually sustain for
| very long - I spent a week ditch digging before when I
| was younger - but part of why the pay is terrible and the
| work is hard is because any rando who needs some cash
| this week can do it. There is a ton of competition
| keeping prices low and conditions hard.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most of your peers in academia could build up the needed
| physical fitness in a few days and within a week be just
| as productive as someone else who has been there for
| years (assuming similar body - obviously someone who is
| physically disabled can't compete). By contrast it would
| take the warehouse workers years of study to write
| software that is any good.
| dfadsadsf wrote:
| I did tour of Amazon warehouse (they used to run public
| tours) and most workers there did not look particularly
| fit or athletic. I would say that people in typical tech
| office looks more fit. Also Amazon gives you time to ramp
| up - while your collegues in academia may struggle first
| week, they will shape up pretty fast.
| stonogo wrote:
| Have you lived in Alabama on European unskilled-labor
| wages? I don't think it's a good idea.
| tittenfick wrote:
| Nah, most jobs in super markets would net you the same (if
| you have no experience.) Germany here.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| My wife was working at a Starbucks in Munich and started
| at 10 EUR/hour, which is like 12 USD.
| slantedview wrote:
| In Europe, workers have workplace safety protections that
| these Amazon warehouse workers don't have. Amazon workers
| are treated as disposable, and unlike Europeans, their
| healthcare benefits don't extend beyond their usefulness to
| Amazon:
|
| https://revealnews.org/article/how-amazon-hid-its-safety-
| cri...
| Justsignedup wrote:
| In Europe there are a lot of social benefits that mitigate
| this.
|
| - Health care
|
| - Worker protections
|
| - Required time off
|
| - Sick time
|
| - Maternity leave
|
| etc.
|
| Here its $15. And you're on your fucking own.
|
| If you compare it to completely underdeveloped or
| dictatorial economies... Sure I guess its way better. But
| the US shouldn't be comparing comparing itself to that. Its
| like saying "This engineer is horrible, but he's not as bad
| as this drug addict that is yelling all day outside our
| front door!"
| seriousquestion wrote:
| > Here its $15. And you're on your fucking own.
|
| You've been mislead by propaganda. They have healthcare,
| protections, etc.
| binaryblitz wrote:
| How so?
|
| In Alabama you cannot qualify for medicaid unless you are
| a "needy child, parent, caregiver, pregnant woman, or
| elderly/disabled resident". Meaning you can't qualify
| just for being low income.
|
| While Amazon does provide decent health insurance, most
| lower income jobs do not.
|
| I make good money, and have good health insurance and it
| would still cost me over $1k to go to the hospital.
| Imagine doing that with no health insurance while making
| $10/hr.
|
| EDIT: You updated your comment so I'll add on. Sure,
| Amazon provides health insurance, but a lot of businesses
| don't. In 2020, ~31 million Americans didn't have
| insurance. Even if you have health insurance, premiums
| and deductibles can be astronomical.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| "You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
|
| Another day older and deeper in debt
|
| Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
|
| I owe my soul to the company store"
| resto49 wrote:
| No objection that most of EU is better than the US in
| these regards, but Amazon warehouse workers get some of
| the best healthcare insurance that I've ever seen in the
| US. Similar to what the top-level-commenter pointed out,
| I guarantee that the warehouse jobs in Bessemer provide
| among the best healthcare available in the town.
|
| The US as a whole is awful at providing healthcare, but
| healthcare is a particular area where Amazon actually
| _is_ going way above what is normal and is provided
| astonishingly well for its workers.
| motardo wrote:
| I'm an Amazon warehouse worker in North Carolina. As far
| as health insurance, I pay 100% of the first $1500, then
| 10% of the next $15,000 (so $3000 total), then 0% of
| anything over $16,500. I wouldn't call that astonishing,
| but it is the minimum $0 monthly premium plan. Also, I'm
| generally happy at work. I basically feel well paid and
| well treated.
| entangledqubit wrote:
| Reply to the sibling comment comparing to insurance of MS
| SWE. While the absolute values are comparable, $1500 is
| quite a bit more of an inconvenience at a warehouser
| worker pay level than at a SWE salary level.
|
| Given the physical nature of the work, I'd consider them
| more enlightened if they provided a lower deductible at
| the $0 premium level for every warehouse worker across
| the board. I'm really getting tired of places treating
| the long term mental and physical health of workers as an
| unpriced externality that's later paid for by society.
|
| Also, thanks to motardo for the data point. (I will
| assume you're an actual warehouse worker.)
| r0m4n0 wrote:
| Not defending insurance plans in the US whatsoever
| because I despise their deductible structures but that's
| actually pretty good.
| filoleg wrote:
| This is pretty much the same insurance that full-time
| SWEs at Microsoft receive at Redmond HQ (well, one of the
| two options, with the other one being tied to Kaiser
| specifically, but most people I know take the one that's
| similar to yours). 100% of the first $1.5k, 10% until you
| hit the total of $3k, and then everything is free. $0
| monthly premium as well. That's the one I have myself at
| the moment.
|
| Glad to see someone like you list the real numbers,
| because I keep hearing "good insurance" when it comes to
| Amazon warehouses, but this is the first time I saw
| someone actually point out the specifics. Also glad to
| hear that Amazon warehouse workers receive health
| benefits on par with full-time SWEs (not being sarcastic
| here, I genuinely am happy to hear this is the case).
| macintux wrote:
| How much easier is it to keep a job, and thus your health
| insurance, as a SWE when your body breaks down?
| [deleted]
| slimsag wrote:
| (you didn't say this, but) nobody here should fool
| themselves into thinking a $3k deductible insurance is
| equal between an Amazon warehouse employee and a SWE at
| Microsoft.
|
| $3k for a Microsoft SWE is a "dang, I wish I didn't have
| to go to the hospital" situation.
|
| $3k for an Amazon warehouse employee earning $15/hr can
| often be a "there go my savings, I wonder if I got this
| injury due to the amount of physical activity my job
| requires" situation.
| DougN7 wrote:
| It's not all equal, but I'm looking at my $7K deductible
| with a $1.2K/month premium (ACA Marketplace plan) and I'm
| thinking that plan looks like gold.
| filoleg wrote:
| I see your point, but to be fair, it is 10% after the
| first $1.5k. And it is already a much better insurance
| than most people working in offices I know get.
|
| Essentially, what it means is that if an employee spends
| less than $1.5k/yr on medical expenses, they don't gain
| much benefit. If they spend over $1.5k, they essentially
| only spend 10% after that on all of their medical
| expenses. And once they hit a hard cap at $3k, they spend
| nothing at all. 90% off for most medical stuff is a great
| rate.
|
| Not even mentioning the fact that this kind of an
| insurance is a godsend to people with major health
| problems, given that in the worst possible scenario, they
| would only ever spend $3k of their own money in a
| calendar year on medical stuff. And that's only if their
| actual pre-insurance-cost expenses are closer to the
| $16.5k, because $1.5k + $1.5k/0.1 = $16.5k.
|
| And I am yet to see a better insurance out of any
| employers (not just warehouse employers). Even the
| "amazing" student insurance I had back in college (which
| I had to pay the premium for) was much worse than this.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The benefit is the same, and it's far more lavish than
| any other $15 job offers. Employers paying for 100% of
| the health insurance premiums are rare.
| astrange wrote:
| Microsoft's healthcare plan used to pay 100% of premiums,
| but over time it either became unaffordable or didn't
| work with the ACA.
|
| Currently it's something like "we charge you a lot for
| the first few months but also give you the money to pay
| it in your HSA", which makes you wonder why they give it
| to you in the first place. It's not like you can optimize
| your prescriptions out of your life, so it's not enabling
| choice.
| brsiegel wrote:
| Well not quite, because Microsoft also contributes $1k to
| an HSA as part of the plan every year.
|
| That said, having to pay up to $3k a year in medical
| costs when you're earning a Microsoft salary is a much
| smaller percent of your income than having the pay the
| same making $15/hr at an Amazon warehouse.
| filoleg wrote:
| HSA is a separate thing that I don't even personally
| touch, I was talking about insurance itself.
|
| And I agree with your point, that type of an insurance
| with a fixed cut-off is regressive in a similar way that
| a sales tax it. So please don't get me wrong, I am not
| trying to say that Amazon warehouse workers have it just
| as good as Microsoft SWEs in terms of benefits (or just
| in general).
|
| They do, however, have the type of health
| benefits/insurance that is extremely difficult to beat by
| literally anyone except what other big tech companies
| provide to their SWEs. And afaik those benefits for
| Amazon warehouse workers kick-in on day 1, unlike what
| it's like at many other similar warehouse jobs.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| To help non-US people understand this plan:
|
| > but it is the minimum $0 monthly premium plan.
|
| The monthly premium is the cost of the insurance plan. A
| "$0" premium isn't actually $0, it means that Amazon is
| paying 100% of the monthly costs of maintaining the
| insurance, requiring $0 contribution from the employee.
| Many companies (especially warehouse type operations) are
| less generous, and require some monthly contribution from
| the employee to pay the premium. The worst health
| insurance I ever had required me to pay 100% of the
| monthly premium, with $0 committed by the company. That
| company lost a lot of employees.
|
| > I pay 100% of the first $1500
|
| This is the "deductible". The covered person is
| responsible for 100% of costs until the deductible is
| met, although there are many exceptions. For example, a
| routine checkup might be 100% covered ($0 cost), as well
| as a range of preventative care procedures described by
| the ACA.
|
| > then 10% of the next $15,000
|
| After the deductible has been met, the person is
| responsible for coinsurance of additional costs. An extra
| $5000 procedure would translate to a $500 bill for the
| patient.
|
| > then 0% of anything over $16,500.
|
| This is where the "out of pocket maximum" or OOPM is
| reached. In this case, the most the patient could expect
| to pay is $1500 (deductible) + $1500 (10% of next $15K) =
| $3000. After that, all excess charges are handled by the
| insurance company until the insurance year resets.
|
| In short: Health care will cost between $0 and $3000
| depending on how many services are used for the year
| (excluding fully covered benefits like annual checkup,
| depression screening, breast cancer screening for women,
| vaccinations, and other services covered for free under
| the ACA)
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Great write up! Only caveat is the limits only apply to
| in network providers (providers that have made a deal
| with the insurance company), so if you're on a trip and
| an emergency happens and you end up in a hospital that's
| not in network, then you're on your own.
|
| But I assume a company like Amazon is dealing with a
| large insurer part of nationwide networks like BCBS.
|
| Also, insurance companies have their own doctors and
| pharmacists that might disagree with the patient's
| doctor's treatment plans, and will not cover the
| healthcare costs for those items without a "prior
| authorization" from the insurer. There's an appeal system
| in place for this too. Although, this type of thing
| exists without health insurers too, it's just employees
| of the government deciding what to approve and not
| approve.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Only caveat is the limits only apply to in network
| providers (providers that have made a deal with the
| insurance company), so if you're on a trip and an
| emergency happens and you end up in a hospital that's not
| in network, then you're on your own.
|
| Actually, out-of-network emergency care is an 'essential
| benefit' under the ACA, so most plans do cover this
| scenario.
|
| I actually just screwed myself with this recently. I went
| to an urgent care while traveling (because that is
| usually cheaper when I'm at home) and it wasn't covered.
| An urgent care apparently doesn't count as emergency
| care. It turns out that I should have gone to the
| (typically very expensive) ER instead -- it would have
| been covered 100% because of the ACA!
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Thanks for the correction, I did not know that!
|
| Every time I dig into ACA, I find that it's a pretty
| decent framework for a non taxpayer funded healthcare
| system.
| alistairSH wrote:
| _After that, all excess charges are handled by the
| insurance company until the insurance year resets._
|
| This is an important point. And a related point.
|
| - Because the OOP payments reset annually, there are
| perverse incentives to over consume medical care after
| OOP is reached within a given year. Defer preventative
| health care until after you have a major medical problem
| that runs to max OOP, then stack up on preventative care
| before the year ends.
|
| - Related: Insurance is also tied to employer - if you
| change jobs, all those OOP values reset (to whatever
| policies are in place with new employer). This causes
| friction in the labor market - employer-provided and
| -subsidized health care prevents people from looking for
| new employment.
| elyobo wrote:
| Thanks for the explanation. Interesting to compare to
| Australia, which has a public health system, but where I
| still pay ~AUD2960/year, after government rebates (at
| current rates ~USD2255/year) for moderately crap health
| insurance for my family even with no medical usage.
|
| In general, we wouldn't even use it to access private
| health care, because we would then face substantial fees
| to use it (I don't know exactly; it varies significantly
| by procedure, has a $500 deductible, substantial copay,
| and has maximum caps), however we're taxed heavily for
| _not_ having a private policy.
|
| Our family income has recently pushed over some
| thresholds in the rebate system, pushing up prices even
| more, might have to shop around to find an even more
| useless but cheaper policy.
|
| Australia's public health system is pretty decent, but
| the half baked private system bolted on the side is a
| mess. Lots of people paying thousands for unusable
| insurance which is just sent directly to private
| companies.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Why do you prefer the company choosing insurance and
| paying x% over them paying 0%? Didn't you get the money
| they didn't pay? I mean what does it matter. Any tax
| reasons?
| eptcyka wrote:
| I don't want to entirely discount your experience, but
| given that Amazon is not beneath sock puppet accounts,
| how do I know the post is authentic?
| mediaman wrote:
| Do they have upgraded plans available for purchase, and
| are they pretty expensive or reasonable?
| killjoywashere wrote:
| Does Amazon not provide health care to their workers?
|
| https://www.amazondelivers.jobs/about/benefits/
| yourmom2 wrote:
| It's not a binary thing, nutsac.
| extradesgo wrote:
| It offers a company plan that workers DO have to pay for
| and often choose not to because they cannot afford it.
| CarlosEscobedo wrote:
| almost guaranteed though its not completely covered by
| amazon, and workers have to pay monthly premiums like
| most jobs that offer healthcare.
| resto49 wrote:
| The monthly premium is around $20-80/mo for healthcare
| plans that are seriously amazing compared to other plans
| I've seen in America, ie $300 deductible and $2000 out of
| pocket (with $500 of it covered by Amazon).
| bredren wrote:
| I was on the bronze-level Obamacare plans for years and
| it was about $300 for bad coverage in comparison to
| "real" private insurance.
|
| There is so much digging at Amazon I'd like to see the
| delivery and warehouse work role required performance
| metrics and work role benefits posted so we can look at
| facts.
| randomsearch wrote:
| "Are there no workhouses?"
|
| Such a difference between talking about working at a
| warehouse from the outside vs being born into a life that
| traps you there.
|
| I think HN struggles with topics like unionisation
| because most of us have just never been at the bottom of
| society without a way out. We're relatively rich and so
| highly skilled - we lucked out to be nerds in a world of
| tech, perhaps due to timing or perhaps because our
| parents were wealthy enough to put us here.
|
| It's the same phenomena of loving Uber or Airbnb and not
| understanding the cost to others.
|
| I don't know how to solve this problem. I don't
| personally want to go work at an Amazon warehouse so I
| can see how awful it is. I work damn hard but I know how
| lucky I must be.
|
| How do you get the rich to realise that the poor are
| simply, by definition, less fortunate?
| sbacic wrote:
| "In Europe" in this case means "Western Europe". I'm
| pretty sure many would take the $15/hour over the social
| benefits in say, Bulgaria.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| No, it means anywhere in the EU for the most part. For
| example, EU mandates all member states to give workers at
| least 4 weeks of paid vacation. Many have 5 or 6 weeks,
| but 4 is the bare minimum.
|
| https://eur-
| lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX...
| lostlogin wrote:
| Touch choice. As far as I can tell, the social welfare
| system in Bulgaria covers unemployment, healthcare, sick
| leave, maternity and paternity leave. The country looks
| like an amazing place, however it's population is in
| decline, it is corrupt and it has variety of huge
| problems. Minimum wage is about US$1.16.
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1103&langId=en
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria
| u678u wrote:
| Free healthcare - yeah I had to go to a hospital in
| Romania - I'd take my Alabama private hospital any day.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| That likely has more to do with Romania than the free
| healthcare.
| toomim wrote:
| Those things are not so easily separable.
| uoaei wrote:
| They are once you stop ignoring the other countries with
| free healthcare.
| datavirtue wrote:
| So work hard and get a better job. The fact is that you
| will not if you have a safety net under you. I lived on
| welfare and refused to make more money until it was a LOT
| more money. I finally got off the safety net only when my
| income increased five fold. Even that was a little
| begrudging because I had $800 a month in food stamps and
| free medical care and so all those costs got flipped onto
| me--not to mention the $6000 tax credit I lost and
| instead had to pay that amount. There are many families
| who are pulling down far more in benefits than I was.
| These safety nets are fucked up, and they gotta go. A
| better alternative is either UBI or a negative income
| tax.
| dvdkon wrote:
| The worse job you'd leave still need to exist, it's just
| going to be someone else toiling in unreasonable
| conditions. Sure, "get a better job" is something people
| in low-paying jobs should strive for, but it's selfish
| only to care about one's own situation and ignore the
| people you're leaving behind.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > In Europe there are a lot of social benefits that
| mitigate this.
|
| Europe is not one country. I hope you realize it's hard
| to generalize.
| blablabla123 wrote:
| You can earn 15 EUR/h (18 $) on average for cleaning in
| Munich. Minimum wage is at 9.50 EUR/h (11.30 $) though in
| Germany.
| hhjinks wrote:
| I made what translates to roughly $14 doing gallup calls as
| a teen in Europe.
| backtoyoujim wrote:
| That the labor conditions being just as one would imagine
| for a near-trillionaire's empire creeping on the distressed
| poverty of a white supremacist soul devouring harvester.
|
| Why ... what did you think that the subject was, dear ?
| [deleted]
| el-salvador wrote:
| $15 x 8h x 20 days = $2400 monthly would place you in the
| top 5% earners where I live.
| specialist wrote:
| Why are you comparing absolute dollar amounts? Is the cost
| of living the same every where?
| rayiner wrote:
| Cost of living in the middle of nowhere in the US is
| almost certainly less than nearly anywhere in Western
| Europe. The media home value in Bessemer is like $90,000.
| specialist wrote:
| Go on...
|
| Food? Health care? Transportation?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The COL in Bessemer is going to be less than in Western
| Europe. Do you live in America?
|
| You're right that healthcare could be more expensive, but
| there is also employer-covered health insurance.
| DC1350 wrote:
| Food and housing is extremely cheap in America. Americans
| have an extremely low cost of living and low taxes
| compared to every other wealthy country. Also higher
| wages for similar jobs.
| musingsole wrote:
| If you have a counterpoint, make it.
|
| I'll try for you: the cohesive view of cost of living
| would show these rubes to be peasants to the unskilled
| European's millionaire.
|
| Interesting point, where's your data?
| specialist wrote:
| > _Interesting point, where 's your data?_
|
| Exactly. Why would u/flavorous make a drive-by comment
| and not cite any data?
|
| I expected something like this, for international
| comparisons:
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/cost-of-
| liv...
| musingsole wrote:
| rayiner did give a data point. Just not a source. And
| that's because they were indulging you.
|
| That link and your refrains about data are signs of
| flailing due to lack of rhetorical content. Your argument
| is Europe good; US bad.
| benmller313 wrote:
| I think the cost of living in Small town Alabama is going
| to compare pretty favorably to anywhere in Europe.
| asdff wrote:
| Until you get sick and/or can't work that is.
| lazide wrote:
| Up thread there were claims of reasonable (by broken
| American healthcare system standard) zero cost insurance
| plans offered by Amazon. Was that true or false?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| asdff's point is that if you're unable to work, you no
| longer have access to those benefits since you will no
| longer have a job.
| fearling wrote:
| Good point, it's even cheaper in Bessemer AL than
| basically anywhere in Europe, too
| flavius29663 wrote:
| energy is cheaper in the US: electricity and gasoline
| (half price or cheaper). Groceries are significantly
| cheaper (food is of lower quality, but at least cheaper).
| Sales tax is around 20% in Europe vs 4% in Alabama.
| Property tax is a quarter of what it is generally in
| Europe...I can go on and on. If you are not a felon, you
| own a car and are healthy, life is pretty easy in the US,
| even for a low wage worker.
| sofixa wrote:
| You should include car costs ( + gasoline, maintenance,
| insurance) vs walking/biking/public transit. And
| healthcare costs, and education costs, and social safety
| net ( meaning that you need less of a savings account to
| be able to avoid disaster ).
|
| I'm certain that a small town in Italy or Spain could
| come out cheaper.
| specialist wrote:
| Ditto life expectancy, suicide rates, and other happiness
| index stuff.
|
| Apropos of nothing: Much pedantry about wages in a
| blighted area. Crickets about billionaires sharing some
| of their cheddar with the peons.
| sofixa wrote:
| Crap, i also forgot time off, maternity/paternity leave,
| "sick days", etc. It's hard to put a price on 30 days of
| paid vacation per year.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| If the post above about average houses costing $90k there
| are true, then the Amazon workers are earning about $26k
| a year, that's around 3.5x salary to house cost.
|
| I live in the middle of The Netherlands; the average
| house price is 360k and the average wage is 36k, that's
| around 10x salary to house cost.
|
| One important point: in almost all cases in NL both
| partners work, the general rule is that women work part
| time and increasingly couples under 40 both work full
| time. That's how the insane house market is propped up.
|
| Healthcare costs are around 200 EUR / person / month at
| the limit (you pay ~110 and the deductible is about 900
| EUR a year).
| kolinko wrote:
| You need to add costs of education, which is free in
| Netherlands, and multiple other social services (like
| public transit).
| radicalbyte wrote:
| Education is most certainly not free here. It would cost
| me 20k to do a Masters, and my wife took on debts of ~80k
| to pay for her education.
| tw04 wrote:
| There are plenty of jobs in western Europe that will pay
| similar and won't force you to pee in a bottle or your
| pants.
|
| That's ignoring the whole healthcare situation... which I
| think you're leaving out of the equation.
|
| 30 seconds of searching indicates the average grocery store
| clerk in the UK makes 8.80GPB/hr. Add on healthcare and
| they're coming out far ahead of an amazon warehouse worker.
|
| https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Industry=Grocery_Store
| _...
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Amazon Warehouse workers have medical coverage here too.
| So they're leaps and bounds ahead if you want to go ahead
| and say that.
|
| Of course the US healthcare system is broken so I know
| what you're getting at but I don't know that I want
| Amazon to pay their workers > $15 to subsidize a broken
| healthcare system for their workers I just want a
| functional healthcare system and for them to continue to
| make $15/hr.
| avs733 wrote:
| > Amazon Warehouse workers have medical coverage here
| too. So they're leaps and bounds ahead if you want to go
| ahead and say that.
|
| incorrect. they are OFFERED healthcare coverage. By this
| use of the word have, I have a private jet because I
| could buy one if I had the resources.
| bluGill wrote:
| They nearly universally take that offer (I don't even
| need to check to state that as a fact, the way US health
| care is everyone takes what they are offered). That is
| very different from an offer that nobody takes.
| tw04 wrote:
| >Amazon Warehouse workers have medical coverage here too.
| So they're leaps and bounds ahead if you want to go ahead
| and say that.
|
| Sorry, are you seriously trying to claim an HSA is better
| than universal healthcare?
|
| >Of course the US healthcare system is broken so I know
| what you're getting at but I don't know that I want
| Amazon to pay their workers > $15 to subsidize a broken
| healthcare system for their workers I just want a
| functional healthcare system and for them to continue to
| make $15/hr.
|
| I'm not even sure where you're going with this. The
| original claim was that $15/hr was better than you can
| get in Europe. I pointed out the hourly wage actually
| isn't much better, and oh by the way, that wage doesn't
| include healthcare (which it doesn't). If you want
| healthcare coverage you have a monthly fee, plus your co-
| pay and deductible. Not even REMOTELY competitive to
| western Europe unless you're one of the lucky few who
| literally never gets in an accident and never gets sick
| (as well as your entire family).
| astrange wrote:
| > Sorry, are you seriously trying to claim an HSA is
| better than universal healthcare?
|
| It's not an HSA and nothing else. It looks like it's
| similar to my employer plan which is actually more
| generous than some universal systems - I have gotten the
| same services here and in Australia and I pay less here.
| Mainly because those don't include dentists/mental
| health.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| I said it pretty clearly, it's not Amazon's fault that US
| healthcare is broken. Comparing EU to US for wages is
| thus largely fruitless. Fix our healthcare then your
| comparison might be useful.
|
| I was attempting to nicely dismiss your comparison.
| avs733 wrote:
| It is not Amazon's fault but there is nothing legally
| preventing them from doing better. That is a choice by
| Amazon. They offer worse health insurance for more money
| than I have available to me.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > Sorry, are you seriously trying to claim an HSA is
| better than universal healthcare?
|
| I think it can be. Depends on the details but an HSA
| comes with a high-deductible plan. This is normally ideal
| for young people, who are generally healthy and only need
| insurance for rare catastrophic illness or serious
| accidents. Normal, routine care (checkups, immunizations,
| etc.) can be budgeted and paid out of the HSA tax-free. I
| don't see why that stuff should be "free" for most
| people, any more than groceries or utilities or housing
| should be.
| binaryblitz wrote:
| There are actually tons of studies that show preventive
| healthcare reduces spend later on. For instance, if you
| pay for someone's routine checkup you might catch a heart
| issue or cancer early. Both insurance companies and the
| government (Medicaid/Medicare) would save money by paying
| for preventative care.
|
| Study by the NIH:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296930/
| zip1234 wrote:
| An HSA doesn't mean that you don't have preventative
| care. I have a high deductible plan plus HSA and there
| are things like annual checkups covered without going
| into deductible.
| bsanr2 wrote:
| So about those.
|
| I started with a new doctor after finally getting
| insurance a few years back. I told them I needed to come
| in for my annual check-up, and came in with a list of the
| things that had been bothering me and that I hadn't been
| able to get looked at (this is common for people who have
| not had healthcare access). The doctor spent 15 minutes
| with me, doing the bare minimum of setting up outside
| testing/imaging - as in, basically no guidance that day -
| and then coded it as a 45-minute, in-depth consultation
| ("because of the number of issues addressed"). $250.
| Before any tests or treatment. For reference, that was
| about 1% of my annual take-home. For a lot of you, that's
| like paying a grand or more just for your doctor to
| direct you elsewhere.
|
| So, yeah, certain things are "covered." But the structure
| of our healthcare system forces our clinics and hospitals
| to operate like many other American businesses, which is
| "in a predatorial manner."
| emayljames wrote:
| Universal Healthcare systems can and do provide a
| significantly better coverage and vastly more cost
| efficient system. What you just said is selfish
| healthcare provision, look out for yourself and to heck
| with everyone else.
|
| You have no empathy for people who can never afford
| ridiculous health care systems in private systems. This
| optimises the failed "rugged individual" philosophy that
| has only lead to ruin.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > I don't see why that stuff should be "free" for most
| people
|
| I do. Having a healthy population benefits me. Having
| people immunised, cared for and well keeps me healthier
| and safer. Having people lose homes and jobs and
| potentially their lives because they can't afford
| healthcare is not something I support.
| bluGill wrote:
| If you have a HSA it is just as good as any other
| universal health care. Depending on what you decide to
| value you can argue it is better or worse, but either way
| for practical purposes you don't have to worry about
| going to the doctor when you need to.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > If you have a HSA it is just as good as any other
| universal health care.
|
| I'm not American and have only just learned about HSAs
| and totally fail to understand your comment. Could you
| explain how they help someone poor pay for medical
| expenses? Doesn't the account get low/empty and then
| you're out of funds?
| bluGill wrote:
| When the HSA gets to zero you reach your yearly max and
| insurance takes over and you don't pay any more.
|
| I'm not sure how Amazon works, but my plans works
| something like (I'm rounding to make it easy, the reality
| is slightly more complex) that I pay everything for the
| first $3000, then for the next $15,000 I pay 20%, and
| thereafter I pay nothing. My total out of pocket is
| $6000/year, which is also the most I can put into the HSA
| per year, and my employer matches some of my
| contributions to in reality I'm getting $7k/year while
| only a few rare loop holes can get me close to needing
| that much. It is very rare for anyone to have more than
| $18k in medical expense per year (I had a baby last year
| and still am well below that), so for most people the HSA
| is another retirement account.
|
| Now the HSA does mean I'm not paying $100/month for my
| insurance, but instead $600/month. However most of the
| money is invested using the HSA as a retirement account
| for my medical needs. The idea of the HSA (which has not
| worked out in practice) is because the money is mine I'll
| have incentive to shop around for cheaper medical
| procedures to make sure there is more money for my future
| retirement, and this should lower costs (in practice most
| medical things can't be shopped around for, but a few
| people do look at their itemized bills and sometimes
| notice a billed procedure that wasn't done).
|
| Now that $600 is $3-4/hr, which is not insignificant to
| someone making $15/hr. However here again things get
| complex. That money is pre-tax income, so your taxes are
| almost cut in half for the year (granted this is only
| $500 - and only for a single person who can't claim
| anything else).
| lostlogin wrote:
| Thank you for this - I get it a bit better and HSAs do
| more than I thought they did.
|
| It's a phenomenal sum of money to spend, and while you
| have clearly considered your options, it really shows how
| expensive it is in the US.
|
| That said, I was surprised to see how high it is in New
| Zealand where I am ($4204) and how much less you are
| spending than the average in the US ($10906).
|
| https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-
| collection/health-...
| astrange wrote:
| Average spending isn't very meaningful here because it's
| just a few people spending a lot - mostly elderly people,
| which of course has the effect of nobody inheriting
| anything anymore because it went to hospital bills.
|
| The median person in the US doesn't spend much more on
| healthcare than the median European and their income is
| much higher. (Median income in a poor state like Alabama
| is higher than the UK.)
|
| Plus we have working clothes dryers. Meanwhile in Sweden
| they're so poor they have to ration the tvattstuga.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| the UK healthcare system isn't so great either. It's good
| enough for a safety net (mostly... the wait times are
| horrendous for non-emergency work, and I know a guy whose
| collarbone pokes out at a right angle because his doctor
| wouldn't fix the break), but if you have a chronic
| condition that isn't one of the handful of really common
| ones that all doctors know about (like IBS) then you're
| mostly on your own unless you go private.
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| >> because his doctor wouldn't fix the break
|
| That sounds really weird. Why would a UK doctor not fix a
| break?
|
| I'm guessing there was a medical reason rather than
| anything to do with the NHS or quality of care?
| beaconstudios wrote:
| there wasn't a medical reason - if I remember correctly,
| the doctor said that if it wasn't causing any medical
| issues then there was no need to fix it.
|
| I've had other NHS experiences that make this not
| particularly surprising.
| jjk166 wrote:
| This is typical in the US as well. Last year my
| girlfriend broke her nose and they said they just let it
| heal nowadays because it'll probably be fine on its own
| and they can deal with it later on the off chance it
| heals improperly.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| When I did a month summer education program in Cambridge
| another student on the trip needed a doctor. The
| experience was pleasant. What you described sounds like
| an experience you could just as easily have in the US
| with one of our many sub-par medical professionals that
| can't do anything but prescribe antibiotics. Bad doctors
| will exist no matter the system.
|
| Oh, and granted it was just the one experience, but the
| wait time seemed on par with an urgent care here in the
| US.
| atdrummond wrote:
| My experience with the NHS has been overall quite good,
| despite having an exceptionally severe presentation of
| Crohns and an aggressive leukemia. I've never been in a
| case where I have had to wait an exorbitant amount of
| time for either acute or routine care. This is across
| multiple cities and countries in the NHS.
|
| I likewise had some of the best American specialists in
| GI and oncology. I also ended up with six figures in
| medical debt despite having incredible insurance and a
| great job. I also experienced excruciating wait times at
| emergency rooms that dwarfed anything I've encountered at
| the A&E in the UK.
|
| The NHS obviously has massive scope for improvement and
| isn't even the healthcare system I have felt the most
| secure in (that was the Swiss) but I am confident that
| the NHS is almost certainly better for the average Brit
| than the US medical system is for the average American.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| I couldn't speak to the US healthcare system, but from
| what I've heard it's probably much worse for usual
| medical needs.
|
| I'm glad you've had a better experience with the NHS than
| I have; my wife has a chronic condition and has had a
| pretty bad time in the NHS - she hates going to the
| doctors now from how many times she's been called a liar
| or accused of just trying to feed a painkiller addiction
| (despite not actually asking for painkillers). All
| because many doctors seemingly struggle to admit that
| they don't know what's wrong.
|
| I just bring this up because I think (and I could be
| wrong) that some people see socialised healthcare as a
| panacea but my experience with it is that it's actually
| very inconsistent and regularly lets people down (not
| just my wife, a good few others that I know as well). I
| still wouldn't choose the US system over the NHS though,
| not by a long shot.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > some people see socialised healthcare as a panacea
|
| Do they? Every socialised healthcare system is crying out
| for money and is in need of help. I don't think I've ever
| seen anyone claim one is perfect.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| I'm very open to the possibility that my experience has
| negatively biased my perspective on socialised medicine
| such that I interpret relative (to the US) praise as
| absolute praise - "socialised medicine is good" versus
| "socialised medicine is better than the current US
| system". I take no issue with the latter statement, only
| the former.
| elyobo wrote:
| I'd take no exception to either, but would object to
| "socialised medicine is perfect" if applied to any system
| that I'm aware of.
| makomk wrote:
| Cancer treatment is a really high priority for the NHS
| these days, I think in part because it was an area where
| there used to be major issues and people died as a
| result. There are some really aggressive treatment
| targets for that handed down from on high and woe betide
| anyone who falls badly behind on them. Where it usually
| falls down is chronic and non-urgent conditions - stuff
| where patients won't necessarily die if not treated
| immediately, but might suffer long-term harm, maybe even
| lose a limb or their eyesight, or which seriously impact
| their ability to take part in normal activities whilst
| they're left untreated.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _the average grocery store clerk in the UK makes 8.80GPB
| /hr. Add on healthcare and they're coming out far ahead
| of an amazon warehouse worker._
|
| Is it fair to compare the average wage of a warehouse
| worker across the entirety of the U.K. with the starting
| wage of a warehouse worker in a single deeply
| impoverished town?
| lostlogin wrote:
| Then compare the same job. The starting Amazon warehouse
| wage in the UK is PS9.70, which is about US$13.70.
|
| https://www.amazon.jobs/en/landing_pages/warehouse-
| operative
| chmod600 wrote:
| I don't think it's terribly difficult to emigrate from
| the US to the EU. Aside from plane fare, what's holding
| someone in the US?
|
| And if it's just plane fare, there are probably a lot of
| places you can make it with a bus ticket that have better
| prospects without needing to go to Europe.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Aside from plane fare, what's holding someone in the
| US?
|
| Top of mind why someone would NOT want to work in
| "Europe": - lower salaries - much higher tax rate - stuff
| in general is more expensive (higher VAT + everything
| that's imported)
| chmod600 wrote:
| I was referring to lower income people that a union would
| supposedly help.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Add on healthcare and they're coming out far ahead of
| an amazon warehouse worker.
|
| Healthcare in the UK is not as good as you may think it
| is. Unless you love waiting lines for life-threatening
| conditions.
| megablast wrote:
| I lived in the Uk after loving from oz. never had an
| issue. Never even saw any lines. This was in London and
| Newcastle.
| u678u wrote:
| You conveniently chose one of the wealthiest countries
| with the highest wages. Here is a more realistic look at
| monthly min wages across the region. https://en.wikipedia
| .org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
| Archio wrote:
| >You conveniently chose one of the wealthiest countries
|
| Did you know that the United States is the wealthiest
| country in the world?
| VintageCool wrote:
| It is worth pointing out that Alabama is one of the
| poorest states in the country (using GDP per capita),
| along with Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia,
| and Idaho.
| [deleted]
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Did you know that the United States is the wealthiest
| country in the world?
|
| In aggregate, sure; its somewhere between 5th-8th by per
| capita GDP, which is the more relevant comparison,
| depending on source.
|
| But the UK isn't even close to the US, or particularly
| near the top in Western Europe (which yas countries ahead
| of the US.)
| Archio wrote:
| Whether its 5th, 8th, or 1st; saying you can't compare US
| benefits to that of a "wealthy" European country is
| ridiculous. America IS a wealthy country.
| spectramax wrote:
| How true is this "Pee in a bottle" thing? It sounds like
| a single anecdotal evidence widely used as a prop for
| arguments. Is there a systemic "pee in a bottle" problem
| at Amazon? I have a hard time believing this.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| You obviously missed the part where they hand each new
| employee a free bottle during orientation and train them
| on how to use it /s
| macrowhat wrote:
| Wikipedia: Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a
| person (an indenture) agrees to work without salary for a
| specific number of years for eventual compensation or debt
| repayment.
|
| "Without salary"
|
| "WITHOUT SALARY"
|
| And no, the government isn't your nanny. What a bunch of
| leftist doo-doo. Learn a bit about how horrible unions were
| in the 70s, and maybe I'll be convinced that "education" is
| actually a pathway to knowing what's best for yourself (as
| others suggest)
|
| They make the right choice.
| durkie wrote:
| if you're worried about how bad certain organizations were
| in the 70s i've got bad news for you about corporations
| macrowhat wrote:
| Just get the hell out of my country
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| The workers exploited by Amazon will have my utmost sympathy and
| support.
|
| Up until they make a decision that's not in accordance with what
| i, the great armchair warrior, decide is good for them. Rejecting
| my unsolicited advice, means they are ungrateful fools unworthy
| of my elevated consideration.
|
| All of that went through my head the moment i read the headline.
| I'm surprised at how intolerant i really am. But with second
| thoughts, these workers had a choice, they made it. Who am i to
| say that they are wrong.
| labatyd wrote:
| Incognito tab didn't work, googling it didnt work, and
| outline.com didn't work. Anyone have any other tips or tricks for
| finding the article to read it?
| Kelamir wrote:
| https://archive.is/DZZay
| josefresco wrote:
| You can subscribe to WSJ digital for $467.88/year.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| are you implying WSJ subscription prices are to blame for
| union's failure to recruit workers? :)
| josefresco wrote:
| You're joking but really, I'm just a curious guy who likes
| to look up pricing every time someone groans about
| paywalls.
|
| It seems the average is about $500/year which is (IMHO)
| insane unless it's your only paid news source.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| I wonder if that is where we are heading when it comes to
| publications not driven by clicks
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Let's buy each of the workers a sub
| mariksolo wrote:
| I have a Firefox extension called bypass paywalls.
| JCM9 wrote:
| It was clear getting these workers to unionize was good for the
| union... it was much less clear why it would be good for the
| workers.
|
| People can say what they want about Amazon but the reality is
| they provide a far better job, wage, and benefits than most.
| Apart from the broad sweeping messaging around corporations =
| bad, unions = the answer, it wasn't really clear at all why a
| union would benefit workers here. As such the result isn't
| terribly surprising. The result isn't even close.
| brightball wrote:
| This was similar to the Boeing situation in Charleston, SC.
|
| Boeing came in and brought great jobs with them. Then the union
| reps came in and started acting like everybody was being
| wronged somehow.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| That Charleston plant has terrible quality control compared
| to the more mature, unionized group in Everett. Some airlines
| have refused shipments from south Carolina in preference to
| the Washington group.
|
| https://leehamnews.com/2020/09/14/pontifications-boeing-
| sc-m...
| brightball wrote:
| For what it's worth, I noticed a correlation between bad
| company news and union disputes that started about 10 years
| ago with Boeing. I remember visiting Seattle as you drive
| by the Boeing facility on the way in, my cab driver was
| telling me how Boeing was going to shut down the plant and
| move everything to South Carolina.
|
| On that same trip, I was staying at a hotel with a view of
| city hall from my window (The Artic Club). I heard a bunch
| of horns blowing and looked out the window to see a line of
| cabs parked out front honking for about 1 minute before
| they drove off. News crews were there so I watched the
| local news that night.
|
| That clip was there but the news made it sound like the
| drivers had been there all day blockading and honking. It
| was nothing more than enough time for a news clip
| (protesting Uber).
|
| At that point, it became very clear to me how unions
| operate.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| What does that have to do with Boeing?
| brightball wrote:
| Sorry. I noticed a significant uptick in negative Boeing
| press coverage the moment the union dispute started. It
| went from nonexistent to constant.
| hrktb wrote:
| Why can't it be both ?
| [deleted]
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Once the workers organize as a union, the company is forced
| to treat everything as a negotiation with the union instead
| of the employees. The union views their job as to always
| ask for more and push back on the employer, so the employer
| is incentivized to hold back raises, benefits, and
| concessions until it's time for negotiations. Giving away
| all of your bargaining chips before negotiations start is
| not a good strategy.
|
| When you see headlines about unions negotiating certain
| benefits or raises from employers, it's often framed as a
| victory that wouldn't have happened without the union. The
| reality is more nuanced, as the union's existence forces
| the company to play hardball during negotiations so they
| have _something_ to negotiate when it comes time to do the
| negotiations.
| hwbehrens wrote:
| > the employer is incentivized to hold back raises,
| benefits, and concessions until it's time for
| negotiations
|
| The employer is incentivized to hold these back in any
| case, absent some countervailing pressure (e.g. retention
| against competing offers, if they exist, etc.). This is
| why the largest raises (in tech, at least) typically come
| when jumping companies.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > The employer is incentivized to hold these back in any
| case, absent some countervailing pressure
|
| The countervailing pressure is that non-unionized
| employees are more likely to leave.
|
| Most unions in the US place a high value on seniority.
| The more seniority you have, the more benefits you get
| from a union. Good for people who have been there for 10
| years, bad for new employees looking to get jobs. This
| makes unionized employees less incentivized to leave and
| more incentivized to stay and strike. Leaving (even if
| for higher pay) would sacrifice that union seniority that
| many members value.
|
| It's a very different negotiating dynamic.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| The problem with Boeing is that there are not many
| aerospace employers to got to. An aerospace engineer can
| probably only work for 2 or 3 aerospace companies in
| their career. Not to mention they may have to completely
| uproot their life on each change of employer.
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| this isn't really true. To change companies you might
| need to move cities, but there are a ton of different
| companies that require aerospace engineers:
|
| SpaceX Blue Origin Space Systems Loral JPL Boeing Embraer
| Airbus Cessna Northrup Grumman Lockheed Martin General
| Electric Raytheon Boom Rolls Royce, Honeywell Eurocopter
| Bombardier
|
| not to mention the adjacent fields of Green tech (wind
| turbines) Drones/UAVs
|
| There are a lot of options out there
| wernercd wrote:
| Because crying victimhood over every perceived slight
| becomes the boy who cried wolf - sooner or later everyone
| realizes that the only way a union can justify itself is by
| creating problems where none existed. Otherwise, why waste
| money on union dues for something that isn't needed?
|
| It CAN be both... but generally it isn't.
| hrktb wrote:
| I have no knowledge of Boeing's internal state, so tried
| to get a proxy of their general attitude [0].
|
| Every company big enough will have its share of shitty
| issues, but even taking it with a grain of salt it
| doesn't look to me like a company that needs no employee
| representation to counter-balance the management.
|
| [0] https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?p
| arent=b...
| grecy wrote:
| > _provide a far better job, wage, and benefits than most_
|
| And now we're seeing the results of the race to the bottom play
| out.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Lowest level of global poverty ever?
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-
| extre...
| regextegrity wrote:
| Come on.. the workers don't even get bathroom breaks.
| yibg wrote:
| Isn't that a bit misleading? I don't have official bathroom
| breaks either, and I do just fine.
| regextegrity wrote:
| What? I don't mean scheduled bathroom breaks, I mean they
| aren't given enough leeway during the day to even use the
| bathroom. There are many reports of them peeing in bottles
| and shitting in plastic bags.
| gpanders wrote:
| I certainly agree with you that those stories are
| shocking and horrific, those reports were about delivery
| drivers, not warehouse workers, so it's not really
| relevant to this particular discussion.
| jyrkesh wrote:
| I'm not disagreeing with your assertion (though I do expect
| it's not as widespread as news articles make it seem),
| but...why didn't they vote to unionize then? Seems like if
| the unions said "we'll make sure you get bathroom breaks",
| then that'd be enough.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| But I think this is a clear example of an issue where pro-
| union rhetoric has diverged from the reality of the
| situation. Are there any workers who actually prefer formal,
| timed bathroom breaks over the "go whenever you want as long
| as you're meeting your productivity goals" model?
| regextegrity wrote:
| What?? I don't mean "formal, timed bathroom breaks". I
| don't even think that exists in the real world. I mean they
| don't have enough leeway in their incentive system, to the
| point where workers have to pee in bottles out of fear of
| missing quotas and losing their job
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| You're universalizing something that's by all accounts a
| very rare occurrence, which I think is again part of the
| disconnect. If union organizers go around saying "we have
| to pee in bottles because they don't give us restroom
| breaks!", that's not going to be very persuasive to the
| vast majority of Amazon workers who take breaks to use
| the provided restrooms.
| regextegrity wrote:
| The peeing in bottles is just one of many symptoms of
| their terrible working conditions https://www.theguardian
| .com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-wo...
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| Collective bargaining lets the employees push back against
| issues that would otherwise risk their career. For example, an
| individual speaking up against horrible working conditions,
| metric-focused managers, and ignorance of unsafe practices
| would risk getting fired, so the issues would persist. A union
| would have the leverage required to push back against such
| issues.
| zndr wrote:
| While you're correct, Amazon is so large that this single
| center being nuked from their org chart would have been an
| inconvenience. I think it's very easy for us to say "this
| would help you" but the reality is, it might have drawn a
| line in the sand, at the cost of every single employee's job.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| They're already facing anticompetitive scrutiny.
| Retaliation would have tipped the political scales.
| hbosch wrote:
| When is the last time busting a union brought any
| additional scrutiny from the US government, in a material
| sense?
|
| While there are some stories lately about how much tax
| Amazon pays, the government is very much in the business
| of keeping Amazon (and all major US-based corporations
| and firms) happy... by contrast, the US government almost
| certainly cares very little for a warehouse worker in
| Alabama.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| This is exactly why the vote was probably the most
| pragmatic decision. A vote for unionization would have been
| brave and symbolic. But why should blue collar people in
| Alabama have to sabotage their livelihoods to make a point?
| prostoalex wrote:
| What's the cost, though? At $1/month a union membership would
| be a no-brainer, at $100/month people would probably think
| twice.
|
| Unions are in the business of recurring subscriptions, and
| the pitch had to reflect that. Sounds like in case of this
| specific workplace, the cost-benefit analysis was either high
| on costs or low on benefits.
| [deleted]
| tptacek wrote:
| Here's an interesting and surprising analysis from a labor
| organizer and writer (you'll need to follow the back-and-forth of
| the comments a bit):
|
| https://twitter.com/yeselson/status/1380363511709196288
|
| The short version is: while the Bessemer campaign was a good
| thing, the vote (according to this person --- everything I'm
| writing here is according to Yeselson and subject to errors in my
| understanding) was not. To wit: if a skilled organizer effort
| isn't sure it's going to win, they pull the vote, reorganize, and
| try again when they're sure they will.
|
| There's further evidence in the threads that nuts-and-bolts
| organizing, "101 stuff" to use the term I got from labor
| organizing blogs following up on this, wasn't done; that in fact
| the worker opponents to unionization were only weakly opposed,
| and under-educated.
|
| Another fun Google search that I found from this thread: [union
| "hot shop"].
| gtsop wrote:
| Ah, the union vs anti-union discussion again. Seriously we should
| TDD our way out of this discussion. There are clearly some union
| policies that work and some others that don't. Can't we work out
| just the beneficial ones and enforce them as a baseline while
| discarding the bad ones? Print that as a standard and boom!
| You've got a compliance measure to rank unions :)
| zarkov99 wrote:
| Good. I have lived in 3 continents and 4 different countries and
| I have yet to see a union that is not run by and for the lazy and
| incompetent, ultimately to the ruin of all involved. I hear
| Germany cracked the code on that one, but in the US unions seem
| to be pretty much like everywhere.
| vb6sp6 wrote:
| I have a few German customers and I also get the impression
| that their unions seem to work.
|
| It seems to be a result of multiple factors:
|
| 1. "Mitbestimmung" or co-determination. German workers elect
| the board of directors.
|
| 2. Labor reps vote alongside shareholders
|
| 3. Laborers in the same strata form "work councils" and choose
| reps to bring issues to managers or higher up the chain
|
| 4. "Betriebsverfassungsgesetz" federal laws giving workers the
| rights to form these work councils
|
| The people i've spoken too (anecdotal, I know) don't seem to
| have the same hostility to the unions. It is just kinda
| accepted and "normal" that the union is going to be there so
| they seem to work with them instead of fighting them at every
| step.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| VW TN was offered a works council deal and they still voted
| it down.
| vb6sp6 wrote:
| Works council is kinda pointless without the other things
| genericone wrote:
| Yeah, give the employees some skin in the business, not just
| in the labor negotiations... Incentivize good union behavior,
| not adversarial behavior.
| musingsole wrote:
| I believe Co-ops are a nature progression to merge the
| split between business and labor unions.
| vb6sp6 wrote:
| Unions have been trashed beyond repair in the US.
| American needs a "free market" solution and I think the
| next step is for employees to organize and form their own
| corporations. If a union demands better pay, healthcare,
| working conditions, they get attacked for be being
| greedy\lazy\entitled. A corporation that provides great
| pay, healthcare, and working conditions wins awards for
| "top 100 places to work".
| ur-whale wrote:
| > I have yet to see a union that is not run by and for the lazy
| and incompetent
|
| Exactly what I've observed throughout my career, thank you for
| putting it so succinctly.
|
| You're also missing those for whom the union is a pure
| political, power-grabbing device.
| JarlUlvi wrote:
| As a libertarian I am likely biased against the idea of unions
| due to having heard horror stories.
|
| However, all the public sector unions with whom I have
| collaborated have been rather excellent. Why? They were
| actually the voices of reason and efficiency when it came to IT
| change in the workplace. It seemed as though their raison
| d'etre was maximum effectiveness of employees, and removing
| impediments. Understanding this, they were able to advocate in
| a positive manner to represent the working engineer and
| scientist.
|
| Let's not paint all unions with a negative brush.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| HN is very consistently anti-union.
|
| My question is this: Where did you get information about unions?
| Because people keep mentioning their "bad reputation" and then
| start listing off a bunch of "facts" that read like they're
| bullets straight out of one of those anti-union videos during
| onboard at several major employers (Walmart, Target, Amazon,
| etc).
|
| So anti-union people exactly where does your information come
| from? If it is grapevine, what was the _original_ source?
| throwinawaysoon wrote:
| are you surprised shills run narrative on this and any other
| popular open forums and social networking sites?
| rayiner wrote:
| All my information on unions comes from people who have worked
| in unionized industries. My father in law is a former educator
| for example.
| 01100011 wrote:
| Personal experience with unions. The unions at Boeing protect
| workers who do drugs and sleep on the job. The teamsters union
| in Boston prevented my small company from unloading a small
| amount of equipment from our truck ourselves(enforced with
| veiled threats). The longshoreman's union hands out jobs to
| well connected members and runs a racket.
|
| I'm not saying all unions are bad. I think many industries
| might benefit from well run, transparent, regulated unions. But
| I have seen many examples where they are bad.
| winkeltripel wrote:
| Compare the scale of the harm that you see to the direct
| benefits: these huge unions getting each and every member a
| solid benefits package, and better pay rates, overtime or
| limited hours. Even non-union jobs pay better in areas with
| high union membership. Its one of the only tools with broad
| benefits to working-poor and lower-class at the cost of the
| non-working rich.
|
| I think it's an unfair argument to say that unions need
| further regulation. Regulating them is how we've lost
| millions of union jobs to contractors, and where we keep
| seeing large strikes broken up by governments. Regulations
| often benefit large players over small ones. We'd rather see
| a plethora of smaller, niche unions, than just one massive
| union. Competition breeds capability.
| missedthecue wrote:
| I don't like them on the basis of principle. It is my belief
| that monopoly cartels are a net cost for society whether they
| deal in oil like OPEC or in labor like the UAW.
| saas_sam wrote:
| My anti-union sentiment arrived from my experience working with
| a large established union in an industrial plant. The union
| protected some of the worst, laziest, most unsafe workers I had
| ever witnessed in any job before or sense. It blew my mind how
| difficult it was to remove obvious bad apples, and how the best
| workers were forced to wait in years-long "seniority" queues
| before they could get promoted. I would get threatened with
| grievances for trivial acts like carrying a single lightbulb
| myself without a union worker.
|
| Every institution has a STATED purpose and an ACTUAL effect.
| Institutions become inefficient, corrupt, decoupled from their
| original goals. What keeps institutions aligned with their
| stated--noble--purpose, is the institution's internal incentive
| structure. Unions often have very bad internal incentive
| structures.
|
| I would be SHOCKED if you could not find counter-examples where
| unions are great. It's a big round world we live on where
| silver linings abound. For anything. To me, right now, I do not
| find pro-union activists persuasive in the slightest. But I am
| open-minded.
| ziml77 wrote:
| > I would get threatened with grievances for trivial acts
| like carrying a single lightbulb myself without a union
| worker.
|
| That whole thing about requiring union workers to do tasks is
| stupid. One year I was attending a fan convention and decided
| to check out the rules for vendors. The convention center
| used unionized labor so one of the rules was that the vendors
| were limited to carrying like one case of stuff over to their
| spot. All other moving and setting up had to be done by the
| union workers. I get what the protection here is, it prevents
| loopholes for getting around using union workers at all
| (which, if it was possible to do, would make a union
| ineffective). But hell, why can't they pay the union workers
| as if they would have to do all the work but then let people
| decide if they want the union workers to actually do
| something or not?
| bena wrote:
| The problem always comes down to bad actors.
|
| If I, as a vendor, could have my people do the work of
| moving and set up and elect not to use the convention
| center staff, then there's a way to circumvent the
| convention center staff and fire them all.
|
| You just hire a "vendor" with their own crew to do all the
| stuff. With no actual work to do, it's justifiable to fire
| the convention center staff.
|
| If people weren't bastards, we wouldn't need such weird
| rules. But then again, if people weren't bastards, we
| wouldn't need unions either.
| bluGill wrote:
| Why does a convention center have enough staff to do that
| setup? That seems wasteful in itself. Sure they need a
| few janitors to sweep up afterwords, and someone needs to
| know how to flip a tripped breaker, so they can't be
| staff free. However the needs of each event are different
| enough that staff for vendor setup doesn't really make
| sense.
| specialist wrote:
| Which organizations have figured out how to handle their bad
| apples?
| qeternity wrote:
| It's not a binary outcome. Of course all large
| organizations will have people of varying types. But it's
| an order of magnitude easier to clean house outside of
| government and union shops.
| specialist wrote:
| Am big fan of Peter Drucker. Believe management is a
| technology.
|
| I'd _LOVE_ for someone to research this. Case studies.
| Metrics.
|
| My experience with unions has been mixed. Same with non-
| union shops. Recognizing that I'm just a simple bear, I
| haven't been able to figure out any rules for what works,
| or doesn't. My hunch is governance. eg Unions that are
| more democratic, accountable perform better. I have zero
| notions about what might make non-union shops better or
| worse.
| skynet-9000 wrote:
| All of the ones that last. If you don't handle your bad
| apples and your business requires generating a profit to
| survive, you will not prosper for long if you don't prune
| the bad apples (and you may not even survive, unless the
| business throws off such huge profits that it can afford to
| carry the dead weight).
|
| It's as simple as "Please clean out your desk". Have you
| never seen The Apprentice? Do you believe that people never
| get fired?
| shmolyneaux wrote:
| What do you think of the Screen Actors Guild? That seems to
| have been a huge win for workers in the industry, seemingly
| without the negatives you describe.
| hintymad wrote:
| There might be a difference. Studios must first look for
| actors in the actors guild. That said, a studio has freedom
| not to use an actor. Similar, a studio does not need to use
| a bad script, and the studio does not need to pay a writer
| if it doesn't use the writer's work. In contrast, a factory
| has to pay for a worker, or even assign some work to the
| worker, no matter how bad this worker performs.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| In general the Hollywood unions are very good for their
| members.
|
| If there's a downside, it's that they used to act as a bit
| of a moat for the incumbent studios. Studios have entire
| departments devoted to processing issues raised by union
| members, which is of course expensive to do. And union
| members can only work on union productions, which meant
| tiny indie films could have problems getting talented
| people budget-wise. It's not just pay, it's meeting the
| requirements of the dictionary-sized "Basic Agreement" in
| terms of other aspects of production. That said, SAG has
| led the way to finding ways to accommodate smaller budgets
| and it's not as difficult as it once was.
| busterarm wrote:
| It has a $3000 initiation fee that loads of people pay and
| never see the benefit of.
|
| You will have to pay it just to do a short television
| appearance. It is certainly not worth that to everybody.
|
| Then there are annual dues, whether or not you actually
| earned any money.
|
| Then there's recent discussions of them kicking out long-
| standing members over their political views.
| slantedview wrote:
| Every non-unionized place I've worked suffers from many of
| the same problems. These are real problems, but don't
| outweigh the benefit of unions to people's material well
| being.
| saas_sam wrote:
| Have you worked in a large unionized organization? I've
| worked in both. Unions are worse.
| krisdol wrote:
| My spouse (medicine) and several of my peers (journalism)
| have and they would disagree. Spouse has experienced both
| sides of the coin, and has seen better benefits and
| better pay in the unionized workplace than the non-
| unionized one. Very much the same story for my journo
| peers, but in their case, they unionized the workplace so
| the only variable that changed to improve their lifestyle
| was the introduction of a union -- not a change of
| location or management that a bad-faith FANG-worshipper
| would use to muddy the comparison.
|
| I'm sure those aren't valid examples anyway, as the only
| unions that matter in discussions on this hellsite are
| the ones that also exist in Randian works of fiction.
| skynet-9000 wrote:
| > better benefits and better pay
|
| You are only considering one side of the question -- and
| actually a limited form of that one side (namely, the
| material benefits/pay for the unionized employees).
|
| What about the productivity of the firm and workers? The
| profits? The cohesiveness of the market strategy? The
| sense that the workers were participating in the success
| of the firm itself (and not the success of the union)?
| The creation of healthy relationships between management
| and labor?
|
| It's probably beyond dispute that unions introduce a
| "middleman" between management and labor, but we are
| probably arguing about whether or not that middleman is
| (most often) a good or bad thing. (I do not dispute that
| _sometimes_ unions can be healthy and might align its
| incentives with company success, but I tend to believe
| that this middleman is not usually a good thing except in
| extremely unhealthy companies -- perhaps like Amazon, and
| I must confess that in working with about 50 companies,
| of which less than 10 were union shops, I 've never
| actually seen a union shop where labor didn't put union
| goals over company goals, to the detriment of both.)
| slantedview wrote:
| I guess it depends what outcome you want, higher income
| inequality or not. I happen to think higher income
| inequality that directly follows from the lack of unions
| is a bad thing:
|
| https://files.epi.org/charts/img/172988-21725.png
|
| https://www.epi.org/publication/labor-
| day-2019-collective-ba...
| saas_sam wrote:
| The ultimate solution to wealth inequality is to destroy
| all wealth. Bring it to $0. Everyone's equal. Is that a
| win? Or is there perhaps more to the story worth
| considering than inequality? Overall wealth, number of
| jobs, ability to get hired and promoted...? If you have
| charts on those things I'd be interested.
| yibg wrote:
| Mine is experience working in an union. I generally really
| disliked the effects of the union and saw no benefit to me at
| all. My career progression was capped, lots of nepotism (eg
| manager holding a position for his son), people are generally
| coasting etc.
| newbie789 wrote:
| I absolutely abhor being passed up due to nepotism, it's
| incredibly frustrating.
|
| When that sort of thing happens it makes me wish that there
| was a clear agreement between management and employees that
| codified when/how/why promotions happen so that people who
| have worked hard and performed well would be favored. It's
| really awful that that union precluded that from happening.
| jimmar wrote:
| I'm in academia at a university. I'm part of a union and I hate
| it. Union meetings are mostly members nitpicking minor contract
| issues and complaining about being underpaid. The union's
| purported main goal is to protect free speech, but everybody
| knows it really only exists to (unsuccessfully) negotiate for
| better pay.
|
| I worked about a decade in industry and never felt like
| management was the enemy. We didn't expect management to coddle
| us, though. We knew we were there to do a job and if being
| there wasn't worth the benefit, we'd leave. Being in union, it
| feels like an artificial wall between management and union has
| been erected; that it's us versus them. Like the vice
| presidents are fat cats smoking cigars in their high rise
| offices while we, the proletariat, fight to get what's fair.
| Its as if union members think there's some reservoir of money
| we could get in salary if only we could break down the dam that
| management is using to hoard all the money.
|
| I'm in a right to work state and technically don't have to pay
| union dues. But, I pay my dues because if you don't, your name
| gets published publicly and there is a lot union members can
| legally do to make life difficult for you if you don't want to
| join the club.
| wernercd wrote:
| > Where do you get your information from
|
| History and reality. Look at union run cities like Chicago and
| union run industries like the auto-industry that got demolished
| by foreign companies.
|
| Personally, I think unions have their places... but in 99% of
| cases these days? The bureaucracy, red tape, added expenses and
| other assorted BS are more net negative than the few positives
| that unions offer.
| strictnein wrote:
| My "original source" is my wife who grew up poor and started
| working at 14 to pay for things like clothes for school. Every
| dollar her union took was money she couldn't use to pay for
| necessities and they never once did a single thing for her or
| any of her coworkers, no matter how egregious the
| discrimination or behavior of the store's management. Their
| union rep would 100% ignore every single complaint. But they
| always got a cut of her meager paycheck.
|
| Is that a good enough source for you, or does that not count?
|
| I'll never understand the people who think "You have a
| differing opinion. It must be because you don't know what
| you're talking about and have just consumed a bunch of
| propaganda".
| mekoka wrote:
| Your comment (like a few others) reads as though you've
| discarded the possibility of some in the HN crowd having first-
| hand experience with unions.
|
| > HN is very consistently anti-union.
|
| I'd say HN is more consistently anti-bullshit. It's important
| to separate the legitimate problems from the solutions taken to
| address them, else you fall for the false dichotomy. Being
| skeptical of unions as a solution to address workplace
| conditions is not irrational.
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| I work at an institution that has a strong union presence
| (education).
|
| It is absolutely a cancer of the place. Granted, I think that
| probably in a lot of places that have unions they can easily
| become a scapegoat to all of the organization's problems, but
| some of the ones that I deal with on a daily basis are really
| hard to pin on anything else.
|
| In an idealized world, there would be infinite competition both
| on the demand and supply side of labor. The argument for
| unions, at least, is that in the real world the balance tips in
| favor of the demand side, and I'm sure in many organizations
| this makes a ton of sense. But at a place like a small learning
| organization where I work at, it just ensures that nothing ever
| happens. You have a fantastic faculty member that you want to
| compensate above and beyond market rate because they deserve
| it? Union will make that an issue. You want to fire a severe
| under-performer? Union will make that an issue. You are a non-
| union manager who has energy and wants to improve things? This
| sort of stuff will destroy your morale. Over time, the really
| good people who want to be recognized for their work
| individually leave, the people who care and want to actively
| promote change ALSO leave, and what you are left with is an
| assorted collection of folks going through the motions and
| heavily invested in not rocking the boat out in any direction.
| It sucks.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Saw this at r/Costco from an employee who worked at a unionized
| store, straight from the source...
|
| "Next, the union dues. I know this isn't a problem at every
| location but mine is part of the local teamsters union, and
| having to pay $450 in initiation fees and $40 on the regular
| adds up, especially for someone who is in real need of the
| income. I wouldn't be complaining if I saw the tangible
| benefits the union provides, but after speaking to several
| coworkers, many of whom have worked at my location for 20+
| years, I am of the impression that the union does not actually
| do anything to improve working conditions at Costco. If
| anything, it seems to me that the union locations simply serve
| to protect the wages of those who are not unionized by playing
| into Costco's desire to prevent the unionization of said
| locations. Yes, the union makes it harder to arbitrarily fire
| people, "guarantees" you won't get scheduled for 7 days
| straight (have seen otherwise at my location), etc. In my view,
| this only contributes to my previously mentioned point that
| many long-time employees feel protected from termination
| regardless of how they perform or act, and as such they bring
| subpar attitudes, service, and effort into their work."
| 8bithero wrote:
| Maybe a controversial or skewed observation - But as a European
| looking (from outside) into the US, it looks like everyone has
| the impression that they're all millionaires who just haven't
| made it yet. They don't seem to want to disrupt the status quo,
| even if it benefits them, incase they're next inline to make it
| big :/
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > But as a European looking (from outside) into the US, it
| looks like everyone has the impression that they're all
| millionaires who just haven't made it yet.
|
| The "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" trope gets
| repeated often online, but it's largely unfounded cynicism.
| It's true that we need to fix our health care system and
| bolster our safety nets, but the reality is that average
| Americans are relatively wealthy and even the median worker
| has significant career opportunities that are harder to come
| by in some other countries.
|
| Look toward the professional trades like software engineering
| and the differences are even more pronounced. I worked at a
| company with US and European offices for a while, and the
| European employees were routinely stunned to learn that the
| US office had to pay employees so much more for the same
| work.
|
| > They don't seem to want to disrupt the status quo, even if
| it benefits them,
|
| The situation is more nuanced than what you read online. The
| reality is that these moves aren't as unilaterally _good_ as
| presented. It 's more honest to approach them as tradeoffs.
|
| In this case, I'm inclined to believe that the workers
| casting these votes did more research and have a better
| understanding of the situation than the internet gives them
| credit for. The idea that they're all voting against their
| self interest because they're dumb, or that we know what's
| better for them than they do, is very presumptuous.
|
| Why can't we accept that these people are really voting for
| what they believe is in their best interests? Why do we have
| to conclude that they're not smart or that they're voting
| against helping themselves? The reality isn't so simple, and
| we're not in a position to judge after reading a few
| paragraphs on the internet.
| 8bithero wrote:
| Yeah, those are valid points. That's why I was a bit
| apprehensive to post my original comment. Don't get me
| wrong, there are a lot of good things about the US! I
| wouldn't hesitate to move over there if I had the chance -
| know anyone who could sponsor a visa, by any chance? ;p But
| it does seem like an exceptionally easy place to slip
| through the cracks of society, but if you're not in the
| lower percentile you've probably got it better than most
| people in the world.
|
| The one point I would have to disagree with the the reasons
| for voting against their interests. And the only reason for
| this is seeing the results of the Brexit referendum in
| 2016. What happened there is people who set themselves up
| as figures of authority and told the people Brexit was in
| their interest. They made the fishing industry into the
| poster child of their campaigns and convinced them they
| would benefit. The fishing communities in particular where
| overwhelmingly in support. Perhaps some did try do their
| own research, but a large part of social media and the
| mass-media where all pushing the agenda and using scare
| tactics and any concerns were batted away as "project
| fear". When you have figures of authority pushing an agenda
| it's understandable that people will believe them - Why
| would they lie? But as Jan 2021 rolled around, the fishing
| industry in the UK is all but decimated (YoY Salmon exports
| were down 98% in January). So from that perspective, I
| wouldn't call the voters dumb because it's easy to get
| caught out by the disinformation that's out there, but for
| the most part I would say many were naively trusting
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| sangnoir wrote:
| > So anti-union people exactly where does your information come
| from?
|
| HN is start-up-centric, so a good number of commenters, who may
| be workers themselves, are, to borrow from Steinbeck:
| "temporarily embarrassed employers"
| remir wrote:
| The HN crowd are generally in an advantageous position
| regarding the job market. Most people here can negotiate their
| salary and conditions, so having a union negotiate these for
| them would not make much sense.
|
| As for Amazon workers, since there was so much resistance
| coming from Amazon on this case, the workers probably feared
| that Amazon would have closed shop if they chose to unionize.
| anm89 wrote:
| Are you questioning the source of a specific piece of data you
| interpret to be anti-union or you questioning what is the
| source of peoples opinion on why they are anti union.
|
| If you are questioning the source of a specific piece of data
| than be clear about what that data is.
|
| If you are asking people to cite a source for a general opinion
| they personally hold, they don't owe you that.
| ystad wrote:
| How did you conclude that HN is anti-union? Please cite refs
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| > HN is very consistently anti-union.
|
| Is it? It just seems to vary per thread.
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| Me personally is anti-monopoly.
|
| If a union can only operate by forming a workforce monopoly -
| something is wrong with the model itself.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Amazon and Walmart are local monopolies as the sole employer
| resp. shop around where they establish their locations.
|
| It is only natural to put up a collective against that
| monopoly.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Can you point me to one Amazon fulfillment center or
| Walmart superstore that doesn't have any restaurants,
| grocers, autoparts stores, hardware stores, janitorial
| services, shopping centers, retailers, courier and delivery
| services, or warehouses within 20 miles? All of those
| businesses draw from the same labor pool and compete with
| each other. I don't think your claim that Walmart and
| Amazon have monopsony power is accurate.
| drivebycomment wrote:
| By that definition, companies are workplace monopolies. So
| are you against companies ? If you want to argue you can
| choose a different company, by the same token you can choose
| a different union by choosing a different company.
| hnunionthrow wrote:
| I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is
| unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to
| be a part of the union or not(in a non right to work
| state), and so essentially a monopoly. IF the worker wants
| to work for that employer, he can only do so via the union.
| No way for the worker to work for the employer and not
| wanting to do absolutely nothing with the union.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> By that definition, companies are workplace
| monopolies. So are you against companies ? If you want to
| argue you can choose a different company, by the same
| token you can choose a different union by choosing a
| different company.
|
| > I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a
| workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice
| of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non
| right to work state), and so essentially a monopoly.
|
| That's a distinction without a difference. If you don't
| want to work for the union that's at a particular
| workplace, _you can always choose another workplace_. It
| 's just another condition of employment, just like _all
| the other_ conditions of employment you 'd have to abide
| by without a union.
| hnunionthrow wrote:
| Which basically reinforces GP's point about it being a
| monopoly?
|
| > If you don't want to work for the union that's at a
| particular workplace, you can always choose another
| workplace.
|
| Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they
| might choose to work with the same employer and not deal
| with the union.
|
| Why can't workers have a choice - whoever sees the
| union's being a better fit can join the n number of
| unions operating at a single employer. Whoever wants to
| remain free from the union can choose not to join, and
| negotiate with the employer directly.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers,
| they might choose to work with the same employer and not
| deal with the union.
|
| Let me put it this way: if managers weren't forced down
| onto workers, maybe I'd work with a different manager or
| no manager at all. The employer used its "monopoly" over
| its workplace to force management on me. That's cured by
| my ability to try to get a different job at a different
| workplace, yet somehow a closed union shop is different.
| It's a double standard.
| hnunionthrow wrote:
| > Let me put it this way: if managers weren't forced down
| onto workers, maybe I'd work with a different manager or
| no manager at all.
|
| Most employers will allow changing teams/managers
| internally. Also, you can discuss it with your employer
| and if you can convince them that you will be able to be
| productive and relevant without the need for a manager,
| some employers will actually entertain this request.
| Several startups actually have a very flattish structure
| and very loosely defined hierarchy.
|
| > The employer used its "monopoly" to force management on
| me. That's cured by my ability to try to get a different
| job at a different workplace, yet somehow a closed union
| shop is different. It's a double standard.
|
| It isn't a double standard. A closed union shop is
| clearly different, because it is not the employer's
| choice/will, but rather a legal binding. In the absence
| of such a binding, there wouldn't be any closed union
| shops. There is no legal binding on employers to assign
| managers to employees. It is an employer's
| choice/will/culture.
|
| In a closed union shop, the worker who doesn't want to
| deal with the union isn't happy, and the employer isn't
| happy either. Both, the worker and the employer cannot do
| anything to change that. In your "forced management"
| example, it is just you who are unhappy, and you can try
| to make changes in your existing workplace with the
| possibility of some success, or find a new workplace.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Most employers will allow changing teams/managers
| internally.
|
| So? It's totally at the employer's discretion, and there
| are a million other things that are non-negotiable.
|
| > It isn't a double standard. A closed union shop is
| clearly different, because it is not the employer's
| choice/will, but rather a legal binding. In the absence
| of such a binding, there wouldn't be any closed union
| shops. There is no legal binding on employers to assign
| managers to employees. It is an employer's
| choice/will/culture.
|
| Do you oppose all labor law? If it's "the employer's
| choice/will" to employ young children in dangerous
| conditions, do you oppose the "legal binding" prevents
| them from doing that?
|
| > In a closed union shop, the worker who doesn't want to
| deal with the union isn't happy, and the employer isn't
| happy either. Both, the worker and the employer cannot do
| anything to change that. In your "forced management"
| example, it is just you who are unhappy, and you can try
| to make changes in your existing workplace with the
| possibility of some success, or find a new workplace.
|
| That's not actually true. If the worker's unhappy, they
| can work with their coworkers to decertify the union.
| However, if their coworkers are happy with it, then maybe
| that guy should just get another job. It's not like union
| shops are pervasive and unavoidable. They're actually
| pretty rare these days.
| hnunionthrow wrote:
| > So? It's totally at the employer's discretion, and
| there are a million other things that are non-negotiable.
|
| Sure. But it is between you and your employer, and it is
| not unilaterally dictated by you or by your employer.
| Also, an unrelated third party doesn't have a say in the
| agreement you have between you and your employer. If
| there are some things that are unacceptable to you(for
| eg, having a manager to report to), you and the potential
| employer can shake hands and go away from each other.
|
| > Do you oppose all labor law? If it's "the employer's
| choice/will" to employ young children in dangerous
| conditions, do you oppose the "legal binding" prevents
| them from doing that?
|
| From discussing a legal binding around closed union shops
| to opposing "all labor laws" is quite a leap and also a
| strawman. But to answer your question, no I don't oppose
| such a law that says children cannot be employed in
| dangerous conditions like mines etc.
|
| > That's not actually true. If the worker's unhappy, they
| can work with their coworkers to decertify the union.
|
| Yeah so clearly something that can and should be between
| you and your employer has to now involve other colleagues
| and you end up with varying degrees of coercion
| basically.
|
| > However, if their coworkers are happy with it, then
| maybe that guy should just get another job.
|
| Or, the easier and simpler route is to leave the union
| and possibly join another union operating at the same
| place(if such a thing were to be allowed), or not join
| any union at all and still work for the employer. More
| freedom/choice for every worker, lesser or possibly no
| coercion and less disruptive for the employer, and more
| importantly, less disruptive for the worker.
|
| It is absolutely absurd that just because set of workers
| are happy with their working arrangements, a different
| set of workers cannot get their working arrangements that
| are more suited to them. Or, in other words, two
| functioning adult parties are ready to come to a
| potential agreement that concerns just them, with both of
| them getting what they want, but some third party who is
| not and should not be privy to this agreement will not
| get what they want, and so the actual participants in the
| agreement cannot make the deal they want, and instead
| their options are to be coerced into a deal that they
| wouldn't want, or drop the deal altogether.
|
| > It's not like union shops are pervasive and
| unavoidable. They're actually pretty rare these days.
|
| Certainly unavoidable if its a closed union shop no?
| Which is the very thing that we are discussing. And I am
| glad that they are rare.
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| Sorry, should've been more explicit, but I wanted to say
| that a union creates a workforce monopoly.
|
| Once an employer can no longer hire non-unionized
| employees, it has to either surrender to the union
| requirements or close altogether. This is a monopoly in
| its best.
| Aunche wrote:
| The economic term for is "monopsony," where a single buyer
| has disproportionate leverage. However, there isn't much
| evidence this occurs in most labor markets. People can and
| do often leave Amazon for another job.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
| drivebycomment wrote:
| I agree - I was just pointing out the absurdity /
| inconsistency of the argument by AlexTWithBeard.
| missedthecue wrote:
| I don't think it is absurd or inconsistent. The UAW works
| very hard and effectively at ensuring that GM, Ford, and
| Chrysler hire as few non-union employees as possible. The
| UAW has monopolized the autoworkers labor market and thus
| have historically been able to extract great rents from
| it.
|
| GM, Ford, and Chrysler on the other hand can do
| practically nothing to prevent a machinist or welder from
| leaving to work at literally thousands of other companies
| in dozens of industries across the country that require
| those skills.
| Aunche wrote:
| The union doesn't bargain with the workers. It bargains
| with the company. All unions I'm aware of that have real
| power maintain that power by preventing their employer
| from hiring non-union workers.
| advisedwang wrote:
| "only one union representing a group of employees at a time"
| is a rule enforced by government, not a natural property of
| unions. The NLRA process [1] is predicated on a single,
| exclusive representative organization for any given unit of
| workers. It didn't always used to be this way, before such
| rules, there were times where multiple competing unions
| historically had ground industry to a halt because it was
| impossible for a company to make a contract that would apply
| to everyone and get the business back running. I find the
| NLRA's solution very elegant because it _both_ improves the
| democratic nature of unions _and_ helps get industry moving.
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/159
| legohead wrote:
| I was part of a small union. I joined the bargaining committee,
| and ever since I have hated unions. It was incredibly
| stressful, and made me hate my job. Fighting for better
| wages/vacation with upper management, who showed how much they
| don't care about you, is very disheartening.
|
| And in the end, all the bargaining didn't really get us any
| better than what we would have gotten without a union. So now I
| got a little raise and I hate my company and I'm telling
| everyone else how shitty the company is.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Personally, I have no need for one as I've been perfectly
| capable of advancing in my career without the baggage that
| comes along with collective bargaining. I'm compensated very
| competitively, get raises, negotiate PTO, sick days, etc. I
| also do not like my freedom of association to be infringed, by
| being required to join a union and dues extorted from me that I
| do not want to pay for.
| Shivetya wrote:
| I replied to another poster but let me double down the fun.
|
| Well first off, especially in low wage jobs, there is little
| they do for you and it can cost nearly two hours of your pay
| per month for the benefit. You get this wonderful set of rules
| which spells out what your employer can and cannot do but it
| also limits you as well. I got first hand experience in a union
| shop from late 1980s to early 1990s. My reward was seeing our
| rep once a quarter if we were lucky in her Mercedes which cost
| more than we made.
|
| However for every complaint about people being anti union and
| listing off "Bunch of facts" you never see those same people
| list their facts that support a pro union stance. Most of the
| time its little more than what people already have with some
| variation of something they won't even get when unionized.
|
| The simple fact is, in the US they are more political than
| worker oriented. They feed a ridiculous amount of dues and even
| state funds into political coffer so they come replete with
| lots of wonderful political supporters and press who love to
| lay the claim that workers will be better for representation.
| The benefactors are political appointees, elected officials,
| and union leadership. The workers are mostly pawns.
|
| What I read about European unions would be very nice to see in
| the states but what I experienced, family members have
| experienced, is not this fantasy that some people have of what
| its like here.
| option wrote:
| My parents had to be in union (during USSR days). In their
| experience, unless you are a buddy of union leadership you got
| to go on vacation during worst times of the year to the worst
| (if any!) places only. You are also getting the crappiest job
| assignments. And yes, you had to give up a non-trivial part of
| your already miserable salary as union fees. Basically being
| friends of union leadership was absolutely critical.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I know a number of people in a large teacher's union and the
| stories indicate the union is bad for both good teachers and
| students. I've personally seen many great teachers leave for
| private schools and other public systems. The union rewarded
| the incompetent and did little for rampant administrator abuse.
| dwater wrote:
| I was a public teacher for 9 years, 2 years in a union and 7
| years in a right to work state. The union experience was
| better as an employee. I find it hard to believe great
| teachers would go to private schools in large numbers as a
| result of being in a union, private schools generally have
| lower pay, lower benefits, and lower standards. The one thing
| you gain going to a private school is freedom to do as you
| want, and no standardized testing. Anecdotally the people I
| know who went to private schools had someone else to support
| them financially and could choose the easiest route
| available.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > I find it hard to believe great teachers would go to
| private schools in large numbers as a result of being in a
| union, private schools generally have lower pay, lower
| benefits, and lower standards.
|
| I don't know where you lived, but this is the opposite of
| the situation in most places. Private schools attract
| people who will pay private school tuition because they
| offer higher standards.
|
| In my limited experience with private schools, it was
| relatively easy to poach good teachers away from unionized
| jobs precisely because the school had freedom to offer them
| higher wages and better benefits. Many of them were also
| sick of dealing with the issues that come with unionized
| labor and union membership.
| dwater wrote:
| They have higher standards for decorum and appearance,
| but not higher academic standards. One of the advantages
| of private schools is that they are essentially exempt
| from standards. Their students are generally not required
| to take standardized tests, and the schools generally are
| not required to follow prescribed curricula. I agree that
| private schools generally have a higher standard of
| cleanliness and facility upkeep. And although the
| families have to pay more for students to attend compared
| to (free) public schools, teachers as a broad class are
| paid less, not more, at private schools. There are
| numerous reasons for this. For one, a prospective
| employee has even less leverage than they do when seeking
| employment at a public school.
| hypersoar wrote:
| In 2011-2012, the average pay for a full-time public
| school teacher was $56,410. For a private school teacher,
| it was $40,200.
|
| https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.1
| 0.a...
| _-david-_ wrote:
| It might not be accurate since many religious
| institutions have schools where nuns, monks, priests, etc
| work as teachers. They often times do not get paid or
| make basically minimum wage. Do you have any numbers that
| take that into account?
| shuntress wrote:
| I know a number of people in a large teacher's union and the
| stories indicate that the union is good for both teachers and
| students. I've personally seen many great teachers stay in
| public schools. The union rewarded the competent and pushed
| back against administrator abuse.
| christophilus wrote:
| For me, it is all anecdotes from my dad (some of which I
| observed first hand). He worked for unions for half of his
| career and then intentionally uprooted us to move to a right to
| work state purely to escape the unions. He moved up the ranks
| and ended his career as the general manager of a manufacturing
| facility. The next county over was heavily unionized. The
| contrast in the two counties was notable. The industry in the
| unionized county was run-down, falling apart, constantly in and
| out of bankruptcy.
|
| The industry in the non-unionized county was literally some of
| the best in the world in what it does. The plants were clean
| and well run. Early on in the management-part of his career, my
| dad hired some formerly unionized workers who had moved up from
| the unionized county in order to find work (jobs were
| disappearing in that county due to the bankruptcies). They were
| fired in a few months because they wouldn't show up on time,
| were constantly dropping the ball, etc. In his opinion, their
| work ethic had been ruined.
|
| I'm actually not anti-union, but I'm mostly anti US union. I
| think if we adopted a non-antagonistic model similar to
| Germany, it'd be alright.
| DonnyV wrote:
| What were the 2 counties and in what state. I'm sure this is
| all true but I like verify.
| christophilus wrote:
| They were Horry and Georgetown, SC.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| How much of that difference was due to capital preferring to
| invest in the right to work environment while deliberately
| neglecting the unionized jurisdiction? It is hard to use
| purely observational evidence to determine causation. You
| need sophisticated statistical techniques, and many
| observations, to conduct meaningful observational studies.
| exabrial wrote:
| Show me a well run union in the USA where they successfully
| compete against union union workers, their industry isn't being
| shipped overseas, and workers can optionally participate
| without having wages garnished.
| objclxt wrote:
| > Show me a well run union in the USA where they successfully
| compete against union union workers, their industry isn't
| being shipped overseas, and workers can optionally
| participate without having wages garnished.
|
| Writers Guild of America East (for journalism), or the
| Authors Guild (novelists). You can become a journalist or a
| novelist without being a member. But both guilds have
| collective bargaining agreements with publishers.
| jolux wrote:
| >workers can optionally participate without having wages
| garnished.
|
| This is the direct purpose of so-called "right-to-work" laws.
| Unions are required to represent employees regardless of
| whether or not they pay dues, meaning other members shoulder
| the costs of collective bargaining. This is called the "free
| rider" problem and is one of the biggest ones facing unions
| today. It's also one of the main targets of the PRO Act.
| [deleted]
| shuntress wrote:
| The screen actors guild
| exabrial wrote:
| well played.
| ayende wrote:
| You mean, the one were it is actually easy to fire people?
| exabrial wrote:
| yes, the one where being white and good looking is valued
| most.
| belval wrote:
| It started during a student summer job. I was taking care of
| lending canoes to people in a park. One canoe got visibly dirty
| so I brought a rag and some cleaner from home and just cleaned
| it.
|
| I was reprimanded by another worker because according to
| whatever union full-time employee had, cleaning a canoe was a
| union job and by bringing my own rag and cleaner I was
| violating the union's chart of some shit.
| adamrezich wrote:
| I posted the story here before but my only experience with
| unions was when my friend and then-roommate was waiting for his
| teaching license to transfer over from SD to WA, so he had to
| have multiple part-time jobs to survive in the interim. one of
| the places he got a job at was one of the Redmond QFCs. he
| worked there as a cheese monger and was paid minimum wage for
| doing so. (it's statistically likely that a nonzero number of
| readers of this comment bought cheese from him sometime in
| 2015-2016 lol).
|
| we both had worked at various Walmarts in the past so we were
| familiar with their explicitly anti-union rhetoric, but it had
| never affected us, so we didn't think much of it. my friend was
| shocked to discover that union membership was _mandatory_ in
| order to work at QFC (this has been since made illegal in WA
| apparently), which included a union initiation fee of like a
| hundred dollars iirc, in addition to the monthly union due. my
| friend was not looking for some kind of long-term employment
| with Kroger (QFC), he just wanted a short-term part-time job
| that would help him get cash quick, to stay afloat. yet, the
| union literally did nothing for him but take money from his
| minimum wage income while he was employed there.
|
| like I said, mandatory union membership is apparently illegal
| in WA now, which is great. and there are probably situations
| where unions are helpful and productive. but I have seen a lot
| of people have this opinion that unions are unassailably forces
| of good in all situations, and that just seems silly to me.
| brandonmenc wrote:
| There are pros and cons to unionization, but imo not all
| workers should unionize. Most of my hardcore union friends
| think I'm "anti union", even though I think some workers should
| unionize for their own good (I'm looking at you, non-tenured
| college professors.)
|
| I come from a union town. My grandfather was a union organizer
| and disowned his sister for crossing a picket line. My mother
| worked in a union her whole life. My father was a union
| steward, then halfway through his career entered management and
| had grievances filed against him. I was - briefly - a dues-
| paying member of a union as a teenager (IBEW) for my summer
| job. I have many friends in trade unions (plumbing,
| electrician, etc.) and I have friends in SAG.
|
| The relatively high standard of living I enjoyed as a child was
| in large part the result of my parents being in unions.
|
| Sure, mom had to sometimes see less skilled co-workers get
| promoted before her due to seniority, but she wouldn't have had
| the good pay, benefits, or job security without the union.
| That's the trade-off, and for her it was worth it in the long
| run.
|
| However, the downside of a union encouraging low productivity
| can be very real.
|
| Case in point - where my father worked, the union was so
| entrenched that the high seniority factory workers were making
| as much as local software developers (nothing necessarily wrong
| with that), but their productivity was far below workers doing
| the same job in a non-unionized factory being paid far less in
| another state. When they were asked to increase productivity to
| meet that level, they balked. For years. Then went on strike.
| And as a result, at least partly, that business was sold off
| and a lot of them were laid off.
|
| It's always a set of trade-offs but I think plug-and-play
| workers should organize. They need to be able to collectively
| bargain. They just don't have the same individual leverage like
| say, software developers.
|
| The problem is that we're not in the heyday of unionization
| anymore. Few industries are unionized nationwide, so companies
| can just move to another state. Unions don't have the leverage
| they used to, so organizing can end up being a footgun. That
| might mean that business has too much of an advantage, not that
| unionization is bad, but it depends on your worldview. But
| without unions, it's just always going to be a race to the
| bottom for unskilled labor. How could it not be?
|
| Trade unions and guilds (like SAG) are a totally different
| animal.
|
| SAG is great because you work for an ephemeral production, not
| a company. Game development should definitely adopt this model,
| because games are really just movies now. You get your benefits
| through the union when you're not actively working, etc. Not a
| bad deal, and probably better for the production companies.
|
| Trade unions - they restrict the supply of labor, driving
| prices up, but they police themselves and maintain quality. I
| would be uncomfortable hiring a non-union plumber for anything
| non-trivial.
|
| Anyways, like I said, it's all a set of trade-offs, and those
| vary depending on the industry.
| [deleted]
| TheCapn wrote:
| I'm pro-union, but I think its worth noting that the type of
| average commenter here isn't in a position where unions provide
| large tangible benefit. Unions work extremely well in places
| where the employer holds a disproportionate amount of power to
| the worker. Fortunately, as things currently stand for the tech
| industry, the worker maintains a lot of power in that they can
| easily find new work of sufficiently equal pay/benefits. For
| us, if the employer is shit, we move up the street, but in
| places like factories where the employer can re-train labour on
| a whim, the union provides far more benefit.
|
| So merely by nature of the type of individual you'll encounter
| on HN, you'll get a strong bias towards the anti-union.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| On the flip side I wonder how many of the pro union voices I
| see on Facebook or elsewhere, especially millennials & gen z,
| have ever worked a union job and seen what a seniority system
| or non-at-will employment actually looks like in practice.
|
| Of the people I know that have direct experience with US
| unions, even those that ultimately come down on the side of
| supporting them have lots of stories to illustrate the warts.
| That's a kind of nuance I'm not seeing from the "eat the rich"
| crowd which makes me think they don't have direct experience.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| I've seen what non at-will employment leads to in Europe, and
| it's pretty good.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Like your smartest citizens leaving to start companies in
| the US? Restrictive labor laws and high payroll taxes make
| EU countries an unappealing option for small companies.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Yeah honestly I'm pretty shocked at the number of people
| that think being able to be fired on the spot anytime for
| practically any reason is a _good thing_.
|
| That's probably the most absurd thing I've read in these
| comments.
| Nimitz14 wrote:
| Since we're trading anecdotes: I'm European and I disagree.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| I've heard similar things from others (though less so in
| Southern Europe). However, I don't think you get there from
| here by just expanding existing US unions. It would take a
| bigger culture shift.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| You don't need unions for that, just legislation. In
| Ireland, you are essentially at-will for the first six
| months of any role, and after that you are "permanent".
|
| This essentially means that there needs to be a process
| to fire you. You need to supply at least one verbal
| warning on stated grounds (backed up as a written), then
| another one and then you can fire someone.
|
| It works reasonably well (not always, obviously) and it's
| super bizarre to me that you don't have that in the US.
| To be honest, when my previous employer wanted to move me
| to the US, this was one of my concerns, especially when
| you're dependent on the job for a visa.
|
| It just seems that its a bad trade-off for US people in
| general, and it's odd to me that it appears to be mostly
| unquestioned.
| seibelj wrote:
| US companies fear lawsuits and firing employees includes
| a lot of data to back it up, from what I've observed.
| There are so many protected classes and reasons why
| firing is illegal, and people are so litigious, that
| months of documentation, warnings, improvement plan, etc.
| is required to fire someone with HR's approval. And even
| then usually you give some severance to ensure lawsuit
| isn't filed.
| winkeltripel wrote:
| With the shrinking fraction of jobs which are unionized, is
| it really surprising that a younger crowd has no experience
| with it?
| bradleyjg wrote:
| Wouldn't it behoove people to learning about subject before
| forming such strong opinions about it? Perhaps by talking
| to people with direct experience?
| tablespoon wrote:
| > My question is this: Where did you get information about
| unions? Because people keep mentioning their "bad reputation"
| and then start listing off a bunch of "facts" that read like
| they're bullets straight out of one of those anti-union videos
| during onboard at several major employers (Walmart, Target,
| Amazon, etc).
|
| Realistically? Probably libertarian advocacy literature coupled
| with a few confirmatory anecdotes that may or may not be from
| first hand experience. When I was anti-union, that's where it
| came from.
|
| You also have to keep in mind the HN is run by a VC firm, and a
| lot of its culture was set by aspiring capitalists hoping to
| win the startup lottery. That's going to lead to certain
| predicable biases (e.g. taking the perspective of a business
| owner even if you're unlikely to ever successfully be one).
| Fernicia wrote:
| I went to a school where the teacher's union made it impossible
| to remove incompetent teachers. Teachers who got consistently
| poor student results, didn't control the class, took several
| months of "sick" leave, etc.
| unionanswer wrote:
| Worked in a union for a few years.
| slibhb wrote:
| Unions are employee cartels. They are a tool for correcting an
| imbalance between employers and employees. Sometimes unions are
| good, because the employees have no leverage. Other times
| unions are bad, because employees have plenty of leverage.
| Workers are not saints. When given leverage, they use it to
| advance their own interests, which are not always reasonable.
|
| People disagree over whether Amazon is a situation where unions
| would be a benefit or a detriment. Make an argument instead of
| diminishing people who disagree with as you misinformed.
| parliament32 wrote:
| Personally, it came from working for a massive union
| (government, not US) for many years. The downsides are real:
| hard to fire bad performers, your merits don't matter at all
| (the guy doing the bare minimum job description gets the same
| raises as you), wayyy too much focus on seniority (for
| promotions, vacation selection, etc), and overall just too many
| rules (for example, "unlimited vacation" works great with my
| current employer but would absolutely not work under a union..
| sick days have to be tracked, PTO banks calculated down to the
| quarter hour, etc).
|
| On the plus side, we paid like $15/month so I'm not sure why
| Amazon is trying to scare people with the "union dues"
| argument. And it was nice to have the option for
| "representation" in HR-like meetings.
|
| There's definitely pluses and minuses, but (having worked on
| both sides) it's not for me.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| I worked WITH UAW for years, I too personally saw pretty much
| every Union complaint out there. So, IDK, I'm never surprised
| how many people there are to tell me my experiences are
| wrong.
|
| I'm not qualified to say if they have a place still, but I
| know anyone pretending it's all rainbows hasn't actually
| suffered like I have.
| specialist wrote:
| > _the downsides are real: hard to fire bad performers, your
| merits don 't matter at all_
|
| Which work environments are merit based?
|
| Which employers fire bad performers?
| prepend wrote:
| I've worked for a half dozen software companies and they
| were all merit based and fired bad performers. They
| certainly weren't perfect and mistakes were made, but as
| staff I perceived that pay was strongly correlated to
| performance and as management I worked to have pay
| correspond to performance and had access to data that
| demonstrated that.
|
| I've worked for orgs where this wasn't true and I avoid
| those orgs and prefer environments that are merit based.
|
| I feel bad if people really have never experienced this as
| it's really disheartening to work in an org where
| performance doesn't matter. That must really suck.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I've found all the companies I worked at rewarded merit and
| fired bad performers. Of course the systems were imperfect
| but on average both happened.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| I find it really surprising that you think this happened
| at all companies you've worked at. In my experience, the
| difference between good and bad companies was exactly how
| much they recognised merit and fired bad performers.
|
| Note that "bad performance" is very team specific, if I'm
| shoved into a spaghetti DS code base and told to not
| write tests or refactor, then I will definitely end up as
| a poor performer.
|
| And unfortunately, people being people, lots of
| managers/leads make decisions based on unexamined
| emotional states, which tends not to lead to rewarding
| merit.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Most smaller startups, because it's literally do awesome
| work or shut down.
|
| Trading/finance, because it's either outsmart the rival
| trading firms, or lose your entire stack in 1 day.
| specialist wrote:
| Could I restate your view as: Competition keeps orgs and
| people honest.
|
| The economics book Design Rules: The Power of Modularity
| suggests orgs use something like NPV to assemble as a
| basket of competing efforts to tackle problems. The
| strategy of prematurely picking winners, come hell or
| high water, always struck me as sub-optimal.
| brianwawok wrote:
| I think that is true... but man, if that was 100% of
| jobs? I don't think a lot of people would love that. You
| have to have a certain mindset to want to fail over and
| over again until someday you fail upward.
| ineptech wrote:
| I think that the value of a lot of unions is obscured by how
| well-established they are. Historically, unions are a
| solution to a specific problem - the employer can (for one
| reason or another) get away with jerking employees around and
| treating them badly. But if you form a union, and the
| employer is forced to stop some of their the worst behaviors,
| and then it stays that way for a generation or two, it feels
| like the union serves no purpose.
|
| To take government work as an example: you mentioned some
| minuses that are very obvious. But you didn't mention what I
| consider one of the biggest pluses: not having to fear losing
| your job because the mayor/governor/etc flipped parties. That
| still happens in leadership positions, but it used to happen
| to rank-and-file workers as well; I believe it's the public
| employee unions that stopped that.
|
| I don't work for Amazon and I don't have a dog in this fight,
| but it would've been very interesting to see what happened if
| this site had unionized. It's not really clear to me
| whether/how much Amazon is jerking its workers around; are
| there plants really unsafe, are people really miserable,
| should they be paid more? Having one site unionize for a
| couple of years would probably answer those questions better
| than a million forum posts.
| woah wrote:
| > not having to fear losing your job because the
| mayor/governor/etc flipped parties
|
| Rewarding supporters with cushy jobs (and firing the old
| workers) en mass is known as patronage and is a minor abuse
| of power, akin to corruption. Well-developed democracies
| take steps to prevent it, not because it's bad for the
| workers, but because it is bad for the fabric of
| government. The US enacted these reforms more than 100
| years ago, starting with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform
| act. Public sector unions had very little to do with it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Refor
| m...
| notabee wrote:
| I guarantee you that the people at the top of companies
| understand well that good paying positions are popularity
| contests. It's the people who just have a strong need to feel
| that merit matters that they can typically gull into working
| like dogs for table scraps.
|
| Granted, I have seen the other side of things, and free
| riders are a problem. It sucks when you care about doing
| things right and don't get anything better than the people
| who just dial it in. But there are always going to be free
| riders: either people who figure out how to game the system
| because they're just there for a paycheck, or people who run
| the system and soak up all the value while delivering little,
| because their family knows the right people at the country
| club.
|
| Now, when a company is new, small, and nimble like a startup,
| you can control the nepotism and free riding somewhat, but
| any bigger shop it's just going to get baked into the system
| either way. Try to really solve this problem, and you'll
| threaten those with real power and get shut down.
|
| Sometimes you get leapfrog moments from companies like SpaceX
| that demonstrate just how much drag the corruption has caused
| on progress, but they're more the exception that proves the
| rule. And, any comments about Elon as an individual aside,
| the powers that be have not been shy about using a bunch of
| media mouthpieces to spread FUD about disruptors like SpaceX
| and Tesla. (Again, not going to even touch on whether those
| are good or bad companies, or whether Elon is a good or bad
| person. But they are causing a ruckus in their respective
| industries.)
|
| So again, you may be doing a lot better than some people at
| your job, and that's commendable. But it will be used to
| manipulate you more often than not, because you care.
| Varriount wrote:
| Aren't things like time tracking, etc. union-specific though?
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Not at all.
| duckfang wrote:
| > hard to fire bad performers
|
| In the jobs that I do, "bad performance" is super subjective
| and very hard to measure. It's also the common canard to use
| from the managerial class to get rid of someone they don't
| like.
|
| > your merits don't matter at all
|
| They don't either in the non-union corporate world either.
| They pay as little as they can get away with. They'll assign
| as much work as you can possibly do, and then pile on more,
| and set unreasonable demands. The moment you surmount them,
| there's more work.... But here's your COLI for the year.
|
| And, it's a common and well understood in the tech field that
| if you want better pay, you job hop. An employer who's paying
| you X knows that X is enough, and won't give any real merit
| raise increases.
|
| > wayyy too much focus on seniority
|
| At least that's measurable, and better than managerial
| decisions of "I like this person" or "I don't like you". Been
| there and done that. And with a crummy manager in a union
| job, you at least have the union steward to represent you.
| Non-union, you have the unemployment line.
|
| > overall just too many rules (example: unlimited PTO)
|
| Really? You use unlimited PTO as an example?!? It's complete
| utter trash it's unlimited by simply not showing up to work
| at all. That's unlimited, and we all know you'd get fired if
| you did that. You'd also likely get the axe if you took off
| every Friday as PTO.
|
| I would much rather have fair delineated and straight-forward
| rules for all to see and vote on, than the touchy-feely
| sounds good but not real faux-rules like 'unlimited PTO'.
| vlozko wrote:
| > In the jobs that I do, "bad performance" is super
| subjective and very hard to measure. It's also the common
| canard to use from the managerial class to get rid of
| someone they don't like.
|
| Have you not heard of The Rubber Room? Or the dance of the
| lemons? At least with respect to teachers unions, the
| problem is real and in a very detrimental way. Even when a
| schools district wants to fire a bad teacher, the process
| can take years and be costly enough to deter districts from
| even bothering.
| jacksnipe wrote:
| On the flip side, I've been a student in a school with a
| teacher's union (NYS public middle school) and a school
| without (South Carolina public high school) and there was
| an absolute world of difference between the two. My NYS
| teachers were almost universally better, whereas in South
| Carolina good teachers seemed to be the exception. My
| good SC teachers made 20k/year less than my worst NYS
| teachers, iirc
| whimsicalism wrote:
| If by NYS, you mean Westchester (as is not unlikely given
| HN), I don't think this is a fair comparison.
| dahfizz wrote:
| There are a lot of confounding factors here. New York
| state has higher median income, lower violent crime, etc
| than South Carolina. It is more than possible that the
| unionization of NYS education is a result of its better
| education system rather than its cause.
| hintymad wrote:
| And even worse, schools can't be shut down. It's okay for
| companies to have unions. In the worse case, the company
| closes doors, so ultimately the union needs to work with
| the company one way or another. In government entities,
| unions are tumors as they don't need to worry about their
| employers going down.
| Nimitz14 wrote:
| > In the jobs that I do, "bad performance" is super
| subjective and very hard to measure.
|
| Then either you and all your coworkers so far have been
| amazing, or you're the bad one. Either way consider
| yourself lucky!
| peferron wrote:
| > not showing up to work at all. That's unlimited, and we
| all know you'd get fired if you did that
|
| You can also take the fixed PTO allocated by the company,
| and then elect to not do any useful work the rest of the
| time either. What's your solution to that? And why can't
| this solution work in an unlimited PTO environment?
|
| Note: I don't think that unlimited PTO is a good fit for
| all industries (it certainly isn't), but your position
| seems to be that unlimited PTO is _never_ a good fit, which
| I disagree with.
| yibg wrote:
| You make it sound like everything is subjective and there
| are no bad or good workers. And since we can't accurately,
| objectively measure performance, let's just pick metric we
| can measure even though it has no correlation with
| performance.
|
| Bad performers can absolutely be spotted, at least in the
| extreme. People that don't show up to work, or are
| chronically late (for work where this matters) or violate
| safety rules for example. They get protected by unions and
| are hard to remove.
| marcinzm wrote:
| You're making union shops and the people who support them
| sound so depressing and indifferent to their jobs and
| careers that I really don't want to be anywhere near
| either.
|
| >In the jobs that I do, "bad performance" is super
| subjective and very hard to measure. It's also the common
| canard to use from the managerial class to get rid of
| someone they don't like.
|
| Personally I'll take risk of getting fired over having to
| spend 8 hours a day dealing with utter idiots. Not spending
| 8 hours a day miserable is worth a lot to me personally.
|
| >And, it's a common and well understood in the tech field
| that if you want better pay, you job hop.
|
| Exactly, you have the option and path for getting a better
| pay through your own efforts. In a union industry you
| don't. New job will pay the same as the old one based on
| union rules.
| parliament32 wrote:
| And like I said, there's up and downsides, and it really
| depends on what you want out of your career. Some people
| want the 9-5 clock-in-clock-out with well-defined rules and
| tasks, scheduled raises and all that, so they can focus on
| their real life. Others actually like the work they do, and
| are comfortable working hard to get four promotions in a
| year and "messiah" treatment from management. I'm sure
| there are bad non-union employers as you mentioned, but
| honestly in startup-land you're a lot more likely to have
| experiences like I described than otherwise.
|
| >unlimited PTO
|
| This, exactly this, is the problem with people in the
| union-mindset. "Oh it's unlimited, that means we don't need
| to work at all, right?" It means you have a certain amount
| of accountability and responsibility: "Hey, we just
| finished project X so I'm going to take Fri+Mon off to go
| camping" is a regular thing, without having to book your
| vacation dates a year in advance or deduct quarter-hours
| from your various "PTO banks", or even have to document it
| anywhere. It means the company trusts you to do the right
| thing. You're not going to see that in a union shop where
| you constantly have an adversarial relationship with your
| management.
| duckfang wrote:
| > This, exactly this, is the problem with people in the
| union-mindset. "Oh it's unlimited, that means we don't
| need to work at all, right?" It means you have a certain
| amount of accountability and responsibility: "Hey, we
| just finished project X so I'm going to take Fri+Mon off
| to go camping" is a regular thing, without having to book
| your vacation dates a year in advance or deduct quarter-
| hours from your various "PTO banks", or even have to
| document it anywhere. It means the company trusts you to
| do the right thing. You're not going to see that in a
| union shop where you constantly have an adversarial
| relationship with your management.
|
| Well you also outlined the real problem in your way of
| refuting mine.
|
| Obviously, taking 100% PTO is a joke. I think we can both
| agree on that. That was just a demonstration point that
| "Unlimited != Unlimited".
|
| But I also said, "How about every Friday off?" and now
| we're talking about 52 days off a year. And that's
| starting to get in that really fuzzy realm of certainly
| doable, but is it 'allowed'? Or perhaps 30 days? Is
| taking a month off acceptable (5 x 4 = 20 days)?
|
| The outlier is obviously ridiculous.. But what isn't? And
| that's where we see results like
| https://www.workforce.com/news/unlimited-paid-time-off-
| is-a-... where the "Unlimited PTO"
|
| is more of a ploy of not having to *pay out* PTO, which
| is legally required on exiting a company. And with
| "Unlimimted PTO", my question about what is 'allowed' is
| also reflected by the numbers, that shows people under
| 'Unlimited' schemes take 2 days less than standard PTO.
|
| But it's easy to say this is someone with "union-mindset"
| saying this. That, at best, is a strawman. "Unlimited
| PTO" isn't unlimited, and is a bad deal for the employee
| in all ways.*
| lolinder wrote:
| What's interesting about that Workforce article is that
| the tone is completely different from the sources it
| cites. The "2 days less per year" article by Namely that
| they cite is about how to effectively implement an
| unlimited PTO policy that _doesn 't_ have that side-
| effect. In the Fast Company article they cite, they found
| this:
|
| > In a survey we conducted just before we hit the one-
| year mark, our employees ranked unlimited vacation third-
| highest among the benefits we offer, just behind health
| insurance and a 401(k). It beat out vision insurance,
| dental insurance, and even professional development, all
| of which ranked highly in their own rights.
|
| Their Unlimited PTO policy didn't move the needle at all
| on how much vacation people took, but it had a huge
| impact on how people felt about it. In short, they
| appreciated being treated like adults.
|
| How the author of that Workforce article got from the two
| sources they cite to the extremely negative article they
| wrote is beyond me.
| peferron wrote:
| > "Unlimited PTO" isn't unlimited, and is a bad deal for
| the employee in all ways.
|
| Then work for a company with fixed PTO. There are plenty
| of these; the vast majority, actually. Why are you so
| hell-bent on denying that choice to people who wish
| otherwise? Even worse, you're telling these people that
| they are wrong and that unlimited PTO cannot possibly be
| a good fit for them. How can you expect people not to
| disagree when they have first-hand experience of the
| contrary?
| FredPret wrote:
| > wayyy too much focus on seniority At least that's
| measurable
|
| We can use seniority, but why not get creative and rank
| employees by height, moustache density, or digits of pi
| memorized?
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| This kind of obtuse comment is part of why pro-union people
| have such a hard time convincing any anti-union people.
|
| People have had bad experiences with unions protecting
| shitty employees far beyond what companies usually do, and
| the response amounts to, "NUH UHHH".
|
| If that's what people have actually experienced, telling
| them "actually what you saw with your eyes isn't reality"
| is not effective messaging.
| nnvvhh wrote:
| The comment you responded to gave a response to multiple
| points, it's far from "nuh uh." Your characterization is
| inaccurate.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I'm specifically talking about dismissing concerns about
| how bad employees are protected or how promotions are
| handled.
|
| > They don't either in the non-union corporate world
| either.
|
| Basically, people have seen for themselves that unions
| seem to be anti-meritocratic beyond what companies
| they've seen do, and that's simply dismissed.
|
| "No, you didn't actually see that."
| slibhb wrote:
| > In the jobs that I do, "bad performance" is super
| subjective and very hard to measure
|
| Are you a poet?
|
| In every job I've worked, from manual labor to writing
| code, it's incredibly easy to figure out who is "performing
| badly".
| standardUser wrote:
| It's not a matter of identifying the obviously worst
| performers. It is about insulating the majority of
| middling workers from the whims of their bosses so they
| can't be fired at a moment's notice for a vaguely defined
| idea of "poor performance".
| duckfang wrote:
| https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000
| _Li...
|
| And research in logs and events can either be quick or
| very slow, depending on what you're looking for.
|
| And it's also easy to slop out slow bad code, and make it
| someone else's problem (dev side of things).
| musingsole wrote:
| That's a story about overzealous productivity metrics
| coupled with a non-thinking management class. It's hardly
| an argument for or against being able to identify bad
| performers.
|
| I know porn when I see it, but I can't (easily) make an
| automated system to detect it and I'd struggle even more
| to make that system make intelligent actions on
| successful detection.
| rootsofallevil wrote:
| but does your manager? or does s/he actually only see the
| pizza guy delivering the pizza?
| slibhb wrote:
| "My manager doesn't recognize my hard work" is a totally
| different statement than "performance is subjective".
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| Good point. But the managers make most of the decisions,
| and they usually can't recognize performance. So if you
| have a 10x developer who is admired by all coworkers but
| disrespected by management, they probably won't get raise
| (unless they change the job).
| musingsole wrote:
| ...does that happen?
|
| The situation you're describing is going to be far more
| about the specific personalities and power dynamics than
| anything related to accurate performance estimation.
| jjk166 wrote:
| > They don't either in the non-union corporate world
| either. They pay as little as they can get away with.
| They'll assign as much work as you can possibly do, and
| then pile on more, and set unreasonable demands. The moment
| you surmount them, there's more work.... But here's your
| COLI for the year.
|
| This has not been my experience. Every employer I've worked
| for has offered me reasonable raises before I had to ask,
| and consistently sought my input to estimate how much time
| and effort tasks will take, usually adding buffer onto what
| I suggest.
| busterarm wrote:
| They don't either in the non-union corporate world either.
| They pay as little as they can get away with. They'll
| assign as much work as you can possibly do, and then pile
| on more, and set unreasonable demands. The moment you
| surmount them, there's more work.... But here's your COLI
| for the year. And, it's a common and well
| understood in the tech field that if you want better pay,
| you job hop. An employer who's paying you X knows that X is
| enough, and won't give any real merit raise increases.
|
| This is only for people who just apply to "jobs" and accept
| whatever money is given. You're entirely in control of
| negotiating terms and it's easily possible to negotiate
| wildly different employment terms than your coworkers at
| medium to large companies.
|
| Thinking otherwise is for people who aren't talented, lack
| the ability to negotiate and don't have any imagination.
|
| I know several software engineers who have negotiated for
| $500k+ cash compensation at their employers because they
| had skills that are in demand and it was worth paying them
| that.
|
| You would never be able to do this with collective
| bargaining arrangements.
| hintymad wrote:
| > In the jobs that I do, "bad performance" is super
| subjective and very hard to measure. It's also the common
| canard to use from the managerial class to get rid of
| someone they don't like.
|
| Are you serious? This line of thinking is exactly why I'm
| against union. It is really not that hard to tell who are
| the bad performers. There will be false judgement, but the
| rate is low. If you want to avoid any false results, well,
| I don't know what world you live in. And look at teacher's
| unions across the US. What kind of damage did they do to
| our kids? The infamous Principal's Ball as described in
| Waiting For Superman should make any sane person's blood
| boil.
| standardUser wrote:
| "It is really not that hard to tell who are the bad
| performers."
|
| That sounds like an entitled viewpoint. Imagine how it
| feels to be someone of a different skin color or hair
| style or manner of speaking and living in a society
| where, as a middling performer, any boss you have can
| fire you for "poor performance" with no other explanation
| required. Without that life experience, perhaps it is
| hard to view that situation as problematic. But for
| people with those experiences, they would prefer a system
| that has some insulation between them and the whims of
| their (mostly white, male, higher class) bosses.
| hintymad wrote:
| > a different skin color or hair style or manner of
| speaking and living i
|
| Yeah, right. It's all about racism. As for volumes of
| research on performance management and management in
| general, they are just charade by white supremacists,
| right? Oh, and what about Asian people, in particular
| Indians, going all the way to CEOs and college principals
| and high-ranking government officials? Let me guess, they
| are white? If you think so, well, let's just say some
| people are racists to the bone, no matter how
| "progressive" they say.
| rootsofallevil wrote:
| >There will be false positives, but the rate is low
|
| What do you base this on?
|
| My experience is that if you are perceived to be good you
| can get away with being a low performer for a lot longer
| than if you are not perceived to be good, I have seen it
| quite a few times.
| hwbehrens wrote:
| Wouldn't that be a false negative?
|
| A false positive would be when a high-performer is
| perceived as being a low-performer, and terminated for
| that reason despite their superior productivity.
|
| I can certainly imagine this occurring, especially to
| employees who are socially deficient, but then you start
| to get into the quagmire of politically- and socially-
| motivated terminations, which I think is outside the
| scope of this discussion.
| hintymad wrote:
| You're right. Edited the comment accordingly. Both false
| positives and false negatives exist.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think it's pretty silly to suggest that that the
| failure of public schools is just due to teacher unions.
|
| I went to a very similar school system as the one in
| Waiting For Superman and there are a whole litany of
| issues I would put before teacher unions in terms of what
| is afflicting our urban schools, top on the list is:
|
| a. incompetent administration
|
| b. failure to desegregate our schools.
| Shivetya wrote:
| Sorry, just look at which school systems are still closed
| to this day regardless of the science. NYC union
| leadership rebuked the CDC when their guidelines did not
| meet NYC union rules.
|
| Where as much of the rest of the country has had children
| in schools just fine for months.
|
| You can damn well place a lot of blame on the unions
| because they are not there for the welfare of students
| and no action they have taken shows otherwise. If
| anything they guarantee the least needed teachers will
| ever end up in schools desperate to have them. They will
| go after any alternative means of education which
| includes home teaching, something they have effectively
| now forced on many minority families in our largest
| cities.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The science is not clear-cut. Many "minority families in
| our largest cities" have been polled and support
| continued distance learning while the pandemic is
| ongoing. In the urban district that I grew up in, I know
| this to be the case, I am not sure about in NYC.
|
| I think it is funny that outsiders on an anti-union
| crusade will continue dismiss what students & parents who
| actually go to schools like these say many of the
| problems are.
|
| e: And I'm not saying unions are entirely unproblematic.
| I had a few (2 or so) teachers who were protected. But
| they are so far from the root cause of the dysfunction in
| our urban schools. Informal segregation is a much bigger
| piece of the puzzle.
| hintymad wrote:
| This gives me new perspective. I wish we had more
| discussion like this.
|
| If all media could list facts and stats, and lay out all
| kinds of reasons and assumptions. Unfortunately, both
| left and right media are doing the opposite. For
| instance, some right labels NYC teacher's union as a woke
| entity. The teacher union said that reopening school was
| racist. And Twitter, oh, the almighty righteous Twitter,
| simply bans the accounts who are opposing CDC's
| guidelines. It's just so hard to see influential medias
| and platforms to engage nuanced discussion.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Okay, here are some of the stats I'm relying on to say
| that desegregation is needed and good:
|
| * Randomly assigned poor & black students to
| socioeconomically diverse and non-diverse schools, found
| rich-poor achievement gap was halved in math
| (https://production-
| tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2010/10/1600543...)
|
| * Systemic benefits in national tests for students in
| socioeconomically diverse schools, regardless of family
| background (https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-
| of-socioeconomica... along with a whole laundry list of
| other evidence).
|
| * Evidence that minority parents in my school district
| favor distance learning while the pandemic continues. I
| couldn't find the original stat because the thread was
| deleted, but here is a similar poll showing the same
| thing (https://www.the74million.org/article/as-more-dcps-
| schools-op...)
| hintymad wrote:
| Thanks. I was not challenging your comment. Instead, I
| was trying to compliment yours, as it gives a new
| perspective on why teacher's union didn't want schools to
| open. Otherwise, I had this impression that the union
| used racism to hide their true motives.
| old_fart_dev wrote:
| > failure to desegregate our schools
|
| Beyond the oblivious benefits of having different
| communities of students commingle, how does desegregation
| help poorer performing school? I was under the impression
| desegregation was more about providing more equal access
| to better run schools than improving poorer preforming
| school.
| Miraste wrote:
| While not addressing the problem directly, school
| desegregation efforts usually also spread socioeconomic
| classes more evenly. Poorly performing schools almost
| always have poorer students, and bringing in more well
| off parents allows for things like fundraisers and
| increased parental involvement in things like PTAs and
| band/football/etc. organizations. Despite the "Karen"
| meme, more involved parents can also lead to problems
| (bad teachers, broken facilities) being addressed that
| would otherwise go unacknowledged.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > how does desegregation help poorer performing school
|
| 1. There are studies showing that socioeconomic and
| racial diversity in schools (which often go hand and hand
| in urban contexts) have _huge_ measurable positive
| impacts on people from less advantaged backgrounds, and
| no impact on people from more advantaged backgrounds.
|
| 2. Affluent families often have more time to devote
| towards advocating for improvements in their school.
| Incompetent administrations get shielded when there
| aren't parent watchdogs.
|
| 3. Hate to say it, but high-quality teacher retention is
| very difficult in schools that are close to entirely
| black &/or poor.
|
| It is much easier to create two high-quality
| socioeconomically diverse schools than it is to create
| two high-quality schools one which has mostly rich white
| students and one which has mostly poor black students.
|
| I definitely do not have all the solutions though. I'm
| not really sure if desegregation in many coastal cities
| is even possible right now while private schools remain.
| White private school attendance is very related to school
| system diversity.
| standardUser wrote:
| I think it is important to note that you are describing some
| unions, not all unions. Being locked into one caricature of
| what a union should look like is a huge driver of anti-union
| sentiment. People learn to think that this is the only
| version of a union that does or can exist, because anti-union
| messaging pounds these points over and over.
|
| By every metric, unions provide massive, tangible benefits to
| most members. The question should be, how can we retain or
| enhance those benefits while also minimizing the well-known
| downsides?
| juancampa wrote:
| > By every metric, unions provide massive, tangible
| benefits to most members
|
| Mind citing your source or perhaps one example of a good
| union? I'm genuinely curious
| standardUser wrote:
| Here is a quick one from the Bureau of Labor
| Statistics...
|
| https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf
|
| This report from. US House committee has a bunch of links
| too... https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/PRO%20ACT%
| 20-%20By%2...
| DC1350 wrote:
| > hard to fire bad performers
|
| Why do you care about this as an employee? You get nothing
| when somebody else makes the company more money.
| makoz wrote:
| I guess to some extent it's about some aspect notion of
| "fairness". Another concern would be if their poor
| performance spills over into my own role and that prevents
| me from pursuing more interesting tasks that are more
| aligned with my growth/interests.
|
| More practically, if I'm working at a place where my team
| has fixed head count I'd rather us have the ability to
| replace someone who's not contributing to the success of
| the team.
| notabee wrote:
| This can definitely be a burden, though on the flip side
| of the coin if the team is constantly churning due to
| cooking under a performance magnifying glass all the
| time, you still end up with lots of newbies who only just
| get up to speed enough to contribute for a bit before
| moving on because it's miserable. So sometimes it's
| better to deal with the problem you know, and just move
| them out of the critical path.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| You are held accountable for performance of your team,
| directly or not. I have worked with people who were a net
| negative - try to push their work on me, or just being an
| asshole in general. The productivity would have been higher
| if they were not there, and I would be much happier.
| furyofantares wrote:
| > Why do you care about this as an employee? You get
| nothing when somebody else makes the company more money.
|
| Compensation often includes stock; so you do get something
| when somebody else makes the company money. And if nothing
| else, the company doing well may help you feel job security
| and be better able to make plans for your future.
|
| You also may enjoy making the best product you can. When
| another employee gets in the way of that, it can make it
| harder to enjoy your work.
| bendbro wrote:
| Because I actually want to make an impact at my job and
| constantly carrying idiots on my back is a horrible
| experience.
|
| Thankfully my workplace is not unionized and I have great
| team members. Whether union or non-union workplaces can
| encourage that, I don't know, but that is an example of why
| an employee would care.
| slantedview wrote:
| That unions can be bad is not news to anyone. But what's
| clear is not having unions is much, much worse. A simple
| comparison of wealth vs union membership tells it all:
|
| https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1369433256907710470/photo.
| ..
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Do you have any proof that the lack of unions is causing
| the top 10% to make more? There are variety of different
| things that started in the 50s such as outsourcing to
| cheaper countries.
| gruez wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/925/
| busterarm wrote:
| I wouldn't exactly take Robert Reich's word for it...It's
| not so clear at all.
|
| There's plenty of other variables to consider here and he
| just graphed two of them. Corporate taxes were much higher.
| Also it looks like share of income going to the top 10%
| hasn't really changed much at all in the last 100 years.
| 40% +/- 10%. That needle hasn't moved very far.
| slantedview wrote:
| Not his graph. It comes from an EPI report:
|
| https://www.epi.org/publication/labor-
| day-2019-collective-ba...
| busterarm wrote:
| It's still just cherry picking 2 variables to graph
| together that may or may not be related.
|
| Correlation != Causation.
| burtonator wrote:
| If my children want to work in coal mines I'll be damned if
| some union is going to take that away from them! /s
| objclxt wrote:
| From what I can tell, a lot of people in tech are anti _blue
| collar_ union, but mistakenly assume that blue-collar unions
| are _all_ unions.
|
| For example, just in the replies to your comment people are
| saying they dislike unions because they protect the
| incompetent, stifle progression, give preferential treatment
| purely on seniority, etc.
|
| But then go look at Hollywood, with the Screen Actors Guild,
| the Writers Guild, the PGA, etc. These are unions that have
| some of the most highly paid and richest people in the world as
| members. The same is true in the sports world.
|
| And sure, these unions are not perfect by a long shot, but they
| are doing a huge amount to hold what is ultimately a very
| exploitative industry to account.
|
| Of course, companies like Google, Amazon, and the like would
| much prefer software engineers continued to think that all
| unions were like the Teamsters. They don't want you to know
| that there's a whole class of professional unions serving some
| of the most highly paid people and engaging in collective
| bargaining.
| yibg wrote:
| Everyone points to SAG as an example of a good union. But how
| many of these are there? If there are dozens of examples of
| "bad unions" and a single example of a "good union", that
| doesn't exactly give someone voting to unionize high
| confidence.
| rootsofallevil wrote:
| Talk to people in places like Germany and you might get a
| different take about bad/good unions
| yibg wrote:
| This didn't happen in Germany, this happened in the US.
| For whatever reason unions behave differently here, and
| it's the union model in the US that people rightfully
| evaluate against.
| toby wrote:
| That's because SAG is a guild, not a union, and it works
| because every known actor is voluntarily a member, so you
| can't make a movie without agreeing to their rules.
| athms wrote:
| SAG-AFTRA meets the definition of a labor union under
| federal and state law. It negotiates working conditions,
| compensation, and benefits with production companies and
| studios. It is treated in the manner as other labor
| unions such as IATSE, IBEW, and Teamsters.
| labcomputer wrote:
| That's because true Scotsmen are not allowed to join SAG.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Even the high end unions have pretty big problems.
|
| Things like the actors guild are simple rent seeking at the
| expense of newcomings. They are setup in a way where only
| insiders are allowed to get jobs at certain places, and there
| are large barriers to entry to becoming an insider.
|
| If we were to apply this to tech, it would be contract
| provisions that keep out engineers that dont have degree, or
| discrimination against H1B immigrants.
|
| And I don't want the tech industry to have contractual
| provisions that discriminate against these groups, and would
| be willing to spend a huge amount of effort fighting people
| who want to do that. (And based on comments that I have read
| on hacker news, there really are a lot of people who want to
| screw over self-taught developers, or immigrants)
| athms wrote:
| The Producers Guild of America (PGA) is NOT a union, it is a
| trade association.
| function_seven wrote:
| The union Amazon warehouse voted against (the RWDSU) is a
| blue collar union.
|
| Your point is a good one when we see the backlash against
| unions in software engineering and related fields. I just
| wanted to bring it back around to why anti-union comments on
| this story specifically would be right to cite their problems
| you listed in the 2nd sentence.
| qeternity wrote:
| And conversely there are plenty of good employers who don't
| require unionization to treat employees well.
|
| The point is that these situations are often framed as the
| angelic unions vs the evil capitalist employer. In reality,
| there are plenty of bad unions just as there are plenty of
| bad employers.
| brianwawok wrote:
| So, do you know anyone say 20 something and trying to get
| into the SAG? Dealing with the drama of union vs off union
| jobs in NYC? It's usually something like:
|
| Work the union job for $10 an hour, earn credit towards
| joining the SAG. In 10 years I can actually join the SAG and
| make actual decent paying jobs, and actually get health
| insurance.
|
| vs
|
| Work a non-union job for $20.
|
| It feels very much like a way to exploit people to let them
| someday get the magic card. The numbers are very approximate,
| but the sentiment I have gotten from people actually with
| boots on the ground. Do I want this as a developer? No way!
| toby wrote:
| Guilds are a little different from unions in practice. They
| set minimum standards but there's no group negotiation based
| on seniority or anything like that. Studios are free to pay
| some hot rising star 100x as much as the guy who has been a
| character actor for 30 years as long as he's making the
| minimum and getting his breaks and meals and stuff.
|
| It's also a challenge to get into a guild, SAG has minimum
| requirements for having already performed. A union is
| generally just something you have to join when you take a job
| at a unionized company.
|
| This is not a value judgment, just wanted to point out the
| differences.
| bena wrote:
| Why are you making his argument for him?
|
| He pointed out that not all unions are the doom and gloom
| version where you can't carry lightbulbs (seriously people,
| don't ever use that example, it's right out of the anti-
| union video, obvious tell) and good people can't get
| promotions because of blah blah blah.
|
| You then responded by saying it doesn't count because it's
| different.
|
| Yeah, that's the point. A "union" isn't a thing like
| gravity. It doesn't only work one way. It a collection of
| workers who want to collectively bargain with an employer
| to bring some balance to the power dynamic between huge
| companies and individual workers. Whatever rules the union
| wants to set out are up to them.
| toby wrote:
| I'm not arguing, if anything I'm agreeing, was just
| trying to clarify some things.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Lol not every comment reply has to be an absolute
| refutation of the parent comment! They were agreeing with
| the person they were replying to... wow can't have that
| can we!
| stale2002 wrote:
| The contract provisions described regarding these high
| end unions _are_ doom and gloom though.
|
| Contract provisions that screw over newcomers, and set up
| additional barriers to entry are not good.
|
| I do not want the tech industry to discriminate against
| new comers, or developers who don't have a CS degree, or
| H1Bs more than it is already doing so.
|
| And that is what those kinds of unions do to the
| industry. They setup barriers to entry to target these
| groups.
| athms wrote:
| >SAG has minimum requirements for having already performed.
|
| Other unions do the same, such as longshoremen. You can
| work next to unionized longshoremen, doing the same type of
| job, yet not be part of the union because it strictly
| controls who can be a member in order to keep membership
| low and compensation high.
| blululu wrote:
| I would not say that I'm anti-union but my experience working
| with a large union was pretty universally negative. It was just
| one more layer of bureaucracy that never really advocated for
| anything good. They consistently failed to deliver pay or
| benefits increases but would tote meaningless symbolic
| victories. The union was generally out of touch with the
| workers. Personally I really like the idea of a workers
| association that would actually bring benefits to employees and
| focus on personally and community development as well but I
| don't see a lot of innovation in how labor unions treat their
| constituents.
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| > So anti-union people exactly where does your information come
| from?
|
| From speaking with family members who work or worked for
| Unions.
|
| From a management perspective it is untenable to not be able to
| hire who you want (because you must offer the job to any
| "qualified" union employee before you can hire externally), not
| be able to fire who you want (because you must meet arbitrary
| requirements set by the union).
|
| From an employee perspective I've seen situations where they
| want specific or custom arrangements with their boss and their
| boss would like to give them but they violate union rules so
| they are either forced to work around it (and face
| repercussions if they are found out) or refuse to accommodate
| situations that both the manager and the employee agree upon.
|
| I will also say that I find the anti-anti-union rhetoric very
| distasteful. I fundamentally agree that employees have the
| right to discuss their desire to join or form a union but I
| think that companies have the fundamental right to advocate
| their position as well. Virtually all of this get's called out
| as "anti-union" propaganda and I find that very distasteful and
| disingenuous. Most of the "propaganda" videos I've seen I found
| to be actually quite reasonable arguments, while most of the
| anti-anti commentary I find to be disingenuous appeals to
| emotion.
|
| There are also many industries where unions are massively
| corrupt. I know nothing about the union here so I won't speak
| about it, but I do have personal experience with this.
|
| Finally, I will also say that my opinion of unions skews
| heavily against larger and more diverse ones. Had this been
| Amazon Warehouse workers choosing to form their own union vs
| join an existing union, I feel that would have been more
| successful by virtue of being smaller in scope and more
| targeted.
| lvs wrote:
| Can't believe they pulled this off. Incredible.
| clydethefrog wrote:
| Who is in "they" in this context? Are you painting Amazon as
| the David in this situation versus the Goliath of dying US
| labour organisation?
| diogenescynic wrote:
| Whip me harder said the good slaves.
| rmah wrote:
| Am I the only one who thinks $500/mo seems excessive for union
| dues? That's $60k/yr in dues for every 10 workers. Does a union
| really need a full time rep for every 10 or 20 members? If,
| perhaps, half of that goes to "strike insurance", that would mean
| $15k/member over 5 years. Which would be enough replace wages(at
| $15/hr) for six months. Do they really anticipate a six month
| strike every 5 years?
| kgin wrote:
| Actual dues amount for the union weren't proposed yet, afaik.
| The two figures floating around were based on two different
| interpretations of the Amazon anti-union website
| doitwithoutdues.com
|
| > Amazon... created a website for employees that tells them
| they'll have to pay $500 in union dues a month, taking away
| money that could go to dinners and school supplies.
| https://apnews.com/article/what-to-know-amazon-union-vote-ex...
|
| > She said she felt insulted by some of Amazon's anti-union
| efforts, particularly the company's statements to the staff
| that they would be required to pay nearly $500 in union dues
| every year. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/business/amazon-
| union-bes...
|
| Actual site just says $500, leaving the interval up to
| interpretation
| https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jMRHfH...
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| It's 500 per year not per month
|
| Edit to add source https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-
| news/early-vote-counts-sho...
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| Note how that's still coming directly from Amazon's
| propaganda arm as "an estimate" and not anything official...
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| > $500/mo
|
| Is that actually accurate? Last I read, that number came from
| an Amazon propaganda website created to persuade voters away
| from unionizing.
| [deleted]
| pkulak wrote:
| Holy crap, the dues were really that high? No wonder no one
| voted for it.
|
| EDIT: $500/year, apparently
| judge2020 wrote:
| Holy, that is probably the sole reason for a majority of the
| 'no' votes. You're talking a job that pays as little as $15 an
| hour, so 500/mo is nearly a week's pay (~33 hours).
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Which is a good reason to be a little skeptical. The amount
| is off by an order of magnitude.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Ah, the WSJ paywall cuts off before the due amounts are
| stated (if they even are mentioned).
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| How often can these votes take place?
|
| Because I'd expect support to rise next time something Amazon
| does annoys its employees.
| hnunionthrow wrote:
| Thank god and whoever else for this. This is amazing. I realize
| and understand a segment of HN readers are sympathetic to
| unions(the American version too), and some are vocal advocates as
| well, but I am absolutely elated at this outcome.
|
| Edit: Question: Can this vote also be taken as a proxy indicator
| of the working conditions not being anywhere close to what the
| sensational and click-bait media pieces point out to be?
| clydethefrog wrote:
| The piss bottles and bags to poop in weren't click-bait. This
| is based on leaked documents.
|
| https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottl...
| hnunionthrow wrote:
| Sure. But this is not specific to Amazon. Most media pieces
| around this made it sound like Amazon drivers' are exclusive
| to this experience.
|
| A lot of people working in the transportation industry do
| this and it is not very hard to imagine why they would do
| this.
|
| Just one example: https://www.quora.com/Do-truck-drivers-
| ever-actually-use-pis... You can find several other articles,
| and also speak to actual drivers and they will also explain
| why do they do this.
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| We know it's you, Amazon's PR firm, behind that throwaway
| account.
| lexs wrote:
| Especially in that region, I would take this vote rather as an
| indicator of the lack of alternatives. Amazon is so large that
| they could simply scrap that location without being that
| bothered, yet the workers do not have that freedom. The choice
| is between taking what you can get even if it is tied to bad
| working conditions or having nothing at all.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/V0bXB
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| I remember going to the unions xmas party with my dad when I was
| a kid.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Sorry to the guy who didn't go to a unions xmas party with his
| dad and felt to downvote my comment - I feel for you.
| mimikatz wrote:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-union-vote-why-some-w...
| has some interviews with actual workers
| cr1pablo wrote:
| Why are people in America against unionizing? In Spain and I
| think in Europe it's pretty normal, most people do it.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Unions in the EU have very different rules than unions in the
| US. In particular, American unions can essentially force an
| employer to become a "closed shop" through a majority vote.
| Everyone who works there then has to pay union dues and accept
| a union contract. EU unions involve more worker choice.
| asdff wrote:
| People in America have been subjected to nearly 100 years of
| very successful anti union propaganda. They used to be very
| strong, but have since been eroded and vilified by capital.
| sgift wrote:
| Next round is already called:
|
| "BREAKING: @RWDSU says that Amazon illegally interfered in the
| #BAmazonUnion vote in Bessemer, and the union will be filing
| unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB."
|
| https://twitter.com/GrimKim/status/1380541382490738690
| tannhauser23 wrote:
| They do this every time they lose a unionization vote.
| slantedview wrote:
| You think every union vote involves the company secretly and
| illegally cajoling the USPS to install a mail box, monitored
| by the company, right by the warehouse entrance?
|
| https://twitter.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1380245193924878337
|
| This was plainly illegal and tainted the vote.
| nemo44x wrote:
| As is their right to do, but I'd think with such a massive
| drubbing they've taken here that they'd pack it up. More than a
| super majority of workers have rejected the unions attempt to
| infest their workplace with leftist, conflict politics.
|
| The only question now is how Amazon punishes the organizers and
| reward the dissenters.
| Kylekramer wrote:
| You can't win the game, work the ref.
| judge2020 wrote:
| It's fair to ask for the ref to review the play.
| Kylekramer wrote:
| Technically "fair", yes. When you lost by over 40 points,
| it is also pointless.
| slantedview wrote:
| Either the vote is tainted or it's not. This one was.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| That's pretty overwhelming too, 71% No.
|
| It would be interesting to hear from them why. I think we all
| have opinions (I certainly do). But I've never worked at amazon
| so my opinion is low value...
| rshm wrote:
| I would guess, fear of retribution from amazon. If the voting
| was nationwide it could have lowered the fear that amazon could
| treat one location better in things like expansion.
| oramit wrote:
| Yeah I can think of lots of reasons for this loss.
|
| 1. It's always harder to get people to vote to change the
| status quo. Even if people think the change is going to be
| good, people are usually risk averse so you need to work harder
| to change things vs stay the same.
|
| 2. Their general opinion about unions is poor.
|
| 3. Their specific opinion about this union and the unionization
| effort is poor.
|
| 4. Dues were too high vs benefits.
|
| 5. Worry about retaliation from Amazon.
|
| 6. I imagine a lot of people don't really think of their Amazon
| warehouse job as a career. Most people working there probably
| only plan to do it for a few years, in which case the value of
| union membership falls dramatically.
|
| Just some ideas.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm curious if it's the same reason I put up with !@#$ earlier
| in my career: I don't have the luxury of taking risks and I'm
| just really not interested in upsetting my employer.
|
| You tell me there's a better world on the other side of the
| hill, but I'm just trying to keep my children from starving
| this month. I can't even begin to think about the uncertainty
| and risk of trying to get there.
|
| Some commentary: I think this is one reason why social safety
| nets are tremendously valuable. The reason I eventually took
| the risk was because being without a job was not a potential
| death sentence. I would have unemployment insurance for a while
| and universal healthcare would take care of my kids if they had
| sudden needs.
| nanna wrote:
| In other countries not hiring someone because of their union
| affiliation is flat out illegal. (Thanks to union and
| political struggles to protect collective bargaining as a
| right)
| EarlKing wrote:
| A lot of things are illegal in life ... but lawsuits take
| time and money most people don't have.
| danielrpa wrote:
| In the US many would argue that it's not collective
| bargaining if you are making the employer accept an union;
| it's putting a gun to the employer's head in the
| negotiations. Employers are people too! And an employer
| could be a small to medium company that is barely surviving
| against overseas competition.
|
| I understand others would say that the employer is more
| powerful to begin with and thus it's just a way to balance
| things. And without that, workers would be exploited and
| society would be worse off.
|
| The reason I'm writing this is that there are two sides of
| this discussion with pretty good arguments. So just because
| other countries think differently, it doesn't mean that
| they are doing the right thing.
| friedman23 wrote:
| Modern morality is very simple
|
| Majority is more important than the minority.
|
| Poor is better than rich.
|
| Dumb is better than smart.
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| Alabama is an at will employment state. Amazon doesn't need
| to provide any reason for employment termination. If this
| warehouse unionizes, Amazon may choose to relocate their
| warehouse. This is in a suburb of Birmingham, population
| over a million. So the workers probably aren't unusually
| desperate for work.
| josefresco wrote:
| > I'm just really not interested in upsetting my employer.
|
| This is the purpose of a union! Because you band together,
| the employer can't punish you individually. Sure they might
| be able to fire/replace everyone, but without a union they
| could target you specifically and there would be no leverage
| or help.
| tyingq wrote:
| My guess is the messaging about dues. Lots of people focused on
| the short term hit to their paychecks. Most of the stories
| reference $500/month. That does seem high.
|
| Data I can find for other unions shows somewhere between 1 to 4
| percent of gross pay as typical for union dues. Assuming
| $15/hour, 4 percent of gross pay would be $144/month. But, if
| $500/month is accurate, it's 13.8% of gross pay for $15/hour
| workers, and 10.4% of gross for $20/hour workers. That's very
| high.
|
| Edit: $500/year. There were many news stories with the
| inaccurate $500/month quote.
| bena wrote:
| That short term hit can have long term consequences.
|
| If I'm scraping by already, I'm not looking forward to taking
| another hit to an already stretched paycheck.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| For someone making 20 an hour that would amount to about
| 400-2000 less per year (1 to 4 percent). With nothing to
| really show for it at first. At my current pay scale I
| would grumble about that amount but not be too worried
| about it. But at the lower end it matters more and I would
| probably be very angry about it.
| tyingq wrote:
| It does seem like the union missed an opportunity here.
| They should have offered some ramp up, or reconsidered the
| $500/month.
|
| If that's indeed accurate, it's 13.8% of gross pay for
| $15/hour workers, and 10.4% of gross for $20/hour workers.
| That seems really high.
|
| Edit: It's apparently $500/year, see other posts though,
| many news stories did post $500/month.
| sitkack wrote:
| If that is indeed the primary motivator, that folks are
| literally getting paid so little that they can't afford the
| union dues then two things should happen
|
| The union should wave union dues until wages rise
|
| and ???
|
| This seems not unlike Walmart informing employees that it
| is paying them so little that they qualify for Food Stamps.
|
| Looking forward to the Amazon paper, "Pareto Optimal
| Employee Compensation for Maintaining Fluid Labor Markets"
| shagie wrote:
| Alabama is a right to work state. No one has to pay dues.
|
| https://www.justia.com/employment/unions/right-to-work-
| and-u...
|
| > A union is an exclusive collective bargaining agent,
| which means that it must fairly represent all of the
| workers in the bargaining unit, including those who have
| decided not to be members or pay dues.
| tyingq wrote:
| Well, yes. But enough people have to vote "yes" for the
| union to do so. And fear of high dues could be a reason
| why many are voting no. Even though voting yes doesn't
| require them to do so.
| bena wrote:
| I'm trying to look at it from the workers' perspective.
|
| I can't trust the Union to waive dues. Especially if they
| haven't said they would. Even if this would benefit me in
| the long run, I kind of need a place to stay, food to
| eat, and transportation to work in the interim and if I'm
| already one bad day away from being destitute, It seems
| like throwing that extra $5 - $10 a check is only going
| to exacerbate that issue.
|
| I've been in tight situations. Where I've had to juggle
| 0% financing and dick around with minimum payments just
| to keep myself at level. Charges I had to incur due to
| various emergencies at the time. I wouldn't have been
| able to afford to unionize in those days.
|
| Now I have a much better job. I just moved into a pretty
| nice house and my biggest concerns are whether my curtain
| rods are going to arrive before my curtains and if a
| larger TV wouldn't be more optimal for the living room.
| So I try and be cautious about not going too "Lucille
| Bluth" when I hear that what I would now consider a small
| expense be a major factor in someone's decision. I
| realize my situation has changed a lot compared to where
| I started.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| It was $500/year, not per month
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/early-vote-counts-
| sho...
| tyingq wrote:
| Interesting, the union missed an opportunity to fix a lot
| of misinformation:
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+union+vote+%22%24500
| %...
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| What is this supposed to demonstrate? Searching
| 500/lifetime would also turn up Google results. Still
| haven't seen an actual article reporting the figure as
| monthly
| tyingq wrote:
| Sigh, okay, if you don't want to scan the results
| (https://imgur.com/a/ZPXCmu9), which did have other
| keywords, here's a few. There are many more.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/what-to-know-amazon-union-
| vote-ex...
|
| https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/2021/03/30/lighting-fuse-
| amaz...
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-labor-union-push-
| alabama...
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| My mistake! Your original link does indeed make the
| erroneous reporting clear.
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| Is there anything preventing a competitor from funding union
| dues? Paying dues on half a million Amazon warehouse
| employees is not cost effective, but starting a snowball
| rolling in warehouse unionization may be possible. ~2k
| employees per warehouse x $100/month. Walmart could fund
| union dues for one warehouse for a year for about 1 million
| dollars.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Why would the dues be that high? I only pay $50 per month for
| my union, and that's in Denmark with much higher costs.
| tyingq wrote:
| No idea, but the figure is in many news stories, and I
| don't see the union disputing it.
|
| The $500 figure seems to have come from the now defunct
| "doitwithoutdues.com" website that Amazon made. Strangely,
| it just says $500[1], and not "$500/month". But,
| "$500/month" is indeed in a lot of news stories[2].
|
| Pretty sad for the union if the true figure is lower, and
| they failed to get that message out.
|
| Edit: Apparently it is $500/year, though many news stories
| are saying $500/month.
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210223103728/https://www.
| doitw...
|
| [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+union+vote+%22%2
| 4500%...
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| The second link is just a Google search. Here's a link to
| an actual story that reports it as 500/year
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/early-vote-counts-
| sho...
| tyingq wrote:
| Yes, there's lots of them saying $500/month.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/what-to-know-amazon-union-
| vote-ex...
|
| https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/2021/03/30/lighting-fuse-
| amaz...
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-labor-union-push-
| alabama...
|
| Though Amazon did seem to be saying $500/year in most of
| their messaging: https://cdn.vox-
| cdn.com/thumbor/a3uk0eKNWqaQAaE6u9Y8qjPmCJk=...
|
| The "doitwithoutdues.com" site just said $500, without
| saying "month" or "year".
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| Commented in the other thread, but the original google
| link you posted did make this clear and I was just lazy /
| misreading it
| antattack wrote:
| I also found 500/month articles when searching for dues
| that workers would have to pay. Seems to me that union
| had worst PR campaign possible. Maybe it's good that this
| union is not representing Amazon workers.
|
| For reference, I searched UPS union dues and it comes up
| right at the top - 2.5x base salary.
| bdcravens wrote:
| $144/month is expensive for many.
| burnoutguru wrote:
| The 39% who voted yes should put their money where their mouth is
| and strike. This would be enough to bring that facility to its'
| knees.
|
| The inevitable retalitory measurements they will get from
| management will make it to the courts with a shot of setting
| precedent.
|
| The high likelihood they will be treated with brutal violence by
| police, private security and right ring militias at the picket
| lines will gain public sympathy and create momentum for a
| nationwide, possibly international boycott of Amazon possibly a
| general strike in solidarity.
|
| This is how most unions were built.
| paxys wrote:
| "Here's exactly how these people should have voted" - legions of
| San Francisco software engineers making $550K/yr convinced that
| they know everything about the lives of warehouse workers in
| Bessemer, Alabama making $15/hr.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| > legions of San Francisco software engineers making $550K/yr
| convinced that they know everything about <insert subject here>
|
| HN in a nutshell.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Just to make the comparison easier for people like myself, at
| 40h/week and 52weeks/yr, that would amount to $264/hr, and a
| slightly more humble $150K/yr is $72/hr
| seriousquestion wrote:
| That sums it up.
|
| "I know better than those people", posted a thousand miles away
| via the latest iPhone, while binging Netflix and waiting for
| their 2nd Amazon delivery of the day.
| petermcneeley wrote:
| A much more HN relevant question would be to ask how this
| decision might impact the future automation of work for these
| very same employees.
| ausbah wrote:
| there are valid points against unions, but when the balance of
| power in this country politically and economically is sooooo
| slanted towards the capital and those with wealth - I don't find
| any anti-union argument remotely compelling
|
| if the balance of power was more evenly divided maybe, but unions
| are almost non-existent and government regulations don't favor
| labor - that making such arguments feels naive to the reality of
| the situation
| fukmbas wrote:
| What a bunch of idiots lol. If only they knew UPS drivers make
| over $40/hr not counting overtime. Amazing health care benefits
| etc. Why? Because they have a union. Meanwhile these Amazon
| drivers seem to think their $15/hr is plenty.
| kadomony wrote:
| Why would vote against your own benefit? It's astounding that
| these people are happy to be exploited.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Why would vote against your own benefit?
|
| I guess they disagree with you on what the benefits are?
|
| If the goal of the vote was to give these workers a voice
| then... I guess mission accomplished. You can't reasonably then
| say you don't like what they say with their voice!
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Calling people stupid is a great way to get them to agree with
| you.
| kadomony wrote:
| Fair remark, and I edited the comment.
|
| It just pisses me off that capitalism has worked so well in
| brainwashing poverty-line workers to think that they should
| never organize, think to revolt, or ask for what they're
| actually due. It saddens me that some people won't know what
| they don't know and will be the perfect pawns to exploit for
| near slave wages because "progressive ideas bad, America
| great".
| [deleted]
| prepend wrote:
| > poverty-line workers
|
| This vote wasn't by poverty-line workers.
|
| The poverty line in Alabama for a family of 4 is $26k. [0]
| So even if the worker in Bessemer is a single parent they
| are above the line. And if they are part of a two income
| household then they are above the median income of $51k.
| [1]
|
| It's interesting to me how people generalize incorrectly
| without considering the local situation of people impacted.
| Clearly incorrect statements like yours should be adjusted
| to have greater impact.
|
| The whole country doesn't have the income and expense
| characteristics of where I live.
|
| [0] https://talkpoverty.org/state-year-
| report/alabama-2020-repor... [1]
| https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/AL/BZA210218
| Animats wrote:
| Wasn't even close. NLRB official results: [1]
|
| [1] https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-
| announces...
| typon wrote:
| The assault against unions for the past 50 years in America meant
| that there was only one likely outcome of this vote. Amazon is a
| powerful entity and they used their might to suppress this vote
| and it worked.
| ur-whale wrote:
| https://archive.is/V0bXB
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I think this will fail until they try to unionize is a more
| prosperous state like Virginia, California, New York state.
| snurfer wrote:
| The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union hasn't always
| worked out for those workplaces that have brought them in.* In
| this instance, maybe unions aren't the solution to the "problem"
| or maybe the problem doesn't really exist?
|
| * https://www.unionfacts.com/union/Retail,_Wholesale,_and_Depa...
| ivvve wrote:
| You gotta be kidding me... this "Centre for Union Facts" is a
| 501(c) doesn't disclose it's donors. I'd bet dollars to donuts
| it's funded by businesses like Amazon and Walmart to do in
| their employees who want to collectively bargain. Probably a
| terribly biased source, for anyone who wants the real facts
| about unions.
| upbeat_general wrote:
| Correct. See here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Union_Facts
| snurfer wrote:
| So, you're implying the 11 union decertification petitions in
| the link I provided are fake or something?
| refenestrator wrote:
| 11 union decertifications since 2009 is 1 per year. That's
| fine, great, people should decertify their union if it's
| corrupt or their needs change or whatever.
|
| There's a separate point about 'unionfacts.com' with a
| bunch of anti-union stories on their website _clearly_
| being a propaganda op.
| snurfer wrote:
| I don't know anything about the "stories" you're
| referring to, but the website I linked to also provides
| data on the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store
| Union's:
|
| 1. Basic info (including membership, which has
| significantly fallen in recent years) -- https://www.unio
| nfacts.com/union/Retail,_Wholesale,_and_Depa... 2.
| Leaders and salaries (they seem to be well-paid) -- https
| ://www.unionfacts.com/union/Retail,_Wholesale,_and_Depa..
| . 3. Crime and corruption (are they more/less corrupt
| than an average union?) -- https://www.unionfacts.com/uni
| on/Retail,_Wholesale,_and_Depa...
|
| ... And so on.
|
| If the data is incorrect, then there's reason to object
| to linking to the website. Is the data incorrect?
|
| Is there a "pro-union" website that provides/aggregates
| the same data?
| one2three4 wrote:
| I'm sure there was not a hint of intimidation from the company...
| nanna wrote:
| I'm confused, why did they need a vote to start a union? Here in
| the UK pretty sure if a load of workers want to start a union,
| they can - irrespective of whether they're in the majority or
| not. Sounds to me like the circumscription of a need for a
| majority itself comes from anti-union legislation.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The vote was to unionise the workplace, not to form a union.
|
| You can form a union whenever you want, like you can form any
| other group of people a club. You just can't unilaterally force
| an employer to deal with you.
| tarquinpussy wrote:
| I hate to say it but I think the UK system is better. No
| closed shops, but if enough of the workplace (50%?) join the
| union, the employer has to deal with them.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| Is that meaningfully different from a vote, then? You get
| the majority, you get the union. If you're a recognized
| union, NLRB says the employer must deal with you.
| tarquinpussy wrote:
| Well it's not meaningfully different from a vote in that
| it forces the employer to deal. But it does mean that
| there are no closed shops, so nobody is forced to join a
| union just to work in a certain place.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| it's significantly better because union can grow
| gradually and organically if it's delivering benefits,
| there is no need for a single all-or-nothing' vote where
| you can apply the FUD
| sokoloff wrote:
| How does the union deliver benefits and grow organically
| if it has no power (while it has only a minority of
| members)?
|
| If a company has 100 employees and only you, Pat, and 3
| others form a union, the company will (rightly) likely
| entirely ignore the union.
| makomk wrote:
| Of course, the reason the UK no longer has closed shops
| is thanks to some aggressive (though probably necessary)
| union breaking by Thatcher. In fact, there's an argument
| to be made that the damage done by unions directly lead
| to Thatcher gaining power... The US seems to be heading
| in the opposite direction under Biden, with his
| infrastructure bill attempting to ban right-to-work laws
| in states and reinstate most of the practices Thatcher's
| union-breaking eliminated here. Could lead to some
| interesting times; most American Democrat supporters and
| HN readers are, like me, probably too young to have seen
| first-hand why those restrictions existed.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| In the US that varies state-by-state, but Alabama (where
| this unionization effort occurred) is a right-to-work
| state, which means no closed shops -- so it's probably a
| pretty close parallel to the UK system.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Biden is trying to eliminate right-to-work laws, so I
| don't know how long this will be true
| https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/legal-and-
| compliance/...
| koboll wrote:
| It almost seems more onerous, because "vote" requires
| less of a commitment, arguably, than "join"
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > but if enough of the workplace (50%?) join the union, the
| employer has to deal with them.
|
| Fewer than 50% of employees voted to form a union, so the
| result isn't really any different.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Its not as bad as the USA but getting recognition is still
| very hard in the UK
| tarquinpussy wrote:
| In the US they still have closed shops (where you have to be a
| union member to work there), and in the UK you still need to
| reach a threshold of membership before the employer has to
| 'recognise' them and negotiate with them. The situation isn't
| as different as you are making out.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| In some states in the US. In other states, there are "right
| to work" laws banning closed shops.
| clankyclanker wrote:
| Isn't "some states" every state but Montana?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That's about "at will" employment, a different policy
| than "right to work".
|
| https://spoonlaw.com/437-2/
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| I believe there can only be one union per type of worker -- you
| can't have some warehouse pickers be repped by Union A and
| others by Union B. The vote isn't just to unionize, it's to
| unionize _with a specific union_. It's entirely legitimate to
| put that to a vote, to ensure employees get to choose their
| preferred representatives.
| hinkley wrote:
| In which case the title is anti-union, because it doesn't
| mention what union and hence is conflating them all with each
| other.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I didn't get the impression that there is another union
| vote in the works at that particular facility.
| hinkley wrote:
| What has that got to do with equating all unions with
| each other?
| judge2020 wrote:
| It's not conflating all unions, not even all unions in
| Alabama, it just mentions "in Alabama" since much less
| people would know where they meant if they said 'in
| Bessemer'.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Like others have indicated, the vote is to force exclusive
| representation. Workers can always form non-exclusive unions
| and negotiate as they see fit, but they can't force all workers
| to be represented unless they vote.
| avidiax wrote:
| The election is required in our laws:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/159
|
| Why it came to be that? I speculate that both existing unions
| and non-unionized businesses preferred the election
| accompanying single representative system, since it entrenches
| both. It preserves the status quo mostly, and gives power to
| existing unions that can run expensive election campaigns over
| a simple group of workers bargaining.
| asdff wrote:
| Conservative Alabamans fleeced into voting against their own self
| interests time again? I'm shocked.
|
| In all serious, the political theater espoused on these people
| has eroded their critical thinking, and this will come back to
| haunt us when there comes a time for serious leadership in the
| face of a changing climate, and all we have at the helm are
| grifters protected by their blind sheep majorities.
| musingsole wrote:
| Internet commenter convinced they know someone's interests
| better than that person? I'm shocked.
|
| People aren't dumb. Assuming you know better for people is.
| mariksolo wrote:
| What a pretentious thing to say.
|
| Maybe your critical thinking is eroded if you refuse to try to
| understand why people would vote against a union. I'm not
| saying you have to agree with their decision, but it's
| ridiculous to assume everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
|
| Are you an Amazon employee at Bessemer? I'm pretty sure any
| employee there is more qualified to make a decision about their
| own lives than you.
| Loughla wrote:
| I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your
| own collective interest for a small amount of union dues. That is
| not snark, it's a real statement. I legitimately do not
| understand it.
|
| Can someone who works/worked one of these jobs please explain it
| to me? I am so confused by how lopsided this was.
| jasode wrote:
| _> I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against
| your own collective interest_
|
| It's because unions in America cannot guarantee the _existence
| of the job_. Yes, unions can force _negotiations_ but they have
| no power to force the corporation to _keep the factory open_.
| (E.g. workers of Bakers union go on strike and in response,
| Hostess closes the factory.)
|
| That's the _tradeoff of possible negative consequences_ that
| many armchair observers totally leave out when they only
| emphasize benefits of unions such as "higher pay, better work
| conditions, etc".
|
| I'd contend that observers who are confused why workers would
| "vote against their self-interest" and being "illogical" -- do
| not truly empathize with the poor workers' plight. (Or the
| observers are from Europe where unions work differently than
| America.)
|
| So the workers (Volkswagen workers in TN, Nissan in TN, Boeing
| in SC) that voted to _reject union representation_ weighed the
| game theory tradeoffs of:
|
| (a) jobs continue to exist with better pay and conditions
|
| ... or ...
|
| (b) jobs are eliminated leading to layoffs and pay of $0
|
| The possible outcome of (b) becomes even more _perverse_ in
| that the workers _pay dues_ to have their jobs eliminated!
|
| Yes, but if workers don't form a union -- _" it's a race to the
| bottom!"_. Well, repeating memes is the currency of pundits
| rather than real cash that puts food on the table. Workers,
| understandably, make _local decisions_ because they want a
| paycheck rather than worry about some global abstraction of
| "race to the bottom".
|
| Other fields such as NFL, NBA, superstars have leverage in
| union negotiations. Faceless workers have much less leverage.
| E.g. baseball umpires (faceless and less leverage) strike but
| the MLB just accepts their resignations and hires replacements.
| The unskilled line workers in factories have even less
| leverage.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| Hard to believe this isn't the top reply. You don't need to
| go off into some long discussion about the philosophy of
| collective action. This vote was no because if it had been
| yes the likely consequence would have been all the voters
| being out of a job.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| VW _wanted_ a union in TN.
| regextegrity wrote:
| > This vote was no because if it had been yes the likely
| consequence would have been all the voters being out of a
| job.
|
| Isn't that a problem?
| bradleyjg wrote:
| Maybe. But it's not some deep mystery why the vote was
| no. All the threads and sub threads discussing it as if
| it were a deep mystery puzzle me. I'm always bemused at
| smart people with strong opinions on subjects where they
| don't even have a grasp of the basic factual landscape.
| pc86 wrote:
| Maybe. Maybe not. Let's take for the sake the argument
| that yes, it's a problem.
|
| Should Amazon be prevented from closing the factory? For
| how long? Do they have to send as much product there as
| they did before? Can they open a non-union warehouse in
| Columbus, MS less than two hours away? Any
| temporary/sunsetting requirements just get factored in to
| the new math of how much a union would cost them. So
| maybe you buy the workers six months but the same thing
| happens. So if you actually want to "fix" things (again,
| from the assumed standpoint that shutting down the
| factory is a Bad Thing) the requirement has to be
| permanent. So is the requirement then that Amazon has to
| keep this one warehouse open in perpetuity just because
| its unionized? What if Amazon goes bankrupt? What if
| Amazon sells its fulfillment and shipping components to
| another company? What if that company buys everything
| _except_ this one warehouse?
|
| The argument of "they shouldn't be able to close the
| factory" falls apart pretty quickly when you think of how
| you would have to enforce it.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Also dues are not compulsive because it's a "write to work"
| state. Insanity.
| macinjosh wrote:
| It is "right to work" and I do not see how it is insane to
| not _force_ people to join unions. In the US we take our
| freedoms of association seriously and forcing a citizen to
| associate with an organization they do not wish to associate
| with is tantamount to an unconstitutionality.
| rorykoehler wrote:
| Gaslit to death
| macinjosh wrote:
| Funny how some resort to calling workers gullible when they
| don't vote the way they're supposed to. You're saying these
| people have no agency and no understanding of their own
| situation? How patronizing! I thought accepting the will of
| the people is the whole goal of democracy?
| [deleted]
| rorykoehler wrote:
| You take the Union and then shape it to your will. Now they
| for sure have no agency and no options. It's a stupid
| decision no matter how you paint it. It's also not my
| problem. They can piss in bottles if they like.
| gruez wrote:
| From an earlier thread:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26749927
| throw4downvote wrote:
| Ironically I think this is a good example of one of the
| weaknesses many people see in unions. Here we have a group of
| people who have voted "against their collective interest"
| (which is a dubious claim imo, but let's assume that it's true
| for the sake of argument). If they were already unionized,
| what's to stop them to similarly keep voting "against their
| collective interest", as viewed by one individual within the
| organization? All of this to say, I don't trust a large group
| of other people to vote for what's best for me personally. See
| also: US presidential elections, usually close to a 50/50 vote,
| where most people consider "their side" to be unequivocally
| aligned with their own interests, and the other side to be
| heinous and corrupt. Peoples perceptions and the objective
| truth are rarely aligned when there's money and campaigning
| involved.
|
| (Throwaway because being anti-union is unfortunately taboo)
| macinjosh wrote:
| "why you would vote against your own collective interest for a
| small amount of union dues"
|
| Ignorance of their own reasoning is rooted in the
| presupposition that the union was in their best interest and
| the dues were worth it. Obviously, the employees in this case
| did not agree it was in their interest. People think
| differently than others and that is OK.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Maybe they're worried that Amazon will not want to do business
| with union labor and just hire people willing to work
| unrepresented for 15/hr. minimum.
|
| Maybe work-life at Amazon low end is not as bad as the media
| sensationlizes. Why should it be your default to consider this
| as paradoxical rather than evidence?
| brighton36 wrote:
| I get the impression that most people download their opinions
| from whatever pa system is loudest and closest to them. Perhaps
| that explains this...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| fergie wrote:
| Reading the replies here I'm pretty shocked by the lack of good
| arguments against unionisation. Its sad.
| conanbatt wrote:
| Empirical argument: The biggest unions in america are for the
| most poorly run and corrupt organizations. Teachers, Police,
| Firemen, Government workers, Health, public transportation.
| All with massive costs to the consumer, corruption, service
| disruption, closed shops, etc.
|
| Microeconomics argument: The only meaningful way unions
| increase employees wages is by artificially restricting
| supply. They can only move the point of equilibrium of demand
| and supply in their favor by restricting supply, thus unions
| always have in their interests on: increase minimum wages,
| licensing, closed shops, etc.
|
| Political Economy argument: What is most interesting for
| unions is to survive as unions, which means that even if
| sometimes they are adversarial with employers, they are often
| allies to the structure. This is because at the negotiation
| table between unions and employers there are some actors
| missing, namely, the consumer.
|
| Political argument: Unions exhert force only by destruction:
| by refusing to work, by boycotting, by collecting
| administration fees to maintain its structure. The
| proliferation of unions is the proliferation of destruction.
| Giving special legal status, protections, considerations,
| rewards to unions, you are proliferating unions and
| proliferating destruction.
| regextegrity wrote:
| Meanwhile the Teachers, Police, Firemen, Government
| workers, Health, public transportation workers do not live
| in a state of wage slavery where the best job they can get
| doesn't even give bathroom breaks (i.e Amazon)
| hackeraccount wrote:
| The arguments against come from uncertainty, "there are
| clearly trade offs" "I don't know but people with skin in the
| game are against it" "This will cause problems in the long
| run"
|
| The arguments in favor are certain. There's is no mention of
| downsides; the only talk is of more money and more security
| with at most a mention that some dues will need to be paid
| (though on balance the worker will come out ahead).
| EarlKing wrote:
| They're underpaid enough as it is? Seriously, that's usually
| what it comes down to: Nobody wants to give up a dime for union
| dues when they're already barely making ends meet.
| prepend wrote:
| Aren't Amazon workers paid more than average warehouse
| workers?
|
| ZipRecruiter shows the average in all states as under $15 [0]
| so an Amazon worker will likely make more than a worker in
| other warehouses.
|
| Doesn't mean that they are rolling in the money, but makes me
| think higher wages is probably not a motivating factor for
| unionization.
|
| [0] https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-
| Average-Wa...
| dylan604 wrote:
| making $15/hour doesn't mean you suddenly have lots of
| money to make it rain. $15/hour means that a lot of people
| are just now at the point of barely making it vs the
| completely snowed under they were in at minimum wage
| prepend wrote:
| I think it depends on your circumstances but I don't
| think $15/hour is a ton of money.
|
| Warehouses are frequently in rural settings and $15 isn't
| so bad. I have friends who are doing ok on $12/hour but
| they only have $300 rent and really low expenses. Rural
| America doesn't have many upsides, but being cheap is
| one.
|
| And my point wasn't that Amazon was wonderful, just that
| it pays more than the alternative since the average pay
| is much lower ($11 vs $15 I think) at other companies.
| slantedview wrote:
| But there's a massive difference in working conditions.
| There is no warehouse floor worker that will be making
| $15 an hour indefinitely. Eventually, their bodies will
| succumb to injuries while trying to keep up with the
| brutal pace of work mandated by Amazon.
|
| So then what's worse: $11 an hour at a job you can work
| indefinitely, or $15 an hour at a job where your body
| will eventually fail and you may be left with a permanent
| injury which Amazon will not help you with?
|
| https://coloradosun.com/2020/09/29/amazon-safety-crisis-
| thor...
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| It's more than double of a federal poverty level.
|
| Not a lot of money, but what else to expect from the job
| that requires minimum skills and no education?
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _ZipRecruiter shows the average in all states as under
| $15 [0] so an Amazon worker will likely make more than a
| worker in other warehouses._
|
| Amazon workers make more than other non-unionized
| warehouses in the area, but they still make less than
| unionized warehouses. For example Piggly Wiggly warehouses
| make $20/hr on top of having vacation days and medical
| benefits.
| AndyMcConachie wrote:
| If they unionize Amazon will close down the warehouse and open
| it somewhere else.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Maybe. They sure will threaten to. But fact is, Amazon has
| quite an investment in these warehouses and wages are really
| just one aspect of the calculus for whether or not to keep
| running the warehouse.
|
| Plus, if unionization makes its way to every Amazon
| warehouse, then everyone will compete on equal footing vis-a-
| vis wages.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| Very brave of you and the grandparent poster to want other
| people to gamble their livelihoods to advance your
| ideological vision.
| fooker wrote:
| If your idea (here: unionization) only works if you can
| manage to force everyone to accept it, it has no place in a
| modern Democratic society.
| zests wrote:
| People aren't voting against the dues, they are voting against
| the union.
| trackmenot wrote:
| My theory is that rich people and well-educated people vote
| according to self-interest, but poor and non-educated people
| according to identity. Billionaires votes for whoever lowers
| their taxes, academics for whoever secures them, often tax-
| funded, jobs, but poor people for whoever they like personally.
|
| I'm positive that education was strongly correlated with voting
| in favor of unionization. This is something the left everywhere
| struggles with enormously. When poor people are too dumb to
| vote according to their own self-interest, the left's worldview
| falls down. The left then claims that poor people are
| brainwashed by capitalist propaganda. Yeah, maybe, but it can't
| explain completely disastrous results like this unionization
| vote.
|
| Misguided people will claim that unionization is not in the
| self-interest of most workers. Those people are wrong as there
| are about a billion studies showing that unionization improves
| both salaries and working conditions. For example:
| https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/ The
| science is incredibly clear-cut and these workers who voted
| against unionization voted against their own self-interest.
| wavefunction wrote:
| Poor people vote in their own interest just like anyone else
| but their options are limited and often the opportunity to
| consider all their options is truncated by the vagaries of
| life on the edge of dissolution.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Can someone who works/worked one of these jobs please explain
| it to me? I am so confused by how lopsided this was.
|
| It's a result of how unions are structured in the US. (It's
| different in Europe from what I understand, and they're more
| popular there as a result.) In the US unions are structured as
| a monopoly on labor which then nominally has more negotiating
| power with the employer.
|
| The problem is that monopolies are inherently an industrial
| scale fail factory and everything about them makes everything
| worse.
|
| You then have effectively two possibilities.
|
| The first is that the employer is competing with a hundred
| other local employers for labor. In this case there isn't
| really anything for the union to _do_ , because the employer
| will already have to offer competitive working conditions or
| employees will go work for somebody else. And the employer in a
| competitive market won't have thick margins for the union to
| extract from, implying that the union's overhead will be larger
| than what they can extract from the employer.
|
| The second is that the employer is, itself, a monopoly. In
| theory it now has thick margins that the union can extract
| concessions out of. But then you have two monopolies
| negotiating with each other. It's a battle of attrition. Can
| the employer afford to have their facility closed for longer
| than you can afford to be on strike? You know the answer to
| this is for large multinational corporations. The corporation
| will barely even notice the complete shuttering of that
| facility because they have a thousand more to pick up the
| slack.
|
| A monopsony employer is still a big problem, of course, it's
| just not a problem that unions are a solution to. Try
| antitrust, or lower regulatory barriers to small businesses so
| that there are more competing local employers etc.
| slantedview wrote:
| > A monopsony employer is still a big problem, of course,
| it's just not a problem that unions are a solution to. Try
| antitrust, or lower regulatory barriers to small businesses
| so that there are more competing local employers etc.
|
| I like your comment, but unions aren't necessarily meant to
| solve this problem. Amazon imposes terrible working
| conditions on its warehouse workers, which a union absolutely
| could address.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Amazon imposes terrible working conditions on its
| warehouse workers, which a union absolutely could address.
|
| How? The union's negotiating power comes from the ability
| to go on strike. They make a demand, Amazon says no, they
| go on strike, Amazon closes that warehouse and sends people
| their cheap junk from a different one.
|
| All the union can get you is the unemployment line, unless
| you do something to increase local competition for labor.
| In which case you don't need the union because employers
| have to compete through better working conditions.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against
| your own collective interest
|
| The whole "voting against your own interest" is hugely
| paternalistic and anti-democratic. People have their own set of
| values and interests. As an outsider without knowledge of the
| people to accuse them of voting against their own interest
| because they did not vote the way you wanted them to is the
| height of arrogance.
| darkwater wrote:
| OP is actually just asking why, and explaining they don't
| understand why workers voted that way, which superficially
| seems "wrong".
| luckylion wrote:
| And that's paternalistic, isn't it? "They voted against
| their interest" implies that OP knows/decides what their
| interests are.
|
| Personally, I've never met someone who knew workers that
| was fundamentally surprised by their decisions. It was
| always the people who only talked, read and wrote about
| workers that were flabbergasted. Source: worked as a
| consultant for a union in Europe for a decade.
| Loughla wrote:
| OP was implying what his/her interests are, or rather,
| would be, s/he believes, in this case. Source: I am OP
| and that was my intention.
|
| That's why I asked for someone with direct experience to
| comment. I am confused, based on my own viewpoint and
| experience with unions.
|
| >I've never met someone who knew workers that was
| fundamentally surprised by their decisions.
|
| I don't, genuinely don't understand this sentence. What
| is workers? Who are workers? What group of people would
| you consider workers? I've been part of two unions, both
| of which benefited me, personally, immensely. These were
| knowledge jobs and not hands-on jobs. Am I a worker? My
| father is very blue-collar manufacturing and he has been
| both anti- and pro-union, depending on which shop he
| worked for. Is he a worker?
|
| I don't understand what you're saying. Honestly. It
| sounds like you're the font of some mystical knowledge
| about a mythical group of people. What do you mean by
| your statement? I don't get it.
| luckylion wrote:
| > I don't, genuinely don't understand this sentence. What
| is workers? Who are workers?
|
| Workers are people who work in the rougher jobs, blue
| collar if that's what you prefer. White collar unions are
| very different in my opinion.
|
| My experience is this: I've worked with people who were
| workers and then transitioned to working for the union,
| either because they were natural organizers, or because
| they had accidents that made it hard to work their job (a
| surprising amount of them had lost a finger or two). When
| they spoke about these kinds of things, like votes or
| organization rates, they were quick to give plenty of
| reasons why their colleagues would make some decision
| because they knew all the arguments and feelings.
|
| The other type I met at the union was college educated,
| usually political science, spoke a lot of class
| consciousness and collective interests and had never
| worked the jobs the union represented. When you talked to
| them, they didn't understand why workers made some
| choice, it was always some nicely worded version of
| "they're not smart enough to make the right choice" or
| "somebody fed them lies".
| Loughla wrote:
| Relax. I guess I should've said - "What I perceive as your
| own collective interest," although I would argue that was
| implied.
|
| I didn't intend to be arrogant at all, I am legitimately
| confused. The two jobs that I was in a union, the union was
| massively beneficial to my life. That is where my perspective
| came from.
| staticman2 wrote:
| The poster that attacked you is repeating a conservative
| pundit talking point I've seen.
|
| Call me cynical but I suspect if the vote had gone pro-
| union and you had written "Don't the workers realize unions
| are against their own economic interests?" said poster
| would have written "Amen!" rather than calling you
| paternalistic.
| peytn wrote:
| I dunno, it's better on HN to give people the benefit of
| the doubt. The overlap of software engineer and
| conservative punditry consumer is pretty small relatively
| speaking. It's not like the ideas put forth are too
| convoluted for somebody to have on their own.
| macinjosh wrote:
| "The two jobs that I was in a union, the union was
| massively beneficial to my life."
|
| Just because the union was beneficial does not mean it was
| better to have it around than not to. You only experienced
| one side of the coin in those situations.
| Loughla wrote:
| I didn't feel like typing out everything involved, but
| yes, it was better than not having it. Both positions
| became unionized during my tenure with those
| organizations. The pay, benefits, and time-off benefits
| were much better as a union shop than before we
| unionized.
|
| I know it is just my experience, so it's very anecdotal
| evidence at best. And that was my point - that is my
| experience, which is why I'm confused by the massive vote
| against unionization. I, personally, do not understand it
| and would like to.
| virgil_disgr4ce wrote:
| I mean, it is possible for one person to know certain things
| that another person does not, and further possible that the
| latter person WOULD act differently if they had that
| knowledge.
| prepend wrote:
| I think reasons will vary, and I didn't vote in this event. But
| in previous situations I've not supported unionization due to
| how it favored existing workers in ways I thought were unfair
| in that all layoffs were due to seniority not performance so
| older workers would be kept and younger workers laid off, no
| matter what.
|
| It also established more rigid pay levels that were better on
| average but not as good for high performers, and I always got
| much higher than average raises and bonuses.
|
| To a lesser extent, I didn't like the idea of union leadership
| who were paid for things I didn't think added value.
|
| So my overall take was that it was good if you were in the
| union and employed, but was much harder to get work and join
| the union.
| baron816 wrote:
| > it was good if you were in the union and employed, but was
| much harder to get work and join the union.
|
| This is my fundamental problem with unions--it helps the
| insiders and hurts everyone else.
|
| Amazon's working condition are rough (and I really hope that
| changes), but there are plenty of jobs out there that are
| much worse and don't pay nearly as well. They just get all
| the attention because of their size and impact.
| theptip wrote:
| I think it's important to consider the state of the whole
| system, not just the direction of the change.
|
| "helps insiders and hurts everyone else" sounds bad, but if
| the insiders are being exploited by everyone else, it could
| be a good thing.
|
| In general I'm sympathetic to your point. However I think
| Amazon is perhaps a special case, or at least occupies a
| different point on the than most companies.
|
| Amazon is an Aggregator[1], which spins up its flywheel by
| providing a great experience for consumers, and
| commoditizing its suppliers. This naturally drives towards
| a monopoly.
|
| Aggregator monopolies have an interesting property in that
| unlike historical non-Aggregator monopolies, they are great
| for consumers, rather than resulting in consumer harm
| through higher prices (like Comcast, say). US antitrust law
| is focused on preventing consumer harm, not just preserving
| competition for its own sake (as the EU laws are). So US
| antitrust is somewhat less well-equipped to deal with
| Aggregator monopolies.
|
| If the corporation, consumers, and legal system are all
| pointing towards exploiting a group of workers, it's hard
| to see how anyone is going to vote to make things better.
| So unions could be more appropriate specifically in the
| case of Aggregators.
|
| (Worth mentioning that you could perhaps just mandate
| higher minimum wages, and avoid the need for unions; I'd
| prefer to make the minimum viable change that prevents
| exploitation, and leave the market free to optimize
| everything else. But if not unions, who drives the
| political fight for minimum wages?)
|
| [1]: https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I don't think you can definitively state that they are
| great for consumers. When I buy something from debenhams,
| I know there is going to be a certain level of quality.
| Amazon is like a dump of products, most reviews are fake,
| the description of a monitor has different resolution in
| heading and it's body, a friend of mine bought an
| electric kettle with a thermometer and temperature
| control that, when set to 100, boils forever and never
| turns off. It's full of counterfeit products too.
|
| All this mess devalues the manufacturers willing to
| produce quality items, they are lost in the noise and
| never make money.
| theptip wrote:
| And yet, consumers love Amazon, e.g.
| https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/amazon-favorable-
| tech....
|
| The meme "Amazon is a dumpster fire of counterfeit goods
| and fake reviews" is popular around here, but I don't
| think it has much impact/traction with John/Jane
| MainStreet.
|
| Maybe it would if it was better-known? But I think if
| folks found counterfeit goods or fake reviews to be a
| huge problem they would go back to Debenhams/Walmart. But
| by revealed preferences, we can tell they prefer the
| value prop of Amazon.
| tehWeeb wrote:
| That's the fundamental problem with our culture generally.
|
| The closer (figuratively speaking) to the big money and
| political power someone is the more comfortable they are.
|
| And we all want to believe it's a meritocracy. We're just
| temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
| prepend wrote:
| I think that's a feature, not a bug. In that I don't
| think it's a problem.
|
| Labor is subject to markets like many things, and
| shouldn't be exploited. But there's some work that's hard
| and doesn't require specialized training (eg, hauling
| stuff around warehouses all day). Some people are willing
| to do this and they do, if they don't want to they can do
| other things.
|
| This is an oversimplification, of course, but having the
| ability to provide more jobs with more options is the
| solution I think.
|
| I grew up in a small town and it sucks for work. If you
| think working for Amazon sucks, you should try working in
| the warehouse of the only grocery store in town. The one
| run by a racist jerk who knows you have no options.
| brundolf wrote:
| "It could always be worse" isn't a very good argument for
| "we shouldn't have an expectation of things being
| better", imo
| prepend wrote:
| To clarify, I think this is an optimal state for low/no-
| skill labor. So not so much "it could be worse" as "this
| is the best of a shitty situation."
| brundolf wrote:
| There's nothing optimal about the level of pressure being
| applied to these human beings. The same job could exist
| for the same pay, with the same overall tasks, with 10%
| less robotically-enforced (literally) pressure, and
| Amazon would take a tiny hit to productivity in exchange
| for a workforce that gets to live relatively sustainable
| and healthy lives instead of burning out after 6 months.
|
| The current state is optimal for Amazon only. It's far
| from optimal for society.
| prepend wrote:
| I think it's optimal for society in that society benefits
| from efficient warehouses.
|
| It's easy for you to theorize what Amazon can do and what
| they can't. Amazon has competitors with warehouses.
| People can work there.
|
| As consumers we can also demand more. But Amazon is
| probably the best for workers when compared to their
| competitors.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| firstly, why is being abused and peeing in a bottle
| inevitable? Your post basically reads like how someone in
| 1500 would look at serfs and peasants in mud huts and say
| "that's as good as life of a common man is gonna be".
| Same goes for Victorian workhouses and children in
| coalmines.
|
| Secondly, what is low skill exactly? Can these people not
| read, write, use Excel and email, could they not do
| secretarial and other jobs? I bet quite a few of them
| have degrees. Some countries have free education /
| upskilling specifically to avoid people getting trapped
| in this situation, and to improve overall productivity of
| the economy.
| prepend wrote:
| We're talking about warehouse workers, not delivery
| drivers so I'm not sure if peeing in a bottle is the
| right argument here. Warehouse workers get breaks and can
| presumably use them to pee, etc. That being said, I've
| done some delivery and work where it was a pain to get to
| bathrooms and peeing in a bottle was pretty common and
| not the end of the world. I maybe did it a few times a
| week but there wasn't an easy solution as I was driving
| for long stretches and there wasn't a bathroom near. Or
| I'd rather just get there sooner.
|
| By unskilled I mean that you can be trained on the job in
| less than a day. It doesn't mean that the workers don't
| have degrees and skills, it just means the job doesn't
| require anything. By all means, they can certainly take
| other jobs but good luck finding a secretarial job for
| $15/hour.
|
| The Bureau of Labor and Statistics has a lot of info on
| how they classify "low skill" jobs [0] and even tracks
| overqualified workers who have more skills but work in
| jobs that require fewer skills.
|
| [0] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/wage-and-
| job-skill...
| tehWeeb wrote:
| Providing busy work for people that to prop up Amazon's
| selling boat loads of knock off garbage.
|
| Amazing. Surely because "that's how it worked in the
| past" isn't the only option for social organization?
|
| Why not stop believing in Bezos and solve our human
| problems generally?
|
| Why not a mandate to provide education and healthcare and
| we provide THOSE jobs?
|
| Because Bezos and Musk are able to get real access to
| politicians, resulting in the rubes being fed fiscal
| economic policy that continues to protect them.
|
| The circular logic is mesmerizing.
| splintercell wrote:
| > This is my fundamental problem with unions--it helps the
| insiders and hurts everyone else.
|
| Misesean analysis showed that unions cannot benefit
| everyone, they always benefit the sr workers at the expense
| of the jr workers.
| Causality1 wrote:
| Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but your comment reads
| like you were operating in a much nicer career than these
| workers. If your job was good enough they gave you the
| opportunity to negotiate your pay, you're in a totally
| different social class than the subjects of this vote.
| prepend wrote:
| It was manual labor. I'm not sure it was nicer than these
| workers but I was able to negotiate my pay by "working
| harder" and producing more than other workers.
|
| I wouldn't say it was a good job and I certainly don't do
| it any more. But I just tried to explain my thinking.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Maybe so, but this was indeed just their experience on
| voting not to unionize in their job. Maybe some of the
| workers in this particular case will share why they voted
| 'no'.
| syshum wrote:
| I negotiated individual raises at first hourly job when I
| was in high school with a major national retailer...
|
| I was one of the few High School employees they had that
| was reliable and always did what I was asked, this enabled
| me to get not only higher wages but ever increasing job
| titles
| Loughla wrote:
| Thank you for the explanation. Those are viewpoints that I
| have not encountered or considered. That makes sense.
|
| >To a lesser extent, I didn't like the idea of union
| leadership who were paid for things I didn't think added
| value.
|
| Can you expand on this point, please?
|
| >So my overall take was that it was good if you were in the
| union and employed, but was much harder to get work and join
| the union.
|
| That makes a ton of sense.
| prepend wrote:
| Regarding union leadership, there are union employees who
| are paid out of dues. My experience with them was similar
| to a pointy-haired boss in that they were not very helpful
| and it was frustrating to know that my dues would pay for
| these individuals to just exist and not produce value.
|
| It may not be rational as maybe they did great stuff and I
| couldn't see their value, but I would see them get high
| salaries compared to workers and serve in positions for
| very long terms.
| buran77 wrote:
| > I think reasons will vary
|
| A good one seems to be that they are afraid unionizing will
| push Amazon to close the delivery center. This has happened
| before when other companies (see Walmart [0]) just closed the
| location once the workers voted to unionize. And
| unfortunately it's less likely US law will protect the
| workers to the same degree as Canadian law [1].
|
| [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wal-mart-to-close-
| unionized...
|
| [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-unionized-
| wal...
| christiansakai wrote:
| Wow, so companies managed to "Prisoner's Dilemma"ed workers?
| Amazing, brilliant idea.
| trimbo wrote:
| > I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against
| your own collective interest
|
| The answer is in the article
|
| > Some workers who voted not to unionize said they ultimately
| didn't see how a union would improve their pay or working
| conditions.
|
| They looked at the issue and felt it would not be better. We
| don't know what the union was promising them, and what they had
| seen through the process.
|
| I came here to find this comment because the "vote against
| their interest" argument is very predictable. It assumes that
| people should have no agency. That they're supposed to be
| robots that only vote one way on issues because of their
| demographic, and if they don't, then they must have been
| hoodwinked. It's condescending.
| kethinov wrote:
| They looked at the issue and felt incorrectly that it would
| not be better.
|
| Look, I get the good intentions on all the discourse about
| not judging what's in another person's interests because you
| can't possibly know what they value, but it sure seems
| indisputable to me that a union would've delivered better pay
| and working conditions. I'm not sure in what warped universe
| voting against that isn't a vote against your interests and I
| don't think it's at all disrespectful to say they were
| victims of propaganda to get them to vote against their
| interests because when I look at the facts, that's what I
| see.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| They probably just examined the same facts as you and came
| to a different conclusion. They are closer to their own
| situation, which doesn't always mean they will make the
| right decision, but I would be very careful about telling
| someone how to live their own life.
| kethinov wrote:
| What set of facts could possibly have made unionization a
| bad idea? I genuinely can't imagine a single hypothetical
| which would make voting against this a good idea and
| would love to hear one.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| From the article: "A lot of us are in agreement that we
| don't need anybody there to speak for us and take our
| money," said Cori Jennings, 40 years old, who works at
| the Bessemer facility and voted against unionizing. Ms.
| Jennings said she and many of her colleagues were also
| eager for the national attention to fade: "We want our
| lives to go back to normal."
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| For example if they thought it likely Amazon would just
| close up shop as a result.
| kethinov wrote:
| Closing it would almost certainly be a lot more expensive
| than meeting union demands, so I don't think it's
| reasonable to conclude that is likely.
|
| Regardless, it's a decent argument for a nationwide union
| to avoid race to the bottom effects.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| > Closing it would almost certainly be a lot more
| expensive than meeting union demands, so I don't think
| it's reasonable to conclude that is likely.
|
| Not if Amazon thought swift action would act as a
| deterrent in other locations. This specific thing has
| happened with other companies, so I don't think it's
| unlikely at all.
|
| > Regardless, it's a decent argument for a nationwide
| union to avoid race to the bottom effects.
|
| OK, but the question is whether these specific workers
| could possibly have any reason to vote against
| unionization. Maybe they don't find it plausible that a
| nationwide union will form, or maybe they don't want to
| deal with the interim turmoil that will befall them
| personally, even if they would support a nationwide
| effort. All seem like perfectly fine reasons to me.
| kethinov wrote:
| "We can't win, they'll just crush us" is 1. wrong on the
| facts more often than people think and 2. even when true,
| a good argument for organizing more effectively, not
| giving up and accepting the shitty status quo forever.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| Yeah, how is this relevant to the thread? It's not about
| why you think we should have unions. It's about the claim
| that there's no possible rational reason for these
| workers to vote against the union.
| kethinov wrote:
| It's not reasonable to assume the hypothetical
| retaliation you mentioned is likely because there's no
| evidence that it is. It's certainly understandable why
| someone would fall for that argument, because it is
| persuasive on an emotional level, but it's not a good
| argument in the same way that logical fallacies can often
| be persuasive even though they shouldn't be.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| Walmart is famous for doing exactly that. I'm not sure
| what else I can tell you if you (a) claim that a certain
| outcome never happens, when a cursory search shows it
| does, and (b) actually think that your political opinions
| are the result of some kind of pure logic chain. They're
| not.
|
| It's not a 'logical fallacy' to not want to risk
| disruption of your livelihood, and that's the only
| relevant question to this thread: is there any set of
| facts that would reasonably lead the workers to vote
| against unionization? I think clearly there is, and
| there's no point arguing over subjective prioritizations.
| The workers are not 'irrational' for prioritizing their
| own jobs over the 'national action' that you seem to
| want. They may even consider that harmful. Not all
| workers have the same political opinions.
| kethinov wrote:
| Well to be clear, I would agree with you if I agreed that
| closing up shop was actually likely. If we assume that
| just the very act of forming a union, regardless of its
| demands, would inevitably lead to closing up shop, then
| of course I agree that forming the union is
| counterproductive. Where we disagree is on whether or not
| that hypothetical is very likely.
| lovecg wrote:
| Really, it seems indisputable to you that someone who's job
| is on the line and who probably spent quite a bit of time
| looking into what was being proposed ultimately decided to
| vote no must be wrong? I'm curious what better information
| you have (especially to compensate for the lack of skin in
| the game so to speak) to come to that conclusion.
| kethinov wrote:
| Aside from the common sense that collective bargaining
| obviously puts you in a stronger negotiating position
| than individual bargaining for the same class of job,
| there is also plenty of data out there showing that
| unions deliver results. Anti-union people counter that by
| flooding the discourse with FUD propaganda that is often
| very persuasive but just because it's persuasive doesn't
| mean it is true.
| lovecg wrote:
| That might be true on average, doesn't mean that specific
| cases could have vastly different outcomes.
|
| I don't see how a propaganda campaign can push the vote
| to 70%, this is not Soviet Russia. Money does help but
| not on this order of magnitude (see Mike Bloomberg or
| many failed ballot propositions with tons of money behind
| them).
| kethinov wrote:
| They had anti-union propaganda everywhere, even in the
| fucking bathroom stalls. Plus it's a very conservative
| part of the country that has been drowning in anti-union
| propaganda for decades on top of the fact that the
| average moderate American swing voter is also pretty
| hostile to unions and even a good chunk of the center-
| left side of the Democratic coalition is too.
|
| Pro-union people have a lot of work to do to restore the
| reputation of unions more generally. We need to up our
| propaganda game a lot because we got crushed in the
| Reagan era and never recovered.
| mariksolo wrote:
| Collective bargaining is 100% better than individual
| bargaining.
|
| But, collective bargaining is only a single aspect of
| unions. They're not voting against it because they
| dislike collective bargaining, but because of other
| reasons. Collective bargaining is likely not a
| significant motivator for them because their salaries
| really are fairly high for the area.
|
| I think in many cases unions are good, and in many others
| they are bad. I disagree that you can point at overall
| data and use that decide a specific case. Union data
| likely has severe survivorship bias, since unions likely
| tend to exist where they are more helpful.
| exabrial wrote:
| I would try working one of "those jobs" at some point in your
| life.
|
| I repeatedly voted against unionization in previous lives of
| blue collar jobs: bus building, commercial roofing, and sheet
| metal workers.
|
| First, Union leadership is bought out and pursuing their own
| interests. They're not "for the people" as repeatedly
| braindeadly repeated in the comments section ad infinitum.
| Union leadership is out to benefit themselves first and
| foremost, and workers _might_ benefit if you contribute to
| their cause, but it 's a fantasy to pretend union leadership
| has everyone's best intentions in mind.
|
| Inevitably, this leads to the second, which is escalation of
| costs at the company. This is only partially wages; business
| decisions get delayed at committee, competitive advantage on
| market timing goes away, old-timey boomers get mad when
| something changes, and your company's innovation becomes
| stagnate. Your company falls behind and wages stagnate, and
| union leadership blames literally everyone except for
| themselves.
|
| Finally, the benefits are stupid for the price you pay. If they
| were measured on charity navigator, they would be listed as
| some of the worst run. The money gets funneled into union
| leadership pockets and their golf buddies. Nepotism runs wild;
| promotions got to whomever is slapping whom's ass or giving it
| out to their kid. It's a "tax" you can't vote yourself out of
| except to quit your job.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| kadomony wrote:
| Most of the folks who vote aren't really the type to sit down
| and think long-term. $50/month in dues getting them +$2-3k more
| annually every two years? They won't do the math and see they'd
| make a net profit of whatever that annual income increase is
| minus $600.
|
| There was some great video floating around recently of a
| forklift operator or something who explained what his union
| dues got him and he was so informed and unphased by the dues he
| was paying.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| > " _...why you would vote against your own collective
| interest ..._ "
|
| > " _...Most of the folks who vote aren 't really the type to
| sit down and think long-term..._"
|
| Why do people call others dumb (and let's not kid ourselves,
| that's just what these phrases are a cultured, genteel way of
| saying) and then are surprised when said others don't vote
| for the causes they believe in?
|
| Don't they realize that casting aspersions on the
| intelligence of others to their faces is "against their own
| collective interest"? If you want people to vote for your
| causes, work harder to prove that it benefits them instead of
| denigrating them.
| trackmenot wrote:
| > Why do people call others dumb (and let's not kid
| ourselves, that's just what these phrases are a cultured,
| genteel way of saying) and then are surprised when said
| others don't vote for the causes they believe in?
|
| How does calling people dumb affect the way they vote? In
| fact, if me and others calling people who vote against
| unionization dumb makes them _more likely_ to vote against
| unionization, it clearly means that they are not primarily
| considering their self-interest, since whatever I and other
| leftists say or think is completely irrelevant.
|
| If I say "you're an idiot for voting for Trump" and that
| makes you more likely to vote for Trump, then, I'm sorry to
| say, you proved my point.
| bitcurious wrote:
| If the vote is for union representation and the folks who
| will represent you have the attitude that "if you don't
| agree with me you're an idiot" how could they be trusted
| to represent your views? They will only ever represent
| their own interests.
| trackmenot wrote:
| 2 + 2 = 4. If you don't agree with me then you are an
| idiot. Yes, union representatives look after their own
| self-interest. That's the point of unions! Their self-
| interest is getting reelected and they aren't reelected
| unless they look after the self-interests of the union
| members. What you are arguing for is that people should
| lie and obscure the fact that someone who denies that 2 +
| 2 = 4 is an idiot. I don't think people are such
| snowflakes.
| [deleted]
| kadomony wrote:
| I don't think you'll find many of those Amazon warehouse
| workers on this site. Also, it's not said with malice, so
| don't reach for a fight.
|
| Most of these workers slave for long hours. And then they
| work another job on top of it. And then they wonder why
| they STILL aren't making enough to pay TODAY's bills. Their
| mindset is myopic because they live paycheck to paycheck.
| You tell them they're losing MORE money out of each
| paycheck, that suddenly makes them worry exponentially
| more.
|
| I'm friends with people living this dilemma monthly. They
| don't have the luxury to think what the long-term return on
| investment is.
|
| And to say they're under-educated isn't calling them dumb.
| The ones I know are high school dropouts/graduates only.
| High school doesn't teach you personal finance the way a
| finance course at a college might introduce you to it. It's
| just statistical correlation.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Right up until that new raise puts you in the lowest tier of
| the next tax bracket so that you suddenly make less by making
| more.
| RankingMember wrote:
| That's not how marginal tax rates work, though- You get
| taxed higher on the amount above the threshold, not on the
| entire amount.
| hinkley wrote:
| If you're below the poverty line, it's possible to make
| less by making more by disqualifying yourself for public
| aid.
|
| But if the Amazon workers are in that situation then we
| would need to expand this conversation anyway.
| RankingMember wrote:
| Agreed. My comment regards income tax brackets, not
| public aid.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| That's not how tax brackets work. You never make "less"
| when you make more money.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Your take home is what most people consider "making" even
| they know their actual salary is what they "make". I made
| a higher salary working in a state with state income
| taxes. Took a pay cut to move to a state without state
| income taxes. My take home went up (obviously). So I
| "made" more in take home by "making" less.
| hobs wrote:
| And in this case your take home would go up 100% of the
| time you got a raise - only the raise amount itself would
| decrease proportionally to your increased income.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| You changed what tax rules applied to you by moving, and
| thus your tax situation changed.
|
| The point remains: under normal income circumstances
| (i.e. not related to welfare or equity), there is no way
| for you to get a raise in your real income and have your
| take home income decrease due to your federal income tax
| bracket.
| gizmo385 wrote:
| That's not at all how our tax system works. Progressive tax
| brackets only tax you at the new rate on the money that
| you've made within that tax bracket. Getting into a higher
| tax bracket _does not_ result in you making less money.
| Ever.
| david-w wrote:
| That's a common misconception in 99% of cases, save for
| some welfare cliffs for really low earners. Tax brackets
| are graduated tiers, so not everything is taxed at the same
| rate.
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071114/can-
| moving-h...
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| That's not how tax brackets work. It is, unfortunately, how
| some welfare programs work. This results in benefits
| "cliffs" where you can lose thousands of dollars of welfare
| for earning a single additional dollar. If those welfare
| payments are how you keep a roof over your head, it's
| pretty easy to get trapped right below the ceiling.
|
| That said, you are unlikely to be eligible for these
| benefits at all if you are a full-time warehouse employee.
| They are aimed mostly at those in genuine poverty.
| mint2 wrote:
| That. Is. Not. How. Tax. Brackets. Work.
|
| The. Higher. Rate. Only. Applies. To. The. Income. Amount.
| Extra. Above. The. Prior. Tax. Rate. Bracket.
|
| Yes the emphasis style here is annoying but it's such a
| widespread and damaging misconception
| rmah wrote:
| This never happens in the USA because this is not how tax
| brackets work. When you hit the next tax bracket, you only
| pay the higher rate on the income _over_ the bracket
| threshold. Any income under it pays the lower bracket(s)
| rates.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I absolutely abhor modern day versions of unions. They have not
| done enough to separate themselves in my eyes from the
| misguided activities that brought them their current negative
| reputations.
|
| However, I absolutely understand the need, and feel sorry for
| those stuck in a sitation where union type help is needed. If
| there was a way to wipe out existing unions and start fresh
| where nobody from leadership of exisiting unions were allowed
| to have influence, then maybe just maybe I would start leaning
| towards unions. But at the current implementation, it's a nope
| from me.
| boublepop wrote:
| The more I read about Unions in America the more I am
| befuddled. Don't you have membership elections for the
| leadership? How do you even decide who the leadership is
| then?
|
| If you do have elections, then your comment is akin to a
| republican proclaiming that democracy doesn't work, but would
| work in principle but only of the current leadership was
| replace with Donal Trump.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >Don't you have membership elections for the leadership?
|
| So does Iran, Russia, etc. Do you feel like those elections
| are free and fair? I don't feel like union leadership votes
| are. Again, there's a lot of baggage associated with
| current unions. New unions are needed, not new leadership
| of existing unions.
| JarlUlvi wrote:
| If a union pushes improved working conditions, and the
| reduction of hours, this could have a substantially negative
| pay impact on the Amazon workers there.
|
| Given overtime laws, and the premium pay for overtime (1.5), a
| valid concern may be unionization will eliminate the lucrative
| overtime that is highly rewarding to peak performers willing to
| put in long hours.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Other than dues and having control over pay grades (maybe
| workers think they can do better than union-negotiated flat pay
| scales), unions can vote to strike and force you out of a job.
|
| And at the end of the day, the workers just weren't
| particularly unhappy, and those weren't palatable risks.
| utahcon wrote:
| Unions will only work in a few scenarios. The biggest of which
| is that the people with the skill need to be 100% together in
| starting the union, and willing to not work when the union says
| to not work. The facts remain that most of these employees most
| likely can't afford to not work. They can't afford to be
| without the stability of their employers paycheck.
| Additionally, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people
| willing to replace these workers. Sadly they don't require any
| trade skill to pick/pull/pack. So there is no barrier for new
| recruits to be hired and replace the missing union workers.
|
| Advantage: Amazon
| linuxbo wrote:
| I personally enjoyed the flexibility of the "at-will" job.
|
| I grabbed a position at a Minnesota warehouse as a post-college
| graduate with no fulltime job. Kinda just wandered in off some
| job posting online and they just brought me on.
|
| Feels like people just don't want to mess with a good thing
| tho? A lot of my friends came from super different walks of
| life, but almost all unanimously enjoyed coming in for shifts
| and shooting the shit with their friends. Might just be a
| perception that change means that things will get worse and no
| one wants that.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > why you would vote against your own collective interest
|
| Maybe they are not sufficiently confident that the union will
| act in their interest?
|
| Is that so crazy an idea?
|
| If you're in favour of unions then I guess you're in favour of
| workers being able to have a say in how they work. And if they
| don't want to work with a union then I can't understand how you
| can rationally do anything but say 'ok thank you for saying, if
| that's what you want no problem we'll do it that way'.
| stefan_ wrote:
| You are saying in expressing the right to have a say in how
| they work, they chose to vote to not have a say in how they
| work?
|
| It's a pretty simple calculus. When the company spends twice
| the yearly payroll of the entire place on preventing the
| lowest of low workers on the totem pole from forming a union,
| maybe _the company_ isn 't acting in their best interests.
| lovecg wrote:
| Equating a specific approach with _the_ solution to the
| problem is the oldest trick in the book. You're implicitly
| assuming that this specific proposal to form a union is
| equivalent to "having a say in how they work". That's
| definitely what people proposing the union would have
| everyone believe, but it's not necessarily the reality.
| There are many other outcomes possible, and on the balance
| the people disagreed with that framing.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| They said that they did not want to be represented _by
| these specific people_ with _this specific deal_. Maybe
| they 'd be happy to be represented by someone else as part
| of some other arrangement? I don't know, and neither do
| you.
|
| But if that's what they say when asked what else should we
| do except honour that?
|
| If you think it's absolutely inconceivable they could
| legitimately vote against it at all... I mean then why have
| a vote at all? Might as well unionise them by force against
| their will and impose the union leaders as unelected and
| unwelcome representatives? That'll empower 'em, right?
| syshum wrote:
| I absolutely do not understand why someone would vote to be
| collectively represented instead of being able to act as as
| individual in your own best interest
|
| You claim not voting for the union is against your own interest
| but that assumes that the union will 100% of the time be
| looking out for your own individual best interest, this is
| simply false
|
| The union has supplanted individual choice for collective
| voting, and if your interests align with 50.1% of your fellow
| co workers than great but if your needs to not align with the
| majority of your co-workers then the union will screw you to
| serve the collective, and that is the best case.
| Loughla wrote:
| >You claim not voting for the union is against your own
| interest but that assumes that the union will 100% of the
| time be looking out for your own individual best interest
|
| No, and that is a pretty far stretch from what I said. Please
| re-read "your own collective interest". It's easy to win an
| argument when you misrepresent what is said. Collective
| interest implies that it is the greatest good for the
| majority of people. Not the most good for you every time.
|
| Question for you:
|
| >I absolutely do not understand why someone would vote to be
| collectively represented instead of being able to act as as
| individual in your own best interest
|
| Do you really not see how it may be easier to negotiate as a
| group, rather than as an individual? In high-skill, high-
| demand jobs, yes, it is probably much easier to negotiate for
| individual benefits, because you have the power as the
| worker. But in low-skill, or high-supply jobs, the employers
| have all the power. I don't understand what you're saying.
| syshum wrote:
| While low skill / high supply jobs can be more challenging
| in some cases to negotiate, I know many many employers that
| are having problems finding people even for the most entry
| level jobs.
|
| Further good employees, even in low skill jobs, are very
| hard to find and even harder to retain. employers want to
| keep them, unionization often limits their ability to
| retain these high performing employees because they are not
| allowed to give bonus, raise or any other incentive beyond
| what is laid out by collective bargaining.
|
| So I really do not see how it is easier to negotiate as a
| group. my personal experiences matches what have have
| observed in employment rations through out my career from
| when I was in a entry level position to now where I am in a
| higher skilled position
| js8 wrote:
| I wonder if it helped democracy if voters would be able to add
| "justification" to their vote. Then there would be less room
| for speculation about the reasons.
| mmcdermott wrote:
| The data would be nice, but it seems like this would have a
| chilling effect on the vote itself. The extra context of a
| justification would make it easier to tie votes to groups or
| even individuals. I'm not sure why, but polls as a separate,
| voluntary activity seem like a safer way to do it.
| bko wrote:
| Assuming you're not an Amazon warehouse employee, but they have
| more skin in the game than you. So presumably their opinion is
| more informed and reasoned.
|
| I don't think its as clear cut as "in your interest". I
| certainly wouldn't vote to unionize my profession and I would
| even go as far as avoiding unionized fields. I prefer to have a
| direct relationship with my employer. I stay away from
| organizations that have a table that will tell you how much
| you'll make after N years. It's just not a dynamic place to
| work. Or at least that's my impression when dealing with
| unionized groups in large banks.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Nobody in Alabama is going to have this "direct relationship"
| with the powers that be in Seattle either way. What a joke.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| Your union needs seem much different than the typical
| warehouse or factory worker. Especially if you're on HN --
| I'm sure most everybody on this website would benefit more
| from "a direct relationship with my employer". A random
| overworked Amazon warehouse worker doesn't have that sort of
| managerial access or a skill to leverage for negotiating.
| bko wrote:
| I don't think this is necessarily true. Turnover among low
| paid staff is extremely high. For instance, take McDonalds
| workers:
|
| McDonald's Mr. Floersch the managerial turnover was at 20%
| globally while that of the crew members averaged between 80
| percent and 90 percent. [0]
|
| That high turnover means that low paid employees are much
| faster to leave. Some don't even show up to their first day
| of work. It's also selection bias sure. But if you talk to
| anyone who manages low paid employees, the primary skill
| set they have is interpersonal relationships with their
| staff, or at least the good ones. The fixed costs are very
| high to hire someone, regardless of salary. You have to pay
| a recruiter or even spend time looking through resumes,
| running expensive background checks, interviewing etc.
|
| Now consider the Goldman Sachs investment banking analyst.
| They get paid extremely well and get treated like crap. Do
| they have a "direct relationship with their employer"?
| Hardly.
|
| If you're making $10 an hour its a lot easier to find
| another employer paying you a similar amount than it is if
| you're making $200k a year.
|
| [0] https://ukdiss.com/examples/high-employee-turnover-at-
| mcdona...
| pc86 wrote:
| Not only this (which is super accurate in my limited
| experience with these types of jobs in HS/college), but
| that high turnover even among managerial staff means that
| really to advance at least a few levels in the
| organization, all it takes is 1) sticking around; 2) not
| being bad at your job (not even _being really good_ just
| be decent).
|
| Hell, I used to be a dishwasher then line cook at a
| Friendly's (east coast family restaurant, primary
| PA/NJ/NY/CT/MA) for two years and by the time I left for
| college I was the most senior person there who didn't
| have a key to open the building. And two of the three
| cooks who had keys were still in school, one HS and one
| college.
|
| Managing a restaurant is super demanding work but it's
| not that far off from median salary. It's not as much of
| a dead end as people think it is, especially if you start
| at the bottom and work up.
| criddell wrote:
| > I stay away from organizations that have a table that will
| tell you how much you'll make after N years.
|
| I don't think that's necessarily a characteristic of a union
| shop and if it is, those are probably minimums.
|
| For example, professional baseball players and are unionized
| yet individuals can still negotiate salary.
| bko wrote:
| That's true, but unionized spots have such a strong
| individualistic component to the work. However, in
| industries such as warehouse workers, the employee ability
| is a lot more uniform, so I doubt there would be provisions
| for superstars to negotiate salaries.
|
| It would more likely be something akin to a teacher union,
| with teaching being in between performance athletes and
| uniform workers. And even there I don't think individual
| teachers have much power to negotiate salary, but I could
| be wrong.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| Why do you think the vagueness is in your favor? Especially
| for a warehouse worker, the job is doing rote tasks
| forever. Why wouldn't they be able to project your salary
| into the future?
| criddell wrote:
| I think for a warehouse worker or any other job where
| people are basically fungible, unionizing is a no-
| brainer. Individuals have no leverage.
|
| Unionizing can make sense for other types of jobs as
| well. The person I responded to mentioned their
| preference for having a direct relationship with an
| employer. To me, that means other types of places than
| warehouses because I doubt very much that many warehouse
| workers have a relationship with anybody above their
| direct supervisor.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| (oops, my comment was directed at the parent of the one I
| actually commented on)
| pc86 wrote:
| Surely you're not suggesting that professional atheletes'
| unions are in any way comparable to a union representing
| warehouse employees.
| criddell wrote:
| I'm suggesting that if you are a valuable enough employee
| where you have a direct relationship with your employer
| (as the person I responded to said), you may still
| benefit from having a union like baseball players or
| screen writers. The wage table for those professions
| establishes a floor.
|
| A warehouse employee is not likely to have any kind of
| relationship with anybody above their supervisor. They
| can only bargain collectively.
| bioinformatics wrote:
| I agree with you. Elections everywhere are full of people
| voting wrong, against their self-interests and against
| everything I hold dear in life. I am Abel to vote in two
| countries and I can see this every year.
| RhysU wrote:
| If you are excellent at your job and can get a different one,
| why would you unionize?
|
| The union takes money out of your pocket, reduces your ability
| to get paid for performance, and slows the firm's ability to
| innovate.
|
| If the firm mistreats you, you can leave.
| [deleted]
| ransom1538 wrote:
| "I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your
| own collective interest"
|
| Union execs become a bunch of corrupt fat cats. They are
| terrible [1][2][3]. The union execs will go on fancy dinners
| with amazon execs and decide how to "make a deal". You pay dues
| to a bunch of fat cats (out of your horrible salary), THEN,
| good luck getting any kind of promotion without fat cat
| approval. Promotions will quickly be based on seniority.
| Production will soon slow then the company will decide to shut
| down these unproductive plants. Read about "flint michigan" to
| learn how awesome unions are in the US.
|
| https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/promi...
|
| https://lrionline.com/mafiaunion-ties-still-strong/
|
| https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/infiltrated-labor-unio...
| wnevets wrote:
| > I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against
| your own collective interest
|
| Americans have been doing exactly that for decades.
| conanbatt wrote:
| The kind of people that would like to be in unions is not the
| same kind of people that would not like to be in unions.
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| I like to think this is due to the bad reputation unions have.
|
| Digging a two mile tunnel eats half of the state budget? Police
| refuses to wear body cams? Schools are slow to reopen after
| covid? Rightly or not, in many people's minds unions are to
| blame.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| > Schools are slow to reopen after covid?
|
| Are you talking hypotheticals? Because that hasn't happened,
| and couldn't have happened since COVID isn't "over" anywhere
| in the US.
| dawnerd wrote:
| If anything they've reopened too fast. News this morning
| that Michigan is closing them back down. Almost like
| there's still a pandemic.
| mariksolo wrote:
| It's happened more at the elementary school level.
| trackmenot wrote:
| > Digging a two mile tunnel eats half of the state
| budget?Police refuses to wear body cams? Schools are slow to
| reopen after covid? Rightly or not, in many people's minds
| unions are to blame.
|
| If you were a contractor to a state and you scored a contract
| worth half the state's budget, would you consider that a
| success or a failure?
|
| You would consider it a success! The examples you give show
| exactly how unions work in the self-interest of their
| members. If the tunnel costs half the state's budget, the
| tunnel workers are surely well-paid, police officers rather
| not wear body cams so that they can whack people with their
| batons without being prosecuted, and teachers rather not
| return to schools as long as the epidemic is ongoing.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| I agree, but there are other dimensions to public sector
| unions that makes them worth keeping around: deterrence of
| the spoils system in politics, and the legal monopsony the
| state has on the labor and monopoly on credentialing in many
| cases.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-09 23:01 UTC)