[HN Gopher] Amazon's Global Quest to Crush Unions
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon's Global Quest to Crush Unions
Author : doener
Score : 188 points
Date : 2022-09-03 14:22 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newrepublic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (newrepublic.com)
| Jensson wrote:
| > In Sweden, the company uses third-party workers
|
| I never understood why Americans thinks this is bad. This means
| that the local company can handle labour laws and you pay extra
| for the workers to avoid having to learn the laws of yet another
| country. The local company could even be labour owned and
| negotiate with the employer as if it was a union, and even if it
| isn't the workers will likely be unionized anyway and they can
| easily organize against Amazon if Amazon abuses them.
| Kiro wrote:
| In reality it's bad because Sweden has no minimum wage and
| unionizing is voluntary. It's full anarchy in the 3PL sector
| and impossible for unions to use traditional conflict actions
| forcing companies to sign collective agreements.
| acdha wrote:
| Many U.S. companies have a distinct social hierarchy where
| people who matter are direct employees and everyone else is
| outsourced. That lets them keep their reputations cleaner while
| blaming abusive conditions, various forms of discrimination or
| harassment, etc. on the other company. This improves their
| stats for employee compensation, job satisfaction, workplace
| injuries, labor complaints, etc.
|
| If that company unionizes, they drop the contract and avoid
| their name in the headlines.
| nakor wrote:
| I have very conflicted views on unions.
|
| I worked for ~2 years as a contractor for a government entity in
| Canada. ~3500 headcount of employees. What I observed there was
| sickening. This was a place that had white-collar unions for all
| non-management employees. This union had completely hijacked the
| mission of this institution. It was no longer about serving the
| people that this entity was created to serve, but rather to
| protect the union and its contributors.
|
| The software we were in charge of writing had direct, material
| impact on the physical and mental well beings of people in the
| province. Life and death. And at times I saw things like a
| deployment of features being delayed by weeks/months because a
| union member who was responsible for _manually_ deploying the
| changes was on vacation. To automate that deployment meant
| automating a union employees job and was impossible. These
| features directly served the needs of people that were in
| critical need of them.
|
| On the other hand, I have family friends who work for UPS and
| other delivery services and see the brutal toll it takes on their
| body and mind. Pushed to absolute limits and exploited because
| they don't have a union.
|
| But to me, it seems unions can and often do exploit people. After
| witnessing all of this I've developed a very dim view of
| humanity. We all just want to exploit someone.
| throwawaywu wrote:
| UPS is fully unionized and has been for a long time.
| nakor wrote:
| I may be wrong about exactly what company he worked for. Also
| it could be they're not unionized in Canada. Anyway I don't
| think it changes much.
| koheripbal wrote:
| This explains why they lose all my packages.
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| > It was no longer about serving the people that this entity
| was created to serve, but rather to protect the union and its
| contributors.
|
| This is exactly why Milton Friedman was against unions. Unions
| would eventually evolve into this amalgamation that only
| protects the union and its contributors while disallowing other
| qualified workers from getting jobs at the respective
| companies.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| This mirrors my experience with unions pretty closely. I would
| much prefer that the sort of workers rights unions provide were
| instead at a government policy level.
|
| That being said, there will always be some need for collective
| bargaining. I only wish it were possible to limit these extreme
| union grabs for power.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Hence the creation of OSHA and why union nearly entirely
| disappeared in America
| kennend3 wrote:
| I live in Ontario as well.
|
| This is why we need more PPP (private-public-partnerships)
| here.
|
| Just look at the MTO. It use to be an absolute cesspool or
| inefficiency which would make the old USSR envious.
|
| Drivers license expired? Time to go stand in line where there
| are two tellers and 6 people "on break" in the back. The lineup
| is out the door, but who cares? Certainly not the union slugs
| who work there.
|
| They finally introduced kiosks, which charged a "convenience
| fee" (probably at the request of the unions).
|
| Fast forward, there is now a PPP in place for the MTO.
| Automation all over the place, you can renew your license
| online (FINALLY).
|
| if not for the ability to step away from their union staff,
| none of this would have taken place. The union fights changes
| which leads to efficiency as this often means job losses.
|
| Any "tech" the government builds looks like it was done by high
| school students and it is a shame they pay for this garbage.
|
| Again, imagine you went to your bank site, and it looked like
| it was built 10 years ago and never been updated?
| kyrra wrote:
| In the United States, our ports have the same problem. They run
| almost entirely by unions and do not want any kind of
| automation whatsoever. Pors another major countries have
| automated a lot of the moving of cargo, but unions here have
| fought it and prevented it.
|
| https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ports-problem-decad...
| RHSeeger wrote:
| It's hard to even have a reasonable discussion about unions
| with most people, because (it seems like) the vast majority of
| people either fall into
|
| 1. Unions are great and everyone should be part of one. Anyone
| who points out the bad parts of unions is an evil conservative
| and hates the middle/lower class.
|
| 2. Unions are evil and cause nothing but problems. Anyone who
| supports unions is a fool who doesn't see the horrors they
| cause.
|
| Any discussion that includes the viewpoint that unions have
| both good points and bad points (as you allude to above) has a
| high likelihood of being attacked by _both_ sides.
|
| It also doesn't help that it appears to very hard to actually
| set things up so that you get the good sides of a union without
| also getting the bad sides.
| froh wrote:
| some European countries, the Netherlands, Germany and France
| for sure, have not two but three pillars of employee company
| relationship: unions, works council and individual contracts.
|
| the works council (aka 'company codetermination') involves
| employee elected colleagues in company leadership decisions
| like during, hiring, reorgs, raise distribution, working
| hours, shift planning guidelines, ... while the unions focus
| on salary and compensation negotiations
| koheripbal wrote:
| It's not random that people who have had to collaborate with
| union workers in their company all fall into that second
| bucket.
| zdragnar wrote:
| So long as the SEIU is around, I'll probably be in the second
| bucket. I get the theory of why unions can be beneficial, but
| the reality of the way they are structured in the US is
| fundamentally flawed.
|
| Frankly, anyone who raids PCA funds the way they do is evil,
| plain and simple.
| aborsy wrote:
| Coming from a French perspective, in addition to corporate,
| workers should also oppose union. Unions will crush work and life
| conditions for anyone, but a small group of people. They will
| morph into a cancer, nothing like advertised initially.
|
| I hate them. They made me (and many others that I know)
| miserable.
| oifjsidjf wrote:
| This seems to depend on the sector.
|
| Eg Hollywood vs some other union.
|
| What sector do you work in?
| desindol wrote:
| Coming from Germany they are fine.
| christophilus wrote:
| Yeah. Germany got it right (as far as I can see). Anyone know
| why the situation seems so different there vs here in the US?
| candiddevmike wrote:
| AFAIK German unions are very diverse and workers can pick
| and choose which one they want to join, vs the US where
| it's typically a 1:1 relationship between workplace and
| union.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Generally, yes. Detauls a bit more complex so. There are
| industry specific unions for employees, e.g. IG Metall
| for everything electronics and hardware or Verdi for
| public services (covering a staggering amount of jobs).
| On the othet side of the table you have associations of
| employers for the same industries. This makes, overall,
| negotiations straight forward, unions negotiate with
| employer associations and the results are then adopted,
| with regional modifications, acroos Germany. Of course
| employers are free to quit thosr associations, there are
| also dedicated agreements betweens unions and specific
| employers, usually covering things like extended working
| hours and so.
|
| And we have specialized unions, e.g. Cockpit for pilots
| or the equivalant for train conductors. The latter is
| funny, because there is more than one union representing
| those at DB.
|
| On a more general note, all employees benefit from the
| conditions negotiated between employers and unions (if
| there are any that is), regardless of union memebership.
| Legally, unions obly negotiate for members, technically
| rmployers don't make a difference. All that of course up
| to a certain salary sealing, everything above is outside
| union territory.
| Vespasian wrote:
| At the core of the German labor participation system lies
| the works council which is an (employee) elected board
| that represents them on a factory/office level (varies).
|
| Large companies also elect a company wide works council
| which in the case of publicly listed companies is part of
| the board. (50% of the votes with a shareholder friendly
| tie breaking mechanism).
|
| Works councils are traditionally dominated by unions but
| not always and there isn't a membership requirement to be
| represented.
|
| Unions offer industry sector wide representation and also
| negotiate collective agreements that companies agree to
| (more or less) willingly and of course they coordinate
| strikes if need be.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| I don't know why it's different, but unions and employers
| are not terribly contrarian in Germany. For example, I have
| seen (edit: a works council, related to unions but not the
| same) argue for better quality control because they were
| fearing quality trouble, which would be bad for the whole
| company including employees. Unions also don't oppose
| laying off really underperforming employees (but might
| require a generous severance package) or automation, as
| long as affected people can be moved around instead of laid
| off.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Its like the saying that any form of government works
| well if everyone is altruistic. Maybe Germans or even
| western Europeans as a whole are just more altruistic
| than the US? Individualism and distrust of power are
| pretty core to the mindset of a decent portion of the US
| going back to colonial days. I'm not suggesting blindly
| trusting power is a great idea, but perhaps thinking that
| way, then acquiring power makes you more likely to abuse
| it.
| Tarsul wrote:
| I think "narrative" is probably the most underrated
| element in economic theory, probably because it's hard to
| measure. But it's easy to see: Many American CEOs appear
| to be only in it for themselves, and as you say US
| culture is very much individualistic: Always care for
| yourself first. Compare this to e.g. Japan where kids
| learn from very early age that everything you do, you do
| for the community. With these completely different mind-
| sets the style of cooperation is very different as well.
|
| As a German I can also say that unions and Betriebsrate
| are not only looking for the employees but also looking
| that the business has a future. And that's a common
| ground with the employers, which is why there is not this
| kind of animosity as in the US. Also, as I said: Even
| managers in Germany know that the success of the company
| is a group effort.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Managers in the US largely are concerned about the next
| quarter earnings so they get their full bonus. This at
| the sacrifice of the business in the long term because
| they will have moved on. And unions usually span many
| states even support multiple sectors of industry, so the
| failure of a single business often doesn't seem to matter
| to the union.
| cynusx wrote:
| The unions are present at the board level after a certain
| size and therefore have more empathy for a companies plight
| and objectives.
|
| They are more demanding when the company does well, but
| willing to chip in when the company is in trouble.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Yet I hear the situation is better in Germany. Also the US
| during the industrial revolution appears to have benefited
| greatly from unions. Any large organization is prone to
| corruption and bureaucracy for its own sake. I don't think we
| should throw out useful tools entirely because some have
| problems.
| legitster wrote:
| Part of the New Deal legislation was the US Government
| effectively granted corporations monopoly power if they
| recognized labor unions.
|
| It was FAR from an ideal framework, but it did mean we still
| had industrial capacity going into WWII.
| christophilus wrote:
| This was also my dad's experience (in the 70s and 80s in the
| US). He saved up his money so that he could move to an non-
| unionized state. He worked his way from a machinist to a
| general manager, and worked hard to ensure his company remained
| competitive in the US as their competition moved all operations
| to China. It was a long play, but it paid off for his company.
| They're the go-to for quality in their industry.
|
| I'm sympathetic to unions, though, as many companies really are
| a terrible place to work, and employees need better
| representation in those situations. I just wish there was a
| better option than unions.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| For the opposite perspective: One of my uncles worked a non-
| union construction job in the 50's. He died on the job.
| Another uncle, who watched my uncle die, never worked another
| non-union job in his life, choosing to go hungry rather than
| working a non-union job.
| [deleted]
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The better option than unions is better unions. They can be
| meaningfully improved, especially given the large number of
| highly suboptimal unions.
| rahen wrote:
| Ditto. Unions are just another lobby. They seek subsides,
| money, and power. Unions, like companies and governments, exist
| mostly for themselves. That doesn't mean they don't mean well
| (sometimes), but trusting them shows a bit of naivety.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Submitted this a couple of days ago, but it's relevant reading:
| https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/amazon-workers-ready-strike
|
| "Amazon workers at a Coventry warehouse have voted they are ready
| to take strike action over pay. More than 300 workers voted in
| the consultative ballot at the fulfilment centre in the West
| Midlands, with 97 per cent saying they were ready to walk out."
| becquerel wrote:
| The fact that businesses are anti-union should be all you need to
| know as to why you should support them. Workers and employers
| have nothing in common.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| You need to clear up the antecedent basis of "them." I think
| maybe you mean "unions" (although I could be wrong) but your
| sentence actually means "why you should support companies."
| missedthecue wrote:
| "the fact that businesses hate supplier cartels tells you all
| you need to know and why you should support them"
|
| How does this make sense? Is your ethical framework simply
| loving everything businesses hate?
| krisoft wrote:
| They also pretty much all anti -arsonist. Does the logic apply
| there too?
| gkodpgfdgf wrote:
| kennend3 wrote:
| As others posted, your logic is very very off on this one.
|
| "the fact individuals are anti-income tax should tell you all
| you need to know.."
|
| "the fact criminals are anti-law enforcement should tell you
| all you need to know.."
|
| Why would a business support unions? Often UNION members dont
| support other union employees.
|
| Go to a major unionized auto factory sometime and look at the
| parking lot and try to find "imports".
|
| These same "pro union" individuals also shop at walmart knowing
| it is not unionized because they like the lower prices.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| If you allow companies to consolidate and exert unlimited
| political power, workers need to be able to self-organize to
| ensure their interests are represented. Full stop.
|
| All of the things you complain about happen on the business
| side of the table. People are people and do stupid shit with
| power. Why are Azure VPs buying shit from Amazon? Why do
| companies park burned out executives for a few years on
| gardening leave?
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > People are people and do stupid shit with power
|
| That point is true about unions, too.
| kennend3 wrote:
| If you allow unions to consolidate and exert unlimited
| political power, companies need to be able to self-organize
| to ensure their interests are represented. Full stop.
|
| Does that work as well, or is this one of those "one way
| street" deals in your mind?
|
| When have companies "consolidated and exerted unlimited
| political power"? Did they end up facing "anti-trust" laws?
| get broken up as a result?
|
| > All of the things you complain about happen on the
| business side of the table.
|
| Are you sure about that?
|
| here's the head of the UAW being placed on leave for fraud:
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uaw-president-leave-
| corrupt...
|
| Let me guess, the "business" made him do it?
|
| I have no idea what point you are making with Azure?
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > companies need to be able to self-organize to ensure
| their interests are represented
|
| They did. It was a dirty business.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Alliance
|
| People died.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster
| kennend3 wrote:
| First of all, if it was unclear i was being sarcastic
| with my response back to the OP.
|
| I took what he wrote, replaced "union" with "company" and
| asked if this made sense too?
|
| One thing about "fairness" is it should run in both
| directions.
|
| The point is that there needs to be a better balance of
| power between both unions (which have literally bankrupt
| companies) and corporations (which have done really
| shitty things like "company towns").
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Your sarcasm failed because the corporations literally
| did band together in anti-union activities and used their
| disproportionate power to attach workers. This was a case
| of your metaphor backfiring on your point.
|
| Unions may or may not have bankrupted companies, but did
| they ever engage in the same level of violence, physical
| intimidation, or criminal behavior as these union busting
| alliances?
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > Unions may or may not have bankrupted companies, but
| did they ever engage in the same level of violence,
| physical intimidation, or criminal behavior as these
| union busting alliances?
|
| I like unions, but... yes? Pretending that they haven't
| is ridiculous. There's a reason that people are
| complaining that police officers can act (nearly) as
| horrible/brutal as they want to and fact (close to) no
| consequences. That reason is their union. There's also
| video of union members physically and mentally attacking
| people for crossing picket lines, etc.
|
| When people get power, the bad eggs start causing
| problems for everyone else. And they also tend to gain
| power, so wind up making decisions for "the
| organization". This is true of both companies _and_
| unions.
| kennend3 wrote:
| This is EXACTLY why i am not fond of unions.. the police.
|
| Here (Ontario, Canada) we have dozens and dozens of
| police collecting full salary for YEARS pending criminal
| trials.
|
| Cant fire them, cant do anything about it.
|
| Instead of "defund the police" we need a way to reduce
| the police union power and FIRE bad cops.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Wettlaufer
|
| She killed many people before finally turning herself in.
| Her union PROTECTED her, hid her mistakes, etc.
|
| Derek Chauvin had like 6 misconduct write-ups.
|
| Elizabeth had over 200
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Does that behavior happen with other unions, such as
| teachers unions?
| kennend3 wrote:
| We use to have a review panel where techers would
| discipline other teachers.
|
| They got to the point they were simply moving bad
| teachers around from school to school so our government
| had to pass laws to rebuild the entire corrupt process.
|
| https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s02007
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-
| june-7-2...
|
| This nurse murdered a number of patients. her union
| protected her and hid her misconduct. Instead of being
| fired, back door deals were made to transfer her from
| hospital to hospital.
|
| it was easier, firing her would create union problems and
| so the hospitals agreed to "go with the flow" and allow
| her to continue killing.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| I don't know much about teachers unions. I know there are
| some (debateable) bad aspects of it, such as that they
| lean very heavily towards making it difficult to fire bad
| teachers that have seniority. But I've seen a number of
| good things about it too. Honestly, it's hard for a union
| of public workers to do a very good job, because (being
| critical workers), they have less leverage when it comes
| to exercising their power.
|
| The Teamsters in another union that has been mired in
| controversy due to their behavior.
| kennend3 wrote:
| > Unions may or may not have bankrupted companies
|
| there is no "may or may not".. Unions DID bankrupt
| several companies.
|
| It is odd you wrote what you did because how many times
| has the US government ever have to intervene in a
| corporation due to mob involvement?
|
| "FEDS AGREE TO REDUCE OVERSIGHT OF ONCE-MOB-CORRUPTED
| TEAMSTERS UNION"
|
| the Department of Justice has a nice site on unions and
| organized crime
|
| https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/infiltrated-labor-
| unio...
|
| As i said, there is a line between "too powerful unions"
| and "too powerful companies".
|
| You tell us, how much violence did teamsters and their
| MOB inflict?
|
| where's mr Hoffa?
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > It is odd you wrote what you did because how many times
| has the US government ever have to intervene in a
| corporation due to mob involvement?
|
| https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-businesses-
| supposedly-co...
|
| https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/65365/7-businesses-
| you-p...
|
| https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/behind-real-
| estates-...
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Companies seem to be able to organize themselves quite
| well to achieve their business and political goals. If
| it's bad for an autoworker to buy an "import", surely a
| Microsoft employee should be shopping at Walmart or some
| other Microsoft partner, not Amazon.
|
| Why do you care about how the UAW guy defrauded his
| organization? And why would the company? Amazon fires
| blue collar workers for peeing too long, why is the
| stewardship of their dues relevant at all? If anything,
| they benefit from compromised union leadership.
|
| Not everyone is a FAANG SWE who can get a new gig right
| away. Some of the proles benefit from protection from the
| capricious decisions of their employer.
| kennend3 wrote:
| > If it's bad for an autoworker to buy an "import",
| surely a Microsoft employee should be shopping at Walmart
| or some other Microsoft partner, not Amazon.
|
| that really is a stretch don't you think?
|
| Perhaps they are buying imports because they know the
| quality of the product they are building? Perhaps they
| know the "imports" are better and will last longer?
|
| Does Azure offer socks? what if the Azure VP wanted socks
| for their kids
|
| You seem to think an Azure VP shopping at Amazon (which
| only compete on the cloud computing space) is the same as
| a Unionized autoworker buying a car from a non-union
| shop????
|
| > Why do you care about how the UAW guy defrauded his
| organization?
|
| you are the one who said corruption only happens on the
| "business side of the table".. now you are shown this is
| incorrect your new position is "why do i care"?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I never said that. You're stuck on whatever you think
| that you're missing the forest for the trees.
|
| If companies are virtual people can band together and
| seek collective action, so should actual people.
| Governance of unions, professional associations, etc are
| another, irrelevant matter.
| kennend3 wrote:
| so you didn't write:
|
| Spooky23 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [-]
|
| If you allow companies to consolidate and exert unlimited
| political power, workers need to be able to self-organize
| to ensure their interests are represented. Full stop. All
| of the things you complain about happen on the business
| side of the table. P "
|
| Clearly you wrote about "business side of the table" when
| corruption exits on both sides of the table. Often the
| Unions corruption is rather bad as well (teamsters and
| organized crime anyone?)
|
| you confuse me, now we are talking about "forest for the
| trees?"
|
| Statements like this always seem like things people throw
| out there when they are unable to build a compelling
| case?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Read it in context dude. Try again, or better yet, move
| on.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| > Why do you care about how the UAW guy defrauded his
| organization?
|
| Because in non-right to work states, the workers are
| forced to contribute part of their paycheck to the UAW.
| So "the UAW guy defrauded his organization" should really
| read "the UAW guy defrauded the employees he was supposed
| to represent."
| hypersoar wrote:
| >> All of the things you complain about happen on the
| business side of the table.
|
| > Are you sure about that?
|
| > here's the head of the UAW being placed on leave for
| fraud:
|
| Corporate executives commit fraud and malfeasance all the
| time on a scale commensurate with their greater power and
| wealth. They rarely face serious consequences for it. The
| Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal broke over 5 years ago
| and hasn't resulted in criminal charges for anyone.
| Purdue Pharma essentially murdered tens of thousands of
| people, and the end result for the Sackler family will be
| that they won't get to keep all of the billions they made
| off of it. And, of course, the 2008 financial crash. I
| could go on.
| kennend3 wrote:
| Let me guess, unions would stop the corporate corruption?
| How are the two issues (corporate corruption and unions)
| related?
|
| Because i was asked to point out corrupt unions therefor
| by showing that corrupt corporations exists they "cancel
| out" one another?
|
| I'd look at US laws to determine why no one was ever
| prosecuted. In each of the examples you provided it is
| clearly US crimes and the US justice systems failures?
|
| FWIW, the police are investigating Jerry Dias :
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/unifor-jerry-
| dias-1.6...
| Jensson wrote:
| You need laws to protect workers from unions or unions will
| abuse workers. In Europe you are pretty well protected against
| unions, in USA you aren't. I think this is by design in USA,
| businesses doesn't want unions to be popular and unions doesn't
| want to be regulated.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Workers and employers have nothing in common.
|
| That's untrue. Especially when workers own part of the company
| as a part of their compensation.
| legitster wrote:
| Why would a business support a union? It's inherently going to
| be an adversarial relationship.
|
| I completely get why unions are necessary. But it would be like
| me hiring a divorce attorney for my own wife.
|
| A business is almost never going to want a union. And it seems
| weird to expect them to.
| klyrs wrote:
| Hiring your spouse's divorce attorney sounds like a smart
| play, honestly. Except for the whole "conflict of interest"
| thing.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| .. and it probably gives them excellent grounds to
| challenge whatever agreement you and the spouse come up
| with. So, not actually a smart play.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| A recent story linked on HN that sadly didn't get much
| attention was that companies are in a crisis of not knowing
| what they can do to stop their employees from quitting. Glib
| answers like "pay them more" and "treat them better" aren't
| helpful because many of these are high paid jobs and everyone
| has a difference of opinion on what it means to be treated
| well (even if most will agree that being punched in the face
| all day is bad). Companies cannot get employees to tell them
| what they want. Exit interviews are mostly fruitless, surveys
| are avoided because workers don't believe they're truly
| anonymous, outside surveys have the same problem since the
| survey company is being paid by the employer.
|
| How can a company get honest feedback from their employees
| without the employees fearing reprisals? A union is one way
| of doing it since employees (usually) trust their union to
| take their grievances to the employer with little risk to the
| employees as individuals or as a group. There was a case a
| few years ago where a European company opened a factory in
| the right-to-work state and wanted its workers in a union
| because that's how it maintained employee relations in their
| home country. They were confused by the hostility towards
| unions in that state, both by workers and by the government.
| IIRC, it was semi-skilled manufacturing so exploiting the
| workers would be self-defeating if they kept leaving for
| other jobs.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| There are things I don't want, and things I prioritise to get
| rid of. The fact that for amazon getting rid of unions is a
| priority, suggests that unions are effective
| roenxi wrote:
| Amazon sees the unions as a direct threat to their profits,
| but that doesn't mean that unions are effective. Amazon's
| profits going down doesn't guarantee that workers pay &
| conditions would go up.
|
| I think nearly everyone agrees that unions are going to
| have a negative impact on profits, that hasn't a point of
| contention in the debate.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > The fact that for amazon getting rid of unions is a
| priority, suggests that unions are effective
|
| Well, it suggests that unions are effective at creating
| negative consequences for the company. Those consequences
| could be "more costly to do business because the employees
| are paid more"; in theory, a good outcome. They could also
| be "more costly to do business because it's not against the
| rules for someone to plug in the monitor in their office
| because all electronics must be handled by a certified
| union member" (which actually happens); in theory, a bad
| outcome.
|
| Not all "bad for the company" things are "good for the
| employees".
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| Damn right it's effective when you want to blackmail
| someone because you have extra time.
|
| If you were prioritizing your life then I came and tried to
| rob you, what would be the chance that you prioritize my
| angle of attack?
|
| Unions are literally built to prey on that cost that a
| company IS prioritized and by distracting it with legal
| hell it becomes slower and risks losing its position in the
| marketplace and thus potentially vulnerable to negoitations
| that are unfaorable because of exploiting what would
| otherwise be prioritization. Your example is just that the
| vampire sucked too much blood, and has a clear boundary of
| policy.
| kennend3 wrote:
| How much of the major auto bailouts years ago was the
| result of union rules?
|
| For decades they met union demands to avoid costly legal
| fights.. and in the end?
|
| this is rather old, but telling:
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/09/2
|
| Instead of restructure, the uion opted for bankruptcy? Way
| to "protect jobs"?
|
| "The company's attempt to buy more time failed after union
| leaders rejected a new restructuring plan that would have
| cut a fifth of the 19,000-strong workforce. The union said
| its members would have to be paid PS70m in wages arrears
| before it would consider the proposals."
| black_13 wrote:
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| The fact that it's mostly about Europe is a genuine contribution.
| I had the (false) impression that in most of Western Europe,
| unions had won the political debate decades ago and this stuff
| didn't happen.
|
| As for Amazon: they are the poster child for unionization. They
| treat their workers as disposable pieces of meat with no rights,
| and if you want to get unionized, that's how you do it.
|
| People who have actual experience with unions in this country
| have a more jaded view of them: they tend to be run by cliques of
| people who enjoy the high life on their members' dime (cf.
| Teamsters). "Filing a union grievance" is often not at all a wise
| career move. However, I can still totally understand an Amazon
| warehouse worker voting for a union.
| gkodpgfdgf wrote:
| Unions are crushing the European economy with the constant work
| stoppages. Why would you think European unions have won the
| political debate?
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| As the other answer says: "win the political debate" doesn't
| mean "everyone loves them." It's not a value statement.
|
| It means "unions are highly encouraged, and companies pretty
| much _have_ to recognize them. "
| slively wrote:
| I think they are referring the initial debate of whether or
| not to have a large union presence. In the USA that's still a
| big debate, and the fact that there are large scale work
| stoppages in Europe only further proves the point that they
| decided having a large union pretense is good. After unions
| are established, then new debates will surely arise which
| seems to be what you are referring to.
| hef19898 wrote:
| And that's why the US are technically in a recession and the
| EU isn't yet, right?
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > I had the (false) impression that in most of Western Europe,
| unions had won the political debate decades ago and this stuff
| didn't happen.
|
| Your impression is not entirely false.
|
| Compared to the US, Western Europe is paradise on earth for
| employees.
|
| There are so many rights taken for granted by Western European
| employees that your average US-peep could only dream of.
|
| Where Western Europe does have problems is around contractors
| and the so-called gig economy (zero-hours contracts). That's
| still a bit of a grey area in many respects.
| zajio1am wrote:
| > There are so many rights taken for granted by Western
| European employees
|
| Most of these rights are given by employment law, not union
| contracts, so unions are less relevant.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| I believe you for low skill employees but as a SWE, I
| wouldn't trade a job over there in a thousand years. People
| in Western Europe are likely to think i'm lying when I talk
| about the kind of lifestyle I can afford.
|
| I'm not even at a FAANG company and I have a 3,000 sq ft
| newer house, I drive a tesla, I have a nanny for my children.
| I have plenty saved for retirement, I can vacation to Europe
| or Hawaii i luxury every couple years.
|
| The average EU employee is what, in a two bedroom with half a
| kitchen and no yard?
| froh wrote:
| > The average EU employee is what, in a two bedroom with
| half a kitchen and no yard?
|
| the average unskilled employee maybe?
|
| an average swe can live a decent life, while the worker,
| every human actually benefits from universal healthcare.
| [deleted]
| oceanplexian wrote:
| The people in Europe are getting shafted IMHO. Even in a
| small town in an average part of the USA you could make
| 70-80k managing a McDonalds. For a while my dad worked as a
| furniture salesman and cracked six figures on a regular 40
| hour work week.
|
| As long as you're not in coastal California or NYC you can
| own a house and live a decent lifestyle with that.
| UmbertoNoEco wrote:
| you are not the average us employee; it seems you are
| completely isolated from the working reality of most
| americans; including swe
| blfr wrote:
| > Compared to the US, Western Europe is paradise on earth for
| employees.
|
| No, it isn't. For example,
|
| > 80% of the French earn less than EUR3k a month (equivalent
| to $36k a year) and 50% less than EUR2k a month ($24k a
| year). This is BEFORE taxes on income.
|
| https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564868574879129600
| random314 wrote:
| In terms of median income, France and USA don't seem far
| apart 16K vs 19K
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-
| in...
| klyrs wrote:
| Moreover, a normal work week in France is 35 hours.
| Assuming Americans work 40 hours a week, the implied
| median hourly wage is just about the same.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| That is extremely far off from what other sources report.
| For instance, it does not match what the OECD says [0]:
| median individual income in the US was $42k in 2019; in
| France, it was $28k.
|
| It also does not match what the St. Louis Fed says [1],
| which says the US median individual income was $36k in
| 2019.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Median_
| equival...
|
| [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _median income, France and USA don 't seem far apart
| 16K vs 19K_
|
| After taxes and healthcare, adjusting for instability,
| the median European worker is better off. The top-
| performing American, on the other hand, is _far_ better
| off than their European counterpart*. This is the design.
| Immigration + better life for the ambitious at the cost
| of a worse life for the median. It's a recipe for brain
| drain and it works, though we must be honest at what
| cost.
|
| *non-aristocratic
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > This is the design. Immigration + better life for the
| ambitious^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lucky
|
| FTFY.
|
| ps. I was one of the lucky ones.
| UmbertoNoEco wrote:
| lucky
|
| well connected
|
| belonging to the 'right' race;gender;social class;
| nationality
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _lucky_
|
| Sure, it's a stochastic process. But it's also not
| stationary. Providing an agglomeration incentive for
| those who believe they have non-stationary
| characteristics is a valid strategy.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Providing an agglomeration incentive for those who
| believe they have non-stationary characteristics is a
| valid strategy.
|
| Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what this means.
| slively wrote:
| In the Twitter thread folks mention it is after taxes.
| Looking at income alone and not other benefits is also
| pretty misleading. I'm not here to say I know how much
| better/worse it is in France, just that this doesn't seem
| like a good argument.
| blfr wrote:
| This is before employee's taxes but after employer's
| taxes. OP explains
|
| > Net in France means after the taxes your employer pays
| but before the taxes you pay on your income. I know it's
| confusing!
|
| https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564875547792080
| 898
|
| The benefits would have to be really, really sweet to
| consider making half as much a "worker's paradise."
| Klinky wrote:
| You really do need to look at the whole picture of cost
| of living & quality of life. Sure someone in the Bay Area
| could make 5x that, but that doesn't mean they're living
| 5x better or things aren't 5x more expensive.
| KronisLV wrote:
| > ...or things aren't 5x more expensive.
|
| While I agree with you in regards to things like quality
| of life, health care, food, housing and many services, in
| a globalized economy certain goods that one might want to
| purchase don't scale that much depending on where one
| lives.
|
| For example, consider an iPhone 13, in this case a black
| one with 256 GB of storage and not bound to any
| particular carrier: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-
| iphone/iphone-13
|
| It costs 929$.
|
| Now here's the same model in a local store here in
| Latvia, also an iPhone 13, black color, 256 GB of memory:
| https://www.1a.lv/p/mobilais-telefons-apple-
| iphone-13-melna-...
|
| It costs 939EUR or around 934$.
|
| You hear a lot about people in US making over 100k$ (with
| varying taxes) per year, over here this year I'll
| probably make around 36k$ before taxes and 24k$ after
| taxes. So essentially when the cost of goods in a
| globalized economy (for these products that cannot be
| produced locally) remains consistent across different
| nations, someone in the US will realistically have a
| purchasing power that is many times larger than mine.
|
| Actually I wrote about my personal finances on my blog a
| while ago "On finances and savings":
| https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/on-finances-and-savings
|
| Note: I don't consider myself as someone who can actually
| afford Apple devices, just using them as one example of
| that kind of a good; nobody is going to give you a car
| 2-3x cheaper just because you're from Latvia either, or a
| computer, or many other goods.
|
| Of course, your argument does hold true for other things,
| for example it's possible to rent a studio apartment here
| for around 300-400$ per month. Also my university degrees
| were free (though people with worse grades might have to
| pay if there are not enough budget places allocated) and
| I haven't had any significant healthcare expenses myself
| as of yet.
| jerojero wrote:
| People need food, housing, education and health more than
| they need iPhones.
|
| Everyone needs these, not everyone needs an iPhone. Which
| means a country where everyone has their basic needs
| covered but no one has an iPhone, I would say, is a
| better country to live in (on average) than a country
| where half of the people have iPhones and houses and the
| other half doesn't have either houses or iPhones.
|
| I think a lot of people fall into a trap of looking at
| their own circumstances and virtually move themselves to
| the other country, of course, as a software developer
| living in the bay area it's very unlikely you'll find a
| better place to live. You already have everything. But if
| you were to think "which country would you rather have
| been born in" the equation changes. Because in a country
| like the USA the chance of being poor or marginalised
| (think being born a woman or LGBT in a red state) is much
| higher than, say, France. Of course if you look at
| developing countries like Latvia the equation might
| change.
|
| So, really, I think it's important to think about how
| much of our basic are covered for how much of the
| population.
| KronisLV wrote:
| > So, really, I think it's important to think about how
| much of our basic are covered for how much of the
| population.
|
| This is fair, it's just that I feel like focusing on PPP
| often makes people miss out on certain aspects of the
| greater picture.
|
| For example, why many might choose to work for either US
| companies if possible, or even travel to US to work and
| build as much capital as they can, before settling down
| either back home with a substantial amount of money, or
| alternatively choosing another country.
|
| Of course, at that point one also cannot disregard how
| good or bad any given country is from a social
| standpoint, like human rights issues and so on.
| djbusby wrote:
| Maybe compare things people buy monthly like bread, milk,
| cheese, etc - not an every three year purchase like an
| overpriced phone.
| KronisLV wrote:
| > Maybe compare things people buy monthly like bread,
| milk, cheese, etc - not an every three year purchase like
| an overpriced phone.
|
| I'd suggest that some sort of a smartphone is more or
| less necessary to function in a modern society, as might
| some sort of a laptop/netbook and an Internet connection,
| at least when you intend to live with any semblance of
| fitting in. Given that complex electronics aren't
| produced locally, you're dealing with whatever the market
| prices are.
|
| Essentially, you have to be able to communicate through
| WhatsApp, or browse the web to use many of the
| governmental e-services, or do online banking and be able
| to confirm payments, or digitally sign documents which is
| getting increasingly more inevitable thanks to the
| "eParaksts" ("eSignature") system we have. Technically
| you could go without those, but it'd be a cumbersome life
| that wouldn't respect your time as much.
|
| And whilst the situation regarding public transportation
| is better in Latvia and certain other countries when
| compared to US (or at least so I've been told, possibly
| owing to the much smaller size of the country), the fact
| that many might need to own motor vehicles hasn't become
| untrue either, especially the further into the rural
| regions you go and the more items you need to transport.
|
| Of course, instead of finding happiness in being able to
| purchase bread, milk and cheese, some choose to work for
| foreign companies and make many times more money than
| they could ever hope to make locally, to lead more
| comfortable lives, a trend that's also useful to note.
| Or, curiously, many of them simple emigrate, given that
| they don't find satisfying local salaries and thus add to
| the "brain drain" that certain developing nations are
| facing. This also shouldn't be overlooked.
|
| Another interesting thing I've noticed people utterly
| miss out on in our own industry is the claim that
| "developers are expensive, tools/software/servers are
| cheap", which gets more and more untrue the more in the
| direction of less well off countries you look. I don't
| doubt that in some places a beefy EC2 instance would
| essentially mean the salary of another developer.
|
| Focusing just on PPP and being able to purchase the bare
| essentials utterly misses out on these finer points of
| what the differences in the absolute numbers actually
| mean.
| Klinky wrote:
| I think seeing a PPP/COL breakdown between major
| metropolitan areas would be more useful than country-wide
| averages/medians, the US has huge variations with regards
| to compensation & cost of living. Most people in the US
| are not making $100K. Even in tech, many are not making
| $100K. A lot of people fail at getting those FANG
| salaries(partly due to the exhaustive hoops you need to
| jump through to get them), and even if you're getting
| those high salaries a lot of those benefits can be
| negated by very high localized costs.
|
| That said, absolutely there is an arbitraged disparities
| going on where some contractor in India is making $10K/yr
| while someone in the US is making $250K/yr. Are
| statically priced global goods fair? Perhaps not, or
| perhaps the issue is our inability to agree on the worth
| of a human's labor, and the people who exploit that
| deficiency. Many US companies are now looking outside the
| US towards Europe for lower cost engineers, so who knows
| how long the levels.fyi salaries are going to last in the
| US.
| slively wrote:
| Please keep going, it's worth trying to compare all
| compensation and benefits, and we both might learn
| something.
| conviencefee999 wrote:
| Nope, it's just as bad. The hours of work along with
| afterhours. Unions themselves are not necessarily good
| and often act as blockers for minorities. And often force
| you to socialize with people you don't want any business
| with. Not to mention the gaps for women in the workforce,
| most unions are male dominant and extremely unwelcoming
| to women. Not to mention that they often fail at
| adequately increasing wages if at all. Strikes are often
| meaningless as they can easily by diverted by importing
| the section the workers who are striking from are not
| doing, basically in a sense unions are an outdated model
| for helping people in general.
| mrtksn wrote:
| For this kind of stuff it's usually better to check things
| like life expectancy, satisfaction etc.
|
| Many times, it's just a different way of money routing to
| run the services that sustain a society. Nothing is free,
| it doesn't really matter if you first get the money into
| your bank account and then distribute it to hospitals and
| schools personally or you don't see the money in your
| account and it's distributed on your behalf to schools and
| hospitals.
|
| Fun fact, in Europe they sell plane tickets to America
| where you can go and pay for your education and healthcare
| like just like an American.
|
| The real plight of our times is housing anyway and that
| unfortunately is a global plight.
| capableweb wrote:
| Not sure how it is in France in particular, but EUR2k/month
| would allow you to live a pretty relaxed life in most
| places on the Iberian Peninsula (metropolitan areas is
| doable with that, but less comfortable of course)
| SettembreNero wrote:
| The chart literally says "net"(s) salary. ~1400EUR is also
| the minimum wage in France, and if you count in that you
| have a kinda decent welfare (still light years ahead of US)
| it means that you can live a better life than the
| equivalent in the US
| jorblumesea wrote:
| In Europe, many things are provided by the government and
| at high quality. This means their quality of life is
| better, even if they don't earn as much. They don't "need"
| a high income to have a nice life. It's really not that
| useful or relevant to look purely at numbers, it's what you
| get out of your current political system.
|
| In the US, you need to make good money because everything
| is out of pocket. If you don't, your quality is life is
| poor. This is also why whenever Americans compare their
| life to Europe, it's always numbers based. It's all we
| know: big numbers, better life.
|
| Not to mention things that are not easily qualified by pure
| numbers, such as work culture, vacation time, public
| transit.
|
| Europe has vastly more progressive and people friendly
| political, economic system and cultural setup. This is
| speaking as an American in tech with a relatively high
| income.
| drstewart wrote:
| This all feels very "I don't have the data to back up my
| assertion, so I'll just state it's true because your use
| of data makes it true"
|
| I'll just state quality of life is flat out better in the
| US than Europe, and anything you use to show otherwise
| just proves that I'm right since you're just trying to
| reduce it to X metric.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| High quality when an American is in the room or high
| quality all the time? My experience with family members
| and their friends, who live in countries with many social
| services, is that they only call them high quality when
| Americans are present. The rest of the time you'd think
| they were being marched to the gulag when trying to make
| use of said services.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| Americans oversell the quality of their healthcare.
| American healthcare is actually just as bad as
| "socialized medicine", we just spend more on it and have
| less access.
|
| "But you have to wait months for a specialist in Canada!"
|
| That's different from the US system, how? Have you ever
| tried to get appointments? We're also booking many months
| out.
|
| "Want this live saving surgery? Let's see if insurance
| will cover it first, you might impact our profits. "
|
| K...
|
| It all sucks, but at least everyone gets it in some
| places as opposed to the system working for a privileged
| few. Ironically, the US does have socialized medicine,
| it's called Medicare, which is wildly popular.
|
| The US healthcare system is one of the strongest
| arguments for government take over.
| UmbertoNoEco wrote:
| all those polls where people systematically support their
| national health services probably used tons of americans
| to influence the answers; i think you are up to something
| here
| lnsru wrote:
| Maybe in the past your explanation was true. Looking
| particularly at Munich I must admit, it's less and less
| welcoming city. 15 years ago it was doable to find a room
| or flat in the range 300-400EUR. Now double that with
| almost unchanged salaries. Getting doctor's appointment
| with public health insurance is currently getting harder
| and harder. Now add skyrocketing energy prices, that will
| crush low income families. I just don't see the Happy End
| in any scenario.
| jerojero wrote:
| But don't you think people in Germany are more aware of
| the issue and more willing to find ways to actually solve
| this problem?
|
| At least in Berlin there's been big movements towards
| controlling rent prices, building social housing,
| socialising the current housing that exists. Etc.
|
| So although it is a problem, is it going to be a problem
| in 20 years? What's being done in the USA, as a
| counterpart, to solve these problems? Everyone talks
| about unaffordable housing in the USA but their zoning
| laws are still horrible. So any changes will have to go
| through that first.
|
| In that regard, I think European countries are in a much
| better standing to solve these problems.
| rozenmd wrote:
| You could live with dignity here in France on minimum wage,
| how about the US?
| jdhn wrote:
| What does dignity mean in this context?
| Daishiman wrote:
| Not having start a GoFundMe when you get sick.
| Marazan wrote:
| It means an adverse medical condition doesn't financially
| cripple you for life.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| How do you objectively measure that?
|
| Overall quality of life umbers suggest the opposite of
| what you say in the above comment. We should always go by
| data and objectivity:
|
| https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-
| life/compare_countries_res...
|
| Also, HDI for the US is higher that of France:
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/hdi-
| by-co...
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > How do you objectively measure that?
|
| Compare the top causes of personal bankruptcies in the
| USA and France. Medical debt is one of the top causes in
| the USA. I wasn't able to confirm this with a quick
| search, but I sincerely doubt that's true of France.
|
| (The other replies here seem to have missed that
| Marazan's point was about financial ruin from medical
| expenses, and was not a general point about quality-of-
| life.)
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| The other replies don't miss that.
|
| Marazan's just randomly equated:
|
| "You could live with dignity here in France on minimum
| wage"
|
| with
|
| "It means an adverse medical condition doesn't
| financially cripple you for life."
|
| That is an important component of dignity but not the
| only one. Homelessness is another component. And frankly,
| after being in Paris and living in SF, I am much more
| worried about folks in Paris.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homele
| ss_...
| ben_w wrote:
| I think you first link mainly demonstrates that quality
| of life is composed of many things.
|
| It's OK for different people to weight each of those
| things differently.
| Groxx wrote:
| You say that as if you think "quality of life" is not
| deeply, fundamentally subjective...
| jerojero wrote:
| If you use the inequality adjusted HDI then the USA falls
| below France.
|
| It's up to you to decide if that's a more fair comparison
| or not, but we are not most people so I find inequality
| an extremely important measure to adjust for.
|
| I think I'd rather be poor or middle class in France than
| I would the USA. But I would prefer to be wealthy in the
| USA than in France.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > You could live with dignity here in France on minimum
| wage
|
| I don't know about that, but - your French employer can
| certainly live off of you when you're making minimum
| wage.
|
| > how about the US?
|
| It's questionable whether you could live in dignity in
| the US regardless of what your salary is... just looking
| at the situation in Jackson, Mississipi right now, or the
| state of public transport or healthcare in a country as
| rich as the US makes you feel like someone is playing a
| cruel joke at people's expense.
| DFHippie wrote:
| The problem in the US is that there's a huge chunk of the
| population that believes the chief thing the government
| can give them is vengeance against their uppity
| neighbors. Where this movement is ascendant, the
| government does little more than deal out humiliation to
| those out of power. Those who control the movement are
| free to loot the governmental power left unused. I agree
| that there's little dignity in it.
|
| This is ameliorated by federalism. If you don't want to
| live in crazytown, you can pull up roots and move to
| another state with a government that actually tries to
| identify and solve real problems.
|
| I think the same dynamic plays out everywhere on Earth in
| different forms. In some places the folks seeking to
| avenge their honor, and the false friends stoking their
| grievances, are fewer, but there are some everywhere.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > No, it isn't. For example,
|
| Its not only about the money my friend !
|
| Please read the next line of my post, the one with the word
| "rights".
|
| I think you will find it is an indisputable fact that
| employment rights in Western Europe are centuries ahead of
| the US.
|
| I mean, there was another thread right here on HN posted
| yesterday about some guy worrying about mat/pat leave in
| the US. That's a given in Western Europe and woe betide the
| employer that tries to mess with your mat/pat rights !
| drstewart wrote:
| What were European maternity laws like in the 18th
| century?
| ben_w wrote:
| Money's one thing. Quality of life for that money is
| another.
|
| My statutory minimum holiday allowance is 20 days[0], plus
| public holidays, plus sick leave[1], plus extra leave for
| things like weddings and funerals, plus parents get 3
| _years_ parental leave[2].
|
| [0] my actual paid holiday allowance is higher than that
|
| [1] for example, I opened a tin of tomatoes badly during
| the pandemic, and gouged out a 2 mm x 2 mm x 20 mm region
| of skin on my finger, bleeding profusely. I got a paid week
| off work for it to heal.
|
| [2] Not sure the details, looks like it changed recently,
| but I think at least some of that is _paid_ leave, between
| EUR(300+150) and EUR(1800+900) per month.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| A good software engineer in SF with ~5 years experience
| takes home more than 3 years of top tier French pay in 1
| year, so 3 years of parental leave doesn't sound so good
| to me.
| YZF wrote:
| It's really not as simple as that. For example, typically
| an employer is not allowed to fire you/let you go for
| going on parental leave. This hypothetical SF engineer is
| unlikely to get his old job back after 3 years. What are
| e.g. your health insurance and rental costs in SF during
| the 3 years you're off? In many countries all workers
| have certain benefits by law, this affects the society as
| a whole so you get benefits from that. Even if this
| specific engineer is better off, which isn't that clear,
| they're still impacted by society as a whole.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| It's pretty easy to get a job as a software engineer in
| SF. If you're above median you can easily get 5 offers in
| a few weeks.
|
| The costs are irrelevant, you can move anywhere for those
| three years.
| culi wrote:
| > 3 years parental leave
|
| As an american worker, this is unimagineable. My company
| just announced that they've increased the maternal leave
| to a whole 3 weeks... To show off how progressive and
| forward they are
|
| Meanwhile heavily unionized casino workers in Las Vegas
| are having the company help them finance their houses,
| months of maternal leave, and will even help people pay
| for school. All for blue collar work
| Montaque wrote:
| The general positive rhetoric on HN for unions is a jaded. Take
| it from someone that lives in a country with very strong Unions
| that ultra strong unions are all they're cracked up to be.
| koheripbal wrote:
| ... unless you need to actually get work done.
|
| You've never dealt with American unions. Trying to get a union
| worker to help you do something means filling out paperwork to
| do things like moving a chair from one room to the next room.
|
| At the company level unions in the 1980s became synonymous with
| organized crime. They would call strikes whenever they wanted a
| bribe.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| I just wanted to offer this warning to the younger set who seem
| to think that unions are one piece to fixing the problems that
| ail the workplace: in every place I've worked with a union, the
| union did little to protect me or my colleagues. They were sort
| of a junior, parallel branch of management that would usually
| favor some groups more than others. I have friends who were
| essentially targeted by the factions in the unions. So the idea
| that unions are some how always thinking of the worker has been
| untrue in my experience.
|
| There was probably a time when unions made more sense. When much
| of the work is exactly the same and people are just cogs in a big
| machine, well, I think the idea of collective bargaining makes
| sense. But while Amazon warehouse workers and delivery teams are
| doing pretty similar work, there are still differences. Some
| people just do more work and I don't see anything wrong with
| rewarding them.
|
| Now all of that being said, I can see a better argument for
| breaking up Amazon to ensure more competition. I feel like an
| open labor market is the best way for workers to earn good
| treatment. When the market was tight, Amazon responded with
| higher pay and more benefits-- without the need of a union to get
| in the way and collect dues.
| kennend3 wrote:
| THIS!
|
| i use to like r/antiwork on Reddit but dumped it over a year
| ago. It isnt about "antiwork" but "union drives". The answer to
| almost any workplace issue seems to be "join a union" but what
| about the major Union failures?
|
| Here (Canada) we had an issues with a meat processing plant in
| Alberta. It didnt take long for the striking workers to lash
| out at their union as well for lack of support. The union felt
| there were not enough people for them to get involved. while
| they were content to take their union dues, they were reluctant
| to get involved in costly legal battles?
|
| Unions are also a business as well, subject to the exact same
| "corruption" charges as any other organization, so it is ironic
| that r/Antiwork advocates them?
|
| Look at the recent news from the head of the very powerful auto
| workers union (which also includes clergy?) here and his
| mystery $25,00. Naturally his excuse is his "prescription
| medication and alcohol abuse made me do it".
|
| People complain about the "CEO" pay, but how much do union
| leaders earn?
|
| Unions were very good in the past and did a lot for the
| country, but people would be far better off changing laws
| instead of joining unions.
|
| This is what really kills me about r/anitwork. Not everyone can
| join a union, but legal changes apply to everyone. I actually
| had someone tell me once "why should my union fight to help
| ohters"?
| slively wrote:
| I think a common reply to this would be that it's hard to
| change laws when an oligarchy has so much power, and
| siphoning the money and power from the oligarchs has to come
| first. Unions are one approach to attempt to do this. Unions
| are the workers that join them, and one of the more positive
| developments lately is the push to have more democratic
| unions. The teamsters even just changed their leadership
| drastically in this direction.
| kennend3 wrote:
| I'm Canadian but lived in the US for several years.
|
| One takeaway from my time in the US is they really need to
| address its "lobbying" rules. We have a bit of a lobbying
| problem here, but no where near the level we see to the
| south.
|
| When you do crazy things like rule that corporations are
| "natural people" when clearly they are not..
|
| I have no clue how to fix this, but Lobbying is really bad
| which is why it is tightly controlled in most other
| countries.
| epakai wrote:
| One proposed solution is to get rid of Sunshine laws.
| Make legislative votes secret again, and legislators are
| harder to hold to account. Cuts both ways, but it might
| have an outsized effect on moneyed interests' ability to
| buy their way.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| Thanks. You have experience with unions in the real world,
| which the vast majority of American "progressives" don't.
|
| The union often turns into another bureaucracy which has
| forgotten its original mission, and now exists just to feed
| itself. Your meat processing plant example is a good one --
| the union leaders apparently just want to keep their cushy
| life and avoid trouble.
|
| Nonetheless, as I said, if you're an Amazon warehouse worker
| and the company doesn't give a shit about you, then yeah, a
| union could look like the least-bad alternative.
| kennend3 wrote:
| Not sure where you are, but spend a few mins and see all
| the not-so-good things the unions have done here (Ontario,
| canada).
|
| The idea of "forgotten its missing" really rings true here.
|
| Every election they create some sort of "working family
| coalition" or such and spend millions on attack-ads. They
| have their guy in government and want them to win?
|
| Why exactly are unions involved in politics? Why is this
| even allowed? Is this something the dues-paying members
| support, having millions of their dollars used on attack-
| ads?
|
| Finally the party the unions seem dislike won a majority
| and passed laws to prevent this in the future:
| https://www.blakes.com/insights/bulletins/2021/ontario-
| passe...
|
| The law was struck down as "unconstitutional" so the
| leading party used the "notwithstanding" clause to make it
| pass.
|
| Look who was fighting it - "Working Families Ontario " This
| is not families, but unions. I dont know why they dont
| simply say "Ontario unions" instead of "working families"?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The younger American middle-classs hate their HOAs but want
| unions at work. If you don't like your HOA telling you how to
| cut your grass you're also not going to like your union telling
| you how to do your job. Both are ostensibly democratic but in
| practice oppressive.
| acdha wrote:
| This is a common anti-union talking point but I've never seen
| anything like it at that anywhere I've worked - the unions
| have been what shut down those actions by management.
|
| I'm sure there are some bad unions but that doesn't mean we
| should give up on the concept any more than bad moves by
| companies means we should give up on the concept of private
| business.
| ropeladder wrote:
| The HOA comparison doesn't make much sense here. Unions give
| people a democratic way to exercise power against an existing
| powerful organization (corporations), in what would otherwise
| be an authoritarian workplace. HOAs are a way to exercise
| power as a group against individuals in the group. It's true
| that democratic institutions can be frustrating, but this
| (obvious) fact is not the clever gotcha you seem to think of
| is.
| aesh2Xa1 wrote:
| Yes, it seems a far more apt comparison to union dues would
| be government taxation.
| dixie_land wrote:
| > HOAs are a way to exercise power as a group against
| individuals in the group.
|
| s/HOA/Union/ and this statement is still true
| malermeister wrote:
| Your manager is trying to tell you how to do your job. The
| union gives you a way to push back.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The union will only push back if I'm in a majority group.
| If I'm part of a minority they won't push back and will
| also prevent me negotiating individually with my manager if
| they're using collective agreements.
|
| That's also what goes wrong in an HOA. If the majority want
| you to paint your fence then that's it to have to paint it.
| malermeister wrote:
| Whereas your manager will _always_ push back and the
| individual will _always_ have much less negotiating power
| than the billion dollar corporation.
|
| Some agency gained is better than no agency at all.
| [deleted]
| subsuboptimal wrote:
| I'd take Democratic but imperfect over authoritarian any day.
| The company can also tell you how to "cut your grass", only
| you have no say at all in their leadership.
|
| My union is fighting to raise my stake in the business I work
| for. Even if that means there are a couple new rules from the
| union it's still a hugely net positive.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Presumably these are the arguments that led to the HOAs?
| 'More democratic', 'everyone has a say', etc. In practice
| it's a tyranny of the majority, right? Same in a union, the
| majority have power and may act against your interests.
| xenospn wrote:
| HOAs became this way because people can't be bothered to
| show up and participate. Unions can and should be better.
| pnutjam wrote:
| HOA's are designed to short-circuit democracy. It's a
| firewall to keep towns from bothering upper class people
| and keep the poors out.
| [deleted]
| random314 wrote:
| This analogy makes zero sense. How is this analogy even
| supposed to work?
|
| CEO = homeowner
|
| Union = HOA
|
| Employees = Grass on your lawn???
| chrisseaton wrote:
| In a HOA the members are the home owners. In a union the
| members are the employees. In both cases a majority of
| members get to dictate to a minority. You may not like the
| outcome if you're in a minority on some issue.
|
| Like if you like long grass, the HOA can dictate you can't
| do that. Or if you like pay by performance but the majority
| of the union wants pay by seniority they can dictate that
| to you.
| random314 wrote:
| So your analogy breaks down because there is nothing
| corresponding to CEO/Management.
|
| Yeah, this is a terrible analogy.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| I don't mind the HOA handling all sorts of exterior work
| I can't be bothered with. I may not like to the fees, but
| I understand that is the price I pay for amenities. So
| you're saying a union would operate similarly? Not bad.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The HOA mandates the work you do on your own property -
| they don't do it for you as a service.
|
| And while it sounds good in theory... in practice many
| people _hate_ HOAs. They hate not being able to decide
| what to do themselves and they hate the pettiness and
| politics of it.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Sure, but if I don't have anything I want to do in
| contravention to their guidelines, then I don't care. The
| monthly fee is an annoyance but they take care of the
| exterior work I don't want to manage. A relationship I am
| fine with.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Sure, but if I don't have anything I want to do in
| contravention to their guidelines, then I don't care.
|
| And if you're in the majority in the union then you're
| also ok.
|
| The problem is when you're in a minority for some reason.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Word of warning, this is what I thought HOAs were about
| when I bought a house in one, with extremely reasonable
| rules and landscaping services. But unfortunately power
| corrupts and the board members went out and hired a
| lawyer in secret, re-wrote the CC&Rs, and then used
| obscure vote procedures to take total control.
|
| Once the board members gave themselves the ability to
| write rules without a vote, they started going after
| everyone for petty violations, like parking a car in your
| driveway for too many days or having the wrong colored
| door mat. And they have the legal power to foreclose on
| your house if you don't play along.
| sofixa wrote:
| You can't say something like this without specifying the
| country under an article about Amazon's global anti-union
| strategy. Going off what you said, you're probably talking
| about the US, which really isn't in any way comparable. You
| have shit labour laws and dynamics all around and nothing which
| could be useful when talking about other countries.
| __del__ wrote:
| unsurprising (but disappointing) that hn readers are well
| compensated and lukewarm about unions
| koheripbal wrote:
| I think it's because we're older and have had the unfortunate
| experience of having to actually work with a union.
|
| It's a nightmare. Do not ever engage a union worker if you ever
| want to get anything done.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| franczesko wrote:
| People outside of EU tend to demonize unions through the lens of
| their own economic environment and lack of knowledge of the
| matter. The truth is that they should unionize, as this would be
| the best way to secure their rights (advice from a former
| Amazonian with exposure to operations).
|
| Amazon would s*t bricks, if the same standards would be
| implemented in US, as in UK, Germany or France. That's the reason
| why they're so afraid of it.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| A (deeply) personal note:
|
| "Albert" is my pen name, not my actual name. Albert was my dad's
| brother, who was killed in his very first day on the job at Swift
| & Co. in the Chicago stockyards. He either fell off a scaffold,
| or it collapsed, I'm not sure which.
|
| Was there a meatpacker's union then, and did Albert belong to it?
| I don't know.
|
| Worker safety is a _sine qua non_ of unions. In some industries,
| the union enforces safety regulations rigorously; in others, the
| workers ' comp laws force the companies to watch out for it.
| Before unions, the companies didn't have to care, and there were
| no laws.
|
| As other people have pointed out here, safety laws protect
| _everyone_ whether or not they belong to a union.
| koheripbal wrote:
| This is why OSHA was created.
|
| It turns out that the centralized government can conduct safety
| inspections and enforce safety rules.
|
| It's one of the reasons unions fell out of favor in America.
| They never enforced safety, and many fell in with the mafia
| instead to shake down companies while providing no service.
| legitster wrote:
| > The "Amazon Way" manifests differently country to country. In
| Sweden, the company uses third-party workers; in France and
| Italy, collective bargaining is predominantly sectoral, and
| Amazon chooses to identify itself with the sector that pays the
| least.
|
| Everything in this article points to European labor laws working
| exactly as intended. The "weakening of norms" seems entirely
| confined to a) low strike participation and b) that Amazon
| continues to find people willing to work for them.
| ozzythecat wrote:
| Amazon's game is squeezing out every ounce of value they can.
|
| I worked in one of the Seattle buildings. It was still a culture
| of people crying at their desks, incompetent managers being
| checked out or just stressing out everyone around them.
|
| Then you had the more seasoned people who figured out how to play
| the game. Something is broken or had some outage?
|
| Find a way to blame another team. Think of the most sleezy used
| car sales manager you've met in the finance office of a car
| dealership. Now give them a "Sr. software development manager"
| role. That's Amazon for ya.
|
| Managers going on vacations to Hawaii while their teams are
| slaving away over the weekend to meet unrealistic deadlines.
| Utter lack of leadership. A house of cards held together by H1Bs
| and other visa situations where people put up with it out of fear
| of losing their jobs and having to leave the country.
|
| I pray the government breaks up that scam. It's a stain on
| humanity.
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| Interesting. So not knowing a lot about the situation, is this
| actually a hiring strategy?
|
| Hiring people into the country on Visas, because then they have
| to perform to very high levels and crazy demands else they have
| to go back home?
|
| That's evil genius stuff right there.
| LEDThereBeLight wrote:
| It's not so much that it's explicit strategy. It's more that
| tech companies look for high performers, and the H1B
| situation creates high performers through extortion. The
| companies are happy to take advantage of it.
| goostavos wrote:
| Just to give a minor counter point, I've been at Amazon for 5
| years. In that time, I've been in two different orgs and 4
| different teams. All in Seattle. I'm yet to see people crying
| at their desks.
|
| The trick to happiness at Amazon is staying the hell away from
| anything tier 1 -- or, hell, just anything with direct lines to
| external customers. Those "9s" we give are delivered on the
| backs of engineers. I'd for sure break down and cry too if I
| was getting paged 50 times per week because the response time
| of some subsystem went outside SLA by 5ms.
|
| Chill org, chill life.
| culi wrote:
| Interesting perspective on the white collar part of Amazon. But
| given that Amazon is the second largest employer in the world
| and the vast majority of those jobs are blue collar, I don't
| think this is exactly what the article is mainly referring to?
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Amazon's game is squeezing out every ounce of value they can.
|
| Of course. And the union's and worker's job is to squeeze every
| ounce of value they can out of Amazon.
|
| It's how marketplaces work.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yes, that is how a healthy marketplace works and why it
| should be illegal for Amazon to use its trillion dollars to
| crush unions.
| WalterBright wrote:
| If 51% vote for unionization, what about the other 49%?
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Make it an open shop, and they can negotiate
| individually.
| bluedino wrote:
| If it works for the president of the United States...
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| How is that relevant? Whether or not employees unionize
| and how they do so is up to them to decide. It still
| should be illegal for Amazon to interfere in that process
| in any way.
|
| If employees don't agree on stuff to the point there's a
| 50-50 divide, then they aren't actually united. There is
| no union. That's fine, as long as Amazon accepts whatever
| result. It's also totally possible that 99% want to
| unionize so they can apply maximum leverage on Amazon and
| extract better pay and benefits out of them.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > How is that relevant?
|
| The minority doesn't get a choice. There's a big
| difference between a choice and a vote.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Okay. Amazon still has no say in that.
| kennywinker wrote:
| And amazon has enough power to undermine the union's power
| through legal, dubiously legal, and illegal means. Thus
| tilting the market in their favor. Does that seems ok with
| you?
|
| Not to mention most of amazon's workplaces are not unionized,
| so it's amazon vs a single worker in the marketplace. Who's
| gonna win in that pairing?
| WalterBright wrote:
| Anybody who doesn't like working for Amazon can walk out
| the door and never look back. Amazon can't make you work,
| cannot make you stand on your head, cannot put you in jail,
| cannot send your family to a labor camp, etc.
|
| > Who's gonna win in that pairing?
|
| If Amazon is so powerful, why aren't all its employees
| working at minimum wage?
|
| The US is full of people who don't work for Amazon. Plenty
| of choices.
| pydry wrote:
| Amazon does have a habit of putting its distribution
| centers in economically depressed places with no jobs
| where all the people who could leave already did.
|
| In the 1930s the US government provided an "employer of
| last resort" to prevent giving people like bezos from
| wielding this kind of power and growing the economy but
| apparently these days weak moral platitudes suffice.
| s3r3nity wrote:
| And yet, Amazon continues to be a highly ranked employer [1]
| consistently.
|
| Last I checked, these employees don't _have_ to work for
| Amazon.
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/06/amazon-is-the-
| no-1-company-t...
| dralley wrote:
| Every employer tries to game those surveys, I have little
| faith in them.
|
| But there is also a huge difference between "best employer to
| grow your career" and "best employer to work for".
|
| Simply having the Amazon name on your resume is great for
| your career, but your career will probably be outside of
| Amazon.
| arberx wrote:
| I'm sure there's no way to game or no bias in Linkedin's "top
| companies" list...
|
| Wells Fargo at number 2? Come on.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| Seriously. I once worked for a company where Marketing and
| HR had a cross-functional team of three people working
| full-time to game such surveys, counter/contest bad reviews
| from former employees, writing fake positive reviews, etc.
| pydry wrote:
| I always assumed those lists (& others) were like Christmas
| cards from media organizations to the advertisers who keep
| the lights on.
| qazwse_ wrote:
| _On Wednesday, the networking platform released its annual
| Top Companies list identifying the 50 best places in the U.S.
| for professionals to grow their careers. Amazon ranked No. 1
| on the list, followed by Alphabet (Google's parent company)
| and Wells Fargo._
|
| From the LinkedIn article:
|
| _LinkedIn Top Companies is a ranking of the 50 companies
| that are investing in their talent and helping people build
| careers that will set them up for long-term success._
|
| _Our 2022 LinkedIn Top Companies list is the 6th annual
| ranking of the 50 best workplaces to grow your career, all
| based on unique LinkedIn data. These are the companies that
| are offering stability in our ever-changing world of work --
| the ones that are not only attracting workers, but retaining
| them._
|
| And this survey has nothing to do with quality of
| environment. This list, and the accompanying article, are
| completely meaningless.
| RicoElectrico wrote:
| That's why I'm jaded that IVONA TTS, a world-class product from
| my hometown founded by graduates of my alma mater, was acquired
| by a company with culture like this.
|
| I guess someone else would acquire them regardless, but Amazon
| seems the worst outcome.
| throw149102 wrote:
| I'm confused by what you wrote, because when I worked there
| during the pandemic, or even a year into it, almost no one was
| in the office. The first plan was to bring people back by Jan
| 2022, but then it was decided that individual directors could
| decide for their teams what was best. From what I saw while I
| was there (approx 6 months ago), most desks were still empty.
|
| I don't mean to necessarily disagree with the general tone of
| what you're saying, though. I felt some of that while I was
| there.
| riffraff wrote:
| In Italy Amazon reached a decent agreement with the unions a year
| ago, and as far as I know workers are reasonably happy.
|
| The article says "they choose to identify with the lowest paying
| sector", but that sector in Italy is "logistics" which makes
| pretty much perfect sense for warehouse workers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-03 23:01 UTC)