Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#71

Post by home_boi »

jjoonathan wrote: post #24
stale2002 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with unions is that they try and force everyone to join them. Fine, join whatever private organization that you want. But please leave me out of it. I do not want to follow your ill thought out rules and I want to be able to negotiate myself. I can get a better deal on my own, and I do not want your collective bargaining that they try to force on everyone.

> I can get a better deal on my own That's 80% because the supply/demand dynamics currently favor your profession, giving you leverage, and 20% because {markets reward value creation, you are good at bargaining}. Right now it's a harmless attitude, but when the weather turns, or for professions where it has already turned... not so much.

Tech in the USA is so far away from a bad demand/supply ratio that it isn't worth thinking about.

There is a hell lot of room for the conditions of software jobs to deteriorate before people become concerned when new grads from unknown universities can do a bit of interview prep and get $160,000 total comp working 35 hours/week with free food, massages, etc.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#72

Post by elicash »

chimeracoder wrote: post #64
elicash wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren't legally or conceptually. Legally, they're in a unique class. They're 501c5s. They have their own unique set of laws that apply to them. Conceptually, they're democratic institutions and not at all like corporations. Irrevocable? Getting rid of them is the exact same process as starting one! You have to convince your coworkers and win a vote.

> No, they aren't [corporations] legally or conceptually. Legally, they're in a unique class. They're 501c5s. What do you think a 501(c)5 corporation is ? > Getting rid of them is the exact same process as starting one! You have to convince your coworkers and win a vote. Sort of. Companies are strictly prohibited from taking retaliatory action against employees who attempt to organize their workplace. In extreme case…

501c5's are non-profit organizations.

The idea that unions have greater ability to coerce workers is LAUGHABLE. First, to your point directly, the NLRB website notes that "Threats to employees that they will lose their jobs unless they support the union" are ILLEGAL, just as it is for corporations. At the same time, however, corporations are able to force employees to listen to anti-union propaganda and pressure them to vote how they want.

If you want to compromise, and say every workplace in America gets to vote every year on whether to have a union, I'd take that deal. Because yes, getting 30% signing decert cards is difficult -- as is getting the 30% of authorization cards to have a vote in favor of a union in the first place without attracting the attention of management! But no, you want elections in places WITH unions annually, but you don't want elections in places WITHOUT them. Democracy only when it suits your desired outcomes.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#73

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

stale2002 wrote: post #60
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except right-to-work laws allow non-union members to freeride. If we truly wanted to restore balance then people opting out of the union wouldn't be able to benefit from any of the union's negotiations. Of course then everyone would join the union so...

I don't want your union negotiation benefits, though. I don't want to be covered by the union contract. You should be able to negotiate with your own group of people to get certain benefits, and I should be able to negotiate on my own. And then we could see who really gets the better deal. Personally I am confident that my own deal would be better, but I have no problem with other people deciding for themselves that…

I see the exception that proves the rule has showed up. You know it's obvious to me that you're in a privileged position and can leverage this to do quite well in the job market with or without worker collective action. One thing I would say is that even someone like you benefits from unions. Unions have negotiated many benefits we take for granted today and can even benefit workers not in the union. For example, my mother did not go to college and started working straight out of high-school. She was able to get a job that paid her really well considering the time and her inexperience. And she didn't even have to join a union to get it. Instead her employer always kept wages a little above the other unionized shops in town, in order to keep the union at bay. Which is all to say that if common workers in your industry unionize you will probably be able to negotiate an even higher premium in exchange for not joining the union.

Also keep in mind unionization is a freedom which is currently being infringed! I firmly believe that organizations should be able to draw up agreements with another! If a union and a company mutually agree that all the company's workers must join the union, I don't see a problem with that. The fact that our lawmakers are going in and writing backdoors so that this is serious government overreach.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#74

Post by home_boi »

yequalsx wrote: post #61
stale2002 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with unions is that they try and force everyone to join them. Fine, join whatever private organization that you want. But please leave me out of it. I do not want to follow your ill thought out rules and I want to be able to negotiate myself. I can get a better deal on my own, and I do not want your collective bargaining that they try to force on everyone.

Unless you are a skilled labor lawyer you will not be able to bargain better than the union. In my union there is a tremendous amount of institutional memory and they know the consequences of management proposals. If you really think that individuals can bargain better on their own than collectively then why do companies want to get rid of collective bargaining?

It's true that a union has more bargaining power. But you've just moved the power from the employer to the union.

As an individual you don't have power over the terms of the collective bargaining. The union can very well bargain against your interests. If you want $250,000 salary as a new grad, you might actually have a higher chance of receiving it in non-unionized world.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#75

Post by home_boi »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #73
stale2002 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want your union negotiation benefits, though. I don't want to be covered by the union contract. You should be able to negotiate with your own group of people to get certain benefits, and I should be able to negotiate on my own. And then we could see who really gets the better deal. Personally I am confident that my own deal would be better, but I have no problem with other people deciding for themselves that…

I see the exception that proves the rule has showed up. You know it's obvious to me that you're in a privileged position and can leverage this to do quite well in the job market with or without worker collective action. One thing I would say is that even someone like you benefits from unions. Unions have negotiated many benefits we take for granted today and can even benefit workers not in the union. For example, my…

> Which is all to say that if common workers in your industry unionize you will probably be able to negotiate an even higher premium in exchange for not joining the union.

Or the union can force you out of your job by forcing the employer to hire unionized employees only.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#76

Post by elicash »

home_boi wrote: post #74
yequalsx wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are a skilled labor lawyer you will not be able to bargain better than the union. In my union there is a tremendous amount of institutional memory and they know the consequences of management proposals. If you really think that individuals can bargain better on their own than collectively then why do companies want to get rid of collective bargaining?

It's true that a union has more bargaining power. But you've just moved the power from the employer to the union. As an individual you don't have power over the terms of the collective bargaining. The union can very well bargain against your interests. If you want $250,000 salary as a new grad, you might actually have a higher chance of receiving it in non-unionized world.

Not only is union leadership democratically elected, but workers literally vote on whether to accept contracts.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#77

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

home_boi wrote: post #75
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the exception that proves the rule has showed up. You know it's obvious to me that you're in a privileged position and can leverage this to do quite well in the job market with or without worker collective action. One thing I would say is that even someone like you benefits from unions. Unions have negotiated many benefits we take for granted today and can even benefit workers not in the union. For example, my…

> Which is all to say that if common workers in your industry unionize you will probably be able to negotiate an even higher premium in exchange for not joining the union. Or the union can force you out of your job by forcing the employer to hire unionized employees only.

That sentence was about joining a firm which doesn't use a unionized workforce (like my mom). That should have been more clear, my bad.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#78

Post by home_boi »

elicash wrote: post #76
home_boi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that a union has more bargaining power. But you've just moved the power from the employer to the union. As an individual you don't have power over the terms of the collective bargaining. The union can very well bargain against your interests. If you want $250,000 salary as a new grad, you might actually have a higher chance of receiving it in non-unionized world.

Not only is union leadership democratically elected, but workers literally vote on whether to accept contracts.

You still have almost no power as an individual. It's majority rules. It's a glaring flaw of 'democracy' that prominent figures and governments have tried to work around.

If you perform well and have decent bargaining power, you would not be in the majority. The people who have the most to gain from a union (people who have low individual bargaining power) would likely be the most vocal and involved in the organization.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#79

Post by yequalsx »

home_boi wrote: post #74
yequalsx wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are a skilled labor lawyer you will not be able to bargain better than the union. In my union there is a tremendous amount of institutional memory and they know the consequences of management proposals. If you really think that individuals can bargain better on their own than collectively then why do companies want to get rid of collective bargaining?

It's true that a union has more bargaining power. But you've just moved the power from the employer to the union. As an individual you don't have power over the terms of the collective bargaining. The union can very well bargain against your interests. If you want $250,000 salary as a new grad, you might actually have a higher chance of receiving it in non-unionized world.

I'm not a labor economist but I suspect that unions work best for workers well below the $250,000 salary. For lower skilled jobs the pricing power for labor in the U.S. is clearly with employers. Unions can help with bringing pricing power to a more equal level. Lower skilled workers almost certainly aren't going to out negotiate a union.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#80

Post by thedarkginger »

flukus wrote: post #66
thedarkginger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're in the U.S., this is an interesting layer to the labor rights debate: "right-to-work" states. Now 28 states (including all of the South, where wages are low) have passed laws that guarantee those who opt out of unions in unionized workplaces receive the same benefits as those who are members. As you'd guess, that works really effectively to undercut the appeal of joining a union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

What on earth was the justification for that? "We hate collective bargaining but want the benefits of collective bargaining"?

I mean, if you are anti-union, it's a pretty genius play politically because it legalizes and incentivizes free riding.

Unions exist on dues. As organizations, they were already weakening, and then if you further limit membership, you've really undermined their ability to collective bargain.

Post reply on HN