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

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#81

Post by flukus »

thedarkginger wrote: post #80
flukus wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get why they did it, I just don't get how they sold it to either people or corporate backers. The former may have been financially incentivized enough to override their ideology, but I would have thought the later would be dead against it. Or are there not a lot of half union shops?

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#82

Post by didibus »

home_boi wrote: post #78
elicash wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 organizati…

Right, but that would also be the majority. It boils down to your fundamental values. Do you want to live in a society with minority elites that are wealthy and powerful, but also hard working and smart, but eventually degrades to lazy and complacent once their heir takes over. Or do you prefer a more uniform distribution, with smaller extremes, even though it limits how high you can go and restricts you closer to the middle at all times.

These desires are at odds. Statistically, the majority would likely always prefer the latter, since the former assumes a poor majority and a rich minority.

There's some values that gets closer to a combination of these, such as going with the former, but banning inheritance (or indirect form of it). Effectively reseting the playing field every once in a while. Or focusing on increasing the minimum, but keeping the distribution like in the former. Like with universal minimum income for example.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#83

Post by cantankerous »

dugditches wrote: post #3

I've only seen new Unions end badly in places doing so. Companies just move the work elsewhere. As now companies are often owned by bigger companies/have multiple operations. So it's much easier to do so. Managers are often overworked/overpressured to perform, get by with less, competing with foreign companies with 'free' labor. And some Workers are jaded by the old Auto Factory days their parents worked. Makes for v…

The problem you're describing is an effect of today's global capitalism. Workers seeking a dignified income are not able to find that through collective bargaining because free movement of capital allows management to relocate to cheaper markets relatively quickly.

One wonders if the system is worth keeping around in its current form if so many people get screwed by it. What do we have an economic system for, anyway?

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#84

Post by losteverything »

Without my union experience i could not earn a living that i earn today.

The union i belong to has features that were earned/bargained for over years.

When i worked in tech we often wished we had some if the earned "rights" i now have.

No forced Overtime; overtime after 8 hours in a day.

Guaranteed 40 hours a week.

No work before 6am or after 6am (or else premium pat)

No Sunday or holiday work

72% benefits paid by company

Part if a 2m plus benefit plan (great coverage)

Holiday and sick pay earned as we go; 15, 19 or 26 days off a year depending on length of service.

No-layoff clause after 4(or 6)years

In my union there is absolutely no advancement opportunity and we dont get rich.

In tech we looked down at bargained employees - but now i think it was jusy not understanding them

The union machinery is vastly different than the rank and file..their only goal is extracting $$$ from union members.

But now there are many poor suffering delivery people who just dont know how much power they hold collectively if they decide to disrupt the status quo.

If all uber drivers said FU and banded together - uber is NOTHING without the drivers - they would hold enormous power.

Same for Amazon workers.

It just is the existine aflcio and other unions don't represent the drivers etc. They cant because they dont fight the fight

If the honeymoon the disrupters are having now is broken it will be by organizing the downtrodden driver, part timer, giger, and servant of the rich

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#85

Post by stale2002 »

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?

"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?"

Because unions mostly benefit low performers and old/senior people.

I don't want to have an organization making contracts that will hold me back just because of age. If I can demonstrate that I can perform/negotiate, then I should be able to command what benefits/salary that I am able to negotiate in the market, as opposed to be in the 1 sized fits all contract that someone else negotiated.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#86

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#87

Post by formula1 »

Kocrachon wrote: post #4

As a former member of a union, I honestly find it odd at how many people think that unions are always good. Of the two unions I was a part of and watching what my dad went through with his Union I'm actually fairly anti-union at this point in my life. I watched a guy get fired for sexual harassment, and rehired due to pressure from the Union. I watched my father not get a manager position, because of seniority ruling…

Unions are meant to be a democracy. If you and others had a problem with the way it was run, ideally you could change it. The fact that you felt it was an organizational issue leads me to believe there is an issue with the leadetship

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#88

Post by flukus »

stale2002 wrote: post #85
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?

"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?" Because unions mostly benefit low performers and old/senior people. I don't want to have an organization making contracts that will hold me back just because of age. If I can demonstrate that I can perform/negotiate, then I should be able to command what benefits/sal…

How will they hold you back? Has any union ever prevented a company from offering more money/benefits to certain employees?

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#89

Post by stale2002 »

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…

"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!"

Here is why this is incorrect.

It is illegal to fire someone for joining a union. This is a right that all workers have.

For the same reason that it is illegal to fire someone for joining a union, it should be illegal to fire someone for NOT joining a union.

So take you pick. If you want full freedom of association, sure, lets do that. You can make whatever contracts you want, but you can also be fired for it, (ie legalize firing people for joining a union). I think I would be happy with this outcome, to be honest.

But as long as union people are receiving this protection, NON-union people should receive the SAME protection.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#90

Post by losteverything »

Let me share a "concept" in my union.

It's n against y.

"It's 15 against 1"

You dont have to be in a union to be able to gather together for the common Good.

So lets say your "manager" tosses out some ridiculous rule and each person individually thinks it stinks.

With the right leader, if you simply say "its us against you." and let them know you dont have a concern about consequences, it will get you very, very far.

Be daring. Be challenging. Dont get walked on. Stand up for what is right.

Having a union frame of mind can actually help.

Post reply on HN