How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014) • Hacker News Board

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#91

Post by elihu » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 7:00 AM UTC

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…

I think I hear more negative anecdotes about unions than positive ones. I can think of three reasons why this may be the case.

One is that there's a great deal at stake and most companies are going to resist unions any way that can, and we can reasonably expect that to include negative propaganda.

A second is that unions really are terrible because corporate interests have succeeded in subverting the unions they couldn't destroy and have influenced them in ways that render them dysfunctional in hopes that that will discourage employees from joining.

A third is that unions have an inherent tendency to become terrible due to internal dynamics.

I suspect all three of these are true to some degree. It seems like a good way to defend against the second and third is to have multiple competing unions and allow employees to move freely from one to the other, or start up a new union if none of the ones that exist are any good.

Like most HN readers, I don't have any experience working in a unionized industry or know much about how rules governing unions vary from state to state or which unions are better than others or what kind of checks and balances exist internally to prevent unions from become corrupt or ineffectual.

I do expect that if the tech industry were to become unionized, we would need a different kind of union. It makes sense for unions to force people to work slowly in industries where employees are at risk of ruining their joints and then being discarded by the company when they can no longer shovel their daily quota of coal. In software development, anything that slows you down is frustrating and I think most of us would rather work in an environment where under-performing employees can be fired than one where they can't. We could borrow plenty of ideas from existing successful unions, though.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#92

Post by DrScump » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 7:20 AM UTC

tomjakubowski wrote: post #26

elicash wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you're special. And contracts can even be negotiated with a group to recognize individual performance! But the data is pretty clear that when workers bargain collectively, they can negotiate higher pay and better benefits.

Indeed, collective bargaining doesn't mean that an individual has no ability to negotiate their own contract with their employer, there are just certain restrictions. See, for example, the collective bargaining done on behalf of professional athletes by unions, like the NBPA or MLBPA.

All such contracts are subordinate to the CBA and can't have conflicting elements.

For example, a ballplayer can't waive a CBA_specified contrast constraint (e.g. many performance incentives are disallowed, can't work for less than the CBA-mandated minimum, etc.).

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#93

Post by jhundal » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 7:48 AM UTC

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…

But if you object to joining a union, then why not work a different job that is non-unionized? Why not look at all possible jobs as your market, as opposed to contracts for a specific job?

One possible response to that question: Why is it ethical or fair force a worker to pay union dues as part of a job?

In that case I'd argue that because the union's negotiation affects all employees (it at least sets a baseline) it is ethical and fair to ask every employee to contribute. Allowing every employee to opt out greatly reduces the amount of resources the union has available to reach its aims.

I'm assuming a few things here:

- That the negotiation performed by the union does affect all workers in the job, whether union members or not.

- That collective bargaining enabled by unions can in many cases be a positive thing for workers because it helps fix an information asymmetry that exists between employers and workers. (Such asymmetries break the assumptions of ideal free markets, which indeed are a good thing.)

- That right-to-work laws do indeed adversely affect the resources of a union. (The data shows that public sector union membership greatly dropped after Wisconsin's public sector right-to-work act passed: https://projects.jsonline.com/news/2016/11/27/for-unions-in-... . As an aside: I'm not the biggest fan of public sector unions, but I think it's likely private sector right-to-work laws would have a similar effect.)

I've participated in debates like this previously on HN without a satisfying response, so I'd ask the following for a response:

Which specific parts of my response/assumptions do you disagree with, and why?

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#94

Post by rollingpebbles » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 10:32 AM UTC

elicash wrote: post #21

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.

Maybe you're special. And contracts can even be negotiated with a group to recognize individual performance! But the data is pretty clear that when workers bargain collectively, they can negotiate higher pay and better benefits.

Exactly. Unions built the middle class. Watch Robert Reich's "Inequality for All" which demonstrates how unions benefit workers. In the old days, unions were formed because robber-barons cheated workers out of pay, much like today. It was a hard-won struggle, with many murders.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#95

Post by rollingpebbles » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 10:38 AM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #79

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.

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.

Currently, US wages continue to slide and the middle class shrinks, while the top 8 billionaires own as much wealth as half of the world. This libertarian, trickle-down, union-busting, union-whining nonsense has to stop if people are to realize they're not going to get a fair slice of the pie without resisting corporate greed together. Almost every rich person never gives up a dime without a vicious fight, that's just the way it works. So lower- and middle-income people have to coordinate together to stop working until they are paid what the jobs can afford to make a livable wage.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#96

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 11:55 AM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #89

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…

"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…

If I own a plastic company I can easily write an agreement where, for example, Widget Co. agrees to buy only my plastic for some price. Now imagine a state legislature came in and said that Widget Co. can't write that, that Widget Co. always has to be open to buying plastic from other companies and that when we spend a bunch of time negotiating price and writing a contract, Widget Co. can just run that to a competitor and write a new for one cent less. That's obviously infringing on my ability to write contracts.

But then we do that exact thing when the product is labor and not plastic. Your freedom of association is on the macro level, as in you can go from firm to firm to firm and if that firm requires you to join the union you just keep moving, same as if that firm pays a low wage or has no health insurance or anything else.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#97

Post by wcummings » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 12:09 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #15

jorvi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions aren't bad in itself. They largely solve the power asymmetry that exists between larger companies and their employees. Its only that at a certain point unions get so big there's actually a power asymmetry the other way: unions can strongarm the companies. How to restore the balance? I have no idea.

The way that you restore balance is that you make it illegal to force people to join them, as it is in many right to work states. If unions are so great, then they can stand on their own. If they end up sucking, then people will leave them.

Right-to-work hobbles unions, not exactly "restoring the balance", if there ever was one.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#98

Post by bryanlarsen » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 12:57 PM UTC

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…

Counter-anecdote: my uncle died on a non-union construction site.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#99

Post by chimeracoder » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 1:08 PM UTC

elicash wrote: post #72

chimeracoder wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 501c5's are non-profit organizations.

Which are corporations.

> 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.

Aside from having a number of basic misunderstandings about corporate and labor law, you're making enough assumptions and judgements about what I want that it's clear you're really interested in having a discussion with a straw man that doesn't actually exist, not with me. So I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere fruitful.

Re: How Amazon Crushed the Union Movement (2014)

#100

Post by chimeracoder » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 1:12 PM UTC

fixxer wrote: post #70

Looking through the comments, I see a combination of anecdotal evidence about Unions being bad/good and a few (very logical) statements about how collective bargaining leads to higher wages & benefits. Here are my two pennies: Private sector unions are great for collective bargaining, though I prefer they abstain from broad political platforms (immigration, for example), as these are so far removed the intent of the…

> Private sector unions are great for collective bargaining, though I prefer they abstain from broad political platforms (immigration, for example), as these are so far removed the intent of the union. I tend to view these Unions as being political vehicles first, collective bargaining agents second. That isn't a compliment.

The feature you're describing is not an accident. Lobbying for restrictive immigration laws (not just political platforms in general, but that specific platform and issue) is the exact reason that unions like the AFL originally gained the size and political power that they have today.