11–20 of 245 posts
Impossible to judge the effect until someone investigates the relative sizes of the lost bonuses and the increased hourly wage. I did read Amazon's claim in the article that the increase outweighs the decrease. But I would like to see a journalist confirm that and also report on how big the difference is and whether it affects certain types of workers differently than others.
Bonuses for warehouse workers, presumably throughput-based, seem like a way to optimize for maximum output at the expense of worker health. It's good that those are going away.
This will help with recruitment, but the sentiment that new workers will essentially get paid the same as older workers is going to immediately be a big sticking point. From watching the Boeing union strikes over many years, I get the sense that once a labor force unionizes they setup their own structure for pay and get that signed off -- where they have seniority and things like that. But it also means the company b…
This is due to a combination of lack of social safety net and lack of worker representation.
In the places where unions are noted for being "good", the government covers the social safety net and workers unions are given board seats as well as stock.
This keeps everybody's goals aligned.
This will help with recruitment, but the sentiment that new workers will essentially get paid the same as older workers is going to immediately be a big sticking point. From watching the Boeing union strikes over many years, I get the sense that once a labor force unionizes they setup their own structure for pay and get that signed off -- where they have seniority and things like that. But it also means the company b…
Control over compensation and healthcare "stuff" (and, I'd argue, even days off) is just as important to the well-being of a workforce as worker safety, especially in a country with a relatively weak "social safety net".
How exactly does a union show that it is worth negotiating with as an equal without things that demonstrate its power, like strikes and bargaining hold-outs?
This will help with recruitment, but the sentiment that new workers will essentially get paid the same as older workers is going to immediately be a big sticking point. From watching the Boeing union strikes over many years, I get the sense that once a labor force unionizes they setup their own structure for pay and get that signed off -- where they have seniority and things like that. But it also means the company b…
Before you abandon the idea of unions, you should keep in mind that the situation in regards to unions in the US is fucked up in a rather unique way. So a much less radical approach of simply copying what other countries do, should work just fine much more reliably.
We can’t just adopt the laws from countries with good labor relations like Germany or Denmark and expect the culture to follow.
Bonuses for warehouse workers, presumably throughput-based, seem like a way to optimize for maximum output at the expense of worker health. It's good that those are going away.
Why? Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health comes from working harder?? What is your calculus that helped you arrive at it being the case that the now former monetary incentives' value was outweighed by the decrease in worker health that you have perceived?
Bonuses for warehouse workers, presumably throughput-based, seem like a way to optimize for maximum output at the expense of worker health. It's good that those are going away.
Why? Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health comes from working harder?? What is your calculus that helped you arrive at it being the case that the now former monetary incentives' value was outweighed by the decrease in worker health that you have perceived?
Bonuses for warehouse workers, presumably throughput-based, seem like a way to optimize for maximum output at the expense of worker health. It's good that those are going away.
Why? Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health comes from working harder?? What is your calculus that helped you arrive at it being the case that the now former monetary incentives' value was outweighed by the decrease in worker health that you have perceived?
We make rules about a lot of things to protect the collective good at the sacrifice of the individual. Workers are not free to decide that climbing a tall tower without a safety harness so as to go faster and complete more jobs for more money is acceptable. Workers are not free to decide to put their unprotected hands into fast-moving machinery so as to be more efficient and complete more piecework for more money is acceptable. Workers are not free to decide to inhale toxic gases, labor in buildings without sanitary facilities, or be worked non-stop until the worker passes out from exhaustion. (These are, of course, generalities but, again, we as a society have also decided that carve-outs can exist where required but these are the exceptions to the wide rule.)
I would also note that the person to whom you replied expressed a favorable opinion of the trade-off for health against money not being made. No rule or law was proposed. That, too, is part of what society does: we debate things in good faith, not with the assumption that an opinion is a dictate by fiat. These rules are generally considered acceptable and good. It is up to you, the person with the view opposed to the current situation, to express why you disagree instead of simply turning the question back on the person commenting.
This will help with recruitment, but the sentiment that new workers will essentially get paid the same as older workers is going to immediately be a big sticking point. From watching the Boeing union strikes over many years, I get the sense that once a labor force unionizes they setup their own structure for pay and get that signed off -- where they have seniority and things like that. But it also means the company b…
Companies don't become more adversarial when they deal with a union - what happens is that the union shines some sunlight on any existing adversarial relationships.
When your boss asks you to work an extra hour without pay, and you tell him to pound sand, pointing at union rules, the union looks like a bad guy. Rolling over to his demands, because you lack union protection, is, for some reason, not considered 'adversarial.'
Bonuses for warehouse workers, presumably throughput-based, seem like a way to optimize for maximum output at the expense of worker health. It's good that those are going away.
Why? Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health comes from working harder?? What is your calculus that helped you arrive at it being the case that the now former monetary incentives' value was outweighed by the decrease in worker health that you have perceived?
We have seen what happens when you remove all restrictions on how employers can treat workers - workers get horribly abused and often times die. If you think this wouldn't happen to modern workers, go look at what goes on in Dubai and the UAE.