Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#61

Post by haneefmubarak » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:51 PM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #56

ComputerGuru wrote: post #51

I’ve always thought the answer to the union “problem” was easy: multiple unions. Mandate that no more than, say, 30% of the workforce may be part of a single union, then let them fight it out. Monopolies suck both when it comes to corporations and the workforce. In my experience corruption sinks in on both sides when people can get away with putting in place policies to protect the status quo. When there are multiple…

Sure and also make sure that a single hr department can’t hire more than 30% of the staff and make them compete for employees. You have a single employer on one side, you need a single union on the other side to make negotiations fair, otherwise they just would just low ball each other to get more jobs. The history of labor activism shows that workers only get big gains when they work together. Unions were largely a…

I think the multiple employer comes from having multiple employers in the marketplace for a given profession, the logic being that an employer should not be restricted to a single union just as a union should not be restricted to a single employer.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#62

Post by ekianjo » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:53 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #51

I’ve always thought the answer to the union “problem” was easy: multiple unions. Mandate that no more than, say, 30% of the workforce may be part of a single union, then let them fight it out. Monopolies suck both when it comes to corporations and the workforce. In my experience corruption sinks in on both sides when people can get away with putting in place policies to protect the status quo. When there are multiple…

> Monopolies suck both when it comes to corporations and the workforce.

Agree with the idea, but in pracice every employee can just pack their baga and go to another other company. If enough employees do that, then companies sooner or later have to change, or remain with the worst of the workforce. There is monopoly on employment.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#63

Post by 1stcity3rdcoast » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:53 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #51

I’ve always thought the answer to the union “problem” was easy: multiple unions. Mandate that no more than, say, 30% of the workforce may be part of a single union, then let them fight it out. Monopolies suck both when it comes to corporations and the workforce. In my experience corruption sinks in on both sides when people can get away with putting in place policies to protect the status quo. When there are multiple…

Aside from the philosophical objections to this model, think about the practical issues that arise, specifically regarding overhead. Unions are notorious for having well-paid administrative staff and leadership, and that does not scale with three or four separate unions. You end up with a net drain even if you were able to eke out some slight pay advantage.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#64

Post by gizmo686 » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:55 PM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #56

ComputerGuru wrote: post #51

I’ve always thought the answer to the union “problem” was easy: multiple unions. Mandate that no more than, say, 30% of the workforce may be part of a single union, then let them fight it out. Monopolies suck both when it comes to corporations and the workforce. In my experience corruption sinks in on both sides when people can get away with putting in place policies to protect the status quo. When there are multiple…

Sure and also make sure that a single hr department can’t hire more than 30% of the staff and make them compete for employees. You have a single employer on one side, you need a single union on the other side to make negotiations fair, otherwise they just would just low ball each other to get more jobs. The history of labor activism shows that workers only get big gains when they work together. Unions were largely a…

You do have multiple employers, and a single union can represent workers across an industry, not just at 1 employer. Having multiple unions would remove the monopoly power unions enjoy, but a triopoly is still pretty powerfull, and reduces the risk of corruption.

Of course, if the triopoly was enforced by statute, then a corrupt member could act with impunity knowing that it cannot loose too much of its power.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#65

Post by ekianjo » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:56 PM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #57

sethammons wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. I'm not convinced. My brother's work has a warehouse. The warehouse unionized (a large push by two folks who are no longer there). Most of the warehouse workers are now making _less_ than they were before due to union dues. There are guys that my brother would lov…

> There are guys that my brother would love to promote Manager complains about unions. I’m absolutely stunned.

if unions were not actively trying to sabotage their own companies most of the time, maybe the sentiment would be different. There are several cases when unions actively push to destroy companies just to get short term benefits.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#66

Post by jedberg » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:58 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #62

ComputerGuru wrote: post #51

I’ve always thought the answer to the union “problem” was easy: multiple unions. Mandate that no more than, say, 30% of the workforce may be part of a single union, then let them fight it out. Monopolies suck both when it comes to corporations and the workforce. In my experience corruption sinks in on both sides when people can get away with putting in place policies to protect the status quo. When there are multiple…

> Monopolies suck both when it comes to corporations and the workforce. Agree with the idea, but in pracice every employee can just pack their baga and go to another other company. If enough employees do that, then companies sooner or later have to change, or remain with the worst of the workforce. There is monopoly on employment.

> but in pracice every employee can just pack their baga and go to another other company

Maybe you don't live in America, or maybe you grew up with lots of privilege, but in reality, not a lot of people can do this. If you pack your bags and leave, you need to have some way to feed yourself, clothe yourself, and get health care, which is most likely provided by your employer.

The people who have the least ability to do these things without a job are also the ones who are most exploited.

Of course, universal health care and a universal income would solve these problems...

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#67

Post by sumeno » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:58 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #62

ComputerGuru wrote: post #51

I’ve always thought the answer to the union “problem” was easy: multiple unions. Mandate that no more than, say, 30% of the workforce may be part of a single union, then let them fight it out. Monopolies suck both when it comes to corporations and the workforce. In my experience corruption sinks in on both sides when people can get away with putting in place policies to protect the status quo. When there are multiple…

> Monopolies suck both when it comes to corporations and the workforce. Agree with the idea, but in pracice every employee can just pack their baga and go to another other company. If enough employees do that, then companies sooner or later have to change, or remain with the worst of the workforce. There is monopoly on employment.

Not everyone has the luxury to just switch jobs. A large portion of the population has very few job options so they get exploited by employers who know they don't really have other options.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#68

Post by crooked-v » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:59 PM UTC

sethammons wrote: post #41

ravitation wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. The adversarial nature of the relationship between a workforce and its company is not a result of unions, it exists without unions. It's just that, without unions, companies are free to largely ignore the demands of individual workers. Control over compensation and…

> A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. I'm not convinced. My brother's work has a warehouse. The warehouse unionized (a large push by two folks who are no longer there). Most of the warehouse workers are now making _less_ than they were before due to union dues. There are guys that my brother would lov…

So who's running the union? Some measure of nonsensicality exists here in the idea of a union composed entirely of warehouse workers that is somehow magically acting against the best interests of those warehouse workers.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#69

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 12:00 AM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #55

Bjartr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a cool idea, anyone know if anything like this has been put in place somewhere?

Taken to the limit most regular employees are a union of 1 and it doesnt work like a union. How would collective action (strikes) work? What about tragedy of the commons (join the cheaper union, but get the better collective bargain) ?

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#70

Post by chottocharaii » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 12:03 AM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #15

DasIch wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The relationship between labor and management/capital has historically been adversarial in the United States. We can’t just adopt the laws from countries with good labor relations like Germany or Denmark and expect the culture to follow.

Try Australia.