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

Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 245 posts

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

#71

Post by gnopgnip »

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…

>Most of the warehouse workers are now making _less_ than they were before due to union dues.

If most of the workers are making less now, why would they vote to unionize? Before the union formed did workers get vacation and sick time, or were their unaddressed safety issues, or was management treating employees unfairly?

In the US it is a lot of work to convince people to form a union even when the benefits are clear. Companies will bring in professional union busters, force employees to watch anti union propaganda, many employers will illegally fire employees who are pro union, and they will threaten(illegally) to shut down the whole company if a union is formed.

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

#72

Post by NeoBasilisk »

okr wrote: post #35
cortesoft wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, can't this argument be made against ALL worker protections? We don't need OSHA, workers should decide for themselves how dangerous they want to be. We don't need minimum wage laws, workers should decide. We don't need overtime laws, let workers decide. 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 t…

It would be nice to hear opinions from the workers at amazon. I find it very compelling to agree with you. But i also like to make my own decision, to negotiate. My ideal, at least. And i expect my elders and seniors to teach me about the dangers in this world. And I also think, its a two way street. I will not risk my life, and Amazon does not want dead people. And is US and Dubai really comparable? Why do people go…

You have no power to "negotiate" as an Amazon warehouse worker.

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

#73

Post by mmt »

rukittenme wrote: post #50
s73v3r_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is a trillion dollar company. They did not have to make any decision.

Amazon is valued at $1 trillion but Amazon does not have $1 trillion. Amazon's total assets are only about $131 billion. $20 billion of that is cash.

Moreover, it stands to reason that much of that excess (beyond assets) value is predicated on their unit economics, which depend on fulfillment costs, remaining good.

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

#74

Post by jagger27 »

rukittenme wrote: post #50
s73v3r_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is a trillion dollar company. They did not have to make any decision.

Amazon is valued at $1 trillion but Amazon does not have $1 trillion. Amazon's total assets are only about $131 billion. $20 billion of that is cash.

> only

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

#75

Post by Apocryphon »

1stcity3rdcoast wrote: post #63
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.

> Unions are notorious for having well-paid administrative staff and leadership

Couldn't you say the same about corporations?

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

#76

Post by crooked-v »

okr wrote: post #44
Daishiman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And is US and Dubai really comparable? Why do people go so far, to work there? Don't they tell their relatives at home, how shitty it is? Why are they going? Why do they risk it? And who am i to judge their decision making? Because people taking this up live in even worse conditions in some of the most abject poverty there is and they have no way to climb up the social ladder that doesn't involve saving some money…

And here i am confused. So from their perspective, they can achieve something better for themselves, with that risk. And from my perspective, i see it as abuse of their situation, because iam on a different cushion level, where i dont have to risk my life for my job. Good luck to them!

Something can be both opportunity and abuse. The whole point of health and safety legislation is to remove the "abuse" part.

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

#77

Post by mmt »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #33

Much more detail, with figures, although for UK Amazon workers here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/03/amazon-of... The TL;DR for the UK is they lose over half the pay rise from losing the bonuses. They got one share, worth £1,500 or $1,960 after every year, and an additional share once every five years. That can be tax-free if held for 2 years. They also lose the possibility of cash bonuses for meet…

That seems like an overly simplistic anlysis, unless an employee who quits or gets fired not on an anniversary receives a pro-rated partial share at departure.

Otherwise, a separation before the first anniversary (presumably a certainty for seasonal workers) results in losing none of the raise, at just shy of the second anniversary only one quarter of the raise.

Half the raise is an upper bound, and we'd have to know at least the average tenure of a warehouse employee to guess how much an average worker loses.

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

#78

Post by manigandham »

This is a direct attack on competitors, designed to enlist the help of the federal government to raise payroll and put pressure on arch nemesis Walmart and any other company that has lots of retail other jobs that are not conducive to automation.

Remember that Amazon thinks 5 years ahead, and they waited for the perfect PR and political threshold to announce these changes and capitalize on the news.

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

#79

Post by my_username_is_ »

1stcity3rdcoast wrote: post #63
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.

But if the unions weren't as big then they wouldn't need as many administrators, would they?

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

#80

Post by i_made_a_booboo »

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…

Then you wind up with a union cartel. I would bet good money on that.
Post reply on HN