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

Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 378 posts

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

#41

Post by bawolff »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #26

I asked this in the google union thread, but was too late to the party to get any answers. Copy pasting it here: Everybody here seems to agree that unions have the potential to do good or bad in every thread on it. The next logical step to me is that there needs to be a selection mechanism in place. For companies, the selection mechanism is competition. If someone else does better, the consumer or worker can choose s…

Perhaps a small number of unions can work. I think if you allow arbitrarily many unions you're kind of back where you start because owners can just entice people to join small enough unions that they lack the power.

In a sense, the monoply power of a union is a counterbalance to the monopoly of management in a single workplace.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

#42

Post by maxerickson »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #7

To be honest I find it much more likely Amazon would just shut down the Bessemer, Alabama warehouse, terminate the employment of any workers who joined the union, and open a new warehouse within a 50 mile radius of the current one. edit: since there are labor law repercussions to terminate the unionized workers, they'd likely just shut down the plant in its entirety.

My understanding is that it would be illegal to do that under Federal labor law (they can't punish the workers that joined the union for joining the union).

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

#43

Post by slg »

Barrin92 wrote: post #15
simpixelated wrote: post #5

Along with the unionization at Google, I think it's a good trend to see them happening at big tech companies. As it says in the article: "Unions are a prominent presence at Amazon in Europe, but the company for years successfully fought off labor organizing efforts in the U.S." It's sad that Amazon, along with FB and Google, etc. have managed to squash unions so completely here in the US. There's a lot of propaganda…

what I'm astonished by is the degree to which American firms are allowed to sabotage unionisation efforts despite, as I understand it, the US actually having similar protections for workplace assembly as other Western countries. If you tried interfere with unions here in Germany you'd run up against the law, the media and so on very, very quickly, it's one of the things you don't want to screw with.

It isn't surprising once you reframe the issue. These unions are successfully suppressed for the exact same reason that people are inclined to form them. The labor class in the US simply doesn't have (or perhaps more accurately doesn't yield) the political power that the labor class does in many other countries. The forming of unions will help them get more power, but the act of creating a union already requires a certain level of power which many US workers haven't yet achieved.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

#44

Post by oarabbus_ »

amelius wrote: post #20
oarabbus_ wrote: post #7

To be honest I find it much more likely Amazon would just shut down the Bessemer, Alabama warehouse, terminate the employment of any workers who joined the union, and open a new warehouse within a 50 mile radius of the current one. edit: since there are labor law repercussions to terminate the unionized workers, they'd likely just shut down the plant in its entirety.

That would cause even more outrage.

And? It's a business decision, not a popularity contest. Amazon is not afraid of "outrage".

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

#45

Post by jorblumesea »

Barrin92 wrote: post #15
simpixelated wrote: post #5

Along with the unionization at Google, I think it's a good trend to see them happening at big tech companies. As it says in the article: "Unions are a prominent presence at Amazon in Europe, but the company for years successfully fought off labor organizing efforts in the U.S." It's sad that Amazon, along with FB and Google, etc. have managed to squash unions so completely here in the US. There's a lot of propaganda…

what I'm astonished by is the degree to which American firms are allowed to sabotage unionisation efforts despite, as I understand it, the US actually having similar protections for workplace assembly as other Western countries. If you tried interfere with unions here in Germany you'd run up against the law, the media and so on very, very quickly, it's one of the things you don't want to screw with.

I'm not, most politicians receive large campaign contributions from large corporations and lobbying groups. It's a largely quid pro quo system that's one step away from legalized bribery.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

#46

Post by klmadfejno »

simpixelated wrote: post #5

Along with the unionization at Google, I think it's a good trend to see them happening at big tech companies. As it says in the article: "Unions are a prominent presence at Amazon in Europe, but the company for years successfully fought off labor organizing efforts in the U.S." It's sad that Amazon, along with FB and Google, etc. have managed to squash unions so completely here in the US. There's a lot of propaganda…

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard a major difference is that in Europe you generally have a choice of multiple competing unions, vs. the US where you're generally in or you're out.

The competition forces the unions to remain focused on the desires of the general population, otherwise they just lose membership.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

#48

Post by toomuchtodo »

zdragnar wrote: post #36
toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quality of a union is a function of membership engagement and organizational structure. Shitty unions, shitty companies, these are all who is in charge and how they're governed and the transparency available. Better to admit we need better operating models for unions (and that unions need to work in partnership with management to create sustainable relationships and businesses), rigorous governance and oversight…

It is also a function of "closed shop" unions in the US. Rarely do you get to pick a union to join when you work at a company; if the company workers are represented, it is often exclusively by a single union. The result is that unions have the exact same leverage over employees as the companies themselves do, and do not often have sufficient accountability. It is not as simple as voting a union out once it has gotte…

So, it sounds like you're agreeing with me? Collective action is admittedly work. The alternative is, as we've seen, worse in my opinion.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

> From 1979 to 2018, net productivity rose 69.6 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated—increasing only 11.6 percent over 39 years (after adjusting for inflation). This means that although Americans are working more productively than ever, the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits, especially in recent years.

> Rising productivity provides the potential for substantial growth in the pay for the vast majority. However, this potential has been squandered in recent decades. The income, wages, and wealth generated over the last four decades have failed to “trickle down” to the vast majority largely because policy choices made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power have exacerbated inequality. In essence, rising inequality has prevented potential pay growth from translating into actual pay growth for most workers. The result has been wage stagnation.

https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/declining-worker-pow...

> "Declining unionization, increasingly demanding and empowered shareholders, decreasing real minimum wages, reduced worker protections, and the increases in outsourcing domestically and abroad have disempowered workers with profound consequences for the labor market and the broader economy."

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

#49

Post by oarabbus_ »

maxerickson wrote: post #42
oarabbus_ wrote: post #7

To be honest I find it much more likely Amazon would just shut down the Bessemer, Alabama warehouse, terminate the employment of any workers who joined the union, and open a new warehouse within a 50 mile radius of the current one. edit: since there are labor law repercussions to terminate the unionized workers, they'd likely just shut down the plant in its entirety.

My understanding is that it would be illegal to do that under Federal labor law (they can't punish the workers that joined the union for joining the union).

I think you're right, but they have ways to do it. They'd simply shut down the plant in it's entirety, and open another warehouse far away. They can dress it up as "operational inefficiencies" or "poor location for shipping" etc. The fact the workers were going to unionize? Oh, just a coincidence! We were already planning to shut down our Alabama location anyway.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

#50

Post by seibelj »

Frondo wrote: post #32
random5634 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The propaganda unfortunately also comes from folks direct experience with unions. In the US, most unions are public sector. So folks see that Police unions may protect bad apples via union. Teachers unions may care more about teachers including bad ones then teaching kids. We had a famously terrible teacher at my school - unfirable - as kids we thought it was hilarious. As a parent now - not so cool. Non unionized sc…

Just one comment on this: > Teachers unions may care more about teachers ... That's precisely the point of a union. It's an organization to protect its members. It's the purpose of the school system overall, including principals, school boards, and so on, to care about teaching kids.

The #1 concern with a school should be the children, not the teachers. Public schools bend-over-backwards to help the teachers over the students. Public schools have remained essentially unchanged for 120 years - one teacher divulging knowledge to a room of kids in silent observation. Nothing will change when unions are in control - they have absolutely no incentive.
Post reply on HN