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

Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 632 posts

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#111

Post by op03 »

faitswulff wrote: post #53
Zealotux wrote: post #10

From a non-US point of view, this whole anti-union strategy from Amazon is somehow hilarious to witness on top of being sad. This kind of propaganda feels like its coming from another age, or dimension.

Amazon literally employs a union busting company from the last century (edit: from two centuries ago, apparently): > The Pinkerton National Detective Agency was founded as a private police force in Chicago in 1850, and quickly expanded its reach; its detectives initially focused on catching thieves and burglars, but soon became the bane of the labor movement for their work as enthusiastic, vicious strikebreakers. Thr…

The RWDSU has a long history of dealing with much worse - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail,_Wholesale_and_Departme...

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#112

Post by soperj »

balabaster wrote: post #95

Full disclosure: I've always been anti-union for my own personal approach to life. I do see the value in unions, I've just always, to this point, been a go-it-alone-and-fight-my-own-battles kind of person. I don't want to be beholden to a union or their rules any more than I want to be beholden to an employer beyond my contractual obligations for which I'm paid. That said, people should take note of what happened whe…

So they were both reduced hours and beholden to their jobs with no time off?

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#114

Post by kedean »

duxup wrote: post #35
sodality2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they tell you which way to vote, though? And giving reasoning for why (this actually wouldn't surprise me)?

Yes they told me exactly who I should vote for and why.

IMO the key difference is that you were getting mail from political parties. I think the correct comparison would be if the US government were sending you mail instructing you on how to vote for the party already in power. There's a big difference between the party pleading its case to you and the government itself endorsing that party. I think Amazon's power over employees makes it more like the latter, although neither is a perfect analogy.

If I had gotten mailers last year directly from the United States government instructing me "how to re-elect Donald J. Trump", I would have been livid. Individual within the company should be able to make their case for why they think unionization is bad, but I don't think the company itself gets a say in this.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#115

Post by tyingq »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #67
faitswulff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon literally employs a union busting company from the last century (edit: from two centuries ago, apparently): > The Pinkerton National Detective Agency was founded as a private police force in Chicago in 1850, and quickly expanded its reach; its detectives initially focused on catching thieves and burglars, but soon became the bane of the labor movement for their work as enthusiastic, vicious strikebreakers. Thr…

When Teen Vogue calls someone a "billionaire vampire", is that a compliment, or are vampires out again?

I do get the joke, but to balance it a bit, the writer is a freelancer, and does appear to have pretty good chops around labor issues. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimmkelly

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#116

Post by HarryHirsch »

chrisseaton wrote: post #102
HarryHirsch wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, the employer never ever serves your interest. Rachel has a something to say about performance reviews recently: https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2021/02/19/perf/

> On the other hand, the employer never ever serves your interest. Their interests may align to mine even if they're doing it for their own benefit. And if the union's interests don't align to mine, then I'm better off without the union and with the employer. I don't think that's a hypothetical scenario, either. For example if the union wants to pay by seniority and the employer wants to pay by results, and I have lo…

Common experience is that performance reviews are bullshit and that scores are determined by warm fuzzies and management's political needs. Rachel has story after story. If you are politically astute, by all means don't join the union, but all this talk about "results" doesn't sound as if you are.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#117

Post by sodality2 »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #82

It's amazing how little HN readers understand about unions. A company is an organization that has some positive and some negative aspects. And believe it or not, a union is also an organization with some negative and positive aspects. The difference is, once you have a union in an organization its very hard to dislodge it no matter how dysfunctional it gets. I would suggest HN readers read about what UAW did in the a…

>I would suggest HN readers read about what UAW did in the auto industry, particularly the way the auto union functioned at the Toyota NUMA plant in California.

Link some, first results I get for UAW + auto industry are propagandized anti-union sites and Toyota's own press release about how they're proud to give more money to the team.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#118

Post by SllX »

duxup wrote: post #79
SllX wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is weird. The literal purpose of a corporation in all its varieties, for profit, non-profit, co-op, S Corp, C Corp etc. is to pool the resources of its owners and serve their interests. Unions are just another type of corporation.

>serve their interests. Serve the interests of the majority... and even like a corporation sometimes they don't even manage to do that. Human organizations kinda stink sometimes, although I wouldn't really endorse another kind...

Correct. People who hold more equity have more control. This is easily seen in small businesses on the Balance Sheet with only one or two owners, you can quickly determine who put more money into the business, assuming no investors.

This becomes more complex as you go from small business to startup with investors to a larger business, but the principles remain the same.

Nobody starts a business to have others dictate to them what to do with their business, and to be told whose interests they should really be serving. I’m not sure why you would expect that to change just because the company in question is valued at over a trillion.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#119

Post by chasd00 »

coolreader18 wrote: post #27
duxup wrote: post #8

Call me crazy but I think the employer should get to make their case too.

Read TFA - it's not just that Amazon is encouraging workers to vote no, they've set up mailboxes on-site that they're encouraging people to send their ballots with, making union organizers wary that Amazon is trying to keep tabs on who votes, even though it's supposed to be anonymous.

> making union organizers wary that Amazon is trying to keep tabs on who votes, even though it's supposed to be anonymous.

heh if it passes and a union is formed i wonder how many "tabs" are going to be kept on employees who dare choose not to join. There's plenty of precedent for unions doing their own threatening and pressuring of employees to increase the coffers.

Post reply on HN