161–170 of 632 posts
Ugh, this is disgusting and so patronising. Edit: Also, why are "union avoidance consultants" a thing? The US needs to fix its culture around unions. That's absolutely wild.
Unions are so unpopular even with people that in theory support unions. Look at the normal, non in power, peoples response to unions at any mid/large tech company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you not have the imagination Why the rudeness? I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer. You seem to already have chosen a tribal affiliation.
> Why the rudeness? You said I since I didn't agree with you I must not be politically astute so I returned the favour! > I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer. But my employer pays me. And they're an essential part of the agreement. The union wants me to pay…
No, I did not. If you can't be bothered to keep track of whom you're talking to, I'm done with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why the rudeness? You said I since I didn't agree with you I must not be politically astute so I returned the favour! > I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer. But my employer pays me. And they're an essential part of the agreement. The union wants me to pay…
> You said I since I didn't agree with you I must not be politically astute No, I did not. If you can't be bothered to keep track of whom you're talking to, I'm done with you.
The person I was replying to said it. You asked why I was rude to them.
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.
> Unions are just another type of corporation. No, unions are not just another type of corporation. They are a very special type of corporation: One which is exempt from anti-trust laws.
What you’re failing to understand is that while there are different types if corporations as legal constructs, with differing advantages and disadvantages mostly related to their overall tax liability, a corporation in the general sense is just a group of people come together for a common goal. Usually that goal is profits. You join up with 5 people putting in 20% of the money, you are entitled to 20% of the future proceeds.
So if you take a distribution of $1000, all other shareholders holding equal shares, they must also take a distribution of $1000, or equal to their share of equity in the company.
A union has a different structure, different legal privileges and burdens, and different goals, but fundamentally it is a group of people with a common goal. I think where they tend to fall down is that unions can grow so large that the power is so diffused amongst individual members that even people in unions may come to resent the union more than their employer, particularly if they are always in the minority on union issues. In which case they might find they are actually more in alignment with their employers rather than their union leaders.
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.
I'm not saying this is correct, but unions are rarely aligned with companies, so there is always going to be a perpetual fight between unions and companies that have them. You can't really expect Amazon to embrace unionization. They are in their right to try to disincentivize unionization if they believe it could be damaging for their business.
Again. I'm not saying this is correct, but I guess that's the whole point of unionizing. If it were an easy fight, it wouldn't make sense to unionize.
For the sake of transparency, I would disclose that I'm in principle anti-union but I understand why they exist and how can they be helpful, especially to employees who work low wage jobs and who could be vulnerable to abusive employment practices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Yeah, Teen Vogue has plenty of solid journalism.
EDIT: This is unsurprisingly attracting downvotes. I'm curious if people are objecting to the characterization of Teen Vogue as partisan and ideological or the implication that marketing divisive ideology to children is a social ill? Or perhaps that journalism should aspire toward the truth and not partisan advocacy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By making any case other than robust worker rights and fair compensation, they have demonstrated their culture and priorities as a corporation. But, by all means, I agree that one shouldn't stop their enemy when they're pointing a gun at their feet (edit: to clarify, this implies Amazon is making a strategic failure by fighting unionization efforts, at it reflects poorly on them).
You're hyperbole strikes me as ... kinda out there. Not sure anyone has guns pointed at anyone in this case.
Call me crazy but I think the employer should get to make their case too.
"As a trillion dollar company we can't afford better working conditions and pay for you"? The only reason Amazon raised their fulfillment pay was because Bernie Sanders shamed them into it [1]. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+bernie+sanders+pay
I don't think this kind of claim, especially without evidence, is helpful. How do you know what their reasoning is? You're telling me on the one hand that this is a big powerful company and on the other hand saying they are easily cowed and susceptible to something as toothless as 'shame'. So which is it? My take is that companies are complex and make decisions based on many factors typically. You have no idea why they did or didn't do certain things, and it most likely has nothing to do with Sanders.
Also consider that trillion Dollars is their market capitalization not liquid cash on their hand. I don't think being a trillion Dollar company changes what they can afford or who they should reward with their profits. Amazon is already paying market-leading wages for unskilled labor and provides benefits. I don't really expect them to pay any more than minimum wage if they have enough workers interested in their jobs, since this is not differentiated work. So the fact that they're doing anything more should be appreciated. I don't think it makes sense to twist that into a criticism.