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

211–220 of 632 posts

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

#211

Post by aspaceman »

gradys wrote: post #152
ahelwer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is where we see inequality as a force that perverts democracy. The side of capital has an enormous quantity of resources (by definition) that they use to influence electoral outcomes. So in a way, yes, the votes aren't very legitimate when the side of capital out-spends the side of labor by thirteen to one: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-16/skelton-...

Do you think there's any chance that this was actually what a majority of Californians wanted? You seem very confident that you know better what the voters wanted than they did. While differences in spending surely have some effect, spending isn't the only way to get the word out. I didn't measure, but I feel pretty confident that no more than 60% of the total communication about Prop 22 that I heard from any source…

Majority rule leads to tyranny of the minority. The majority, by definition, will be ignorant to some of the minority’s needs.

You’ll note the issue of slavery wasn’t put to a public vote to outlaw it. It was still of a struggle to outlaw as it was.

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

#212

Post by AdrianB1 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #188
whydoyoucare wrote: post #180

I am of the firm belief that Unions are a thing that are extremely good in theory, but rarely work out in practice. They kill innovation, profits and skills and turns a competitive workforce into a mediocre one. :-(

Innovation and profits aren’t the only things that matter in life. Unions are the result of the same movement that gave us things like 40-hour workweeks and two day weekends.

This is cargo cult logic.

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

#213

Post by lotsofpulp »

simsla wrote: post #183

I hope enough people vote yes. The way FC workers are treated is not ok. It's the main blemish on a company I otherwise respect. "Other companies treat FC staff like shit too" is not an excuse. Disclaimer: Work for Amazon (corp / tech side). Opinion my own, obviously.

> "Other companies treat FC staff like shit too" is not an excuse.

How is this not an excuse? Most people would switch to Walmart/Target/Bestbuy or any other retailer if the price on Amazon is higher.

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

#214

Post by hpoe »

JPKab wrote: post #136
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…

Something that adds insult to injury is the amount of moral posturing Amazon engages in when it comes to social justice issues. What could be a bigger social justice issue than paying working class people proper wages and benefits? It just screams out to me how hollow and PR driven their support of social justice organizations and initiatives is. And more importantly, the silence from these same social justice initia…

Almost like identity politics is used by those in power to distract us from real issues that have concrete impact on people's lives, instead fostering an us vs them attitude to keep us ignorant that both sides are being played by the same people.

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

#215

Post by justin66 »

duxup wrote: post #63
nabilhat wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All employers are making their case at all times, throughout hiring, with pay rate consistency or discrepancy, communication, management, and culture. Union votes are an outcome of the case an employer has already made for themselves. Once the vote's on, it's going to be very difficult to refute the case they've been making for years. Taking ownership of the failures that led to the conditions which created support f…

'lying about how unions work'. I've seen unions do the same. I was in a union where they promised to accomplish some things... didn't even try. Zero effort to do so, they simply chose not to. Amazon or any employer should still be able to make their case, even if they're wrong about some things ...

There's a world of difference between making their case and instructing their employees on how and where they should vote and surveilling them while they do it.

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

#216

Post by Someone »

balabaster wrote: post #194
tyingq wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to perhaps be from the UK (saw "honour"). Employees in the UK have quite a lot more protection by default than they do in the US. I do respect your go-it-alone-and-fight-my-own-battles position, but consider that you might feel differently if you were in a US "right to work" state.

I don't know what it means to live in a "right to work" state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to reasonably paid employment? I don't understand how this situation could come to be. What if there were no employers? That situation can only occur if there are enough jobs to maintain gainful employment of every citizen of the state. In such a situation I would likely only remain around as long as there was…

I guess “right to work” refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law:

“In the context of U.S. labor politics, "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces are banned from negotiating contracts which force employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation.”

So, in such states, the (union, employer) combo cannot force every employee to pay the union (employees can choose not to become a member, but still would have to pay them)

I don’t understand how that fits in the story, though. I guess the OP meant “at will”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment): “In U.S. labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal.”

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

#217

Post by sonofhans »

balabaster wrote: post #194
tyingq wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to perhaps be from the UK (saw "honour"). Employees in the UK have quite a lot more protection by default than they do in the US. I do respect your go-it-alone-and-fight-my-own-battles position, but consider that you might feel differently if you were in a US "right to work" state.

I don't know what it means to live in a "right to work" state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to reasonably paid employment? I don't understand how this situation could come to be. What if there were no employers? That situation can only occur if there are enough jobs to maintain gainful employment of every citizen of the state. In such a situation I would likely only remain around as long as there was…

> I don’t know what it means to live in a “right to work” state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to reasonably paid employment?

It’s Doublespeak. It’s a union-busting law. Effectively, it means the opposite — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

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

#218

Post by aidenn0 »

bjoli wrote: post #135
chasd00 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you have any idea how big the num_workers number is? I'd wager for the average employee the benefit will be neagative, as in paycheck - union dues. The real benefit goes to the union bosses as num_workers * union_dues.

Now, I am not very up to date on statistics, but unionised workers have traditionally earned about 10% more than non-uniomized ones in the US since at least the 80s. The article mentions 11%, which seems in line with what I know since before. I doubt any union would charge anywhere near that much.

Amazon's own literature says "almost $500" in dues[1]. If they get a 10% pay increase, then everyone making more than $5k comes out ahead. Everyone making $10k or more comes out more ahead than the union. The union bosses probably come out the most ahead because that $500 * (a lot of workers) goes to (a small number of union management types).

It's hopefully obvious that the union makes it better for at least the lower 50% of performers. It seems likely to me that it makes things better for more like the bottom 90% of performers or more. A lot of anti-union literature is based upon the fact that most people think they are above average.

1: https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/

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

#219

Post by cujo »

balabaster wrote: post #194
tyingq wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to perhaps be from the UK (saw "honour"). Employees in the UK have quite a lot more protection by default than they do in the US. I do respect your go-it-alone-and-fight-my-own-battles position, but consider that you might feel differently if you were in a US "right to work" state.

I don't know what it means to live in a "right to work" state. I assume that means that everyone has a right to reasonably paid employment? I don't understand how this situation could come to be. What if there were no employers? That situation can only occur if there are enough jobs to maintain gainful employment of every citizen of the state. In such a situation I would likely only remain around as long as there was…

Right-to-work effectively weakens unions, but is sold under the reasonable sounding rhetoric. The common pitch is something like...

> Right-to-work means that you can work in a union trade without joining the union. Otherwise you have to join and pay the union to work in your profession. Why should you have to pay to work as a ? Support right-to-work!

That's how I often see it sold. In the end, it means unions get weaker in industries that need them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#Arguments_fo...

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

#220

Post by A12-B »

whoisjuan wrote: post #167

This looks bad but companies with unions do this a lot. I remember seeing welcome packages for Delta Airlines employees where they tell them to not join the union and explaining why on their perspective is bad to do so. 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 Amaz…

They are quite literally not within their right to stop unionisation, as that is illegal. Also it looks bad because it is bad.

btw, the line between 'disincentivising' and 'forcing' is decided arbitrarily by you. If they send text messages, block traffic lights, and screw with people's mailboxes, i think amazon crosses the line.

Post reply on HN