Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by rcxdude » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #49

minikites wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every corporation has contempt for its workforce, it's why labor unions are so necessary.

It varies. Not because some corporations are moral, but because happy workers are a good long-term strategy and many corporations are stuck with rolling short-term-ism. They reward the top tier on a three-ish year cycle, so executives only need to make the numbers go up for three years before exiting with a higher paying job and compensation via stock sales. The US has a massive issue in general with rolling corporat…

It varies because different industries and corporations have different power relationships with their employees and potential employees. If you work in tech, for example, then your statement of 'happy workers are a good long-term strategy' might be generally true, and you will work harder to retain talent both because supply of people who have the required skills is below demand and both losing an employee and taking a new one on is expensive due to the value of the institutional knowledge they hold. These workers hold a lot of power over their employer (both individually and as a whole), and they know it, so they can demand good compensation and treatment and get it.

However a corporation which has a large amount of jobs which require little skill or job-specific training but a lot of effort may actually find the opposite is a good long-term strategy: they have a vast supply of potential employees and hiring and firing is cheap so they can work their employees hard to the point of burn-out and then fire and rehire the next batch. These workers have basically no power over their employer individually. Unions are effectively a way for these workers to exercise some power over their employer as a collective, to get what some workers essentially have automatically due to the labour market in which they work.

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

#252

Post by phabora » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #8

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

Yes, for shame! When will America get to hear the side of the employer?

Mabye the executive of Amazon could be allowed to post a little column in paper like the Washington Post. Maybe the owner of that paper wouldn’t object to that idea.

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

#253

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #239

chrisseaton wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not have the imagination to think of any situation where the majority of workers may want something that's not in your interests? For example you morally support allowing new people to enter your field but the union is mostly comprised of more established people and they vote for credentialism to restrict supply. Probably I'm very aligned with my employer on wanting to lower barriers to entry for the field!

Do you not have the imagination to think of any situation where the majority of workers may want something that's not in your interests? Consensus-building and making of viable compromises has always been part of governance, any institution comprises people with diverse, sometimes competing interests. That said, the usual workplace conflict between employee and management is about working conditions and promotion. An…

> And for that it's usuful to have a paid witness on your side

But I'm not sure the union is going to be on my side. I know that's their pitch, but lots of people claim they want to act on my behalf - I'd be a fool to trust most of them!

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

#254

Post by mc32 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #231

syshum wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The libertarian party supports School Choice, Actual Education for children, and less protectionism based on "seniority" So it is no wonder that unionized teachers would oppose the Libertarian Party, libertarians want children to get a good education and allow parents to choose the type of education their child gets, taking away large amounts of power from Teachers who believe they should supplant parents and "know b…

At best it's very arguable whether school choice results in children getting a better education.

I dunno. School isn’t primarily about academics. It’s mostly about moulding pupils, their minds to their current society. It’s mostly political in that sense. Whether it’s patriotism, community building, stressing this over that, etc.

The three Rs are kind of incidental.

Now to be clear, we do need to grow up to be functional adults, but public schooling is not the only one option to achieve that.

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

#255

Post by A12-B » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

whoisjuan wrote: post #248

A12-B wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Definitely not illegal. You think Amazon, one of the largest companies in the world, will engage in any anti-union campaign without consulting their lawyers on what's right and what's not? It's ok if this is doesn't sit well on you. As I said in the parent comment, if unions were easy they wouldn't make sense. Things companies that have unions or are dealing with unionization efforts can do [1]: - Describe the good f…

When you break a law, you don't immediately go to jail. Its not a video game. There are about a million dollars and hurdles in the way of suing amazon for breaking labour laws. They are engaging in far more than just informing their employees of a no-vote. These are facts too.

Things an employer can't do: - Engage in surveillance of employees to determine their views on the union.

Christ dude, read the article and your own source.

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

#256

Post by dillondoyle » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

There are a couple mentions but no top comments: Amazon has installed a mailbox at their facility, this mail piece specifically says to use it.

AND this mail piece says 'BE DONE by 3/1' when workers have until the end of the month to vote (context: amazon must stop anti-union mandatory meetings etc during voting).

This could be a legal violation & is a big deal. I think at a minimum breaks the spirit of the NLRB mail-in voting ruling.

HN seems to consider big tech = oppressive surveillance. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

This is also the latest in a long list of extreme tactics some aren't mentioned in this article. To name a few:

Amazon also fired an activist who was speaking out. It's been reported Amzn has been penalizing pro-union employees with baseless and unfair management penalties/'strikes' and purposeful last minute over-time demands as punishment. Digital surveillance. Management basically stalking associates in break rooms, asking if they are only there to organize and attorneys and consultants drawing graph person relationship research charts to map their employees. A big propaganda push online & a pretty successful press drive - most of these articles Amazon gets many inches of positive talking points.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18277322/amazon-fired-warehous... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/how-amazon-is-fighting-back-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/02/amazon-...

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

#257

Post by SilasX » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #221

SilasX wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I don’t understand the outrage. What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no? The GGP seemed to think that there was something particularly bad about the detailed six page instructions. But the GP correctly pointed out they do the same thing in regular government elections (to milk as many voters as they can).

> What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no? Nothing. The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. If they were trying to help you fill out your ballot in good faith, there wouldn't be a problem.

No. The OP was complaining about something already assuming they're telling you to vote no, meaning the OP was adding something on top of that. I was asking what that thing-on-top is. So it has to be something more than:

>The outrage is about them telling you to vote no.

Which, indeed, you correct yourself on in the next sentence, to say that the issue is that it pretends to be neutral ballot instructions, but, if followed, end in you voting no, and are thus misleading (just guessing -- again, no one here seems to be making it easy to understand what they're objecting to).

If so, it would have been helpful for the OP to communicate that the first time around. Remember rtpg joined in to clarify, but actually objected to something else, the power imbalance -- and yet s/he seemed to believe s/he was agreeing with the initial comment!

Not everyone can read minds about what a speaker thinks is the most salient part, and we don't deserve to be ridiculed for asking.

If you want others to be outraged, it helps to clearly communicate what they're supposed to be outraged about -- starting form a clear model.

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

#258

Post by worker767424 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #134

mc32 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like some unions tell their members to vote for this or that party? I’m still waiting for the Teachers’ Union to endorse the Libertarian party one day soon -I’m sure it’s gonna happen.

Unions are at least nominally directly elected by their constituents and beholden to them, which is why they are protected when engaging in politics. If you think they do not represent them, then maybe the solution is to develop better union structures that are more democratic and representative. But by and large, teachers do not support the Libertarian party and instead favour the Democratic party, quite heavily in…

One thing I'd like to see is competing unions. The UAW supplies labor to the big three US automakers, putting them in an unfair negotiating advantage; the UAW can easily bully them around. The UAW ultimately hurt themselves because it put the Big Three at a big competitive disadvantage. Some manufacturing left for right-to-work states, and some business left for (mostly) Japanese automakers.

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

#259

Post by phabora » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

Grimm1 wrote: post #61

Personally I like the idea of worker representation on the board of directors, with enough representation that they don't just get steamrolled by other board members as a potentially viable solution to worker concerns. I think people should be treated pretty well in a job setting, my thought is that well treated employees while costing more actually wind up producing for the business well in excess of the expense and…

High-performers (read: well-payed workers) like to complain about the nefarious corrupting influence of unions but seldom consider the case that the high-performers (read: upper-middle class) might have a vested interest in the corrupt status quo where the majority of workers facilitate their high-performing (read: privileged) lifestyles.

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

#260

Post by jokethrowaway » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #101

pitaj wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classifying gig workers as employees was a terrible idea. Not to mention the law that did so had so many exclusions it was ridiculous. Generally, we should be moving away from linking health insurance and other benefits to employment.

Have you taken a look at a public health insurance exchange recently? Buying your own health insurance is a terrible deal. I'm self-employed so have had to deal with this myself. Nothing solidifies deep disdain for any politician who doesn't support Medicare for All faster than looking at that webpage of health insurance plans.

The real problem is that health insurance is overly expensive - mainly thanks to the relationship between gov / insurance. You should fix that; thinking that nationalising health care will fix the problem is just some politician's dream. The extra money needed for nationalised health care will have to come from somewhere - and because poor people don't have money and rich people are too good at eluding their tax obligations, the usual middle class will pay for it.

I'd rather have a fully private market without national entities messing with the prices and charities for those who can't afford it.

Of course, no politician will ever champion such a system, because it removes the gov from the equation, making them less powerful and needed by the masses that keep paying taxes.