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

281–290 of 632 posts

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

#281

Post by ahelwer »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #260
ahelwer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 obli…

I'm sorry but this is just a complete fantasy. The "extra money" for nationalized healthcare can come from taxes instead of premiums, and enormous efficiency gains with the elimination of N x N redundant billing departments & business units. It has worked all over the world. Your scheme has not, and is also immensely cruel to people who can't afford health insurance. Charity has never solved a social problem.

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

#282

Post by fallingfrog »

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.

The back of the union movement in the United States was pretty much broken when Ronald Reagan broke an air traffic controllers strike by firing 11,359 of them and replacing them with members of the military. He also imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring any striking worker. Then they decertified the union. Sent a message.

Their justification for this was that the strike was illegal, after Reagan himself declared it illegal via an executive order.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/05/reagan-fires-11-00...

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

#283

Post by HarryHirsch »

chrisseaton wrote: post #253
HarryHirsch wrote: post #239

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? 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!

But I'm not sure the union is going to be on my side.

If you aren't, check the agreements the union has with you and your employer. These are contracts with enforceable terms and are upheld.

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

#284

Post by SilasX »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #275
SilasX wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

I didn't correct myself. Did you look at the article? It doesn't purport to be neutral at all. There's a giant yellow sign that says "VOTE NO" with five bullet points about why you should vote against the union. The step-by-step instructions encourage you to vote no in three different places. There's no assumption or mind reading needed. To be honest, I don't see how OP could have been more clear: > Detailed, 6 step…

I'm not objecting to the article. I'm asking what the original comment was objecting to.

We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to vote no. The OP was adding to that, in criticism of Amazon, by saying there are detailed six page instructions on how to vote the way they want. But that doesn't tell me what's to be outraged about -- as the first response noted, that is exactly what every other campaign does.

If the OP wasn't claiming Amazon was outrageous beyond the mere fact of asking for no, then why even bring up a six page instruction set?

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

#285

Post by creaturemachine »

chrisseaton wrote: post #253
HarryHirsch wrote: post #239

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? 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!

The union will always be on your side, it's their reason for existing and what you're paying them for. They will support the most indefensible position you can throw at them because it's their job.

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

#286

Post by smnrchrds »

A12-B wrote: post #273
dillondoyle wrote: post #256

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…

The core of the issue is that people don't believe a company that big would break the law so easily. In reality it's the opposite: When you're that big breaking the law becomes really easy because you have the strongest legal defence. Amazon won't see a single minute of court time for this.

To add to that, fines can and do bankrupt small businesses. I cannot remember the last time a big company went bankrupt by fines. Breaking the law poses existential threat to small businesses, not large enterprises.

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

#287

Post by cperciva »

tshaddox wrote: post #179
cperciva wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is that even true? Quick Google searches seem to show several instances of antitrust accusations against non-profits including trade unions and professional associations. There does seem to be a basic exemption for trade unions, but it seems that trade unions can lose that exemption for behaving in certain ways.

Sure, there are exceptions. But the entire purpose of labour unions is to engage in anti-competitive behaviour.

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

#288

Post by missedthecue »

andrepd wrote: post #229
fxtentacle wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, just wow. "Don’t buy that dinner, don’t buy those school supplies, don’t buy those gifts because you won’t have that almost $500 you paid in dues." It seems Amazon's main argument for why people shouldn't join a union is that Amazon's wages are so low that they cannot financially afford to. That's almost like saying "You're too poor to fight for your rights. Know your place."

"But higher wages can buy many dinners." "Explain how!" "Money can be exchanged for goods and services"

Kroger is unionized and they pay 1/2 of what Amazon does in my area. I don't think unionizing low skill work necessarily leads to higher wages

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

#289

Post by tshaddox »

cperciva wrote: post #287
tshaddox wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that even true? Quick Google searches seem to show several instances of antitrust accusations against non-profits including trade unions and professional associations. There does seem to be a basic exemption for trade unions, but it seems that trade unions can lose that exemption for behaving in certain ways.

Sure, there are exceptions. But the entire purpose of labour unions is to engage in anti-competitive behaviour.

Can you elaborate on that? I don't understand what's inherently anti-competitive about labor unions, unless you think that any time humans organize themselves is anti-competitive and the only thing that counts as competitive is a total lack of organization and cooperation above the level of the individual.

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

#290

Post by vertex-four »

soperj wrote: post #144
vertex-four wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you’re paid minimum wage in the US, and you’re not permitted to perform a full-time job, you probably have to hold down multiple jobs; you probably also don’t get things like healthcare from any of them. Zero hours contracts in theory mean you can refuse work (at least that’s how it works in the U.K.), but obviously you’re going to be fired for doing so, so you’re essentially constantly on call for both/all your…

if you have multiple jobs, then you clearly have time to find another job.

If you have multiple jobs and must take every hour they ask of you, you clearly do not have time to find another job; you are very likely working more than a full-time job without adequate protections.

Look, here’s how it goes:

1) you have no job

2) you take the first job that comes your way, even if it doesn’t actually pay enough to survive - a little money is better than no money

3) you take the second job that comes your way so that you can survive

4) you have no time to actually do anything towards getting a better job

Understand?

This is why jobs that pay less than what is needed to survive are bad for individuals and bad for society; people have to take them. Nobody is going to help you survive otherwise.

Post reply on HN