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

311–320 of 632 posts

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

#311

Post by whydoibother »

unanswered wrote: post #274
Someone wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 repr…

That is an incomplete and misleading definition of "at-will employment". The most important part of at-will employment is that the employee is allowed to leave their employer for any time, for any reason; i.e., they can't be forced to work for their employer even by contract. It is literally just an anti-slavery law, and yet somehow some folks have turned it into a bogeyman. Imagine being against an anti-slavery law…

How is that the most important part? Slavery is already illegal outside of prisons. You know very well this is so companies can cut employees whenever they need to and not face legal repercussions.

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

#312

Post by tablespoon »

unanswered wrote: post #274
Someone wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 repr…

That is an incomplete and misleading definition of "at-will employment". The most important part of at-will employment is that the employee is allowed to leave their employer for any time, for any reason; i.e., they can't be forced to work for their employer even by contract. It is literally just an anti-slavery law, and yet somehow some folks have turned it into a bogeyman. Imagine being against an anti-slavery law…

> That is an incomplete and misleading definition of "at-will employment". The most important part of at-will employment is that the employee is allowed to leave their employer for any time, for any reason; i.e., they can't be forced to work for their employer even by contract. It is literally just an anti-slavery law, and yet somehow some folks have turned it into a bogeyman. Imagine being against an anti-slavery law because ____?

Honestly, I'd say you're being more hyperbolic and misleading. At-will employment is "just an anti-slavery law?" I'm pretty sure that was already illegal before these laws, and at-will employment wasn't the mechanism for its abolition.

My understanding is that the actual effect of at-will employment laws wasn't to free employees from jobs they didn't want, but to make their positions more precarious (e.g. previously employers had to give a good reason for termination or it was invalid, or at least give notice).

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

#313

Post by staticautomatic »

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…

They hired actual fucking Pinkertons, which says enough about how aggressive they are. The gloves have been off for a while now.

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

#314

Post by SilasX »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #308
SilasX wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, it's only as slimy as every other organization that gives you ballot instructions. Not sure that's the message you were trying to send.

Someone noted that it's different when your employer tells you to vote in a certain way vs. a random political party. That's where you entered the conversation, so I'm not sure how that's getting lost.

I guess what's "getting lost" is the fact that the original comment says nothing about that, and how that part has nothing to do with all the kvetching about "omg six detailed pages!" -- you know, the focus of that very comment.

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

#315

Post by jrochkind1 »

willcipriano wrote: post #244
fireball_blaze wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also reference Amazon's "Do it without dues" site: https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/

Interestingly it looks like it was made with squarespace, I'd assume they would have people in house for something like this.

It was probably made by an anti-union consulting firm they've hired. They don't do union-busting in house, they hire the experts.

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

#316

Post by CodeMage »

_jal wrote: post #133
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."

> "You're too poor to fight for your rights. Know your place." Well, yes. The goal of an antiunion campaign is the demoralization/ disempowerment of the workforce. Notice also the recent push for "experimental polities", AKA company towns.

St. Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store.

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

#317

Post by eeZah7Ux »

phabora wrote: post #259
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.

You are confusing skill with access to capital.

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

#318

Post by Google234 »

fallingfrog wrote: post #282
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 ille…

You are spreading fake news. From your article: “ In 1955, Congress had made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term”

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

#319

Post by jrochkind1 »

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.

With or without a union, there are no laws I am aware of that prohibit workers cooperating to get higher wages from employers.

That does not violate anti-trust law in the US. It is not a special exemption the union has, it doesn't violate anti-trust law in the US even if there isn't a union involved, for employees to "collude" to get higher wages.

Or if there are such laws I'm not aware of, feel free to share. But I gather you think it ought to be illegal? Why?

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

#320

Post by the_cat_kittles »

duxup wrote: post #8

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

do you think we should hear about tobacco health risks from cigarette companies?

do you think we should accept climate science from fossil fuel companies?

Post reply on HN