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

321–330 of 632 posts

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

#321

Post by sudosysgen »

mc32 wrote: post #243
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get better labor laws without middle men groups lobbying? The same Amazon workers have neither the time nor energy themselves.

In SV parlance unions are rent seekers. They are a bandaid over the symptom not the cure.

Unions do not rent seek. They provide value to society via higher wages and act as a counterbalance to externalities from capital.

They are indeed not a cure, but the cure to the symptoms we are seeing is nothing short of a total overhaul of the capitalist system, which is both not politically feasible, and requires something like unions to make politically feasible to begin with. That is because by definition such a changé even if it was in the larger interests of society wouldn't be in the interests of capital.

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

#322

Post by jakelazaroff »

SilasX wrote: post #314
jakelazaroff wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At this point I don't really know how to respond other than, again, everyone else is on the same page here.

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

#323

Post by sodality2 »

sokoloff wrote: post #277
dheera wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe someone should start a second union without dues? That would leave Amazon with no way to argue.

But what would be in it for union leadership under such a structure? (Not to mention that unions also have some unavoidable expenses, even if you didn't have a bunch of highly-paid union leader mouths to feed.) Amazon would still find a way to argue. "If you're not a lowest performer, don't let a union negotiate for you and force your wages down to the lowest performing among you." or many other phrases that would ap…

>But what would be in it for union leadership under such a structure?

Altruism maybe? The structure costs would probably be harder to cover than finding mad amazon workers who want to improve working standards

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

#324

Post by abstractbarista »

What happens to the people who didn't want to pay in, if the union does get set up? Will they be forced to have money taken from them to continue working there?

I'd probably quit if some organization suddenly started siphoning my paycheck. Sure unionize if you want, and I'll strike with you over issues, but that doesn't require my payment to accomplish.

I am very thankful to live in a right to work state where nobody can forcibly steal the fruits of my labor.

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

#325

Post by sodality2 »

fastball wrote: post #189
sodality2 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are allowed to. That is why they did. Just as I am allowed to call them scummy for it

You know what they meant. Why is one scummy and the other not?

Amazon is strong-arming workers into voting no with propaganda posters, unions typically hurt amazon (else why would they fight so hard against it), and typically help the workers. Do you not see the problem here? I don't mean to say unions are always right. I see anti-union sentiment from the very company that would be hurt by it to be very much allowed. But since I believe in worker's rights and can see firsthand how poorly they are treated, I see it as scummy.

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

#326

Post by minikites »

Someone1234 wrote: post #303
minikites wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>happy workers are a good long-term strategy I always see this cited as a reason but it so rarely happens that it might as well be a Horatio Alger fable. It's not instructive or useful in our current reality and it would be like taking lessons from the workplace successes of Santa's elves.

Contrast Walmart and Costco, in terms of employee happiness and turnover.

>As of February 2021 Walmart has a market cap of $374.31 B

>As of February 2021 Costco has a market cap of $148.54 B

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-stock-si...

>“We are troubled by [American’s] wealth transfer of nearly $1 billion to its labor groups,” Baker wrote in a note to clients.

Treating employees well is punished by the market and neither Costco or American Airlines treat them particularly well, just less terribly than their competitors. A company necessarily has to treat its employees like shit in order to succeed.

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

#327

Post by notriddle »

smnrchrds wrote: post #286
A12-B wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fines should be proportional to income. They're supposed to be a deterrent, not a revenue source.

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

#328

Post by ketzo »

abstractbarista wrote: post #324

What happens to the people who didn't want to pay in, if the union does get set up? Will they be forced to have money taken from them to continue working there? I'd probably quit if some organization suddenly started siphoning my paycheck. Sure unionize if you want, and I'll strike with you over issues, but that doesn't require my payment to accomplish. I am very thankful to live in a right to work state where nobody…

Unions don't ask for dues just to grift you. At a minimum, any half-competent union should be able to tell you how they're going to get you more than your dues in value from the union. This could be actual increased pay, benefits, or other value from collective organization.

No one is trying to steal anything from you. Unions are for workers. If you think Amazon is in your corner more than a union would be, I would consider reevaluating that idea.\

All that said: almost no unionized workplace that I know of has a situation where you are required to be part of the union to work there, so no, you won't be forced. For example, U.S. federal employees have huge, long-lived unions with a lot of prominence, and only 26% of federal employees actually belong to a union.

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

#329

Post by tor11 »

rkagerer wrote: post #199
sodality2 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this: "Make your voice heard! VOTE NOW AND VOTE NO." Those posters are all over the warehouses and it really feels like some 1984-esque parody.

I don't work there and I'm not a fan of unions but this makes me want to vote YES.

voting is and has always been for sheep tho. no?

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

#330

Post by chrisseaton »

creaturemachine wrote: post #285
chrisseaton wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The union will always be on your side

This just isn't true.

If I'm a junior worker in a union with a pay-by-seniority agreement because the majority of workers are senior, then they aren't on my side are they? They're on the side of the majority senior workers. They're on the side against me and my aspirations to get paid more.

Post reply on HN