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

351–360 of 632 posts

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

#351

Post by shirakawasuna »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #264
jandrese wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally people create downward pressure on prices by not buying the product when it becomes overpriced. However with healthcare there is a captive market. Are you not going to get a cast put on a broken leg because the doctor wants to charge too much? Are you going to just opt out of cancer treatments and die? Healthcare is an area where market forces are inherently perverted because people often don't have a choice…

You still have a choice between competing hospitals / doctors in a system where prices are not inflated for insurances' catalogues.

The best time to shop around for the best deal is after you've been hit by a car and are having trouble breathing.

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

#352

Post by munk-a »

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.

I agree but I have yet to see a better solution than unions. Companies will constantly use their influence to erode workers' rights and unions do levy a constant cost on society but it's a cost that's being paid to counter that otherwise imbalanced influence.

To repurpose a famous Churchill quote "Unions are the worst solution to labour equality except all the others that have been tried before."

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

#353

Post by ketzo »

tor11 wrote: post #339
ketzo wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Unions are for workers funny.

....why?

I understand that there are shitty unions out there. But my statement seems pretty factual for the idea of unions as a whole.

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

#354

Post by s1artibartfast »

db48x wrote: post #336
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…

Yea, in most states you can't be forced to join a union, and dues are for the maintenance of the union. Only members pay for it.

A slim majority of 27/50 states. Even in those states, non-union employees can be forced to pay the union "agency fees" for representation costs, but not dues which can be spent on political agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#:~:text=In%2....

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

#355

Post by rland »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #315
willcipriano wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pinkerton entering the graphic design biz.

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

#356

Post by astrange »

sonofhans wrote: post #217
balabaster wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Btw, in other countries that use sectoral bargaining systems this law wouldn't stop unionization, because the union contract applies across the industry rather than one company at a time. This makes it more impersonal, but companies are no longer motivated to stop unions because they'll become less competitive, and it works well enough in places like Denmark that they don't have minimum wage laws.

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

#357

Post by jsmith45 »

pitaj wrote: post #91
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt this was about Uber being told they had to treat drivers like employees in California too, and look how that turned out: A dystopian rule that lawmakers can't overturn to enable worker exploitation.

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.

I honestly never paid any attention to the law, but I really don't understand how it would be feasible to treat Uber drivers as W4 employees in the first place.

What other sort of W4 job lets you chose both how many and which hours you want to work, and let you skip any assignments you don't want to complete? That honestly is so totally backwards to even how part time jobs work that I'm not convinced it would be viable.

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

#358

Post by fennecfoxen »

missedthecue wrote: post #288
andrepd wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

In the end, we can also expect that Amazon's money will some day be exchanged for robots, and most of these employees will lose the Amazon jobs.

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

#360

Post by astrange »

soperj wrote: post #350
Cederfjard wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...but they can have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at Walmart, and to the other job? You're saying they should keep the Walmart job and get rid of the other, and spend the time freed up searching for one that's full time and paid enough to replace both, right? But if you can't support yourself and your dependants on the Walmart job alone, then that's risky.

if they have the other job already, then they clearly had time. I'm not saying they should do anything. I'm saying it doesn't make sense that you can be beholden to a job because of too many hours, and have reduced hours. It's one or the other.

This is covered by search theory in economics. (economists do not use "supply and demand" for jobs, rather they consider things like search time and monopsony power.)
Post reply on HN