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

361–370 of 632 posts

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

#361

Post by goostavos »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #271
AlwaysRock wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are so unpopular even with people that in theory support unions. Look at the normal, non in power, peoples response to unions at any mid/large tech company.

Depending on where you're from, there have been cases of corruption or incompetence. Unions are not magically good.

Spending some of my early career in Las Vegas and Philadelphia really destroyed by youthful view of unions as a unquestionable force for good.

One thing which can said with absolute certainty: they're not a structure which breeds efficiency.

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

#362

Post by munk-a »

nobody9999 wrote: post #341
mc32 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a very large tent party though sparse in density. Some of us see the need for aspects of regulation and frameworks, others prefer the more idealist semi pastoralist view of the world. I’m more in the Johnson camp ;)

>It’s a very large tent party though sparse in density. I'm not so sure about that. I have strong libertarian (small 'l') leanings, specifically that government should stay the hell out of people's lives and bodies as much as possible. And that humans should be free to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with others doing the same. But that's where I part ways with the Libertarian (big '…

That's pretty much precisely where I stand as well. When you talk about personal freedoms the right to unlimited action is something that could only potentially be given to a single person, since at a certain point your actions begin to encroach on the freedoms of others. As an example the right to freely murder requires that other persons surrender their right to not be murdered - so, like most of life, the two extremes are extremely detrimental and sanity lies in the middle path.

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

#363

Post by aktschually »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #280
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"

But see, when your union negotiates, the result is uncertain. It might end up with you getting more money, with you getting the same amount of money, or with your union rep murdering a baby and then framing you for the crime. Do you really want to take that chance?

Or it might end up with you losing your job to a robot.

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

#364

Post by nexthash »

_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.

For context about "experimental polities" like the failed Toronto SideWalk labs [1], I've linked an article below [2].

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/07/sidewalk-labs-shuts-down-t...

[2] https://theconversation.com/will-silicon-valleys-new-company...

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

#365

Post by zepto »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #358
missedthecue wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if the robots join the Union!

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

#366

Post by nexthash »

hpoe wrote: post #214
JPKab wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that adds insult to injury is the amount of moral posturing Amazon engages in when it comes to social justice issues. What could be a bigger social justice issue than paying working class people proper wages and benefits? It just screams out to me how hollow and PR driven their support of social justice organizations and initiatives is. And more importantly, the silence from these same social justice initia…

Almost like identity politics is used by those in power to distract us from real issues that have concrete impact on people's lives, instead fostering an us vs them attitude to keep us ignorant that both sides are being played by the same people.

Identity politics and corporate posturing are two separate things. Everybody is trying to get an edge, including corporations trying to keep themselves prosperous. Identity politics is an idea about your identity playing into how you perceive politics. How this idea is used by different players is a whole different ballgame.

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

#367

Post by s1artibartfast »

jeanjogr wrote: post #204

I have never been able to quite grasp what it means to "unionize" in the US. Here in my country, unions work like political parties (which I understand is not exactly enticing right now): - you are free to join or not - there are elected workers' representatives whether there are unions are not - unions serve to organize workers for action and representatives elections, support candidates, and provide additional serv…

In the US, when a company unionizes a job class, all applicable employees must then pay the union for representing them in negotiations. Only one union can represent a class of workers.

In 27/50 states workers who opt out of union membership loose the power to vote in union matters, but still are governed by union negotiations and must pay the unions "agency fees" for representing them. They no longer have to pay for political campaigning and lobbying by the union on other activism.

In 23/50 states, workers can not opt out of union dues and the union can spend the dues to campaign for political figures and issues.

Unions generally support Democratic politicians and agendas, and unions have high approval Among members of the Democratic Party. Republican Party members disfavor unions and resent obligatory union dues used to fund the party they do not support.

I much prefer the European concept of unions, where employees can pick and choose between different options

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

#368

Post by runarberg »

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.

As well as penalties diminishes as size grows. A small company might go bankrupt by a medium to large lawsuit or a large fine, while a large company can easily weather it off.

If a small to medium company invests heavily in something illegal and they are forced to stop with all the lost revenue that follows it would be devastating. For a large company, not so much. They can afford to fight a legal battle that delays when they should stop, in the meantime their illegal activity might have already yielded success.

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

#369

Post by cbozeman »

fxtentacle wrote: post #121
fireball_blaze wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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."

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides

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

#370

Post by dheera »

flyt wrote: post #333
dheera wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what would be in it for union leadership under such a structure? An ego boost? I mean this seriously -- people love being moderators of Subreddits and admins of online communities largely deep down for the ego boost. A union really needs not much more than a Discord server and maybe a Zoom membership to organize strikes and whatever else they need to do.

Unions need more than a Discord to organize. They may need to compensate union leadership for time taken to organize away from their work duties, pay for events, pay for mailers and other communications infrastructure, and of course pay for professionals like labor lawyers. No union will have much luck performing collective bargaining against Amazon without working alongside experienced lawyers. These costs don't hav…

> pay for events

What events? If it's to discuss a certain issue, that can be virtual and almost free. If it's a social event, meh, there are enough of those already and people can self-organize them. Hell for $500/month I could organize social events where everyone goes to Michelin 3-star restaurants every month and rants over gourmet dinners about their bosses.

> pay for mailers and other communications infrastructure

Use e-mail. I don't even check my snail mail box anyway unless someone tells me to expect something by e-mail, and even then when my snail mail box gets too full I usually just dump it all in the recycle bin, so it's not an effective way for a union to communicate with me.

> and of course pay for professionals like labor lawyers.

What if they just split the lawyer fees evenly?

Assuming an experienced lawyer charges $1000/hr and spends 100 hours on a case, and there are 1 million people in the union, that amounts to about $0.10/person/case, a far cry from the $500/month they seem to be charging. Even if my numbers are off by a factor of 100 it would be only $10/person/case, and if the union won the case Amazon would probably have to pay the legal fees anyway.

Although this may sound a bit naive I feel like $500/person/month sounds like there is some massive inefficiency in use of resources.

Post reply on HN