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

371–380 of 632 posts

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

#371

Post by leesalminen »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #294
mc32 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. School isn’t primarily about academics. It’s mostly about moulding pupils, their minds to their current society. It’s mostly political in that sense. Whether it’s patriotism, community building, stressing this over that, etc. The three Rs are kind of incidental. Now to be clear, we do need to grow up to be functional adults, but public schooling is not the only one option to achieve that.

To be clear — when people refer to "school choice", they usually mean a system that funnels taxpayer dollars to private schools based on student attendance. Similarly, when people oppose "school choice", they usually oppose that appropriation of public funds specifically, not public school alternatives in general. It's a sneaky name designed to make you conflate the two.

I always thought that school choice means a system that funnels taxpayer dollars to any school, public or private, based on student attendance. Parents can choose to send their children to public school, if they feel the outcome will be superior to alternatives.

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

#372

Post by abstractbarista »

ketzo wrote: post #328
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…

Thanks for clearing this up for me. I was under the impression that if a union was started where I work, I could be forced to pay in if I want to remain employed there.

Amazon certainly isn't on the side of its workers. No company is. They want maximum work for minimum pay. Workers want maximum pay for minimum work. I've always found the labor market to be an entertaining fight between the two.

I think the part hanging me up most is what the dues could go to. Theoretically speaking, I'm down to pay some folks to represent me and fight in meetings with . But, I don't believe in paying dues to keep members afloat when they're not working (striking, etc.). I believe that's my responsibility to stay solvent. All my life I've forced myself to spend far less than I make in pursuit of this.

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

#373

Post by cool_dude85 »

dheera wrote: post #209
fireball_blaze wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

How will your second union enforce the contract you negotiate without lawyers? When you want to file a grievance, the shop steward walks you down to the nearest free legal aid office?

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

#374

Post by sidlls »

SilasX wrote: post #201
rtpg wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't your boss telling you how to do that though. The direct power imbalance is pretty different, I think.

Then I don’t understand the outrage. What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no? The GGP seemed to think that there was something particularly bad about the detailed six page instructions. But the GP correctly pointed out they do the same thing in regular government elections (to milk as many voters as they can).

Your analogy is off: if you suggested that government officials sent police offers with instructions on how to vote it'd be closer to what is the case when an employer instructs its employees to do something work related (vote "no" on the union, in this case).

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

#375

Post by sangnoir »

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.

The Pinkertons have been fighting workers for more than a century, I'm sure Amazon is disappointed Pinkertons can no longer gun down troublesome workers without consequences.

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

#376

Post by sodality2 »

aktschually wrote: post #363
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Amazon will do that anyway if it's cheaper. It probably is cheaper, union or not.

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

#377

Post by leesalminen »

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.

I’d recommend talking with employees of my local unionized Kroger, especially younger employees. The union is not always on their side. Benefits are heavily skewed to older employees by virtue of having more working-age years.

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

#378

Post by cmrdporcupine »

sudosysgen wrote: post #321
mc32 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"There were and are workers’ unions in communist countries." Most independent unions in those countries were/are destroyed. The "unions" in China, etc. or the former USSR were/are essentially arms of the Stalinist Communist Parties, and rarely if ever have any political independence or ability to oppose the employer (the state, or a company that the state has given privileges to).

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

#380

Post by throwaway894345 »

faitswulff wrote: post #310
throwaway894345 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Teen Vogue is certainly surprisingly serious, but my standard for "solid journalism" involves some attempt at neutrality and objectivity as opposed to hyper-partisan ideology marketed to children. To be quite clear, the overall modern media landscape is highly partisan and sensationalist; Teen Vogue mostly only stands out in that they're marketing their divisive ideol…

Sure, I’ll bite. I downvoted you because it’s not partisanship or divisiveness that should be decried, but the immense wealth inequality in the United States. And perhaps Teen Vogue is progressive because that’s where their readership already is, as opposed to them simply preying on a vulnerable population.

Thanks for responding. For what it's worth, I fully agree that wealth inequality is one of the most important issues in America. On many policy issues, I'm progressive. But I just can't get behind political propaganda ('advocacy', if that's easier to swallow) billing itself as 'journalism', which I believe should ultimately be about seeking the truth (and ergo a pursuit of neutrality and objectivity). Journalism is most valuable when it hosts a robust debate; when one party to the debate is consistently a stooge or a caricature, the "debate" is less than worthless. The ideals of neutrality and objectivity are particularly important when children are the audience--the objective should be teaching children to think for themselves, not teaching them what they ought to think. Once upon a time I understood these to be progressive values.
Post reply on HN