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

401–410 of 632 posts

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

#401

Post by sokoloff »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #390
dheera wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 infrastruct…

>If it's just a town hall to discuss a certain issue, that can be virtual. Virtual isn't the same as free. >Although this may sound a bit naive I feel like $500/person/month sounds like there is some massive inefficiency in use of resources. Nobody knows what the union dues will be if the union wins, but they will not be 500 per month. It might be a fair guess that they're 500 per year. About 20 per check if you get…

Union dues are very typically 1 to 1.5% of pay.

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

#402

Post by wizzwizz4 »

SilasX wrote: post #347
jakelazaroff wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All such people are so blinded by the outrage they can't take a few seconds to make clear what they're actually outraged about in way that can convince others to join them? Yeah, sounds about right.

You don't need to make things clear if everyone already knows what everyone else is talking about.

After an explanation that you clearly understood, I'm not sure why you're still complaining about conversational opacity.

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

#403

Post by shmageggy »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #380
faitswulff wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ’journalism', which I believe should ultimately be about seeking the truth (and ergo a pursuit of neutrality and objectivity)

This doesn’t exist. I haven’t yet given up hope that it could someday exist, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t currently. Would love to be proven wrong though.

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

#404

Post by ImaCake »

TameAntelope wrote: post #309
balabaster wrote: post #95

Full disclosure: I've always been anti-union for my own personal approach to life. I do see the value in unions, I've just always, to this point, been a go-it-alone-and-fight-my-own-battles kind of person. I don't want to be beholden to a union or their rules any more than I want to be beholden to an employer beyond my contractual obligations for which I'm paid. That said, people should take note of what happened whe…

Anti-union tactics are so... nasty. It's crazy to me how any of this is even tried in the 21st century. It's so obviously wrong and in a ton of cases illegal, the only reason I can think of that this is done so aggressively is that these tactics are "effective" based on their invention in the early-to-mid 20th century, and nobody's bothered to try and innovate since. Does Amazon really see unionization as an existent…

The weird thing about this anti-union stuff is that there is fair argument to be made that Amazon would do just as well if they let them unionise and get what they wanted. Australia has a long history of strong unions and the result has been a strong economy and effectively run state. Same kind of thing in many other countries. Those of us outside of the US are often surprised by how little rights are given to workers there.

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

#405

Post by lotsofpulp »

simsla wrote: post #398
lotsofpulp wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which is why I think this needs to be approached in a structural way. The answer is federal legislation. How break time, overtime after certain # of work hours in a day, parental leave. If we want people to have a certain quality of life at work, I don't see any purpose directing any energy at certain large employers. All efforts should be direct to politicians, who we can vote in, to provide that quality of life at…

I do agree that a top-down approach is preferable, but in the meantime I still see self-organising and collective bargaining as a good thing.

The down side is politicians can point to whatever pittance the workers win in their negotiations and say market forces are working.

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

#406

Post by syshum »

leesalminen wrote: post #371
jakelazaroff wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is what school choice is,

Every parent has a voucher, that voucher can be redeemed at a school of their choice, could be the public school, could be a private school, etc.

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

#407

Post by fallingknife »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #55
ahelwer wrote: post #7

This Amazon union vote is one of the few things I see around me in the world where things have a chance of heading in the right direction. Truly hoping it succeeds and creates a nucleation event to stop our march into ever-more-innovative methods of worker exploitation.

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.

Elected officials not being able to turn over laws passed by popular vote is dystopian? It's kind of the opposite.

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

#408

Post by leafmeal »

missedthecue wrote: post #295
AlexandrB wrote: post #6

Amazon's tactics in response to unionizing efforts been extremely revealing. Even if unionizing fails, I'm happy that it forced Amazon to show us all the level of contempt they have for their workforce.

To their workforce or to a potential cartel they'd be federally forced to deal with?

A "cartel" that represents their workforce, so yes by proxy, their workforce.

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

#409

Post by syshum »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #270
syshum wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The libertarian party supports School Choice, Actual Education for children, and less protectionism based on "seniority" So it is no wonder that unionized teachers would oppose the Libertarian Party, libertarians want children to get a good education and allow parents to choose the type of education their child gets, taking away large amounts of power from Teachers who believe they should supplant parents and "know b…

If you are trying to espouse the virtues of Libertarianism I would say you're not doing a very good job.

People here are already set in their political tribes, if you were already a libertarian (or republican) then you just agreed with my post. If you are an Authoritarian you just down voted it.

Nothing I say will change anyone's minds on this topic, it is one of those things where no amount of data or facts will change minds. You either believe in a unionized Public school that only fails because we do not spend enough money, or you recognize that giving a monopoly over education to a group of people based on geography will always result in bad outcomes no matter how much money you spend.

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

#410

Post by [deleted] »

leesalminen wrote: post #371
jakelazaroff wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN