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

421–430 of 632 posts

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

#421

Post by faitswulff »

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…

You seem to be conflating neutrality and objectivity with bipartisanship. It's pretty obvious that there is only one party in the USA that even pretends to value neutrality and objectivity, and it's not the party that elected Donald Trump.

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

#422

Post by whoisjuan »

ahelwer wrote: post #413
whoisjuan wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? So you think corporations don't use their lawyers before they do things? They just go and do whatever without assessing the risks? I think is actually naive to think otherwise. You can still feel something is illegal even though you have the clear of your legal team. I'm not debating that. Also you could take decisions on gray areas against the advice of your lawyers. I'm not debating that either. I would lik…

If you've ever interacted with a lawyer you would know that "right vs not" is not a binary and all advice is tempered with discussion of risk. In this case, the risk is Amazon has action brought against it by the heavily neutered NLRB and possibly faces consequences many years down the road - consequences that clearly, to them, pale in comparison to the cost of having their workforce unionized. What you've said above…

That’s not what I said. I’m saying that the baseline behavior is not illegal. The fundamentals of disincentivizing unions are legal. I don’t know if this particular instance is illegal. On print doesn’t sound good.

I was replying to the parent commenter who seemed to think that desincentivizing union formation/joining is illegal which is clearly not.

I agree with you that law isn’t binary, but the final interpretation of a law is a binary decision. You engage on what you think is lawful behavior or you don’t. If they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating within their legal rights.

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

#423

Post by jjk166 »

mc32 wrote: post #272
worker767424 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I'd like to see is competing unions. The UAW supplies labor to the big three US automakers, putting them in an unfair negotiating advantage; the UAW can easily bully them around. The UAW ultimately hurt themselves because it put the Big Three at a big competitive disadvantage. Some manufacturing left for right-to-work states, and some business left for (mostly) Japanese automakers.

I think that could help. Some unions at least, like the UAW shoot themselves in the foot. It’s very adversarial from both sides and often the worker in the middle is the one who loses out. Example the steel industry. They made labor so expensive the companies folded. Admittedly the industry ran aged inefficient systems that made their process uncompetitive. But the Union only cared about protecting itself. The compan…

That's not at all what happened to the steel industry. 50% of all US steel production capacity has been built in the past 30 years and steel production has seen continuous and massive improvements in productivity. In 1920 it took 3 man-hours of labor to produce 1 ton of steel in the US, now 1 man-hour produces 300 tons. The contraction in steel employment during the 70s coincided with a recession and the development of the electric arc furnace. From 1974 to 1999, global steel industry employment fell by 1.5 Million people with large decreases both in developed countries and developing countries like Brazil and South Africa as employment per ton of production fell everywhere. The actions of one union in one country had nothing to do with it.

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

#424

Post by [deleted] »

estaseuropano wrote: post #395
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…

Alright, split the fees! Now you need someone to count the days paid out, calculate how much each member has to pay, send payment requests, follow up, manage the account, ... A professional Union needs funds to do its work. Over time the benefits members get more than pay for the union dues. If there's a strike at least in Europe the union will also use the dues to cover the salary for the days striking. The imaginar…

[deleted]

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

#425

Post by zapita »

rodgerd wrote: post #334
notriddle wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is why surveillance capitalists tried to rally the Valley against the GDPR: fines based on global income could be effective, which is unacceptable to companies used to treating breaking the law as a minor cost of doing business.

This is such an important point. And sadly it appears that they have been successful. The sentiment on GDPR in SV seems to be overwhelmingly negative, for all the wrong reasons I believe.

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

#426

Post by munk-a »

syshum wrote: post #406
leesalminen wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is important to note that that voucher only has a fixed value so those parents choosing to send their children to private schools still need to make up the difference out of pocket. That results in a wide variety of school choice for the rich and a smaller number of choices for those less well off. This voucher results in funds being diverted from public schools while the capacity requirements on those public schools may not be impacted but there is a larger issue IMO. If the more influential parents move their children to private schools then the amount that voucher should cover becomes less important and various parties can argue to shrink the voucher as a cost saving measure - that will end up strongly effecting those residents with less wealth since the money they are paying toward the value of that voucher is being multiplied due to the effect of progressive taxation brackets - while the more affluent residents will end up paying less money overall the smaller the voucher is since their tax revenue is going to subsidize school vouchers at large.

School vouchers can easily lead toward incentivizing minimizing education spending.

Oh also, private schools are often not held to the same standards of avoiding religious teaching as public schools are (by virtue of being a public service). The result is that the vouchers can end up funding religious education, but that's a whole other can of worms.

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

#428

Post by walshemj »

cat199 wrote: post #267
TrackerFF wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, almost everything boils down to money and special interest. Amazingly enough, unionization hasn't been outlawed, despite the massive efforts from industry.

> Amazingly enough Not so amazing when you look at DNC backers, July 30, 1975, etc. More radical unions (e.g. IWW) tend to look at the 'mainstream' unions as 'bosses unions' or 'controlled opposition', and the more libertarian minded often similarly view the relationship between unions and capital as power plays by big corps to raise the 'free market' price of labor and consolidate power.

From the UK the IWW is seen not as a real union but as a "club" - the is a direct quote to me from a DGS (Senior Union Officer)

They do seem stuck cosplaying Edwardian trades union activists - instead of actually concentrating on the actual TU issues.

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

#429

Post by Grimm1 »

phabora wrote: post #259
Grimm1 wrote: post #61

Personally I like the idea of worker representation on the board of directors, with enough representation that they don't just get steamrolled by other board members as a potentially viable solution to worker concerns. I think people should be treated pretty well in a job setting, my thought is that well treated employees while costing more actually wind up producing for the business well in excess of the expense and…

High-performers (read: well-payed workers) like to complain about the nefarious corrupting influence of unions but seldom consider the case that the high-performers (read: upper-middle class) might have a vested interest in the corrupt status quo where the majority of workers facilitate their high-performing (read: privileged) lifestyles.

I mean all the anecdotes I have come from electricians and county paid groundskeepers and who also happen to be my close friends so I'd have to say your assertion if not false in totality is false in this case for certain.

Edit: Oh and a general contractor or two.

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

#430

Post by mc32 »

jjk166 wrote: post #423
mc32 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that could help. Some unions at least, like the UAW shoot themselves in the foot. It’s very adversarial from both sides and often the worker in the middle is the one who loses out. Example the steel industry. They made labor so expensive the companies folded. Admittedly the industry ran aged inefficient systems that made their process uncompetitive. But the Union only cared about protecting itself. The compan…

That's not at all what happened to the steel industry. 50% of all US steel production capacity has been built in the past 30 years and steel production has seen continuous and massive improvements in productivity. In 1920 it took 3 man-hours of labor to produce 1 ton of steel in the US, now 1 man-hour produces 300 tons. The contraction in steel employment during the 70s coincided with a recession and the development…

Old outdated technology (not sure about the stance the unions had back then on productivity improvements that would lower headcount) plus outsized pay demands for the given the productivity.
Post reply on HN