Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by ahelwer » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:11 PM UTC

whoisjuan wrote: post #422

ahelwer wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 interpretatio…

> If they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating within their legal rights.

No, they don't necessarily believe they are operating within their legal rights. They believe the penalty for noncompliance with the law is low enough to be worth it. This is an important distinction, because it means we need much greater penalties for labor violations.

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

#432

Post by walshemj » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #247

Zealotux wrote: post #10

From a non-US point of view, this whole anti-union strategy from Amazon is somehow hilarious to witness on top of being sad. This kind of propaganda feels like its coming from another age, or dimension.

In Europe, at least in some countries, forming a union is a right and there is no need to organise a ballot so companies can do much less to prevent it but they obviously still do all they can. As long as they act within the law it's fair game really because it's obviously not in a company's interest to have unions.

Forming is one thing actually getting recognition is much harder.

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

#433

Post by fl0wenol » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

Nacdor wrote: post #300

Someone1234 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The depressing part is that this is actually an improvement over the violence and intimidation tactics of America's past. The US has never been a particularly union supportive country. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...

Amazon uses agents from a company named Pinkerton to spy on their workers: https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp3yn/amazon-leaked-reports... No idea if it has any relation to the original Pinkerton strike-breakers, but using that name is pretty callous given its history.

It is one and the same.

What's more is that it isn't some sort of ironic twist of circumstances, it's just that there aren't a lot of organizations you can call for that kind of work at scale.

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

#434

Post by syshum » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #426

syshum wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scho…

It is worth noting that many area;s where this has been tried the private schools were more than capable of providing better education for the same money that the public schools do since the public schools are wasteful and have no incentive to spend tax payer money wisely

It is completely false to charatice a school choice program as "more choices for the rich" as the rich already have those choices, poor and middle class people have zero choice because their money has already been taken to fund the public schools. redirecting this money to better more efficient systems is preferred and gives the poor and middle class choice that is normally reserved for the wealthy

>> This voucher results in funds being diverted from public schools

yes, that is by design and the desired outcome of libertarians.

>>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.

Another red herring and strawman, but I (and most libertarian) are fine with the limited amount of religious education that would result from school choice if it means dismantling the failed and unethical public school system we have today.

I am sure you are a huge supporter of the Public School System and see nothing systemically wrong with it. We disagree with this position

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

#435

Post by whoisjuan » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #431

whoisjuan wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 interpretatio…

> If they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating within their legal rights. No, they don't necessarily believe they are operating within their legal rights. They believe the penalty for noncompliance with the law is low enough to be worth it. This is an important distinction, because it means we need much greater penalties for labor violations.

Yeah. I agree. That is another possibility on why they decided to so this.

The rewards of preventing unionization outweighs the penalties of engaging in unlawful behavior.

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

#436

Post by SilasX » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #402

SilasX wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I didn’t get any coherent explanation of what the OP was objecting to, after offering charitable interpretations that were rejected.

Edit: I did get some completely separate, independent arguments, if that’s what you mean, but I’m saying I got no explanation of the original comment.

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

#437

Post by noodlesUK » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

zapita wrote: post #425

rodgerd wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What’s funny is that the GDPR is pretty universally well-liked, or at least accepted as a necessary evil in my European tech bubble...

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

#438

Post by phone8675309 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #218

bjoli wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, I am not very up to date on statistics, but unionised workers have traditionally earned about 10% more than non-uniomized ones in the US since at least the 80s. The article mentions 11%, which seems in line with what I know since before. I doubt any union would charge anywhere near that much.

Amazon's own literature says "almost $500" in dues[1]. If they get a 10% pay increase, then everyone making more than $5k comes out ahead. Everyone making $10k or more comes out more ahead than the union. The union bosses probably come out the most ahead because that $500 * (a lot of workers) goes to (a small number of union management types). It's hopefully obvious that the union makes it better for at least the low…

$500 in dues per year is around $20 per paycheck if you're paid twice a month or every two weeks. The increase in benefits and working conditions might well be worth that, depending on the job.

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

#439

Post by lr4444lr » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

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…

Minimum wage laws and excess credentialing can definitely be considered rent seeking.

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

#440

Post by tyingq » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #299

tyingq wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were on equal grounding, or granted equal access, I'd agree.

Equal grounding would be that no one is in a union, or that the employees are in a union, and the companies are in a union of their own. So Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc all get to form their union to negotiate with Big Labour. Its not fair that Walmart and Amazon must compete against each other to buy labor but the sellers of labor can form a cartel protected by the federal government.

I'm talking about things like the employer being able to put a mailbox at the place where employees exit, mailing things to their home addresses, putting posters on the walls at work, and so on.