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

481–490 of 632 posts

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

#481

Post by JKCalhoun »

syshum wrote: post #409
JKCalhoun wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I had heard Libertarians are bull-headed, self-righteous, think only they understand the facts, think everyone who disagrees with them are Authoritarians. I heard wrong.

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

#482

Post by Hammershaft »

duxup wrote: post #69
mc32 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like some unions tell their members to vote for this or that party? I’m still waiting for the Teachers’ Union to endorse the Libertarian party one day soon -I’m sure it’s gonna happen.

I'm waiting for the Libertarian party to embrace drivers licenses ;)

Makes me laugh every time.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ

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

#483

Post by s1artibartfast »

pseudalopex wrote: post #466
s1artibartfast wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're confused. 27 states allow non members to pay nothing. 23 states allow private sector unions to charge agency fees. Charging non members for political activities is illegal federally. And the Supreme Court decided everything public sector unions do is political.

Thank you for the correction, I misremembered the definitions

27 states are "right-to-work" states [1] The remaining 23 allow "Union Security Agreements" between employers and unions where all employees are required to be members. [2] The 23 states without right-to-work allow agency fees. However, these 23 states also allow "union shops", where non-membership is not an option, so everyone can be charged for political activates.

Another big change since I last looked is that the US supreme court struck down agency fees for all government employees in 2018, including the 23 states.

[1] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement

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

#484

Post by s1artibartfast »

pseudalopex wrote: post #476
s1artibartfast wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A slim majority of 27/50 states. Even in those states, non-union employees can be forced to pay the union "agency fees" for representation costs, but not dues which can be spent on political agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#:~:text=In%2... .

You're confused. 27 states allow paying nothing. 23 states allow agency fees. Federal law prohibits charging non members for political activities.

Thank you for the correction!

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

#485

Post by secfirstmd »

harry8 wrote: post #449
secfirstmd wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pinkerton are the corporate security company of choice for a lot of organisations...including Facebook

Things that don't make me feel better about something: "No it's actually ok, facebook also does it."

I most definitely wasn't endorsing them. I know their historical reputation. I was just suggesting it's interesting that FB use them also.

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

#486

Post by pseudalopex »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #483
pseudalopex wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confused. 27 states allow non members to pay nothing. 23 states allow private sector unions to charge agency fees. Charging non members for political activities is illegal federally. And the Supreme Court decided everything public sector unions do is political.

Thank you for the correction, I misremembered the definitions 27 states are "right-to-work" states [1] The remaining 23 allow "Union Security Agreements" between employers and unions where all employees are required to be members. [2] The 23 states without right-to-work allow agency fees. However, these 23 states also allow "union shops", where non-membership is not an option, so everyone can be charged for political…

Union shop is illegal federally. Some people say union shop when they mean agency shop though. The Wikipedia article says agency shop is a form of union security agreement.

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

#487

Post by kergonath »

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."

This is exactly saying that. It’s like we’re back to the 19th century.

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

#488

Post by missedthecue »

mywittyname wrote: post #459
missedthecue wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You mean the Board of Directors?

There isn't only one board of directors in the US. There is only one UAW. There is only one IlWU. There is only one teamsters.

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

#489

Post by chokeartist »

rendall wrote: post #465
noodlesUK wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Speaking as an American living in Europe, I love GDPR.

Speaking as an American living in America, I love GDPR.

Where I work [big-co], it is mandated that all of our services are GDPR-compliant, regardless of worldwide location.

The only people who hate GDPR are ad-industry parasites. To that I say: good riddance, and don't let starvation hurt too much on the way down.

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

#490

Post by shmageggy »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #442
shmageggy wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ’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.

A perfectly neutral and objective journalism hasn't existed, but the aspiration toward neutrality and objectivity have existed and even been mainstream at points in our history. In my lifetime, it's a relatively recent phenomena that media outlets were openly biased, viewing their function as "activism" rather than truth-seeking.

Maybe I'm just being cynical but I disagree. It may have appeared so outwardly, but I'm skeptical that the core motivation for mainstream journalism has ever been objectivity. I mean Manufacturing Consent is from 1988 and covers much of the 20th century, and it's not like things have improved since.
Post reply on HN