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

491–500 of 632 posts

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

#491

Post by s1artibartfast »

fireball_blaze wrote: post #100
duxup wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>making union organizers wary that Amazon is trying to keep tabs on who votes I can understand being wary, but that's all it is, wary.

How could you possibly know unless you are on the Amazon union busting team?

The fact that it is unknowable does not mean that Amazon is guilty.

I think we are both retreating to our priors, but it also seems speculative that amazon is using a sealed ballot drop off location to somehow track who is voting yes or no.

I think this is pretty standard and if they didn't have drop onsite drop off locations, the story would be that they are discouraging organizers by not providing them

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

#492

Post by doggodaddo78 »

secfirstmd wrote: post #443
staticautomatic wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hired actual fucking Pinkertons, which says enough about how aggressive they are. The gloves have been off for a while now.

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

You could use to read some history books.

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

#493

Post by chc »

chrisseaton wrote: post #330
creaturemachine wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The union will always be on your side This just isn't true. If I'm a junior worker in a union with a pay-by-seniority agreement because the majority of workers are senior, then they aren't on my side are they? They're on the side of the majority senior workers. They're on the side against me and my aspirations to get paid more.

In that situation, you have a clear way of getting paid more: Keep working, same as everyone else did. You're not getting special treatment, but it's not like they're working against you either.

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

#494

Post by chc »

SllX wrote: post #153
_jal wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you not have the imagination Why the rudeness? I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer. You seem to already have chosen a tribal affiliation.

You can leave a company and get a new job. That’s a good time to renegotiate your terms of employment. You can even use the impending threat of your departure as a negotiating tactic. Unions complicate an otherwise cut and dry relationship of your employer trying to extract value from you and you trying to extract value from your employer until you reach an equilibrium.

As a worker, you want "complications" in that relationship, because in its natural form, the balance of power is extremely lopsided toward the employer.

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

#495

Post by sodality2 »

mywittyname wrote: post #454
sodality2 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But what would be in it for union leadership under such a structure? Altruism maybe? The structure costs would probably be harder to cover than finding mad amazon workers who want to improve working standards

That would leave the job either half-complete, done by an overworked person, or available only to independently wealthy people.

Meh, I don't think so. You probably couldn't pick a random union member but there's gotta be someone smart, driven, and mad enough to do it for free and do a good job at it. Hell, if I had the skills and resources to, I would.

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

#496

Post by chrisseaton »

chc wrote: post #493
chrisseaton wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The union will always be on your side This just isn't true. If I'm a junior worker in a union with a pay-by-seniority agreement because the majority of workers are senior, then they aren't on my side are they? They're on the side of the majority senior workers. They're on the side against me and my aspirations to get paid more.

In that situation, you have a clear way of getting paid more: Keep working, same as everyone else did. You're not getting special treatment, but it's not like they're working against you either.

Or I could vote against unionisation in the first place.

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

#497

Post by sodality2 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #462
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…

I think the $500 figure is the number that AMZN pulled out of a hat, and I think it is a yearly number, not a monthly one. That said, it sounds like you haven't dealt with the real world logistics of large groups of people. From both a practical and legal perspective, there is a lot to cover. The finances need to be kept up to date and audited. You mention, in jest, that you could bring all these people together for…

>Getting 15 people to agree on a time and place for dinner is close to impossible if you've ever tried it. Nevermind getting a warehouse full of people to show up.

Any reason why "show up at 8" wouldn't work? It doesn't have to work for everyone if they can be recorded, summarized, or otherwise disseminated.

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

#498

Post by II2II »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #462
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…

I think the $500 figure is the number that AMZN pulled out of a hat, and I think it is a yearly number, not a monthly one. That said, it sounds like you haven't dealt with the real world logistics of large groups of people. From both a practical and legal perspective, there is a lot to cover. The finances need to be kept up to date and audited. You mention, in jest, that you could bring all these people together for…

> I think the $500 figure is the number that AMZN pulled out of a hat, and I think it is a yearly number, not a monthly one.

A coworker in a non-unionized position said that the didn't like unions because of the dues. When I told them what the dues were, their opinion quickly changed. The funny part is that unionizing would only bring about small benefits in our case since the existence of unionized positions with the same employer reaped benefits for all employees.

And for what it's worth, paying $500/month in dues implies an income of about 30,000 to 50,000 per month. Not only is this outside of the target demographic of unions, but it ranks up there with taxation levels (with much richer government services). Suggesting union dues of this level is either an unintentional mistake or disingenuous anti-union propaganda.

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

#499

Post by chrisseaton »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #283
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!

But I'm not sure the union is going to be on my side. If you aren't, check the agreements the union has with you and your employer. These are contracts with enforceable terms and are upheld.

> These are contracts with enforceable terms and are upheld.

Stop and think this through for just a second.

Try this thought experiment:

If I want dogs in the office and my colleague wants dogs banned, you’re telling me you think the union will simultaneously negotiate for both our positions with our employer?

Does not compute. It is not possible for them to be on everyone's side.

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

#500

Post by plandis »

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.

That’s literally every company though. Amazon is no different than any other company with respect to fighting against things they perceive as not being in the companies benefit.
Post reply on HN