Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

Post by jeanjogr » Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #367

jeanjogr wrote: post #204

I have never been able to quite grasp what it means to "unionize" in the US. Here in my country, unions work like political parties (which I understand is not exactly enticing right now): - you are free to join or not - there are elected workers' representatives whether there are unions are not - unions serve to organize workers for action and representatives elections, support candidates, and provide additional serv…

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…

Post by vertex-four » Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 3:15 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #345

vertex-four wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have multiple jobs and must take every hour they ask of you, you clearly do not have time to find another job; you are very likely working more than a full-time job without adequate protections. Look, here’s how it goes: 1) you have no job 2) you take the first job that comes your way, even if it doesn’t actually pay enough to survive - a little money is better than no money 3) you take the second job that com…

if you have multiple jobs, you already have another job, so it was clearly possible.

Post by colejohnson66 » Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 3:41 PM UTC

okamiueru wrote: post #572

colejohnson66 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Key word in your comment: “different country .” Unions in the US tend to have an image of bureaucracy and not actually helping. For example, I worked at a union grocery store job a few years back and the union did jack squat for quite a lot of us. No benefits, minimum wage (well, 10¢ or so over), etc. My experience is obviously not representative of unions as a whole, but experiences such as these do taint one’s view…

Surely that is the fault of that union, and not the concept of it in of itself? There seems to be such a heavy effort put to make unions look bad, that I don't doubt for a second that it isn't effective. But the basic idea of it is that the employees have a lot more negotiation power collectively than alone. The whole goal is to have a fair compensation for work. Why would anyone work for a wage that isn't livable? I…

Post by krageon » Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

aktschually wrote: post #582

Bakary wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will lose their jobs en masse regardless of unions. The concentration of wealth and capture of surplus that we will see in the coming decades will probably make feudalism look like child's play

If you are unhappy with the terms or products of a company, you are free to shop or work elsewhere. That is the difference. "Capture of surplus" is hate speech - without those companies, there would be no surplus to begin with, that anybody could capture. If you believe those companies will capture so much surplus, you could also buy some of their stock and participate.

Post by jtms » Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

ViViDboarder wrote: post #566

CydeWeys wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go by market cap (for public companies). The markets are pretty effective at valuing companies.

/me looks at GameStop