Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Amazon Crushes Unions

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 261 posts

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#151

Post by Chris2048 »

capableweb wrote: post #110
Chris2048 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who do dangerous and underpaid work so a few guys can become very rich If it's underpaid, why do it? If you do it, what makes it "under" paid? By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right.

Programmers say things like "By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right." and then wonder why everyone thinks programmers are emotionally cold. Yes, by pure math and market economics, I guess you might be right. But by hearth, I'm sure even you realize that it's not that black and white in reality.

If it's not that black and white, why not explain how rather than invoking negative programmer stereotypes?

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#152

Post by nickpp »

AlexandrB wrote: post #95
nickpp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields.

> Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields. Most fields except: retail, food service, food delivery, warehouse work, customer service/support, auto repair, etc. Basically, half the people in the US if not more.

Most fields where the added value is equivalent to that of a (basically) robot and where the labor pool is more than "any able body" and thus the supply side is ridiculously unlimited.

Society rewards contribution it finds valuable. The amount of that reward is an extremely valuable signal for people to find ways to increase the quality or quantity of their contribution.

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#153

Post by noahatwi »

jtdev wrote: post #7
peer2pay wrote: post #6

I hate Amazon and stories like this make me hate it even more. I stopped ordering anything from them and, if anything, this has actually improved my consumer experience. Most stuff you can buy on Amazon these days is the same garbage that is sold on Wish but you pay ~25-50% more for it to come within a couple of days. Not shopping at either has definitely raised the average life span and quality of goods in my househ…

I've made the same changes in recent months and agree that it's improved my consumer experience significantly. I didn't realize just how much time and energy I was spending sorting through cheap Chinese made junk and counterfeit garbage on Amazon trying to find quality products. In terms of cloud providers: the major three (Azure, GCloud, AWS) seem to be cut from the same cloth... maybe IBM or Oracle cloud are better…

Where do you guys shop now? Genuinely curious.

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#154

Post by Chris2048 »

charlesu wrote: post #68
Chris2048 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who do dangerous and underpaid work so a few guys can become very rich If it's underpaid, why do it? If you do it, what makes it "under" paid? By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right.

Because the alternative is to starve? You can take advantage of people when they’re in dire straits. That’s not indicative of some greater truth about the price of labor but a fact of exploitation.

So someone offers a job at a poor rate, and it's "exploitation".

Then what are you and me, who didn't even offer a rate? If they would've literally starved without the offer, it literally saved their life.

If a persons situation is not made worse by a job offer, then what's the problem? They would've still been worse off without it.

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#155

Post by EliRivers »

Mr. Hough (pronounced Huff) was in a hospital having knee surgery when Amazon called and said he had used up his medical leave.

This. WTF. I hear this sort of thing and it's always a surprise, no matter how many times I hear it. Like that bullshit about being allocated a certain number of sick days. Like they're basically holiday days, but you can only use them when you're sick. I guess this then means that if you're sick, you're more likely to lose your job and as a bonus in the fucked up nightmare I'm describing, lose your employer-provided access to healthcare. It's like someone set out to deliberately create a system where minor misfortunes amplify to life-ruining catastrophe; instead of a system that catches people, a system that does just the opposite.

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#156

Post by munificent »

throwaway53453 wrote: post #25
blinding-streak wrote: post #4

For reference, Amazon's anti-union site: https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/

I have to say, I'm kind of creeped out by union dues. It just feels less about workers helping themselves and more like some workers creating a new power structure and job roles that they can enjoy.

> It just feels less about workers helping themselves and more like some workers creating a new power structure and job roles that they can enjoy.

When you have one organized power structure that is using its power to exploit people, the only real way to combat it is with another organized power structure.

Bezoes is worth $196 billion. You're not going to be able to effectively push back against that with bake sales.

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#157

Post by andyjohnson0 »

nickpp wrote: post #59
cratermoon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those same "bad laws" are why you have a 5-day work week, your retirement plan, overtime (if you are hourly), safe working conditions, sick leave. The list goes on. If you think you'd like to go back before the time when unions didn't exist, let me direct you to the work of photographer Lewis Hine

We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields.

> We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields.

Possibly this is true for the kind of jobs that many HN readers tend to have. But many, many people have to slog it out in low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs with minimal ability to bargain, and with almost all power on the side of the employer.

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#158

Post by munificent »

gavin_gee wrote: post #119

For any business running at scale, this is a math problem. if the cost of human labor rises, more investment will be made to remove humans from the process and replace them with technology. Amazon was one of the great employers through Coronavirus. Perhaps people should think one step ahead.

Thinking one step ahead is a luxury afforded to people whose current step has them safe, healthy, and able to put food on the table.

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#159

Post by nickpp »

charlesu wrote: post #68
Chris2048 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who do dangerous and underpaid work so a few guys can become very rich If it's underpaid, why do it? If you do it, what makes it "under" paid? By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right.

Because the alternative is to starve? You can take advantage of people when they’re in dire straits. That’s not indicative of some greater truth about the price of labor but a fact of exploitation.

No, the alternative is another job.

Re: How Amazon Crushes Unions

#160

Post by munificent »

jdasdf wrote: post #11

I don't get it, why do workers need to vote in order to start/join a union? Why would the company care if they do join a union? Can't they simply refuse to negotiate with the union?

> Why would the company care if they do join a union?

The fundamental goal of a union is to force executives at a company to do things that benefit workers that they wouldn't otherwise do.

> Can't they simply refuse to negotiate with the union?

If the union has a small enough fraction of their employee base as members such that they company can afford the productivity loss of a strike, yes. Once a large enough fraction of workers are in the union, the threat of a strike puts enough pressure on executives that it is in their best interest to negotiate.

Post reply on HN