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

Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 416 posts

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#61

Post by nerdponx »

lokar wrote: post #59
dan-robertson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is settlement actually a bad deal for Amazon or similar companies like Google? Sure they have to spend a bit of money on the settlement but they have still succeeded at their actual objective of getting rid of the activist employees. This cycle (labour organisation attempt -> leaders fired -> settlement for leaders -> leaders go off to some media job/retirement/academia) happens again and again. Presumably the compan…

It could make it hard to recruit new Sr people and leaders in their fields. I would never consider working at Amazon.

Maybe some will balk, but not all. There is probably enough overlap between "talented devs and designers" and "people who think unions are bad and/or don't care" that it won't affect their hiring pipeline.

That said, I think highly-paid tech contributors do have the most leverage out of any other labor market participant right now. The more of us that don't want to work for anti-union companies, the better.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#62

Post by singlow »

lokar wrote: post #59
dan-robertson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is settlement actually a bad deal for Amazon or similar companies like Google? Sure they have to spend a bit of money on the settlement but they have still succeeded at their actual objective of getting rid of the activist employees. This cycle (labour organisation attempt -> leaders fired -> settlement for leaders -> leaders go off to some media job/retirement/academia) happens again and again. Presumably the compan…

It could make it hard to recruit new Sr people and leaders in their fields. I would never consider working at Amazon.

Then they have probably succeeded. I don't think they want people whom this would deter.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#63

Post by thedevelopnik »

pow_pp_-1_v wrote: post #57
jjj123 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just about the bottom line, it’s also about power. Without unionization, Amazon has complete control over their workers wages, benefits, and work contracts. Unionization shifts some of that control to the workers themselves. Amazon doesn’t want to lose that power.

If they had provided good benefits and working condition, the workers will not be incentivized to form unions, right? Why are they not doing that?

Because they’re betting, with a good deal of historical justification, that they can have their cake and eat it too.

US has unfortunately been union-unfriendly since Reagan.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#64

Post by dawnerd »

joana035 wrote: post #13

That's the reason why I don't buy anything from Amazon and prefer to pay a bit more to a local store instead.

Been using Target Staples, and Bestbuy more and while they don’t always have the same items, brand names end up being roughly the same price due to auto price matching and contractual minimum prices.

Only times I’m using amazon is for cheap items no one else will ship. They’ve really just turned into AliExpress.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#65

Post by nerdponx »

vsareto wrote: post #4
blinding-streak wrote: post #3

The original site seems to be offline now, but for reference, Amazon's anti-union propaganda website: https://web.archive.org/web/20210301090641/https://www.doitw...

>We’ve got you covered* >*Applies to regular full-time employees. >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. WHY NOT save the money and get the books, gifts & things you want? I've seen better propaganda for EVE Online and most people are doing that as a joke

For context (and for anyone who might read this and think "hey that's a lot of money!"), $500 amounts to less than a $10/week raise over 52 weeks, or $0.25/hour over 52 40-hour work weeks.

Yes, a healthy union can and will get you a lot more than $0.25/hour worth in value.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#66

Post by minikites »

pow_pp_-1_v wrote: post #57
jjj123 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just about the bottom line, it’s also about power. Without unionization, Amazon has complete control over their workers wages, benefits, and work contracts. Unionization shifts some of that control to the workers themselves. Amazon doesn’t want to lose that power.

If they had provided good benefits and working condition, the workers will not be incentivized to form unions, right? Why are they not doing that?

You don't get to be a billionaire by treating your workers well. Pay and benefits will always be worse at a non-union workplace because the workers have no leverage.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#67

Post by throwawayboise »

_huayra_ wrote: post #21
joana035 wrote: post #13

That's the reason why I don't buy anything from Amazon and prefer to pay a bit more to a local store instead.

Yes, and without too much effort one can also just shop online at other retailers (in case one lives way out in a rural area). Maybe free 2-day shipping won't happen at other places, but free shipping and equivalent prices are easy to find.

I have also stopped buying from Amazon. I rarely got two day delivery from Amazon anyway.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#68

Post by jjj123 »

pow_pp_-1_v wrote: post #57
jjj123 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just about the bottom line, it’s also about power. Without unionization, Amazon has complete control over their workers wages, benefits, and work contracts. Unionization shifts some of that control to the workers themselves. Amazon doesn’t want to lose that power.

If they had provided good benefits and working condition, the workers will not be incentivized to form unions, right? Why are they not doing that?

Well they are doing some of it for just that reason, like they raised the minimum wage to $15 (which is actually pretty good) and wave that around in their anti-union propaganda.

I bet they’ve done all kinds of risk calculations around increasing benefits and decided they could stop there. Personally, I hope their calculations are wrong and the workers unionize anyways.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#69

Post by nerdponx »

dawnerd wrote: post #64
joana035 wrote: post #13

That's the reason why I don't buy anything from Amazon and prefer to pay a bit more to a local store instead.

Been using Target Staples, and Bestbuy more and while they don’t always have the same items, brand names end up being roughly the same price due to auto price matching and contractual minimum prices. Only times I’m using amazon is for cheap items no one else will ship. They’ve really just turned into AliExpress.

Same here, but I wonder if Target warehouse employees have been pissing in bottles all along and the news just never picked up on it.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#70

Post by throwawayboise »

MereInterest wrote: post #40
tyingq wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's 2 quotes from an Amazon spokesperson there: “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against our internal policies, all of which are lawful,” said Jaci Anderson, an Amazon spokeswoman. “We terminated these employees not for talking publicly about working conditions, safety or sustainability but, rather, for repeatedly vio…

There's also a response to one of those reasons. > After Amazon told them that they had violated its external communications policy by speaking publicly about the business, their group organized 400 employees to also speak out, purposely violating the policy to make a point. So, Amazon fired then for publicly speaking about the business. Their statement saying that it was for violating internal policy seems deliberat…

> That Amazon had a policy against speaking publicly is not a point in Amazon's favor.

Not to defend Amazon, but on this point, every job I've ever had included a policy that amounted to "do not speak publicly about the business."

Do others think this is unusual?

Post reply on HN