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

81–90 of 416 posts

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#81

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

monocasa wrote: post #24
elefanten wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To do it’s job as journalist institution. Though, in the NYT’s case, they’ve been predictably going straight downhill since they adopted Fox News’ high level strategy of chasing, fanning and profiting from political and social polarization. So, nobody’s holding their breath that NYT would rise to that challenge.

Why does a journalist institution have to go above printing Amazon's statements on the matter, and print their now disproven legal theories as well?

It’s not an endorsement, it’s information. As a reader, I want to know which legal theories specifically were disproven. For example, would my own employer’s “no public statements” policy be invalid based on this ruling, or was the problem something specific to Amazon?

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#82

Post by nerdponx »

lkrubner wrote: post #37
CryptoPunk wrote: post #6

The labor laws in place violate the freedom of association and are terrible for social welfare. There is a reason why unionization is associated with enterprise decline, and why shareholders oppose it. Amazon is doing immense good for US quality of life and raising US export revenue, and there is no benefit in jeopardizing that to give a select group of workers a monopoly over the jobs it offers.

Germany has much stronger labor unions than the USA, a legal requirement we forced on them when they finalized the constitution (Basic Law) of 1949. Since that time, compare the fate of the American auto companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler and American Motors) to German auto companies (Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, BMW). The American companies ruled the world, and then lost market ground, one went bankrupt, another was bought…

In my understanding, the United Auto Workers union were one big reason why the US automakers were bailed out in 2008.

So if anything, they're (partly) responsible for keeping a dead/dying industry on life support. Can't blame them for not wanting thousands of people to lose their jobs, but market forces were definitely not favorable to American automakers at the time.

Then again, American automakers seem to be figuring things out. The problem with counterfactuals is that you can never actually observe them...

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#83

Post by ceejayoz »

capableweb wrote: post #33
ethbr0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody ever accused HR of being overburdened with creativity.

This is worst than what people from HR could come up with. At least HR at companies sometimes interact with normal workers as they are at the intersection between the company and its workers. This website seems to be done by some corporate team that has never actually interacted with a blue collar worker. Hardly surprising coming from Amazon but considering the amount of money they earn, I would have thought they wou…

It's likely done by one of the handful of large lawfirms that specialize in killing unionization efforts. https://theconversation.com/the-labor-busting-law-firms-and-...

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#84

Post by [deleted] »

throwawayboise wrote: post #70
MereInterest wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#85

Post by FireBeyond »

goatinaboat wrote: post #74
jcranmer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any example where a unionized labor force killed a viable industry (or even a single company). Even when I think of the cases where unions hurt the viability of the company, the primary cause of decline was poor strategy and decision-making on the part of the owners. Blaming unions for those cases seems to be a rather sleazy way for the owners to avoid any liability for their faults.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any example where a unionized labor force killed a viable industry (or even a single company). Look up the British car industry, specifically the antics of "Red Robbo" at British Leyland. Carmaking is a viable industry in the UK and is doing well now that it is all foreign-owned with minimal union interference. There would probably still be coal mining in the UK if it were not for the NUM…

> There would probably still be coal mining in the UK if it were not for the NUM, we import coal now.

While they certainly didn't play an innocent role in the demise (planned, expected or otherwise) of the coal mining industry, to lay blame squarely at the union's feet ignores the _other_ 800lb gorilla in the room. The mines would have and were becoming less economically viable.

But the Thatcher government made a point of starting the closures at the worst possible time, "effective immediately", and then made a point of pointedly ignoring the economic collapse of entire towns and districts whose lifeblood had been the coal mines. There were multiple towns of 20,000 working age people, 15,000+ of whom worked in the coal industry. And there was precisely nothing done to handle that collapse, and just as importantly to the union's handling - there was not even the hint of sympathy or compassion from the Thatcher government - everything was all about the "wicked" union "stealing" from the British people, and an infamous quote that "if miners don't like being out of work, they need to get on their bike and find more [work]". The problem with this is, even if the union had been stubborn, before, this attitude steeled their resolve to be just as hard-headed as Thatcher.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#86

Post by goatinaboat »

corin_ wrote: post #79
goatinaboat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any example where a unionized labor force killed a viable industry (or even a single company). Look up the British car industry, specifically the antics of "Red Robbo" at British Leyland. Carmaking is a viable industry in the UK and is doing well now that it is all foreign-owned with minimal union interference. There would probably still be coal mining in the UK if it were not for the NUM…

You're buying into propaganda about British unions, blaming them for the car industry is ridiculous, and when it comes to mining you seem to think that the mines would have lasted longer had unions not been against shutting mines?

you seem to think that the mines would have lasted longer had unions not been against shutting mines?

At the time, the average ton of coal was costing double to extract than it was worth. Closing the loss making mines was inevitable but the viable mines could have remained open, and would have as there was still the demand for coal.

The Germans do this right, their unions want their workers to have fair share of the rewards and understand that the company must be profitable in the first place for that to happen. British union leaders simply play workers against management for their own gain, then leave both workers and management worse off, but workers get the worst of it.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#87

Post by ceejayoz »

throwawayboise wrote: post #70
MereInterest wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are specific rights in this regard.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/can-you-terminate-emplo...

> In a memo released on April 15, the agency evaluated a case where a company maintained a policy that prohibited employees from speaking to the media at any time. The NLRB found this rule to be unlawful and explained: “Employees have a statutory right to speak publically about their complaints or concerns with their terms and conditions of employment, including to the press, without employer authorization.”

> In other words, employees have a right under the National Labor Relations Act generally to discuss their employment – including with the press. Based on the finding that the policy was unlawful, the NLRB also found that the company violated labor law when it terminated two employees pursuant to the policy for speaking to the media about a workplace issue. A more narrowly tailored policy may have passed muster, but the broad media prohibition, in this case, crossed the line.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#88

Post by slices »

nerdponx wrote: post #69
dawnerd wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know about the warehouses, but a family member stocked shelves at Target for years, and was paid the minimum wage the whole time. Hours were 1) part time, 2) too inconsistent to allow any other work.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#89

Post by Der_Einzige »

goatinaboat wrote: post #74
jcranmer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any example where a unionized labor force killed a viable industry (or even a single company). Even when I think of the cases where unions hurt the viability of the company, the primary cause of decline was poor strategy and decision-making on the part of the owners. Blaming unions for those cases seems to be a rather sleazy way for the owners to avoid any liability for their faults.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any example where a unionized labor force killed a viable industry (or even a single company). Look up the British car industry, specifically the antics of "Red Robbo" at British Leyland. Carmaking is a viable industry in the UK and is doing well now that it is all foreign-owned with minimal union interference. There would probably still be coal mining in the UK if it were not for the NUM…

Nah, bentley, aston martin, and the other british car companies simply make bad cars in comparison to competitors.

It wasn't unions that killed them

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#90

Post by FireBeyond »

throwawayboise wrote: post #70
MereInterest wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is legal to prohibit employees saying or implying that they are speaking on behalf of the company or in any capacity, but it's actually forbidden by the National Labor Relations Board to tell employees they are forbidden from saying anything about their employer (notwithstanding sensitive, confidential or classified topics).
Post reply on HN