Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

Post by p_j_w » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

dawnerd wrote: post #125

crocsarecool wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt like I had to remember how to shop other places online as I’ve been making my switch to less Amazon. I’m so tired of finding little business cards in all my orders to review the products. I gave a bad review on a vacuum cleaner, and the seller has been contacting me every few weeks to refund me if I take it down. I sympathize with sellers because I know it’s hard to sell anything less than a five star product…

I don't feel bad, those sellers did it to themselves. They gamed the system too hard and that's where they landed.

Post by rualca » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

peytn wrote: post #133

tekromancr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do have leverage, and you don't use said leverage to help those that don't; then you are a bastard. And having policies ensures that your company, at high levels is ONLY staffed with bastards because people who are not bastards won't want to work there. Granted, that might be exactly what Amazon et al are selecting for; but at some point, a company being anti-union will be a signal to prospective high-level em…

I like to keep business and charity separated. Mixing the two, in my opinion, simply adds a layer of indirection for the bastards to hide behind. Besides, if you’re in a working environment where people throw around terms like “total comp” and have mortgages denominated in millions of dollars, the self-interest ship has kinda sailed.

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

pow_pp_-1_v wrote: post #46

Wouldn't it be better for Amazon, in the long term to let workers get the best salary/benefits in the industry and even cooperate in their unionization efforts (if the workers want to)? Would it such a big hit to their bottom line? Or am I just being to too naive? [Edit: Grammar]

Post by p_j_w » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #91

FireBeyond wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 poi…

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. That is true, but the context at the time was the Winter Of Discontent. The unions had squandered all the goodwill the voters might otherwise have had.

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:59 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #166

jjj123 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"minimum wage" should be for jobs that are minimum work - jobs were you stand around doing nothing (cashier at a slow store), or are apprenticing a skill. Amazon warehouse jobs are physically demanding and damaging (which should carry a premium) and extremely optimized to negative downtime (which should carry a premium). (Employees are required to do work while off the clock, walking between work area and break area,…