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

231–240 of 416 posts

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#231

Post by kazen44 »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #159
thedevelopnik wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US has been union unfriendly since the 19th century when union leaders were regularly assassinated, and in the 20th century when striking workers were aerially bombarded and killed.

mind you this was historically the case nearly everywhere in Wurope too. This only really changed drastically after world war 1, which saw the fall of many empires (german, ottoman, astro-hungarian and russian) which resulted in a lot of political instability. Trade unions and other labour organisations where able to demand representative power in a turmoil time when many new countries where created. (having a nationwide strike or even a revolution was a really bad thing for the (newly established) establishment).

This got further cemented when the USSR was formed, and it actively supported many left winged militant organisations in europe. This was used as leverage by trade unionists and social-democrats to demand further rights (or else the militant forces will get into power and things will end much worse for the establishment).

This dynamic only really changed right before world war 2, when stalin (and other USSR leaders) focused on a policy of "socialism in one country" instead of a the dogma of a worldwide workers revolution.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#232

Post by [deleted] »

ineedasername wrote: post #93
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…

They've not only rid themselves of the activists, they've made it clear that you lose your job if you publicly disagree with them. You'll lose your job and if you try to fight it you'll spend years just to get a settlement. From here on out everyone will be thinking "is this worth losing my job over, especially when I may have similarly serious concers about any employer I work for?"

[deleted]

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#233

Post by [deleted] »

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]

[deleted]

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#234

Post by andrepd »

Judgmentality wrote: post #154
nerdponx wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it's not physically possible to be neutral on this issue. It's not analogous to never giving people change on the street because you donate to soup kitchens and mutual aid orgs (or whatever). If you don't support unionization, you are effectively undermining it. This isn't meant to be some kind of woke purity test. It's just the facts of how a market operates. Every individual that is willing to work wi…

JFC talk about a "you're with us or against us" mentality. I tend to be somewhat neutral on unions (depending on the context I think they're sometimes good and sometimes bad), but your rhetoric has pushed me further towards unions being bad.

If such a simple opinion "pushed" you into the unions-are-bad camp then you were never on the fence in the first place.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#235

Post by sreque »

GavinMcG wrote: post #210
tyingq wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the NLRB screens complaints first and then steps in to represent the complainant for complaints that are credible" That's a pretty big difference.

How so? On the whole, it saves Amazon the hassle of dealing with "unfair labor" complaints that really aren't. And it's not like the NLRB attorneys give the employee some special advantage. Frankly, there are a lot of cases where the employee would probably be better off working with a private attorney whose incentives are more aligned with the employee's. And either way, Amazon had a piece of paper from a lawyer tha…

The NLRB are appointed by the president and can behave with incredible political bias: https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-re...

The reach of the executive branch has extended far beyond what is healthy for the nation of the United States.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#236

Post by nerdponx »

mrguyorama wrote: post #218
nerdponx wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 figuri…

Ah yes, the companies failing were because of overpaid employees, and not because of incompetent management and an unwillingness to produce competitive products.

I never said anything about why the companies were failing.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#237

Post by dan-robertson »

ineedasername wrote: post #93
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…

They've not only rid themselves of the activists, they've made it clear that you lose your job if you publicly disagree with them. You'll lose your job and if you try to fight it you'll spend years just to get a settlement. From here on out everyone will be thinking "is this worth losing my job over, especially when I may have similarly serious concers about any employer I work for?"

You lose your job but then win a big settlement and likely get money out of your role as someone trying to organise labour and getting fired by Amazon. It’s not clear that it’s a bad deal for those who were fired either

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#238

Post by nerdponx »

schnevets wrote: post #193
nerdponx wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because good benefits and working conditions are fleeting without the power of collective bargaining behind it. Without a union, employees are depending entirely on the goodwill of their employers.

This. Amazon became a ripe unionization target because they get noticeable productivity per worker. Its rates are closer to manufacturing compared to typical retail and the other prevalent, low-income jobs. With Amazon's massive investment in robotics and other opportunities for automation, they think they can become exponentially more efficient. At that point, a non-unionized workforce will lose that goodwill and be…

On the other hand, regarding automation...

In an ideal world unions shouldn't have to be anti-automation, because people should have access to other sources of income (yes I mean income, not specifically employment) if they lose their jobs. This way we aren't holding back technological progress to protect people from poverty.

I have no idea what that ideal world looks like, maybe it's not possible. But I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that automation is somehow inherently anti-worker with no opportunity for reconciliation.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#239

Post by zarkov99 »

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.

In contrast, I would be very happy too consider a company that is honestly focused on its commercial mission rather than appease the small number of people who believe their employers should give them a platform for their activism.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#240

Post by sokoloff »

duckfang wrote: post #186
sokoloff wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more leverage you have as an individual, the less relevant a union is for you.

So, what individual thinks they have more leverage than Amazon? Amazon has a 1.6 trillion $ market cap.

Amazon needs a lot of software engineers and needs them more than any individual SWE needs Amazon, no matter what their market cap is.
Post reply on HN