Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#261

Post by mcny » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

objclxt wrote: post #246

sokoloff wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The more leverage you have as an individual, the less relevant a union is for you. If this was true, why are the highest paid and in-demand stars and directors in Hollywood all still dues paying members of their unions?

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

> If this was true, why are the highest paid and in-demand stars and directors in Hollywood all still dues paying members of their unions?

I am trying to parse these two statements and here is my thought. Being a union member can never hurt as long as dues are reasonable. You can always negotiate a better deal but at least you will get a baseline and really if acting is your career, you probably care about more than just total compensation.

Here is what I found on Google:

> To join SAG, a performer must pay an initiation fee plus the first semi-annual basic dues. The national initiation fee rate is currently $3,000 (initiation fees may be lower in some areas). Annual base dues are $201.96. In addition, work dues are calculated at 1.575 percent of covered earnings up to $500,000..

I don't know if this is up to date but assuming it is, 500000*1.575/100 + 201.96 is just over eight thousand dollars a year. Even at USD 10k a year, I think it is a good deal. If I were a highly paid on-screen talent, I would not want to stir a storm in a teacup over USD 10k if I was making over USD 500k a year. It simply wouldn't be worth my time.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#262

Post by Rule35 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #195

mixedCase wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. Not increasing its power is not undermining it. It's neutrality. Stop changing definitions to suit your political goals. We have enough "with us or against us" going on driving violence to let more slide.

I was careful to explain my reasoning in my post, but maybe it wasn't stated clearly enough. Consider a company for which programmers are fungible, and 5 programmers are required to keep the company running at full efficiency. If one programmer quits in protest over union-busting activity, all it takes is one other equivalent programmer on the labor market to agree to take the job. The existence of 1,000 other pro-un…

> You're either a scab or you're not; that's definitional, not rhetorical.

No, I'm an unaffiliated potential worker. Scab is a derogatory term. It's not surprising unions are losing support with that attitude.

You're thinking you have a right to the job and that by not supporting you I'm taking it away. You don't though and from my point of view a union is a threat of violence (try crossing a picket line) and is one tiny step away from domestic terrorism. You're demanding to take a job that could be mine but you're not willing to negotiate to win it. Turning a free-market opportunity for me into a political struggle where I'd need to win my way into the 1000 through your support. No thanks.

Every little thing Unionists do is about punishment and control, you can't even not downvote someone's honest opinion. Imagine if your job was controlled by such politics and you had to kowtow to the right opinions just to keep it.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#263

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

fmajid wrote: post #254

objclxt wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more leverage you have as an individual, the less relevant a union is for you. If this was true, why are the highest paid and in-demand stars and directors in Hollywood all still dues paying members of their unions?

The union helped them on their way up, and they are grateful, even though strictly speaking they no longer need the union.

Not to mention that SAG’s dues are quite regressive, only being applied to the first $500K in earnings, so being highly-paid doesn’t cost them anything additional.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#264

Post by Rule35 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

thomastjeffery wrote: post #214

mixedCase wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. Not increasing its power is not undermining it. It's neutrality. Stop changing definitions to suit your political goals. We have enough "with us or against us" going on driving violence to let more slide.

Parent's point was that by working for a company without supporting a union, you are giving that company leverage against the union. That is where the neutrality is lost.

I reject your absolutist ideology. If it's a forced choice of with your or against you, then you've asked for against.

Edit: With them or they'll do anything from downvote you to set your car on fire. This is why people don't believe you, or support you.

Look at the modern intellectual arguing the equivalent of Wickard v Filburn. Anti-union would be going out of my way to lobby my government to forbid unions. Neutral is just not supporting you because I can't tell if you have a valid case or not. As for being a coward, that's the modern unionist screaming slurs at other workers and beating them up in the parking lot.

The sad truth is that original unionists, who fought for safety in mines, etc, are being conflated with marxists who are really anti worker.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#265

Post by Mountain_Skies » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

This case is something to keep in mind anytime Amazon comments on any labor matter, be it minimum wage, visas, diversity, work conditions, contractors, anything at all. Amazon is not commenting on those issues with anything in mind other than its own interests.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#266

Post by paxys » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #265

This case is something to keep in mind anytime Amazon comments on any labor matter, be it minimum wage, visas, diversity, work conditions, contractors, anything at all. Amazon is not commenting on those issues with anything in mind other than its own interests.

It's bizarre that this even needs to be said IMO.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#267

Post by throwawaysea » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

burnished wrote: post #145

throwawaysea wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But these two were not speaking about the “terms and conditions” of their employment. They were broadly criticizing the company on other matters ranging from climate change to more directly political issues. I feel like the scope of the NLRA is extending to include just about everything.

What? It sounds like you are implying that you need your employers permission to speak your mind, broadly, on any topic?

I'm not necessarily saying that's how it should be, but I am observing that this is how it is in practice. Otherwise what do you make of companies regularly firing people for saying something on social media or on their own time? For example Disney+ fired Gina Carano for holding certain political positions and expressing them online. It seems like left-leaning activists want it both ways - protection for their own activities but not for the activities of moderates or conservatives.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#268

Post by carbonguy » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #248

amyjess wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually when someone says something like this, I assume they were never pro-union in the first place. "So-and-so said something I don't like, so now I've changed all my political beliefs to be the opposite of theirs" is something real people don't actually do. It's more likely that their political beliefs were always the opposite of so-and-so's and they were just looking for an opportunity to admit it.

You don’t imagine that “unions are good because of X, Y, and Z facts” is a more compelling argument to anyone anywhere in the middle spectrum than “if you don’t like unions, you’re a selfish asshole” or “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” and that difference in compelling nature would influence someone’s support of unions? It’s not like any of us emerged from the womb with a strongly decided opinion on unions,…

> You don’t imagine that “unions are good because of X, Y, and Z facts” is a more compelling argument to anyone anywhere in the middle spectrum than “if you don’t like unions, you’re a selfish asshole” or “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” and that difference in compelling nature would influence someone’s support of unions?

I'm not the OP, but to answer your question: frankly, no - in general it seems to often be the case that the factual merit of an argument is not really important in influencing opinion.

That the argument you mention ("if you don't like unions, you're a selfish asshole") has any influence at all is proof enough of this; note that it makes no direct statement about the merit of unions themselves, and yet is presented as an example of an influential argument about the value of unions - and rightfully so, based on your reaction and the reactions of other people in this thread.

Furthermore, I think it's fairly naive to think that "we developed [our opinions regarding unions] over time by deciding on the arguments advanced," as though it were always a conscious process or that a broadly fair view of unions was widely disseminated with which to make an informed decision. After all, why would it be?

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#269

Post by throwawaysea » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

themaninthedark wrote: post #142

throwawayboise wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That depends, is the policy: a) As an employee, you are not allowed to make statements about internal matters on behalf of the company. b) As an employee, you are not allowed to talk about internal matters outside the company. If A, then I have no problem. Companies have PR teams and random employee #13554 might not have all the information about an issue. If B, I have a huge problem as the first amendment is a thing…

Companies regularly fire people for expressing political opinions they don't agree with. I feel that speech should be protected, but if so, it should be protected across the board for all points of views, all ideologies, and all political positions. For instance, an employee who publicly criticizes Black Lives Matter should be able to do so without risking their job. Would you be OK with that?

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#270

Post by tekromancr » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

Rule35 wrote: post #264

thomastjeffery wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent's point was that by working for a company without supporting a union, you are giving that company leverage against the union. That is where the neutrality is lost.

I reject your absolutist ideology. If it's a forced choice of with your or against you, then you've asked for against. Edit: With them or they'll do anything from downvote you to set your car on fire. This is why people don't believe you, or support you. Look at the modern intellectual arguing the equivalent of Wickard v Filburn. Anti-union would be going out of my way to lobby my government to forbid unions. Neutral…

I would posit that you aren't rejecting any ideology, you are being presented with the fact even inaction is a political choice, and that seems to upset you. That's okay, there are a lot of facts about reality that upset me, too!

Unfortunately facts don't care about our feelings, and no amount of sulking about it will change the fact that so called union neutrality is an anti-union position. Not only is it anti-union, but kind of a cowardly anti-unionism, at that. It's wanting to be both anti-union, while also wanting to accept none of the social consequences that come with that position.