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

281–290 of 416 posts

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#281

Post by carbonguy »

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.

> JFC talk about a "you're with us or against us" mentality... your rhetoric has pushed me further towards unions being bad.

It's a remarkably odd choice to refer to OP's comment as "rhetoric" in this case given that the remark "it's not physically possible to be neutral on this issue" is a literal statement of truth.

Generally, neutrality implicitly supports the status quo; it's a choice like any other, whether you acknowledge it as such or not, and as OP pointed out it is literally true that if you have the option to be part of a union and you aren't, the bargaining power of that union is less than it otherwise would be.

I suppose you'd have to clarify what you meant with respect to your own decisions - have you ever even had the option to join a union? Because if not, then I could see how you might be able to see yourself as "neutral" as it's not an issue that has directly affected you. But if you did have a choice then presumably you made a choice one way or the other, in which case "neutrality" isn't something you can actually claim.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#282

Post by yhoneycomb »

ArkanExplorer wrote: post #272
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.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228324/amazon-whole-foo... "Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, is using a heat map to track stores that may be at risk of unionization" "a “diversity index” represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity" https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/10/31/h1b-visa-ban-google... In October 2020 Google, Amazon & 44 Tech…

Makes you wonder if THIS is what's behind all the pushes for diversity

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#283

Post by oort-cloud9 »

tekromancr wrote: post #129
sokoloff wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

You know that business is nothing designed to be your babysitter, right? And it's designed to pay you more than your work deserves,right?

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#284

Post by asymptosis »

mullingitover wrote: post #123

Is there as much of an effort to unionize in other countries where tech salaries are markedly lower? I only seem to hear about efforts to organize in the US, but Europe's tech salaries are far lower across the board. You'd think that efforts to organize there would be more fruitful.

In Australia there is still a reasonable amount of unionisation, although membership percentages dropped off markedly when a past government sharply curtailed union powers. In particular, the "right to strike" as understood by much of the developed world is now restricted to only certain circumstances; basically, we can only strike once every few years when negotiating for a new agreement.

Once the agreement is in place, taking collective action against hostile management makes you a target for civil liability. (Which isn't to say it doesn't happen, but the threat of civil damages certainly has a chilling effect whenever the prospect of "unprotected action" is raised.)

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#285

Post by DickingAround »

nerdponx wrote: post #211
rualca wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's an awful lot of words to say "screw you, I got mine". Exploiters have it easy when the exploited see basic workers rights as "charity".

Some HN users are apparently very touchy about this, so maybe a gentler way to state it would be: > It is only possible to see labor solidarity as "charity" if you are privileged enough to not depend on that solidarity. Of course, accusations of privilege themselves are subject to pants-twisting and fits of downvoting moderation-flagging rage. "Please don't remind me that I'm privileged because it makes me feel icky…

I'm not going to down vote either of these at the moment. But the basic idea is to attack ideas not people. Any statements that name call (e.g. 'bastards') or attack the idea by attacking the author of it (e.g. 'dont remind me that I'm privileged') will not lead to an environment where we are all learning from each other.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#286

Post by sokoloff »

carbonguy wrote: post #268
sokoloff wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ofte…

There's an old legal aphorism that goes, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

If I believe that and see someone pounding the table, I can make an inference about the ability of their position to stand up to scrutiny. I might be wrong in that inference, but IMO the lawyer with the facts or law on their side does their client a serious disservice if they choose to just bang the table.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#287

Post by ajxs »

paxys wrote: post #266
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.

Unfortunately, it really does. There's so many people who are unable or unwilling to turn a critical eye to the actions of these companies. This applies doubly to social and political issues. Amazon and ilk carefully weigh the options and make decisions according to their own interests.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#288

Post by sudosysgen »

yhoneycomb wrote: post #282
ArkanExplorer wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228324/amazon-whole-foo... "Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, is using a heat map to track stores that may be at risk of unionization" "a “diversity index” represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity" https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/10/31/h1b-visa-ban-google... In October 2020 Google, Amazon & 44 Tech…

Makes you wonder if THIS is what's behind all the pushes for diversity

Well no, it's not. More diverse stores may have tensions that lower the cohesiveness of the group, and some of their members may be economically more vulnerable and thus more weary of the risk of retaliation, but once (if) diversity is normalized and racial inequality subsides, then this disparity will almost certainly disappear.

And once it does, one of the most major lines exploited against economic and social progress becomes much more difficult to exploit.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#289

Post by knowaveragejoe »

yhoneycomb wrote: post #282
ArkanExplorer wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228324/amazon-whole-foo... "Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, is using a heat map to track stores that may be at risk of unionization" "a “diversity index” represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity" https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/10/31/h1b-visa-ban-google... In October 2020 Google, Amazon & 44 Tech…

Makes you wonder if THIS is what's behind all the pushes for diversity

Why do people think the promotion of diversity is part of some nefarious global plot?

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#290

Post by carbonguy »

mixedCase wrote: post #152
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…

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.

> Not increasing its power is not undermining it.

This might be true if you were describing a situation with three parties: a company, a union, and you - affiliated with neither. But as almost all unionization takes place after people have already entered an employee/employer relationship, the neutrality has been lost; you are, by default, on the side of the employer if you are not a part of the union, and having employees not in a union does weaken the bargaining position of the union since it's relative representation that matters.

> Stop changing definitions to suit your political goals.

Don't forget to call the kettle black, while you're at it.

Post reply on HN