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

381–390 of 416 posts

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#381

Post by enimodas »

sudosysgen wrote: post #288
yhoneycomb wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prog…

Why would big Capital let racial inequality subside when they profit of it? And even if it were to subside, history teaches us that's it's very easy to divide and rile up people along ethnic and cultural lines.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#382

Post by robbmorganf »

curryst wrote: post #47
mycall wrote: post #42

Are there any apps to streamline the unionization of businesses? It would seem quorum discovery is the hardest part of creating a union -- who is ready to join. Being in a union myself, even with some of the political issues that come with it, I very much appreciate what they do for me.

The incentive structure is bad. However much money you make for organizing unions, I'm positive the company they're attempting to unionize will pay you several times that to give them the list of workers who want to unionize. It's the same problem review sites have; companies that want to game the reviews will pay more than users who want honest reviews. You'll also have issues with companies paying someone to join t…

Maybe we finally found an application for Blockchain...

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#383

Post by jakelazaroff »

Rule35 wrote: post #368
jakelazaroff wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A union gains leverage by monopolizing the sale of labor to a company; a company gains leverage when they can buy labor elsewhere. If you don’t support the union, you are necessarily chipping away at their monopoly. There’s no action whereby your choice doesn’t change the balance of power between the two.

Did you try to catch a serial killer today? If not you helped kill their victim. Now either explain the limit to that logic or turn yourself in to the police.

The limit to the logic is that it only applies where you are forced to choose between zero sum options.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#384

Post by mancerayder »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #289
yhoneycomb wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's misinformed and presumptuous.

Study the working class movements from the mid 19th century to the 1970s. Look at their coalitions and demands.

Study the woke movement of the 2015-2021. One was pushing for collective unity and demanding concrete rights, including healthcare, working hour limits and unionization rights. The other wants to fire racists and change language. Which would you prefer if you were a corporate board member with the interests of your company at heart?

Which is more of a threat, a movement that demands corporate tax pay for a single payer healthcare model, or a movement which demands we make it easier to fire people accused of racism?

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#385

Post by jakelazaroff »

Rule35 wrote: post #369
jakelazaroff wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have to imagine. This very article is about employees who were illegally fired for not kowtowing to the right opinions. These politics do control your job, whether you want them to or not.

No, because I don't lie about peeing in a bottle at my job and make trouble. But if there was a union there'd be a never ending parade of shit I'd have to watch out for. Like having to pretend that we have to piss in bottles rather than using the washroom or else having my stuff vandalized and maybe being beaten in the parking lot. Unions use lies and violence to get their way, been there, had enough of that. What wa…

For the record, Amazon has admitted the peeing in bottles story was true: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/amazon-admits-it...

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#386

Post by jmcqk6 »

saalweachter wrote: post #307
lasagnaphil wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this tech really needed for union organization though? It seems much better to be using conventional chatrooms like Telegram/Signal for the best outreach among workers. And Telegram/Signal seems to be far more trustworthy of not leaking your stuff to the companies than some random startup, as a lot of people are already using it...

Honestly you also don't want your app to be something your employer can use the presence of on your phone as a signal that you are involved in union organizing, which is another win for a generic platform.

Under what circumstances would an employer get access to that information?

My employer should never look at my personal phone, for any reason.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#387

Post by ArkanExplorer »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #289
yhoneycomb wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Dīvide et īmpera has been a strategy since the Roman Empire.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#388

Post by htnsao »

uoaei wrote: post #362
htnsao wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"cancel culture that basically doesn't actually exist" That's funny. My definition of it certainly does but then I'm just referring to bleeding-hearts like you. Most of the HN downvoter crowd fit the bill too, so petty. Sure go ahead and whine about manspreading on buses, safe places, or whatever is the trending topic du jour. It's tyranny of the meek/weak on their internet soapbox. I worked in harsh, cold and violen…

"my definition" is literally the creation of a safe space so your views can remain unchallenged. Really fun to watch you types contradict yourselves at every turn. Valid critique is not "cancel culture", if you can't stand behind your own opinions then maybe you should try to understand why you relinquish in the face of any criticism whatsoever and retreat to hide to your safe space.

Seems we have some different definitions as I try to ignore most of it.

To me cancel culture seems like the trend of a mob of whiners to start to whine about something until its cancelled, like the latest Dr Seuss book outrage. Now it seems Amazon is the target. Or men. It's kinda like witchburning in the middle ages, and equally ridiculous. And toxic.

The frequent downvoting on HN to censure opposed opinions also seems like cancel culture. HN often seems like an enforced echo chamber "safe place" for bleeding-heart sentiment.

My definition of safe space is a place where people are not allowed to express a different opinion or ridicule someone so maybe we are in agreement on that. People are whining for the need for safe places (like unions) and so I say ciao, go ahead and whine loser.

Edit: and in case you want to say I'm contradicting myself about safe place and unions, I mean you people are trying to create a "safe place" within some else's business where their views cannot be challenged eg right to fire. (instead of being independent and going their own way).

But I don't want to argue the details as I'm trying to ignore most of it.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#389

Post by Pfhreak »

bananaface wrote: post #378
Pfhreak wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unapologetically break internal policies I mean, Amazon has an internal policy that you are not allowed to collaborate on any games related projects with anyone who is not also an Amazon employee. Did you go to a game jam? You've just unapologetically broken internal policies. It's absolutely the case that Amazon can construct policies that are never enforced and easy to break so they have something they can fall b…

Tht's insane. Is that rule in the contract, or is it something that's imposed after employees are hired? (Or is it like, "you agree to adhere to all Amazon internal policies"? Is that even legal to begin with?) I don't understand how they can enforce something like that without it being an explicit agreement in the contract. Is it the case that they are explicit clauses, but people don't negotiate them out?

It's not in the contract, and not mentioned until after you start. It (and IP protections in general) are one of the biggest reasons I want tech unions to succeed.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#390

Post by jjk166 »

erwald wrote: post #212
jjk166 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that technology can't be used to more effectively organize and influence people?

No, I think pje is saying that existing tools are just fine & new tools are unlikely to improve things on the margin.

If something is hard, the tools to do it aren't fine.
Post reply on HN