Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#31

Post by EarlKing »

nanna wrote: post #12
Waterluvian wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious if it's the same reason I put up with !@#$ earlier in my career: I don't have the luxury of taking risks and I'm just really not interested in upsetting my employer. You tell me there's a better world on the other side of the hill, but I'm just trying to keep my children from starving this month. I can't even begin to think about the uncertainty and risk of trying to get there. Some commentary: I think th…

In other countries not hiring someone because of their union affiliation is flat out illegal. (Thanks to union and political struggles to protect collective bargaining as a right)

A lot of things are illegal in life ... but lawsuits take time and money most people don't have.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#32

Post by bpodgursky »

Loughla wrote: post #9

I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest for a small amount of union dues. That is not snark, it's a real statement. I legitimately do not understand it. Can someone who works/worked one of these jobs please explain it to me? I am so confused by how lopsided this was.

Other than dues and having control over pay grades (maybe workers think they can do better than union-negotiated flat pay scales), unions can vote to strike and force you out of a job.

And at the end of the day, the workers just weren't particularly unhappy, and those weren't palatable risks.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#33

Post by utahcon »

Loughla wrote: post #9

I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest for a small amount of union dues. That is not snark, it's a real statement. I legitimately do not understand it. Can someone who works/worked one of these jobs please explain it to me? I am so confused by how lopsided this was.

Unions will only work in a few scenarios. The biggest of which is that the people with the skill need to be 100% together in starting the union, and willing to not work when the union says to not work. The facts remain that most of these employees most likely can't afford to not work. They can't afford to be without the stability of their employers paycheck. Additionally, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people willing to replace these workers. Sadly they don't require any trade skill to pick/pull/pack. So there is no barrier for new recruits to be hired and replace the missing union workers.

Advantage: Amazon

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#34

Post by moioci »

delecti wrote: post #10

So, leaving aside why someone would or would not want to join a union, why is this a majority vote? If 49% of a workforce wants to unionize, why can't they?

Not a lawyer or organized labor person, but a favorable vote would turn the warehouse into a "union shop," where the union negotiates on behalf of everyone, member or not, with regard to wages and working conditions and collects dues from everyone, member or not. In my very limited experience, the union offers some benefit like vision coverage to encourage people to join.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#35

Post by prepend »

EarlKing wrote: post #21
Loughla wrote: post #9

I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest for a small amount of union dues. That is not snark, it's a real statement. I legitimately do not understand it. Can someone who works/worked one of these jobs please explain it to me? I am so confused by how lopsided this was.

They're underpaid enough as it is? Seriously, that's usually what it comes down to: Nobody wants to give up a dime for union dues when they're already barely making ends meet.

Aren’t Amazon workers paid more than average warehouse workers?

ZipRecruiter shows the average in all states as under $15 [0] so an Amazon worker will likely make more than a worker in other warehouses.

Doesn’t mean that they are rolling in the money, but makes me think higher wages is probably not a motivating factor for unionization.

[0] https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Wa...

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#36

Post by dylan604 »

kadomony wrote: post #29
Loughla wrote: post #9

I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest for a small amount of union dues. That is not snark, it's a real statement. I legitimately do not understand it. Can someone who works/worked one of these jobs please explain it to me? I am so confused by how lopsided this was.

Most of the folks who vote aren't really the type to sit down and think long-term. $50/month in dues getting them +$2-3k more annually every two years? They won't do the math and see they'd make a net profit of whatever that annual income increase is minus $600. There was some great video floating around recently of a forklift operator or something who explained what his union dues got him and he was so informed and…

Right up until that new raise puts you in the lowest tier of the next tax bracket so that you suddenly make less by making more.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#37

Post by darkwater »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #25
Loughla wrote: post #9

I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest for a small amount of union dues. That is not snark, it's a real statement. I legitimately do not understand it. Can someone who works/worked one of these jobs please explain it to me? I am so confused by how lopsided this was.

> I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest The whole "voting against your own interest" is hugely paternalistic and anti-democratic. People have their own set of values and interests. As an outsider without knowledge of the people to accuse them of voting against their own interest because they did not vote the way you wanted them to is the height of arrogance.

OP is actually just asking why, and explaining they don't understand why workers voted that way, which superficially seems "wrong".

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#39

Post by chrisseaton »

Loughla wrote: post #9

I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest for a small amount of union dues. That is not snark, it's a real statement. I legitimately do not understand it. Can someone who works/worked one of these jobs please explain it to me? I am so confused by how lopsided this was.

> why you would vote against your own collective interest

Maybe they are not sufficiently confident that the union will act in their interest?

Is that so crazy an idea?

If you're in favour of unions then I guess you're in favour of workers being able to have a say in how they work. And if they don't want to work with a union then I can't understand how you can rationally do anything but say 'ok thank you for saying, if that's what you want no problem we'll do it that way'.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#40

Post by didgeoridoo »

nanna wrote: post #7

I'm confused, why did they need a vote to start a union? Here in the UK pretty sure if a load of workers want to start a union, they can - irrespective of whether they're in the majority or not. Sounds to me like the circumscription of a need for a majority itself comes from anti-union legislation.

I believe there can only be one union per type of worker — you can’t have some warehouse pickers be repped by Union A and others by Union B. The vote isn’t just to unionize, it’s to unionize with a specific union. It’s entirely legitimate to put that to a vote, to ensure employees get to choose their preferred representatives.
Post reply on HN