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

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#41

Post by underseacables »

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?

Without force the unions can’t exist. It’s like a lot of things with government involvement: Unless you are forced to do it, many people, especially if money is involved, will eventually decide not to. So in order for the union to survive and have power they have to force everyone to join, everyone to pay, and everyone submit to its system whether they like it or not. What I see in this union vote is that people didn’t want to give up their autonomy to someone else. I think anything that asks citizens to give up some kind of autonomy - especially now - is going to incite people negatively.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#42

Post by mywittyname »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #22
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.

If they unionize Amazon will close down the warehouse and open it somewhere else.

Maybe. They sure will threaten to. But fact is, Amazon has quite an investment in these warehouses and wages are really just one aspect of the calculus for whether or not to keep running the warehouse.

Plus, if unionization makes its way to every Amazon warehouse, then everyone will compete on equal footing vis-a-vis wages.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#43

Post by tarquinpussy »

chrisseaton wrote: post #19
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.

The vote was to unionise the workplace, not to form a union. You can form a union whenever you want, like you can form any other group of people a club. You just can't unilaterally force an employer to deal with you.

I hate to say it but I think the UK system is better. No closed shops, but if enough of the workplace (50%?) join the union, the employer has to deal with them.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#44

Post by bko »

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.

Assuming you're not an Amazon warehouse employee, but they have more skin in the game than you. So presumably their opinion is more informed and reasoned.

I don't think its as clear cut as "in your interest". I certainly wouldn't vote to unionize my profession and I would even go as far as avoiding unionized fields. I prefer to have a direct relationship with my employer. I stay away from organizations that have a table that will tell you how much you'll make after N years. It's just not a dynamic place to work. Or at least that's my impression when dealing with unionized groups in large banks.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#45

Post by bpodgursky »

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.

Like others have indicated, the vote is to force exclusive representation. Workers can always form non-exclusive unions and negotiate as they see fit, but they can't force all workers to be represented unless they vote.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#46

Post by tyingq »

bena wrote: post #11
tyingq wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is the messaging about dues. Lots of people focused on the short term hit to their paychecks. Most of the stories reference $500/month. That does seem high. Data I can find for other unions shows somewhere between 1 to 4 percent of gross pay as typical for union dues. Assuming $15/hour, 4 percent of gross pay would be $144/month. But, if $500/month is accurate, it's 13.8% of gross pay for $15/hour workers, a…

That short term hit can have long term consequences. If I'm scraping by already, I'm not looking forward to taking another hit to an already stretched paycheck.

It does seem like the union missed an opportunity here. They should have offered some ramp up, or reconsidered the $500/month.

If that's indeed accurate, it's 13.8% of gross pay for $15/hour workers, and 10.4% of gross for $20/hour workers. That seems really high.

Edit: It's apparently $500/year, see other posts though, many news stories did post $500/month.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#47

Post by dylan604 »

prepend wrote: post #35
EarlKing wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

making $15/hour doesn't mean you suddenly have lots of money to make it rain. $15/hour means that a lot of people are just now at the point of barely making it vs the completely snowed under they were in at minimum wage

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#48

Post by RankingMember »

dylan604 wrote: post #36
kadomony wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not how marginal tax rates work, though- You get taxed higher on the amount above the threshold, not on the entire amount.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#49

Post by danielrpa »

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)

In the US many would argue that it's not collective bargaining if you are making the employer accept an union; it's putting a gun to the employer's head in the negotiations. Employers are people too! And an employer could be a small to medium company that is barely surviving against overseas competition.

I understand others would say that the employer is more powerful to begin with and thus it's just a way to balance things. And without that, workers would be exploited and society would be worse off.

The reason I'm writing this is that there are two sides of this discussion with pretty good arguments. So just because other countries think differently, it doesn't mean that they are doing the right thing.

Post reply on HN