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

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#81

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

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…

> "...why you would vote against your own collective interest ..."

> "...Most of the folks who vote aren't really the type to sit down and think long-term..."

Why do people call others dumb (and let's not kid ourselves, that's just what these phrases are a cultured, genteel way of saying) and then are surprised when said others don't vote for the causes they believe in?

Don't they realize that casting aspersions on the intelligence of others to their faces is "against their own collective interest"? If you want people to vote for your causes, work harder to prove that it benefits them instead of denigrating them.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#82

Post by luckylion »

darkwater wrote: post #37
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

And that's paternalistic, isn't it? "They voted against their interest" implies that OP knows/decides what their interests are.

Personally, I've never met someone who knew workers that was fundamentally surprised by their decisions. It was always the people who only talked, read and wrote about workers that were flabbergasted. Source: worked as a consultant for a union in Europe for a decade.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#83

Post by Someone1234 »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #66
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 like to think this is due to the bad reputation unions have. Digging a two mile tunnel eats half of the state budget? Police refuses to wear body cams? Schools are slow to reopen after covid? Rightly or not, in many people's minds unions are to blame.

> Schools are slow to reopen after covid?

Are you talking hypotheticals? Because that hasn't happened, and couldn't have happened since COVID isn't "over" anywhere in the US.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#84

Post by Causality1 »

prepend wrote: post #26
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 think reasons will vary, and I didn’t vote in this event. But in previous situations I’ve not supported unionization due to how it favored existing workers in ways I thought were unfair in that all layoffs were due to seniority not performance so older workers would be kept and younger workers laid off, no matter what. It also established more rigid pay levels that were better on average but not as good for high pe…

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but your comment reads like you were operating in a much nicer career than these workers. If your job was good enough they gave you the opportunity to negotiate your pay, you're in a totally different social class than the subjects of this vote.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#85

Post by InitialLastName »

dylan604 wrote: post #69
anotherman554 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how tax brackets work. You never make "less" when you make more money.

Your take home is what most people consider "making" even they know their actual salary is what they "make". I made a higher salary working in a state with state income taxes. Took a pay cut to move to a state without state income taxes. My take home went up (obviously). So I "made" more in take home by "making" less.

You changed what tax rules applied to you by moving, and thus your tax situation changed.

The point remains: under normal income circumstances (i.e. not related to welfare or equity), there is no way for you to get a raise in your real income and have your take home income decrease due to your federal income tax bracket.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#86

Post by didgeoridoo »

tarquinpussy wrote: post #43
chrisseaton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is that meaningfully different from a vote, then? You get the majority, you get the union. If you’re a recognized union, NLRB says the employer must deal with you.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#87

Post by trimbo »

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 answer is in the article

> Some workers who voted not to unionize said they ultimately didn’t see how a union would improve their pay or working conditions.

They looked at the issue and felt it would not be better. We don't know what the union was promising them, and what they had seen through the process.

I came here to find this comment because the "vote against their interest" argument is very predictable. It assumes that people should have no agency. That they're supposed to be robots that only vote one way on issues because of their demographic, and if they don't, then they must have been hoodwinked. It's condescending.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#88

Post by zarkov99 »

Good. I have lived in 3 continents and 4 different countries and I have yet to see a union that is not run by and for the lazy and incompetent, ultimately to the ruin of all involved. I hear Germany cracked the code on that one, but in the US unions seem to be pretty much like everywhere.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#89

Post by hinkley »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #40
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.

In which case the title is anti-union, because it doesn't mention what union and hence is conflating them all with each other.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#90

Post by greenie_beans »

bko wrote: post #44
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 ta…

Your union needs seem much different than the typical warehouse or factory worker. Especially if you're on HN — I'm sure most everybody on this website would benefit more from "a direct relationship with my employer". A random overworked Amazon warehouse worker doesn't have that sort of managerial access or a skill to leverage for negotiating.
Post reply on HN