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

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#111

Post by shagie »

sitkack wrote: post #58
bena wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that is indeed the primary motivator, that folks are literally getting paid so little that they can't afford the union dues then two things should happen The union should wave union dues until wages rise and ??? This seems not unlike Walmart informing employees that it is paying them so little that they qualify for Food Stamps. Looking forward to the Amazon paper, "Pareto Optimal Employee Compensation for Maintain…

Alabama is a right to work state. No one has to pay dues.

https://www.justia.com/employment/unions/right-to-work-and-u...

> A union is an exclusive collective bargaining agent, which means that it must fairly represent all of the workers in the bargaining unit, including those who have decided not to be members or pay dues.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#112

Post by staticman2 »

Loughla wrote: post #55
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.

Relax. I guess I should've said - "What I perceive as your own collective interest," although I would argue that was implied. I didn't intend to be arrogant at all, I am legitimately confused. The two jobs that I was in a union, the union was massively beneficial to my life. That is where my perspective came from.

The poster that attacked you is repeating a conservative pundit talking point I've seen.

Call me cynical but I suspect if the vote had gone pro-union and you had written "Don't the workers realize unions are against their own economic interests?" said poster would have written "Amen!" rather than calling you paternalistic.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#113

Post by bko »

greenie_beans wrote: post #90
bko wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Turnover among low paid staff is extremely high. For instance, take McDonalds workers:

McDonald's Mr. Floersch the managerial turnover was at 20% globally while that of the crew members averaged between 80 percent and 90 percent. [0]

That high turnover means that low paid employees are much faster to leave. Some don't even show up to their first day of work. It's also selection bias sure. But if you talk to anyone who manages low paid employees, the primary skill set they have is interpersonal relationships with their staff, or at least the good ones. The fixed costs are very high to hire someone, regardless of salary. You have to pay a recruiter or even spend time looking through resumes, running expensive background checks, interviewing etc.

Now consider the Goldman Sachs investment banking analyst. They get paid extremely well and get treated like crap. Do they have a "direct relationship with their employer"? Hardly.

If you're making $10 an hour its a lot easier to find another employer paying you a similar amount than it is if you're making $200k a year.

[0] https://ukdiss.com/examples/high-employee-turnover-at-mcdona...

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#114

Post by buran77 »

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…

> I think reasons will vary

A good one seems to be that they are afraid unionizing will push Amazon to close the delivery center. This has happened before when other companies (see Walmart [0]) just closed the location once the workers voted to unionize. And unfortunately it's less likely US law will protect the workers to the same degree as Canadian law [1].

[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wal-mart-to-close-unionized...

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-unionized-wal...

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#115

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#116

Post by didgeoridoo »

tarquinpussy wrote: post #101
didgeoridoo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well it's not meaningfully different from a vote in that it forces the employer to deal. But it does mean that there are no closed shops, so nobody is forced to join a union just to work in a certain place.

In the US that varies state-by-state, but Alabama (where this unionization effort occurred) is a right-to-work state, which means no closed shops — so it’s probably a pretty close parallel to the UK system.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#118

Post by judge2020 »

rmah wrote: post #92

Am I the only one who thinks $500/mo seems excessive for union dues? That's $60k/yr in dues for every 10 workers. Does a union really need a full time rep for every 10 or 20 members? If, perhaps, half of that goes to "strike insurance", that would mean $15k/member over 5 years. Which would be enough replace wages(at $15/hr) for six months. Do they really anticipate a six month strike every 5 years?

Holy, that is probably the sole reason for a majority of the 'no' votes. You're talking a job that pays as little as $15 an hour, so 500/mo is nearly a week's pay (~33 hours).

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#119

Post by prepend »

tehWeeb wrote: post #98
baron816 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was good if you were in the union and employed, but was much harder to get work and join the union. This is my fundamental problem with unions—it helps the insiders and hurts everyone else. Amazon’s working condition are rough (and I really hope that changes), but there are plenty of jobs out there that are much worse and don’t pay nearly as well. They just get all the attention because of their size and impact.

That’s the fundamental problem with our culture generally. The closer (figuratively speaking) to the big money and political power someone is the more comfortable they are. And we all want to believe it’s a meritocracy. We’re just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

I think that’s a feature, not a bug. In that I don’t think it’s a problem.

Labor is subject to markets like many things, and shouldn’t be exploited. But there’s some work that’s hard and doesn’t require specialized training (eg, hauling stuff around warehouses all day). Some people are willing to do this and they do, if they don’t want to they can do other things.

This is an oversimplification, of course, but having the ability to provide more jobs with more options is the solution I think.

I grew up in a small town and it sucks for work. If you think working for Amazon sucks, you should try working in the warehouse of the only grocery store in town. The one run by a racist jerk who knows you have no options.

Post reply on HN