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

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#211

Post by camjohnson26 »

kethinov wrote: post #175
trimbo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They looked at the issue and felt incorrectly that it would not be better. Look, I get the good intentions on all the discourse about not judging what's in another person's interests because you can't possibly know what they value, but it sure seems indisputable to me that a union would've delivered better pay and working conditions. I'm not sure in what warped universe voting against that isn't a vote against your i…

They probably just examined the same facts as you and came to a different conclusion. They are closer to their own situation, which doesn’t always mean they will make the right decision, but I would be very careful about telling someone how to live their own life.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#212

Post by zndr »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #192
JCM9 wrote: post #176

It was clear getting these workers to unionize was good for the union... it was much less clear why it would be good for the workers. People can say what they want about Amazon but the reality is they provide a far better job, wage, and benefits than most. Apart from the broad sweeping messaging around corporations = bad, unions = the answer, it wasn’t really clear at all why a union would benefit workers here. As su…

Collective bargaining lets the employees push back against issues that would otherwise risk their career. For example, an individual speaking up against horrible working conditions, metric-focused managers, and ignorance of unsafe practices would risk getting fired, so the issues would persist. A union would have the leverage required to push back against such issues.

While you're correct, Amazon is so large that this single center being nuked from their org chart would have been an inconvenience. I think it's very easy for us to say "this would help you" but the reality is, it might have drawn a line in the sand, at the cost of every single employee's job.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#213

Post by geodel »

_jal wrote: post #194
redkoala wrote: post #14

Unions don’t always contribute to a better outcome for their workers, and it looks like working conditions wasn’t a strong enough driver for the majority of the workers. It’s hard to motivate a vote for unions when Amazon pays double the federal minimum wage.

> Unions don’t always contribute to a better outcome for their workers You can say this about anything. Getting a job doesn't always contribute to a better outcome for the unemployed. Getting healthcare doesn't always contribute to better health outcomes. Getting housing after being homeless doesn't always lead to a better life. > It’s hard to motivate a vote for unions when Amazon pays double the federal minimum wag…

> So many people repeating the same things over and over.

So you can tell something new. I am not sure if blue collar workers are looking for total revolution to overthrow this capitalistic system.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#214

Post by stefan_ »

chrisseaton wrote: post #39
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,…

You are saying in expressing the right to have a say in how they work, they chose to vote to not have a say in how they work?

It's a pretty simple calculus. When the company spends twice the yearly payroll of the entire place on preventing the lowest of low workers on the totem pole from forming a union, maybe the company isn't acting in their best interests.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#215

Post by brightball »

JCM9 wrote: post #176

It was clear getting these workers to unionize was good for the union... it was much less clear why it would be good for the workers. People can say what they want about Amazon but the reality is they provide a far better job, wage, and benefits than most. Apart from the broad sweeping messaging around corporations = bad, unions = the answer, it wasn’t really clear at all why a union would benefit workers here. As su…

This was similar to the Boeing situation in Charleston, SC.

Boeing came in and brought great jobs with them. Then the union reps came in and started acting like everybody was being wronged somehow.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#216

Post by AzzieElbab »

josefresco wrote: post #156
labatyd wrote: post #20

Incognito tab didn't work, googling it didnt work, and outline.com didn't work. Anyone have any other tips or tricks for finding the article to read it?

You can subscribe to WSJ digital for $467.88/year.

are you implying WSJ subscription prices are to blame for union's failure to recruit workers? :)

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#217

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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.

it's significantly better because union can grow gradually and organically if it's delivering benefits, there is no need for a single áll-or-nothing' vote where you can apply the FUD

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#218

Post by Loughla »

syshum wrote: post #139
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 someone would vote to be collectively represented instead of being able to act as as individual in your own best interest You claim not voting for the union is against your own interest but that assumes that the union will 100% of the time be looking out for your own individual best interest, this is simply false The union has supplanted individual choice for collective voting, and…

>You claim not voting for the union is against your own interest but that assumes that the union will 100% of the time be looking out for your own individual best interest

No, and that is a pretty far stretch from what I said. Please re-read "your own collective interest". It's easy to win an argument when you misrepresent what is said. Collective interest implies that it is the greatest good for the majority of people. Not the most good for you every time.

Question for you:

>I absolutely do not understand why someone would vote to be collectively represented instead of being able to act as as individual in your own best interest

Do you really not see how it may be easier to negotiate as a group, rather than as an individual? In high-skill, high-demand jobs, yes, it is probably much easier to negotiate for individual benefits, because you have the power as the worker. But in low-skill, or high-supply jobs, the employers have all the power. I don't understand what you're saying.

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#219

Post by theptip »

baron816 wrote: post #71
prepend wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I think it's important to consider the state of the whole system, not just the direction of the change.

"helps insiders and hurts everyone else" sounds bad, but if the insiders are being exploited by everyone else, it could be a good thing.

In general I'm sympathetic to your point. However I think Amazon is perhaps a special case, or at least occupies a different point on the than most companies.

Amazon is an Aggregator[1], which spins up its flywheel by providing a great experience for consumers, and commoditizing its suppliers. This naturally drives towards a monopoly.

Aggregator monopolies have an interesting property in that unlike historical non-Aggregator monopolies, they are great for consumers, rather than resulting in consumer harm through higher prices (like Comcast, say). US antitrust law is focused on preventing consumer harm, not just preserving competition for its own sake (as the EU laws are). So US antitrust is somewhat less well-equipped to deal with Aggregator monopolies.

If the corporation, consumers, and legal system are all pointing towards exploiting a group of workers, it's hard to see how anyone is going to vote to make things better. So unions could be more appropriate specifically in the case of Aggregators.

(Worth mentioning that you could perhaps just mandate higher minimum wages, and avoid the need for unions; I'd prefer to make the minimum viable change that prevents exploitation, and leave the market free to optimize everything else. But if not unions, who drives the political fight for minimum wages?)

[1]: https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/

Re: Amazon workers vote against unionizing in Alabama

#220

Post by hinkley »

judge2020 wrote: post #107
hinkley wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I didn't get the impression that there is another union vote in the works at that particular facility.

What has that got to do with equating all unions with each other?
Post reply on HN