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

Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 785 posts

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#121

Post by brimble »

legitster wrote: post #108

I had a boss who was an expensive consultant for unions. He explained the reason unions in the US were shrinking is that they are too powerful. They control huge pension and healthcare portfolios and can completely control the relationship with employers, especially in closed shop situations. Comparatively, European unions are much "weaker" - or maybe more accurately their purview is much smaller. They control smalle…

> Comparatively, European unions are much "weaker" - or maybe more accurately their purview is much smaller. They control smaller geographic regions, and in general, all of the heavy lifting for healthcare and pensions and worker rights is handled by the government. So the unions' focus is entirely on the collective bargaining piece. Also, unions tend to be more regulated - they can't carry so much bloat. All in all, everyone, companies included, have less reason to combat unions.

I'm not sure I'd call unions legally-mandated to hold 33-50% (depending on company size) of the company's board seats "weaker". That's the situation in Germany.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#122

Post by beaconstudios »

josephcsible wrote: post #86
beaconstudios wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way do you believe unions are useless and bad? That's like saying "companies are useless and bad" - some companies may be useless and bad, but you'd need to show an essential reason why the majority must end up that way. FWIW, I think you're wrong and that unions are good at improving worker conditions and pay, and that's why companies engage in aggressive union-busting and anti-union propaganda to prevent un…

Unions are definitely bad for companies, but the fact that companies don't want them doesn't automatically mean that they're good for workers. They're a parasitic drain that's bad for both. Also, with the sole exception of Japanese bus drivers, every union I know of that's ever gone on strike has, in doing so, used innocent third parties as collateral damage.

You can claim they're a drain on both all you want, but you're just stating an unsubstantiated opinion that flies in the face of reason. Why would anybody join (and stay in) a union if they're unequivocally bad for everyone?

Are strikers holding people hostage? Or are they just refusing to do their jobs?

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#123

Post by whimsicalism »

legitster wrote: post #108

I had a boss who was an expensive consultant for unions. He explained the reason unions in the US were shrinking is that they are too powerful. They control huge pension and healthcare portfolios and can completely control the relationship with employers, especially in closed shop situations. Comparatively, European unions are much "weaker" - or maybe more accurately their purview is much smaller. They control smalle…

i feel like I'm missing the causal link in your comment between controlling healthcare portfolios -> shrinking.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#124

Post by morelish »

zjaffee wrote: post #70
londons_explore wrote: post #34

Can Amazon now just shut down that warehouse and fire all the workers? It would seem like a sensible business move, even if it involves a little bit of service disruption for users in New York.

NYC is one of amazon's largest markets, and this is the biggest warehouse in the city. There are 8300 employees in the bargaining group which doesn't include management, engineers who do repair work for the robotics and so on. They cannot afford to close this shop, and it's obviously playing a big role as to why this location has successfully unionized while the location in Alabama has not.

May the opposite be the case? If Amazon really wants to prevent unions appearing in their employment relations, doesn't Amazon need to close this down now?

I'm not saying that's good. But I'm saying Amazon might think it can't afford to let the employees unionise.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#125

Post by xyzzyz »

throwaway684936 wrote: post #92
dymk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, I can bargain individually better than a group could try to on my behalf.

Your mistake is thinking a large corporation gives a single flying fuck about you as an individual employee (who's proven themselves rowdy by trying to bargain).

Every single time I put a notice in a large corporation, they tried to bargain with me to stop me from quitting, offering raises and improved working condition, eg. projects with more leadership roles. So no, they do care in some industries, especially when the cost of hiring a single worker is higher than Amazon warehouse workers entire yearly pay.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#126

Post by VirusNewbie »

1270018080 wrote: post #69
equality wrote: post #62

This is fantastic news. Well done, Amazon employees! I'm glad to see that Amazon's anti-union propaganda was taken for the nonsense that it is. Hopefully the employees of other Amazon warehouses will be inspired to do the same, after this win for workers.

Their software engineers should, too. You don't actually have to get pipped, get pinged 24/7, and be ground to dust and thrown away to be a successful software engineer.

I will fight tooth and nail to keep our industry from unionizing. One can simply look at the public school system and how well it performs with one of the strongest unions in the country. You don't have well paid teachers (except those who have been teaching for a long time, at the detriment to new teachers),you don't serve the children well and you now have to navigate both a career and politics of a union.

Unions benefit those who play the social game more so the job requirements, as it allows for an alternative power structure to be climbed.

Those are the exact people I love being able to avoid in the software field.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#127

Post by toomuchtodo »

rajin444 wrote: post #115
dymk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, I can bargain individually better than a group could try to on my behalf.

The responses you got are borderline religious. Pro union people need to acknowledge and be up front about the cons of a union. It’s just another entity with power over a group of people and suffers from the same pros and cons. It’s not a panacea. Deriding legitimate concerns is not how you convince people, and makes it look like you have an agenda.

Convincing staunch anti union folks that a union would help them is like trying to convince a Southern Baptist god doesn't exist. You don't bother, you organize folks who recognize the benefit and understand the tradeoffs, people who don't think of them as individual exceptionalists.

Wanting better pay and benefits for workers is an agenda, and if making that clear isn't enough (even after accounting for a cons of collective bargaining, union costs, etc), ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#128

Post by whatever1 »

legitster wrote: post #108

I had a boss who was an expensive consultant for unions. He explained the reason unions in the US were shrinking is that they are too powerful. They control huge pension and healthcare portfolios and can completely control the relationship with employers, especially in closed shop situations. Comparatively, European unions are much "weaker" - or maybe more accurately their purview is much smaller. They control smalle…

European Govs have more regulation in place to allow for unions. That is why there are more widespread than in the US.

Many of the union-busting activities American companies casually do would be flat out illegal in th EU.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#129

Post by JumpCrisscross »

throwaway684936 wrote: post #92
dymk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, I can bargain individually better than a group could try to on my behalf.

Your mistake is thinking a large corporation gives a single flying fuck about you as an individual employee (who's proven themselves rowdy by trying to bargain).

> mistake is thinking a large corporation gives a single flying fuck about you as an individual employee

You aren't negotiating against the corporation. You're negotiating against the people who determine your compensation. (This is a seemingly-minor, oft-overlooked and enormously-important distinction.)

Many on this forum have leverage over those people. (Some over the corporation.) For those people, unionization could be a net negative. Recognizing that doesn't mean the idea isn't worth pursuing.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#130

Post by dymk »

MartinCron wrote: post #117
dymk wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company caters to _me_, not the other way around. Welcome to being in a high-demand job.

I guess that's good if you only care about you?

Correct. I don't care that other people don't learn to bargain their own highly paid, highly in-demand jobs to be even better.
Post reply on HN