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

611–620 of 785 posts

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#611

Post by refurb »

Taikonerd wrote: post #351
rootusrootus wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's possible we'll see a generational wave of unionization. I fully expect this to happen. Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage stagnation and home price inflation. They have every right to be angry, and I think they are collectively starting to realize that they have a lot of power to change the status quo. At the risk of veering into politics, I'm also not sure how this will change th…

> Normally this kind of movement would be a strength of the left. But lately the right has become quite populist, so maybe this plays in their direction. I saw an op-ed from a conservative magazine on this exact theme: [1]. The author basically says, "if we're claiming to be the party of the working class, shouldn't we be in favor of this?" 1: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/republicans...

I mean you’d have to ignore the impact of unions over the last 50 years in the US to make that connection.

I’ve been in a union and workers rights often aren’t the priority.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#612

Post by MisterBastahrd »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #382
mrfusion wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s easy enough to simply raise the income cap though to shore it up.

Politically, no, that is not simple.

Politically, it's the simplest solution of all. The average American pays FICA on 100% of their income. The people who don't are upper middle class to rich, and nobody is going to weep for the 1 less vacation those people take every year.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#613

Post by refurb »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #520
s1artibartfast wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an uncharitable reading. Almost no one would answer that they want the government to impose positions over their personal views on those topics

Except it's accurate. Most conservatives are fair-weather individualists who only care about "liberty" in loose terms as long as the liberty that they believe is being affected is their own. We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming over the past 30 years to allow gays to have the right to marry and openly serve in the military, just like we had to drag them kicking and screaming 60 years ago to allow minori…

Are you including Obama in that? He was against gay marriage until the tide turned.

What about the CA Prop 8 against gay marriage that was widely supported by minorities? Were you "dragging, kicking and screaming" those minorities as well?

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#614

Post by stale2002 »

hither_shores wrote: post #541
stale2002 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true at all. Those union members are perfectly free to create was is called a members only union, which only represents its own members who voluntarily join the organization. Doing that avoids any of those conditions that you are talking about.

The NLRA has historically been interpreted in a way that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions. It hasn't been tested in a while, and it's possible that the current NLRB would view the issue differently, but unless and until that happens minority unionism is not a viable strategy in the US.

> that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions

Then you don't understand what "bargaining rights" are. It is absolutely fully legal for a members union to negotiation on behalf of its members, if those members consent to it.

In the same what that it is fully legal for me to hire a lawyer friend of mine, to bargain on my behalf.

What it can't do, is force everyone else, who is not in the members only union, to go along with that bargained contract.

So please, do not say that their bargaining rights are taken away. Instead be honest and say that their ability to force everyone else to have their bargaining rights taken away, and given to the union, against the wishes of those employees, is being removed from them.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#615

Post by pram »

ineedasername wrote: post #361
Barrera wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2019_events_in_the_U... 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/12/31/2019s-yie...

There appears to be technical issues that caused #1, something about timing rather than a cause that points to more serious problems. If so, the analysis in #2 is based on a data point disconnected from those of the trend. Also the trend in #2 consists if 3 data points. It might be an accurate interpretation, but curves before the '73, '80, '81 recessions didn't follow this pattern. We'd need an explanation for why t…

Growth was already slowing in 2019, which is why the fed started dropping rates in June. In fact 2019 was the lowest growth in the entire decade, the lowest since 2008.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50234626

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#616

Post by kelnos »

parineum wrote: post #599
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forward carried interest is a loophole created for the express purpose of letting the wealthy occupy a lower tax bracket. It has no other public benefit.

> loophole created for the express purpose This is an oxymoron.

While perhaps technically true, I think you are taking a word's general strict meaning, and are attempting to apply it to something where the meaning is often stretched a bit liberally.

While yes, it is true that a "loophole" is something that is unintended but allows some subset of people to benefit, when it comes to "tax loophole", that has colloquially come to mean "any means by which a special interest group gets to avoid taxes". "Tax loopholes" can be intentionally added to the tax code, even if "loophole" implies something unintentional.

Remember that English is a living language, and meanings change to suit how people use words, not how the dictionary may have once defined them.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#617

Post by heavyset_go »

stale2002 wrote: post #614
hither_shores wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NLRA has historically been interpreted in a way that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions. It hasn't been tested in a while, and it's possible that the current NLRB would view the issue differently, but unless and until that happens minority unionism is not a viable strategy in the US.

> that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions Then you don't understand what "bargaining rights" are. It is absolutely fully legal for a members union to negotiation on behalf of its members, if those members consent to it. In the same what that it is fully legal for me to hire a lawyer friend of mine, to bargain on my behalf. What it can't do, is force everyone else, who is not in the members only union, to…

Workers are free to take non-union jobs if they don't want to be in a union.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#618

Post by formerkrogeremp »

ashtonkem wrote: post #547
rootusrootus wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's possible we'll see a generational wave of unionization. I fully expect this to happen. Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage stagnation and home price inflation. They have every right to be angry, and I think they are collectively starting to realize that they have a lot of power to change the status quo. At the risk of veering into politics, I'm also not sure how this will change th…

> Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage stagnation and home price inflation Yes, and the pandemic brought a brief moment of dignity (but not safety) to the low paid service workers who make our society operate. They went from the butt of cruel jokes to “essential workers” and “heroes” overnight. It is very, very hard to force people back into undignified circumstances once they’re had even…

I don't know about dignity. Ask any nurse, doctor, grocery worker, restaurant worker, etc. how they feel about being called a hero. Calling us that to exploit our sense of duty or compassion. Giving us pats on the back and "bonuses" if that amounting to half a week of rent or food. We won't just stop at being actual people. We'll keep on organizing and quitting and lying flat or whatever we need to do to get our share.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#619

Post by kelnos »

majormajor wrote: post #492
ARandomerDude wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a conservative since I had a minimum wage job, for one reason: I want the government out of my life as much as possible. I firmly believe nobody will care about my family as much as I do and I don't want the government's golden handcuffs. Leave me alone, let me work, and I'll happily live with whatever happens. I think this is the fundamental disconnect in left-right (economic) politics. The left, as I see…

Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome. This is why we don't see a mass migration from tech jobs to welfare... But for catastrophe prevention... you don't have to think the government will care as much about your family as you do to want there to be a support system in for your family if you die, become unable to work, etc... And "liberty" a…

> Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome.

Right. It's weird to me to see so many people framing it in the ensures-good-outcome sense.

A "safety net" is literally a thing that catches you when you fall. That's it. It doesn't push you higher in general; it just helps you avoid the lowest of the low.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#620

Post by kelnos »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #598
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's accurate. Most conservatives are fair-weather individualists who only care about "liberty" in loose terms as long as the liberty that they believe is being affected is their own. We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming over the past 30 years to allow gays to have the right to marry and openly serve in the military, just like we had to drag them kicking and screaming 60 years ago to allow minori…

Not just Republicans, though. Plenty of Democrats were against gay marriage as well - including Obama as recently as 2004.

I don't think the parent referenced Republicans or Democrats at all. The parent was talking about "conservatives". And anyone who opposed same-sex marriage in 2004 -- Obama included -- should absolutely be counted as having (at least some) socially-conservative views.

Obviously many people changed their minds since then. It is perhaps notable, though, to consider that most of the people who changed their minds since then identify as Democrat, while many more Republicans continue to hold such backward, discriminatory views.

Post reply on HN