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

671–680 of 785 posts

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#671

Post by tomcam »

thathndude wrote: post #652
tomcam wrote: post #568

Not a big fan of most modern day unions, but I hope they unionize the shit out of Amazon. I am happy to pay more. Their treatment of the rank and file is despicable. Here in Seattle I have met very few people who enjoyed their time working at Amazon, and that includes tech folk.

At what point should we be ok with low-level Amazon jobs sucking? I worked at a fast food restaurant. That sucked. But I was also a high school kid with no marketable skills. So I sort of understood I was “putting in my time” and this is the way it goes. I never thought “we should unionize and demand more money.” If Amazon needs career people in these positions, they’ll be forced to treat the employees as career peop…

I’m sympathetic to that perspective, and it’s the one I would normally take. But the working conditions at Amazon warehouses and for their delivery people seem to include things like peeing and pooping into bottles, breaks too short to get to a bathroom across the warehouse, etc. I had menial jobs myself but never quite so demeaning or physically punishing—holding it in all day seems like hell.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#672

Post by watwut »

refurb wrote: post #645
kelnos wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... yes? Clearly you're trying to go for a "gotcha!" type comment, but... so what? People who believed same-sex marriage should be illegal are just as wrong as people who believed interracial marriage should be illegal during much of the last century. It doesn't matter if they called themselves Democrats or Republicans or whatever. It doesn't matter if they were part of some majority or minority. They were just…

So when Obama became pro-gay marriage is he no longer a conservative? Or is he still one? My comment was more about calling out a group that doesn’t actually exist or at least has no formal definition based on OPs opinion.

Yes, he became less conservative on the point of gay rights. Why would that be shocking or gotcha?

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#673

Post by watwut »

krapp wrote: post #484
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…

>The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk. I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system. The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government sh…

> (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders

People who support police when police breaks laws are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it increasingly hard to prosecute and investigate cop when those are suspect of breaking law are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it legal for police to use escalating aggression are not pro law enforcement either.

These people are pro state violence people. Simple as that. Whether it is happening in Russia, America or elsewhere.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#674

Post by refurb »

watwut wrote: post #672
refurb wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when Obama became pro-gay marriage is he no longer a conservative? Or is he still one? My comment was more about calling out a group that doesn’t actually exist or at least has no formal definition based on OPs opinion.

Yes, he became less conservative on the point of gay rights. Why would that be shocking or gotcha?

“We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming”

You didn’t answer the question. You agree Obama was a conservative. So is he still? Not “more or less”, you either are or you aren’t.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#675

Post by roenxi »

mantas wrote: post #668
WalterBright wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying less taxes is not government "spending". A person's income is not government property that the government generously allows the person to keep some of it.

Reducing taxes, especially in a selective way, is essentially state spending money on subsidies.

Although you are correct, the point goes further than that because any system of taxation is effectively a subsidy to whatever doesn't get taxed. Income taxes cause over-allocation to assets, wealth taxes cause over-allocation to short term spending, taxing left handed people causes allocation to right handed people, etc. I like the idea of a land value tax/Georgism, from a philosophical belief that we should under-allocate to people whos claim to fame is that they got to the land first.

But nevertheless the original point stands - the state may be handing out advantages but it is not a form of spending. Not taking stuff is different to handing something out even if in some models they have equivalent effects.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#676

Post by sokoloff »

krapp wrote: post #484
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…

>The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk. I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system. The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government sh…

> I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system.

There is a section of the left-right spectrum that believes in equality of opportunity, but that it’s certainly not the leftmost people in that spectrum. The left pole is not “equality of opportunity for all” and how far left you are is defined by how strongly you believe in that.

I think it’s more the middle of the spectrum who hold the view and the left extreme is much closer to equality of outcome.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#677

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

WalterBright wrote: post #597
jotm wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because good safety nets means people don't have to take risks on business. So that leaves only the people who want to start a business. Who tend to leave for countries where it's easier to run a business and where they don't have to pay for the safety nets, but that's besides the point. As for freedoms, I don't know. Not that much of a difference between US, UK and Germany from what I can tell.

Why are the FAANG companies all based in the US?

Large amounts of venture capital from US investors, a really large monolingual market and path dependence.

More generally though, relying on outliers for your argument is perhaps not the best approach.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#678

Post by sokoloff »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #390
skrtskrt wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you're basically echoing my point - the Democratic party at the national level doesn't have the willpower to get pro-worker legislation through. And it's not just because they suck at winning elections, but also because they actively welcome anti-labor candidates into their ranks and crush the more progressive primary challengers even in safe blue districts. Not to mention that the executive branch has the pow…

I do not think I echoed that. I said that Democrats have not had a majority by more than 1 for a long time. That is just numbers, it has nothing to do with willpower. You cannot realistically expect every single party member to toe the line, so effectively, as a party they have to compromise heavily just to get the things through that they have.

Surely not being able to expect every single party member to toe the line cuts both ways. If you need N and have N in your party, either get all of them, get a few from the other party, or content yourself to accomplish nothing.

There’s been a lot of door #3 being chosen.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#679

Post by native_samples »

jorblumesea wrote: post #399
Taikonerd wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

> "if we're claiming to be the party of the working class, shouldn't we be in favor of this?" But they don't really mean it and have never meant it. The Republican party, at least in modern history, has never been pro working class in any real sense. The opposite in fact, probably far more hostile to working class than Democrats. Much of the "pro working class" rhetoric is largely just conservative values like aborti…

Conservatives don't generally project their worldview through the lens of large social groups pitted against each other, so it's kind of meaningless to argue about whether conservatives are pro- or anti- working class. They aren't generally pro- or anti- any "class" from their own perspective, because they don't think dividing society up like that is a legitimate thing to do to begin with.

A typical conservative would say something like: what do you call the boss of a small window cleaning firm? Is he a capitalist or a member of the working class? The left generally ignore questions like this because they can't answer them. But they do spend lots of time trying to tell everyone that society is simple and "conservatives" are one big blob that all hate "workers".

Generally conservatives are anti-union, because historically unions have been very tied up with communism, very aggressive/violent and very anti-competitive, all of which are antithetical to what libertarian conservatives believe yield the most socially beneficial outcomes. That is, they're anti union because they think unions are in fact worse for the "working classes" - to the extent such a concept makes sense at all - than not having them.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#680

Post by watwut »

refurb wrote: post #674
watwut wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, he became less conservative on the point of gay rights. Why would that be shocking or gotcha?

“We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming” You didn’t answer the question. You agree Obama was a conservative. So is he still? Not “more or less”, you either are or you aren’t.

I don't think Obama was all in all conservative. I think he had some conservative views, gay marriage being one of them.

> Not “more or less”, you either are or you aren’t.

This is not true. This is both fallacy and a lie. This is also refusal to see worls as it is, insisting on comfortable dichotomy.

Post reply on HN