Live data from Hacker News

Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

nytimes.com

741–750 of 785 posts

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#741
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't open-shop effectively "no union" in practice? What threat does a union have when the company can just hire non-union workers?

Once you acknowledge that unions are useless and bad, yes, this is correct. If unions were actually beneficial to workers, then companies would have a very hard time hiring non-union workers.

If unions were actually beneficial to workers, then companies would have a very hard time hiring non-union workers.

And they do. Everyone wants to work at union shops where I live (midwest). UPS, or any other Teamster shop, John Deere, you name it. It's hard to get on.

You can get a job at any old non-union warehouse though. They can't keep people. I'm shocked you even made that statement, in the everyday world everyone wants a union shop job or government job. Most everything else is exploitation in pay, benefits and protection.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#742
post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tax break on any farmer that grows corn is a corn subsidy. It’s the classic definition of a subsidy in that it reduces costs to create something. Often things are written so exactly one company benefits when they agree to build something like a sports stadium in exchange for zero property taxes for N years. If that subsidy isn’t large large enough they may also hand out cash.

A tax break is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a payment to the person. If a farmer lost money one year, the tax break does not financially benefit him. Money I have left over from paying taxes is not a "subsidy".

The common definition includes tax breaks see:

“subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

“A subsidy is an incentive given by the government to individuals or businesses in the form of cash, grants, or tax breaks that improve the supply of certain goods and services.” https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ec...

That’s literally the first two definitions from searching DDG, here’s Wikipedia.

“A subsidy or government incentive is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from the government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal of a for-profit business is to make money. There are plenty of non-profits and government jobs if you don’t want to get with the program. You may be shocked to find a lot of non-profits also need to make cash to survive, however.

Again you've seemed to misunderstand. I'm happy to work at the company and make money, I just don't want to be forced to contribute to shareholder profits, just like you don't want to be forced to contribute to union dues. Why should one be voluntary but not the other?

I voluntarily join a company. Me paying some third-party non-governmental organization to “represent” me when I never asked for it is the issue.

However we keep going in circles and it is clear you are illogical.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again you've seemed to misunderstand. I'm happy to work at the company and make money, I just don't want to be forced to contribute to shareholder profits, just like you don't want to be forced to contribute to union dues. Why should one be voluntary but not the other?

I voluntarily join a company. Me paying some third-party non-governmental organization to “represent” me when I never asked for it is the issue. However we keep going in circles and it is clear you are illogical.

Similarly, I voluntarily join a company. Me paying some third-party shareholders when I never asked for it is the issue.

Where’s the lack of logic? The real issue is you won’t even begin to engage in explaining why these two things are different. It suggests to me you haven’t arrived at this position rationally, but through ideology (“corporations good, unions bad”).

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#745
post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or persistent labor strikes and disruptions. See France

I'd gladly give up convenience and the need to have everything available to me at all times, for more collective bargaining and better treatment of human beings. If a labor force goes on strike, you should probably ask yourself why, and if you would do the same, rather than just taking it as a disruption to your life. Would you rather get your crap from Amazon in one day, or would you rather support better treatment…

It's not really a convincing argument for most people, many would pick the former, and that's why Amazon is successful despite bad labor practices or unionization.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bad salespeople More like the business culture is in serious need of recalibration. At the same time, some of it is easy to understand. Manufacturing is hard, for most, unimaginably hard. The sad reality in the US is that, because of costs and the layers of bullshit you have to deal with, the easiest way to survive is to focus on high dollar/high margin markets. That means that if you can land jobs in aerospace or…

I would think that the higher oil goes, the more incentive there is for clean energy. Here's a guy who actually formed a company based on that premise. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...

> I would think that the higher oil goes, the more incentive there is for clean energy.

Sure? Yet that misses my point entirely.

We all want clean energy. We all want electric cars. Even those who say they don't eventually will.

How do we get there?

We need to double our power generation capacity and seriously upgrade the grid, our ability to deliver power, in order to support this desirable future.

Just for a sense of scale: That means building a full duplicate of our entire power generation and delivery system. It's like having to provide power for two nations, both the size of the US.

That means we need to go from 1200 GW to about 2400 GW.

To state the obvious: We cannot transition to electric transportation with the power we produce today. No way. It isn't enough. It's about half of what we need.

How do we make it happen?

Well, without getting into specific technologies we know one thing that cannot be disputed:

The solution will require massive construction projects across every state, city and town in this nation for probably somewhere in the range of 25 years. This is an endeavor of an almost unimaginable scale from our current context. We lack the leadership, regulatory freedom, culture and maybe even resources to do it.

The cost of construction at this scale is dominated by one variable: The cost of oil. Every piece of machinery used to grade, dig and reshape terrain runs on oil. Every truck, crane, hoist, van, pickup, big rig and car used in these projects runs on oil. The materials required are made with the use of oil and derivatives, from lubricants to fuels. Everything depends on oil. Even the very cables used to transport energy at scale depend on oil for their manufacture.

If oil is expensive, we will will never be able to afford the cost of transforming our infrastructure to fully embrace "clean" energy. In quotes because it isn't really as clean as people imagine it as being.

If you want solar power plants the size of states, you need cheap oil to build them or you are not going to get there.

That's why I say we need $20/barrel oil if we want to realize a clean energy future. The two are very much connected at the hip. In the long term, at scale, you cannot have one without another. No utility grade solar farm has been built without using a massive number of barrels of oils, from manufacturing every single component in China and elsewhere to moving all the materials by cargo ship, train, big rigs and local delivery trucks...and then all the construction equipment you need to run after you receive the materials.

So. Want a clean energy future? You need to lobby your representatives to push down the cost of oil as low as it will go. Or you will not get what you want. We don't have enough money to approach such a transition at a national scale.

China, on the other hand, does and likely will. What is bound to happen is that China will leapfrog everyone in transitioning to nuclear and solar --all paid by us-- and the US and Europe will simply not be able to afford transitioning at the same rate, if ever. The cost of oil will continue to increase. With every increase our ability to afford it will deteriorate more and more. We can't approach massive projects with gasoline at $7 per gallon. I don't even want to imagine what happens if it goes much higher.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality. I tend to agree, but then again I really don't grok the Trump thing, and I can't claim that I saw it coming or sticking around as long as it has. At this point I would not be terribly shocked to see a bit of role reversal between the two major parties.

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…

Is bailing out banks and huge corporations a left wing or a right wing thing to do? Clearly the second, judging from reality. Your second paragraph is a ridiculous tale of the right that has gotten to the minds of many. "Liberty together with the risk" only concerns non rich people. Look at all those entities getting saved when in a pinch by sweet government money, and tell me if they have liberty or not. Is there a reason EVERYONE cannot be bailed out the same way? US government just threw 3 billion and counting in a heartbeat at Ukraine but somehow a safety net for its own citizens is non feasible?

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating security with freedom. You can have security or freedom, but not both.

How am I less free because my country has free healthcare and decent unemployment benefits?

Neither of those is free. You still pay for it, plus you pay for the government's cost of administering it. You're worse off.

With "free" government health care, you're not only paying more for it, but you no longer get to choose what health care you get. You get what a government bureaucrat says you get.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is obviously a matter of willpower. The Republicans have no problem getting their moderate members to toe the line on their more extreme stuff. "Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time. If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leaders…

>They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority.

Manchin's a senator from West Virginia, a state that went for Trump by 39 points. Crushing him would just have McConnell not bringing any legislation to a vote again.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#750
post #721
post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re putting people in buckets again.

So? Yes there is such a thing as a conservative or liberal oe whatever. And then there are people who are not conservatives and still hold some socially or economically conservative view. It is hard to know whether you are trolling or genuinely ignored politics and culture from wherever you got born.

How do you define a conservative if not for the views they hold?

So again, is Obama a conservative? If you say no, then how many conservative views must one hold to belong to the group?

Post reply on HN