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

Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 244 posts

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#131

Post by Avshalom »

syshum wrote: post #111
happymellon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which have ALOT of downside for even the workers in them. Do you have examples? As someone in the UK I don't see anything different between the Amazon workers Union and the unions here except for age and experience. They all just want to not be treated like dirt.

The big difference (and please correct me if I get UK info wrong, I am not an expert in UK Labor, I am versed in US Labor) that in the UK you have sector unions, not enterprise unions. A company may have employee's working under several unions, and I believe there are even competiting Sector unions that an employee can choose to join finding the union that best suites them In the US, typically, the is a 1:1 union, en…

closed shops have been illegal since Taft-Hartley in 1947.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#132

Post by bpodgursky »

dragonwriter wrote: post #64
joshe wrote: post #39

To me a more reasonable explanation than any in the article is that after losing the vote, Amazon looked into the warehouse and decided part of the problem was that the managers were making the situation worse. This could have been that the rsi injury complaints were true and unaddressed promptly. Or that the managers came off as cold in communications. Or 5 other things they could have done better.

> To me a more reasonable explanation than any in the article is that after losing the vote, Amazon looked into the warehouse and decided part of the problem was that the managers were making the situation worse. You’d think that Amazon would be smart enough to look into the apparent problems before the vote, and make a show of addressing them to forestall it, if their concern was the actual labor conditions driving…

Isn't that exactly what happened in Alabama?

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#133

Post by AndyKelley »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #11

> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.

I moved to Seattle from my hometown of Phoenix out of college for my "dream job" at Amazon. I started interviewing for other employment after just three months. I ended up quitting after eight months.

Amazon is a horrible place to work. Six years is a lifetime there.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#134

Post by pessimizer »

pc86 wrote: post #126
pessimizer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a terrible manager to have a union. A union isn't an attack, it's a bunch of peers caucusing. That's anti-union rhetoric, the idea that if there's good management you don't need a union, and that having a union is some kind of insult.

It's not "anti-union rhetoric," come on. When is the last time a union has been formed in a workplace where everyone is happy, well paid, has great WLB, etc?

No, it is anti-union rhetoric. Assembling a union isn't assembling an army. We can start saying that unions are only necessary when management is bad right after we start saying that management should only have meetings when their employees are bad.

edit: They only say three things - 1) unions aren't necessary if management are good people, 2) unions are an invasion of people from the outside who either don't understand how good our management is or are fomenting discontent for their own foreign purposes, and 3) management is actually fighting against you for you, because if they gave you everything you wanted the place would close down and you would lose your job. You're saying thing number 1.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#135

Post by geraltofrivia »

pc86 wrote: post #126
pessimizer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a terrible manager to have a union. A union isn't an attack, it's a bunch of peers caucusing. That's anti-union rhetoric, the idea that if there's good management you don't need a union, and that having a union is some kind of insult.

It's not "anti-union rhetoric," come on. When is the last time a union has been formed in a workplace where everyone is happy, well paid, has great WLB, etc?

In my previous job in Germany. Sector: Tech and Research. Excellent managers, amazing WLB (worked till 8PM once and the manager apologised next day), well paid: earning the median income straight out of college.

Had an excellent union and everyone in company hierarchy worked cordially and yet deferentially with them.

Unions are not necessarily a form of attack. Unionise.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#136

Post by thaumasiotes »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #11

> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.

> I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran."

What does it take to be considered a "veteran" in the military?

> The term "veteran" means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.

( https://www.va.gov/OSDBU/docs/Determining-Veteran-Status.pdf )

> Most first-term enlistments require a commitment to four years of active duty and two years of inactive

( https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/making-commitment... )

A veteran is someone with experience. Why wouldn't six years of experience make you a "veteran"?

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#137

Post by glenngillen »

thinkling wrote: post #23
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #11

> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.

Amazon's workforce has probably doubled twice in the last 6 years? So even without taking attrition into account (which is substantial in the warehouses), after 6 years you're in the 25% longest-tenured warehouse employees. With attrition I'd guess you're in the "top" 10%?

It was doubling somewhere between every 12-18mo while I was there (circa 2017). The growth was nuts.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#138

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #136
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #11

> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.

> I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." What does it take to be considered a "veteran" in the military? > The term "veteran" means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable. ( https://www.va.gov/OSDBU/docs/Determining-Veteran-Status.pd…

Around these parts, "veteran" is usually used to designate military servicepeople that served during times of active conflict, yet it seems pretty much any soldier that was honorably (or, at least, not dishonorably) discharged, is able to access the VA health system (we have a VA hospital in my town, and I know quite a few veterans). I'm not so sure about other benefits, like schooling, loans, and insurance.

My father[0] was a veteran. He's buried in Arlington. Got a silver star, a bronze star, and a purple heart. His GI Bill benefits got him a Harvard LLB.

I am not even close to a military veteran. I did work for a company for almost 27 years though. In this community, that elicits a lot more scorn, than it does respect.

[0] http://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/MikeMarshall.htm

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#139

Post by aynsof »

tpmx wrote: post #104
mynameisash wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I left Amazon (as an SWE), with about 11mo of tenure, I was apparently at about median longevity. Yes, some of it is their growth, but a significant reason is also that they churn through people unnecessary. It's ridiculous to me that a big tech company treats people so terribly and continues to get away with it.

Curious: Where do you feel the SWE people they churn through generally end up? I'm a bit concerned about this one guy on one of my previous teams who moved from Europe to US to work on AWS. I don't think he was aware of the company culture.

The CEO of Cloudflare has said that he enjoys taking burned out SDEs from Amazon and giving them a happy life at his company. It's how, in his words, Cloudflare can compete at an engineering level with AWS.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#140

Post by nimbius »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #11

> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.

I disagree

Its a common stall tactic for large businesses to fire leadership after a Union is formed. It means you cannot facilitate a good faith negotiation and places the union in a perpetual limbo that can last years.

Post reply on HN