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

141–150 of 244 posts

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#141

Post by skrtskrt »

darkerside wrote: post #117
xmprt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If GP is correct Only the Amazon higher ups will know this. Managers will see the correlation between unionizing and getting fired and connect the dots.

This seems like one of those optical illusions that can look either way. Duck or rabbit? What color is the dress? Young lady or old hag? Managers are obviously fired because the union was formed. They shouldn't let another form. Are they expected to respond by creating a trustful and inclusive environment, or by ruling through fear?

You should try reading the news about Amazon’s blatantly illegal union busting efforts instead of pretending like we can’t tell what this is.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#142

Post by runarberg »

darkerside wrote: post #117
xmprt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If GP is correct Only the Amazon higher ups will know this. Managers will see the correlation between unionizing and getting fired and connect the dots.

This seems like one of those optical illusions that can look either way. Duck or rabbit? What color is the dress? Young lady or old hag? Managers are obviously fired because the union was formed. They shouldn't let another form. Are they expected to respond by creating a trustful and inclusive environment, or by ruling through fear?

I mean if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

If the union busters then tell you it’s a rabbit, they are probably lying. The only illusion is the lie.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#143

Post by noizejoy »

coliveira wrote: post #100
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.

No, this is just the beginning of their counterstrike. I fully expect Amazon to close that warehouse as soon as they legally can.

Related:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wal-mart-to-close-unionized...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-unionized-wal...

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#144

Post by SilasX »

stormbrew wrote: post #49
rolandog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be ironic that this makes Senior Managers realize it's in their best interest to join a union?

Most unions don’t allow managers to join, as they’re generally considered to be part of capital’s collective bargaining side, if not part of capital themselves. I think most modern labor theory includes a “professional-managerial class” to account for this. There’s an argument to be had about where this line makes sense in modern megacorps but local managers in blue collar work tend to hold a lot of power over their…

> Most unions don’t allow managers to join,

That would be a really daft rule for a union of Amazon managers to have.

Or maybe I misunderstood you and you were replying to some uncharitable interpretation of the parent’s suggestion that managers join a Union?

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#145

Post by syshum »

Avshalom wrote: post #131
syshum wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a technically in terms only. So apologies for using "closed" [1] instead of "union"[1] shop which are functionally the same thing, and Union Shops still very much exist which is clear from my description of what I was talking about in my comment, (i.e I clearly stated employees were required to join the union post hire)

Right to Work states are a counter to Union Shops, which there is active efforts to do away with Right to Work laws

[1]Closed Shop A company that only employs union members and requires them to secure and maintain union membership as a condition of employment.

[2]Union Shop A company that doesn’t require employees to join a union in order to be hired, but they must join within 30 days of employment.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#146

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

nimbius wrote: post #140
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.

Good point. I was unaware of this tactic, but it makes sense.

Thanks!

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#147

Post by coredog64 »

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%?

There’s an “old fart” tool that shows you how many people were hired before/after you.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#148

Post by Angostura »

ISL wrote: post #57
avgcorrection wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be many reasons I guess. But maybe we should apply the Labor–Capital Razor: what signal does this send to the remaining managers? And what are they likely to do in response?

If GP is correct, then that signal would be, "Treat everyone who works here more-fairly and address their concerns in a timely manner. It is in everyone's best interest."

Or ... "you better join a union quick"

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#149

Post by ryoshu »

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…

You haven't been forced to join a union in the US - or pay dues if you don't join - since 2018 when the SCOTUS ruled against the practice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME). You could potentially start a competing union for, say, pipefitting, but the NLRB needs to approve it (federal agency). But now you are fighting management and a national union that already absorbed local ones over the last 150 years. Unions tend to consolidate over time because it gives more negotiating power for the members.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#150

Post by colinmhayes »

GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #58

The correct answer to the Amazon Problem is to create an alternate organization that starts as a unionized workplace, and goes from there. E.g. Spain's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation These problems mentioned in this thread are due to the greed of Capitalists. Period. Once the 'age of the Capitalist' is put behind us, and we move towards post-capitalism, then bs like OP mentions will be history.

> the greed of Capitalists

It doesn't matter what economic system we are under. All people are greedy, and powerful ones will always exploit others for personal gain.

Post reply on HN