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

181–190 of 244 posts

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#181

Post by Taniwha »

avgcorrection wrote: post #47
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 the sad part is getting fired over union association.

These managers are getting fired because they had been put in charge of stopping the union forming - this is a threat to the managers at other Amazon locations to be more evil - "pour encourager les autres"

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#182

Post by stormbrew »

SilasX wrote: post #144
stormbrew wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I added an edit explaining my own misunderstanding. I'm pretty sure I added it before you posted this, so I'm not sure how you missed it, but it's there.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#183

Post by navbaker »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #138
thaumasiotes wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fathe…

A military veteran is pretty much anyone who served, doesn’t need to be in times of active conflict.

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

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#184

Post by chronotis »

mynameisash wrote: post #95
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.

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.

I endured 13 months. In my mind, very little skill development happened during those 13 months. But here I am, years later, and that line item in my history still carries some sense of market validation - that, because I successfully navigated the recruitment funnel and was at one time an Amazonian, that I must have useful skills.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#185

Post by jachee »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #59
whycombagator wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the line you quoted says company not industry. Ecommerce is a relatively young industry anyway. And Amazon has been around since what, 94? So 6 years is over 20% of the time Amazon has existed.

Fair point. I just found it to be an interesting choice of words. Whenever they use the same term, in other industries, they are talking about double-digit tenures. The main point is that this is a fairly unambiguous message to other managers, that allowing unionization to happen under their watch would be a careericidal offense. That means that they can expect the warehouse managers to get pretty desperate, and prob…

> That means that they can expect the warehouse managers to get pretty desperate…

It would seem to make sense for all the warehouse managers themselves to form their own union.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#186

Post by t-3 »

linuxhansl wrote: post #162

> The managers were told they were being fired as part of an “organizational change,” Nit: That language implies that they were laid off, not fired. The timing is a stupid move from Amazon, and these employees will likely be able to make a good case in court. Being from Europe I have mixed feelings about unions here in the US... On the one hand I think they are essential to tilt the uneven power dynamic between emplo…

I don't have any experience with sklled trades unions, but labor unions are almost universally despisedby anyone with first-hand knowledge. They are largely organizations of professional-class parasites subverting the class struggle and sabotaging worker morale for corporate benefit.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#187

Post by darkerside »

kqr wrote: post #128
darkerside wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 see your point except a "truthful and inclusive environment" would be positive (or at least neutral) to unionization. So, clearly the latter.

Unions arise for a reason. In an inclusive and trustful environment, those reasons can be addressed without adding another authority into the mix.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#188

Post by darkerside »

avgcorrection wrote: post #124
darkerside wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Their mandate would be to avoid unionization. So obviously the “ruling through fear” option. I don’t see how optical illusions have anything to do with it except muddying the waters.

At some point in your life, you'll find that something you always thought was true and couldn't understand how anybody could see was false actually could be understood to be false by a totally reasonable person. At that time, I think you'll understand what I mean.

Unions are created because of unacceptable conditions. Fix those conditions in time, and no unions. No fear required.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#189

Post by [deleted] »

GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #157
GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a Capitalist? I need to know the answer to that question before I can produce a good answer. Thank you.

Well, I would presume so. May I suggest this short segment setting some groundwork for future discussion: https://youtu.be/Kiru1jZXuvA?t=1883

[deleted]

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#190

Post by krainboltgreene »

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?

It's literally in the anti-union playbooks that union busting firms pass to their busters.
Post reply on HN