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

191–200 of 244 posts

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#191

Post by idiotsecant »

colinmhayes wrote: post #151
adra wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet countries the world over turfed the one protection against the race to the bottom, which are tariffs. The auto industry still exists in North America because tariffs are still in place. Any time there's a significant economic imbalance of incentives, only tariffs will 'level' out the desire to offshore. Unions may have been presented as the scapegoat and clearly they made raw profitability worse (by what marg…

Free trade makes the vast majority of people richer. Yes, our shitty automakers were saved, but now everyone has to pay much more for cars. And American cars are still trash compared to japanese/german ones.

I think in a vacuum this is mostly true. Yes, if we open markets to automobiles the price of automobiles for consumers will drop. I'm not so sure it holds in the case when you consider us opening the markets for automobiles, vacuum cleaners, industrial chemicals, semiconductors, etc...

At some point you eventually reach a state where we don't actually make things anymore and the entire economy is devoted to serving those who benefit from that trade. You end up with an economy based on food service, hospitality, retail, etc. As the owners of those trade arrangements diverge further and further economically from the overwhelming majority of the population it breeds a kind of resentful desperation. When we have a healthy economy where most people can support themselves with a reasonable salary in a self-respecting dignified way without licking the boots of the upper class society is healthier. It's hard to see how we do that with free trade.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#192

Post by ceeplusplus »

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

The moment you implement true Marxism is the day I will fuck off and play video games all day, and my feeling is many smart people I work with will as well. Why work hard to be the best at something if you aren't rewarded for it? I for one would not want to better the lazy bums in my community with my work and by your twisted logic in your post history that somehow implies all of Marxism is wrong as I'm a counterexample.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#193

Post by CountSessine »

nimbius wrote: post #159
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you're wondering what the play from unions is after this, its "unexpected" equipment breakdowns and coordinated slowdowns because you now generally lack the leadership necessary to fire people or lead failure/productivity investigations

The funny thing is though that for warehouse employees at Amazon, their job is so simple and all of their work is wrapped up and recorded for KPIs that if they slow down or become unproductive, they could be fired electronically without even assuming that the slowdown was intentional.

They’re hamsters on a wheel and the wheel isn’t going to slow down just because they’re upset about their situation.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#194

Post by dghlsakjg »

WalterBright wrote: post #175
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…

When I worked at Boeing on the 757 gearbox design, at one point the box was put into a test rig to see how it would behave under load. I went out to the shop to in case any questions needed answering. At one point, a bolt needed turning (don't recall why) and I stepped forward to do it. The shop union steward literally lunged in front of me, arms outstretched, to block me. He informed me that only a union mechanic ca…

It sounds like this is an example of things going too far, but I can totally understand a leader not wanting someone from a different department wrenching.

This bolt was probably inconsequential, but I'm guessing that he had to fill out paperwork enough times where some cowboy from the office fouled up a day's work.

I'm an engineer now, but I used to work on commercial boats. I came up with all sorts of semi-valid reasons to politely tell customers and superiors why they weren't allowed to do things (you can't drive the boat for "insurance reasons"). The real answer was: "I don't know how competent you are. The worst case scenario is that you injure a person or destroy valuable equipment. That probably won't happen, but a 1% chance of losing my job or having to deal with the aftermath is worth stopping you with a technicality."

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#195

Post by dghlsakjg »

Kab1r wrote: post #172
lalaland1125 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlawful termination for what?

The National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from firing employees for participating in union activities.

These employees were management. They are explicitly excluded from union activities because they represent the company.

Bezos can fire management whenever they like.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#196

Post by SilasX »

stormbrew wrote: post #182
SilasX wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I did miss the edit. I guess I assumed for something that bad, you'd just delete that part of the comment.

The point stands, that you would never have made such an unforced error if you didn't have such a laser focus on a comically uncharitable interpretation of the original parent's remark. As if the existence of manager-banned unions could ever be relevant to a comment specifically suggesting what a manager should do.

What was going on in your head? "Hm, someone suggested a manager unionizing. Oh! He must mean one of the unions that ban managers! What an idiot!"

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#197

Post by linuxhansl »

csomar wrote: post #177
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…

See here > tilt the uneven power dynamic between employer and employee towards the employee With here > unions seem to often go overboard with impractical demands and are more political than in Europe Gives you Union Employee who grab the power from the actual owners of the company. The relation is now even worse: The Union leader have both power, and no skin in the game. At least the employers cared about the longev…

Interesting. Didn't think about it this way.

Why is it (typically) not a problem is Europe? Unions seems negotiate reasonable contracts, raises, and safety measures there.

And why is a union leader who abuses the power not removed from that position? It's not benefiting the union members.

In the end, looking at this in black or white (including your statement) is part of the problem. Unions are neither universally good, nor are they universally bad.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#198

Post by kibwen »

SahAssar wrote: post #173
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…

> unions seem to often go overboard with impractical demands and are more political than in Europe Isn't that partially because the US such an insufficient level of social benefits from the state (healthcare, pensions, paid time off, etc.)? The unions wouldn't need to "go overboard" if an acceptable minimum level was guaranteed.

Right. The problem with companies is that internally they act like monopolies: unopposed and and anti-competitive. Some force must act upon them to keep them honest, which is to say to keep them from racing to the bottom at ruthlessly exploiting their employees while lining the owners' pockets with their stolen wages. If the government were competent at enforcing the rights of laborers, then unions would not be necessary. Sadly the government is owned by those same companies and thus has little incentive to do so, thus unions (as flawed as they are) have a necessary role to fill.

TL;DR: it is possible to believe the unions are less than ideal while also acknowledging why they exist and why we'd be even worse off without them.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#199

Post by WalterBright »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #194
WalterBright wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I worked at Boeing on the 757 gearbox design, at one point the box was put into a test rig to see how it would behave under load. I went out to the shop to in case any questions needed answering. At one point, a bolt needed turning (don't recall why) and I stepped forward to do it. The shop union steward literally lunged in front of me, arms outstretched, to block me. He informed me that only a union mechanic ca…

It sounds like this is an example of things going too far, but I can totally understand a leader not wanting someone from a different department wrenching. This bolt was probably inconsequential, but I'm guessing that he had to fill out paperwork enough times where some cowboy from the office fouled up a day's work. I'm an engineer now, but I used to work on commercial boats. I came up with all sorts of semi-valid re…

Um, I worked on the design of that gearbox for two years. I knew it intimately. That's why I was sent to the test.

The test was to see if the box would crack, deform, or snap under the ultimate load. It didn't. But the test rig bent :-) hahahahahahahaha. Math works.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#200

Post by runarberg »

darkerside wrote: post #188
avgcorrection wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Unions are created because of unacceptable conditions

No. Unions are created because it gives workers several tools to counter the power imbalance inherent in the boss-worker relationship, the most immediate tool being collective bargaining.

Even in places where working conditions are acceptable—by some threshold of acceptable—unions still have a place. In Europe, for example it is not uncommon for the union to engage in outreach and mutual aid to education on labor rights and intervene when rights are violated.

In places where working conditions are not acceptable, the union does empower workers to rise up against their bosses for better conditions, this is enabled through solidarity between workers. After the conditions are fixed, that solidarity is still required to maintain them.

Post reply on HN