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

221–230 of 244 posts

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#221

Post by csomar »

linuxhansl wrote: post #197
csomar wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

> Why is it (typically) not a problem is Europe?

Unions are bad in France. There is a strike every other day + they are far from being fair rather than being greedy. So Europe is not an exception here. Here is a recent strike in Germany: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-security-workers-go-on-strike-...

Unions can be good if you have two rational parties negotiating reasonably. A greedy employer, and an unreasonable/powerful union and you suddenly unleash hell.

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

He is benefiting the members in the short-term. And many of your employees can't see past that or read an accounting statement.

> 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.

I'm not looking at it in either color. What I am saying is that Unions do not solve the power dynamic problem; and thus can't be the answer for either employees or employers.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#222

Post by galfarragem »

navbaker wrote: post #183
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In my mind - and in most, I believe - a military veteran means a war veteran.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#223

Post by navbaker »

galfarragem wrote: post #222
navbaker wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In my mind - and in most, I believe - a military veteran means a war veteran.

I was US military for 11 years and can definitely tell you that, beyond the “on paper” definition I posted above, members of the military consider anyone who volunteers for military service and does their time to be a veteran. I’d definitely be interested to know where this concept of “you have to be in a conflict” definition came from. Is it from people who were in the military or just pop culture influenced misconceptions?

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#224

Post by syshum »

happymellon wrote: post #208
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…

> in the UK you have sector unions, not enterprise unions. This is not correct, we have both much like the US. We have unions for a particular company for example, here is the Wikipedia link for the Nationwide Union, a building society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Group_Staff_Union Certainly over time they will consolidate, but that goes back to my point about age. If other warehouses unionise, at some…

>>We have unions for a particular company for example, here is the Wikipedia link for the Nationwide Union

The question I would then have is do the employee of Nationwide have to join the Nationwide Union or could they if they wanted choose a different union, or no union at all. Practicality or downsides aside is it legal for them do make that choice.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#225

Post by michael1999 »

throwaway12948 wrote: post #154
AndyKelley wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have seen this sort of sentiment many times, and the narrative here aligns with the main thread. I also know a few in my circle who I respect and think very highly of, but only worked at Amazon for ~1 year, and all of these people have been very quiet about their experience at Amazon. Also, I understand that the leadership principles are taken very seriously. My question: How are the leadership principles used in a…

Amazon is a retailer, and the mindset of a retailer is squeezing fractions of a penny out of toilet paper vendors. None of the original leadership principles says anything about human beings.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#226

Post by happymellon »

syshum wrote: post #224
happymellon wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the UK you have sector unions, not enterprise unions. This is not correct, we have both much like the US. We have unions for a particular company for example, here is the Wikipedia link for the Nationwide Union, a building society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Group_Staff_Union Certainly over time they will consolidate, but that goes back to my point about age. If other warehouses unionise, at some…

>>We have unions for a particular company for example, here is the Wikipedia link for the Nationwide Union The question I would then have is do the employee of Nationwide have to join the Nationwide Union or could they if they wanted choose a different union, or no union at all. Practicality or downsides aside is it legal for them do make that choice.

That is not the question, they claimed that the UK doesn't have enterprise unions, but sector ones.

Closed or requirement after hire is both illegal in the UK, and the EU, as well as not popular positions for the unions. In that sense we are not the same but, again, that wasn't the discussion.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#227

Post by badwolf »

runarberg wrote: post #200
darkerside wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eng…

I would just say, if rights are being violated, then that is not acceptable working conditions.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#228

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

navbaker wrote: post #223
galfarragem wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my mind - and in most, I believe - a military veteran means a war veteran.

I was US military for 11 years and can definitely tell you that, beyond the “on paper” definition I posted above, members of the military consider anyone who volunteers for military service and does their time to be a veteran. I’d definitely be interested to know where this concept of “you have to be in a conflict” definition came from. Is it from people who were in the military or just pop culture influenced misconc…

I'm a not-so-young chap, so a lot of my compatriots are combat veterans (mostly Vietnam, and Iraq 1). They are the ones that have given me that impression.

In any case, my original post had nothing, whatsoever, to with military service, and I think we've just about exhausted this rabbithole.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#229

Post by pc86 »

pessimizer wrote: post #134
pc86 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 underst…

You conveniently ignored my actual question.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#230

Post by nobodyandproud »

dragonwriter wrote: post #66
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?

Senior managers (heck, even line managers) do not have the right to unionize.

The rules of unionization need to change with the times.

The line manager making less than a SWE 1 isn’t in the same league as senior management who own a significant portion of the company equity.

Even software engineers are subjected to the meat grinder in Amazon.

Post reply on HN