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

231–240 of 244 posts

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#231

Post by klyrs »

fallingknife wrote: post #115
klyrs wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem being that the ones interested in scrapping them aren't interested in replacing them.

Why do we need legislation? Formation of unions is protected by freedom of association in the 1st amendment. Not sure why we need another federal bureaucracy to intervene in the negotiating process. Not sure why we need the whole all or nothing union voting process. What if 33% of employees want to join the union? What if managers want to join? Why can't they just join?

> Why do we need legislation?

The fundamental purpose of the constitution is to limit government overreach. Limitations on individuals and corporations are enacted through legislation. Those limitations (in general) are necessary because without them, people with the most power abuse the people with the least, until there's a violent uprising. Today's legislation exists because of the last violent uprising in response to abuses of corporate power. Removing it wholesale, without replacement, invites that bloody history to repeat itself.

Wanna tweak it so managers can unionize? Sounds fine to me! Wanna make union membership optional through federal law? That's gonna be a fight.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#232

Post by dctoedt »

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…

> members of the military consider anyone who volunteers for military service and does their time to be a veteran.

If you take the oath, go where you're sent, and do as you're ordered (within the law and morality), that's all that can be asked. Some find themselves having to do it with people shooting at them or trying to blow them up, like my dad and some of my uncles; others are more fortunate, like numerous other family members, including me. All are veterans. (And that goes for draftees too, although it's been 50 years since the U.S. has had a draft.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/10/22...

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#233

Post by SilasX »

stormbrew wrote: post #202
SilasX wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I misread "join a union" as "join the union." Literally I mistook one article for another, which is what I said. I feel like you're kinda throwing stones in a glass house here by imparting a whole bunch of really bizarre motives to me (I certainly didn't call -- nor did I think anyone was -- an idiot), apparently not reading my entire post, and then accusing me of not reading things charitably. I can assure you I am…

You're missing the key takeaway. The issue is not that you misread a comment. The issue is that your reply is non-substantive, and that you would have picked up on that, had you entered the discussion with a healthy, productive attitude, rather than the attitude you apparently came in with, of "how can I show myself to have superior knowledge?"

Let's say you hadn't misread the comment (i.e. it was as you originally perceived). Would your reply be helpful then? No. The parent was obviously suggesting that managers face workplace abuses that could be remedied by unionization. Even if they had said "join the union" -- as you leaped at the chance to correct -- was your comment substantively replying to this (actual) point?

No, it wasn't. Whatever the structure of unions-as-they-exist, the proposed solution most assuredly does not involve "join a union that prohibits you". So the existence of unions that prohibit managers isn't relevant. At most, if you really needed to show off your knowledge, you could have said something like:

"That might help -- but, nitpick, it would probably have to be a separate union from 'the' one representing warehouse workers, as there are reasons that US unions separate out representation by role. ."

But then, phrasing your objection appropriately like that makes its value to the conversation seem even more dubious. Whether or not unions prevent this kind of manager abuse is irrelevant to the implementation details of how those managers unionize.

>I feel like you're kinda throwing stones in a glass house

No, the situations aren't the same. You recognize your comment would be irrelevant had you correctly read the comment you were replying to. But even if I had read your full comment, my reply would still be relevant, as a guideline for how to notice when you might have misread someone, and how to ensure that you're substantively replying to a charitable reading of someone's remarks. That advice is still relevant, and still serves as a useful takeaway.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#234

Post by runarberg »

badwolf wrote: post #227
runarberg wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Very true. However labor violations are seldomly this clear cut mustache twirling villain you would see in the movies which affects all workers equally. Most often it is some mundane error done by a clerk in the HR department that never gets corrected until—by luck—a well meaning lower manager spots it, and goes to the union to demand a correction including back-pay.

This is the reason why outreach is an important part of the union’s job. These errors exists sporadically and will persist uncorrected while the workforce is uneducated on our rights.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#235

Post by runarberg »

csomar wrote: post #221
linuxhansl wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/pow…

The way you are presenting this it is as if we only have two options:

a) we give all the power to the union leadership: and suffer strikes every other day because an unreasonable and very powerful union leadership orders it, or

b) we give all the power to our bosses: and suffer poor working conditions, bad pay, hard working hours, loose our paid leaves, etc.

Frankly if these were the two choices I would pick option (a). Seeing how things turned up for America after they abandoned their unions, a strike every other day doesn’t seem too bad.

However this dichotomy is false, there are more options. A union doesn’t need to be unreasonable and powerful. A good union leadership will extend the solidarity to all workers (not just their members), and my experience with a striking workforce (the European country where I’m from also has a strike “every other day”) is that the leadership usually considers the wider implications. For example: striking kindergarden teachers are perfectly aware that they are needed for for other workers, which is why they usually try as they can to minimize the impact of the strike for non-member working parents.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#236

Post by SahAssar »

kibwen wrote: post #198
SahAssar wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 neces…

> If the government were competent at enforcing the rights of laborers, then unions would not be necessary.

I wouldn't say that, but unions should fill the same role that local government should fill. They should respond and resolve local issues specific to their area, so I wouldn't expect my union to negotiate my healthcare just like I wouldn't expect my town to negotiate trade deals with foreign countries. I do however want the unions there to deal with issues specific to my workplace, just like I do want my town to have a local government to deal with issues specific to my town.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#237

Post by syshum »

happymellon wrote: post #226
syshum wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

I am the person that made the claim, I am pretty sure I understand what I am trying to talk about.

This seems to a terminology / definitional problem we have, something I am trying to get beyond because like I said from the beginning a "union" in the US is not the same as a "Union" in the UK/EU, that is my point from the start

So when we have these international discussions and people from the UK/EU are aghast that anyone in the US would be opposed to Unions they are talking from what they understand from the Unions on their nation, which IS NOT what we have here in the US.

My attempts to convey the differences has failed with terminology issues and technicality gotchas largely due to a massive political bias in favor of unionization so any time anyone tries to convey a negative about a union is gets drowned out either by people not in the US that have no idea what a US Labor union really is like, or by people in the US that only understand the concept of a US Labor union but not the reality of it

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#238

Post by blep_ »

idiotsecant wrote: post #18
Dreako wrote: post #4

As they should!

It boggles the mind how many people are opposed to collective bargaining, of all things. Give the least powerful in society a fraction of an ounce of power and it makes some people completely irrational.

I think it can work. I do not share the view that it will automatically work.

Consider, for a moment, the US electoral system. In structure, it's largely representative democracy. The people who win the elections become the leaders. Those people make policy decisions, or appoint other people who make policy decisions, for a lot of people who then proceed to get very angry at those policy decisions.

But at the same time, a lot of those angry people did agree with the concept of what a government is supposed to do for its citizens. They just think it's being done poorly or corruptly. Some of them give up on the ideal being achieveable at all, and greatly reduce their idea of what a government should do, possibly to zero, with the idea that individuals or groups can do it better for themselves. Some instead yell loudly about the things the government is doing wrong. Which of these groups is right is irrelevant; all I want you to see is how a reasonable person can get to any of those conclusions given the current state of the world.

Now, back to unions. What some of us believe is that this issue of leaders not effectively representing people's interests is inherent to sufficiently large democratic systems - I'd tentatively put the threshold as "when you know more about the candidates from media than you do from knowing them personally", as that's the point where it becomes feasible to skew voters' opinions en masse. We don't see large unions as having sufficient protection against a charismatic but incompetent/evil person getting put in charge, and doing the usual things such people do with power. It's hard to get such people out of power; see your least favorite incumbent politician for an example.

I do happen to be in favor of voluntary unions, because for some people that risk is acceptable for the benefits unions provide. I am very much not in favor of any form of "you must associate with this union in some way to work here" arrangements, because some unions are useless or actively bad, and removing the option to not participate in those removes the only feasible escape hatch for those who need it.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#239

Post by darkerside »

kqr wrote: post #205
darkerside wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Although I have to admit many industrial unions today have become "another authority", fundamentally, unionisation is about workers talking to each other and finding alignment in what they want out of work. Not another authority.

They can already do that. Unions are about united bargaining power, which means an authority figure.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#240

Post by darkerside »

avgcorrection wrote: post #218
darkerside wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your comments sound like those Walmart training videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6bFEs4ZoXw Got that message of: we’re all just one big family where everyone loves each other. Now, don’t you call Child Services on us when we discipline y’all a little, ya hear?

And, what you said can be totally legitimate parenting. I'm not making a call here, just calling people out for jumping to conclusions when there are other valid interpretations.
Post reply on HN