Next time you're at a union meeting, ask them about any boxes they own at sports stadiums. Ask if you as a paid union member can use the box that you are paying for with your dues.
While you're at it ask your corporate boss if you can use his private jet since it is your labor making him wealthy after all. I'm sure he'll be very generous. I agree that powerful people aren't great but it seems ridiculous to imagine that union bosses are the worst offenders.
I think what makes it uniquely terrible is that it comes from someone who claims to be for the little guy, and reeks of hypocrisy. The capitalist is pretty naked about their intent, etc
So apparently “neutralize” is the big bad trigger word here despite this quote? > Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien told Recode in July that his union is intent on “ disrupting [Amazon’s] network until they get to a point where they surrender
I think it's more subtle than that. I personally interpreted the tone of the headline to be hinting at something much more nefarious than "Amazon plans to hire ex-inmates to fight off union influence", and it looks like I wasn't alone. It's a terrible headline that doesn't do a good job of summarizing the key point of the article. A more cynical person than myself might even throw around the term clickbait.
Next time you're at a union meeting, ask them about any boxes they own at sports stadiums. Ask if you as a paid union member can use the box that you are paying for with your dues.
They will spend money on literally anything else except wage increases.
Just to play Devil's Advocate: a company can cut donations or most other expenditures anytime it wants. An increase in wages is effectively a permanent commitment, and the only way to reduce wage expenditures is to cut the workforce. This is why companies tend to prefer bonuses, etc, rather than pay bumps, even for individual employees.
If I ever become a Devil, remind me not to choose you as my advocate. Your comment makes them look worse.
That’s not true though. The shareholders are people so what they want are as varied as what people want. Does Elon want SpaceX to be super profitable or does he want to make life multi planetary? (They aren’t mutually exclusive, but it’s weird to think that he is just trying to make as much profit as possible).
> but it’s weird to think that he is just trying to make as much profit as possible Why is it weird to think that?
More wealth isn’t enough to satiate his ego, he absolutely craves legacy. As of now he’ll still be a small footnote in history, kids will likely learn about Henry Ford 150 years from now but Musk isn’t worth much of an appearance. Tesla is just an iterative step in EV / battery manufacturing, and is likely to be dwarfed by competition over the next 50 years, even if it does really well.
SpaceX gives him the chance to truly make history. People will learn about our first manned trip to Mars and the first colony. Perhaps even for thousands of years.
I read the article expecting to see terrible actions by Amazon fighting the union. Instead the article was about the Teamsters union convincing local governments to block Amazon from opening buildings, and Amazon "fighting back" by increasing their hiring of needy ex-cons and minorities from local colleges, ending their marijuana drug tests, and otherwise working to ingratiate themselves with their comminities. The T…
> The Teamsters don't come out looking like the good guys... This is often the case.
No need to downvote this. Long history of documented corruption.
Altruism and PR aren't the only options. If the explanation is "they'll be less likely to dare to ask for better treatment" then I think that's a problem.
And that's everyone but Amazon's fault, in this case.
The people who contribute daily to making our society that way are all indeed culpable. However, the people who opportunistically turn a profit from society being that way are the worst of that collection of people.
Just to play Devil's Advocate: a company can cut donations or most other expenditures anytime it wants. An increase in wages is effectively a permanent commitment, and the only way to reduce wage expenditures is to cut the workforce. This is why companies tend to prefer bonuses, etc, rather than pay bumps, even for individual employees.
Companies also want to retain the ability to fire at will, with simple HR processes, and to reward based on performance instead of seniority.
> and to reward based on performance instead of seniority
You say that like it's a bad thing. (Also, generally unheard of in the types of places we're discussing; you don't get paid more for being good. You get paid more for be good enough for longer.)
I totally agree with you about our society’s mistreatment of people who have paid their debts, but I’m not sure I like what Amazon is doing here. It smacks of using people: treating them like props in order to secure private gain.
> It smacks of using people Work is fundamentally transactional. Those for whom it is more than that are lucky. > treating them like props in order to secure private gain I worry about moralizing on behalf of the marginalized. They should be asked whether they'd prefer the option to have the work.
Respectfully, I disagree with the postulate that there is no possibility of solidarity with “the marginalized”, and think this is a good example of why. When you say ask “them,” who do you mean? Ex-convicts, Amazon workers, teamsters, some combination of these, or what? And who are you going to listen to when people (inevitably, even within the same faction) disagree?
I think that what this approach does is renders ethical discussions impossible. By denying the possibility of a common rationality in which moral questions can be weighed, ethics is reduced into a collision of interests, and the unsurprising result is that nothing can happen without the approval of the strongest party in the conflict.
See Occupy Wall Street for another example of this principle in action.
And that's everyone but Amazon's fault, in this case.
The people who contribute daily to making our society that way are all indeed culpable. However, the people who opportunistically turn a profit from society being that way are the worst of that collection of people.