Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 182 posts

Re: Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

#131

Post by bitshiftfaced »

hnbad wrote: post #87
runeks wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are there to take care of the interests of their members. This is undeniably good for their members, but I'd like to remind you that it's not always good for outsiders. For example, the union of California's prison guards (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) have helped lobby for the "three strikes" rule to get more people in prison: https://academic.oup.com/book/11009/chapter-abstract/1593367.…

Arguably prisons should not be privatized in the first place. There are problems associated with prison and police unions in general but this specific problem is largely a result of prison guards having a direct incentive to want more people in prison.

From the union's perspective, isn't it good to have more prisoners whether or not the prison is privatized?

Re: Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

#132

Post by bitshiftfaced »

Ensorceled wrote: post #120
kmlx wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unions are there to stop employers using their might to exploit their workers in theory yes. in practice it gets murky.

Do you have examples of murky? I can think of police and prison unions but those are a symptom of an entirely different set of problems and aren't really about "unions". Any others?

Teacher's unions becoming so strong that schools cannot fire bad teachers, and in the end it's the students who pay for it.

Re: Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

#133

Post by StockHuman »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #43
starbugs wrote: post #8

So I did my first part in trying to support everyone who dislikes this as much as I do. I cancelled my Prime and I will try to not purchase anything from Amazon for a year. It's not much, but it's something. I invite everyone to do the same.

Goodonya. Here's what I did. It's not for everyone. It was painful, awkward and led to a lot of bother... but ultimately I feel proud of myself and how the other responded. I rejected a gift that came in an Amazon box. Very politely, and apologetically., I said, "I'm really sorry, but I can't accept this." And why, (working conditions, monopoly etc). It had an effect not only on myself - to make an ideological whimsy…

A far greater (and less needlessly entrapping) commitment to that would be to drop all traffic from AWS. Watch the Internet break, and never contribute to Amazon’s bottom line.

This person had no idea about your beliefs and you pick the receipt of a gift as the moment to inform them through rejection? That seems rather mean for something where Bezos has already been paid.

Re: Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

#134

Post by gruez »

StockHuman wrote: post #133
nonrandomstring wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodonya. Here's what I did. It's not for everyone. It was painful, awkward and led to a lot of bother... but ultimately I feel proud of myself and how the other responded. I rejected a gift that came in an Amazon box. Very politely, and apologetically., I said, "I'm really sorry, but I can't accept this." And why, (working conditions, monopoly etc). It had an effect not only on myself - to make an ideological whimsy…

A far greater (and less needlessly entrapping) commitment to that would be to drop all traffic from AWS. Watch the Internet break, and never contribute to Amazon’s bottom line. This person had no idea about your beliefs and you pick the receipt of a gift as the moment to inform them through rejection? That seems rather mean for something where Bezos has already been paid.

>A far greater (and less needlessly entrapping) commitment to that would be to drop all traffic from AWS. Watch the Internet break, and never contribute to Amazon’s bottom line.

"Watch the Internet break" basically makes this a non-starter for everyone.

Re: Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

#135

Post by mickael-kerjean »

StockHuman wrote: post #133
nonrandomstring wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodonya. Here's what I did. It's not for everyone. It was painful, awkward and led to a lot of bother... but ultimately I feel proud of myself and how the other responded. I rejected a gift that came in an Amazon box. Very politely, and apologetically., I said, "I'm really sorry, but I can't accept this." And why, (working conditions, monopoly etc). It had an effect not only on myself - to make an ideological whimsy…

A far greater (and less needlessly entrapping) commitment to that would be to drop all traffic from AWS. Watch the Internet break, and never contribute to Amazon’s bottom line. This person had no idea about your beliefs and you pick the receipt of a gift as the moment to inform them through rejection? That seems rather mean for something where Bezos has already been paid.

Ever since AWS has become so ubiquitous it's hard. Bezos make more money from my OSS work from people using it on AWS than I'll ever make myself, that's the reality of OSS work these days

Re: Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

#136

Post by Vosporos »

janandonly wrote: post #56
29athrowaway wrote: post #23

Transcript: Welcome! We're excited to have you at this training, specifically designed to give you the tools you need for success when it comes to labor organizing. During this course, we will cover important topics such as our position on unions, associate's rights, signs of employee disengagement, and how to identify, escalate, and address associate's concerns. We're not anti-union, but we're not neutral either. We…

Who makes up this stuff? > 'The most obvious signs would include use of words associative with unions or union-led movements such as 'living wage' or 'steward.' Talking about making a living wage is dangerous to shareholders now?

In Amazon's case, it is

Re: Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

#137

Post by chang1 »

not_enoch_wise wrote: post #104
chang1 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, convenience is king. I find a lot of like-minded people will easily overlook or not even consider what is happening behind the scenes. There is a tradeoff for low prices/convenience and it's not always obvious. I cancelled Prime about 6 months ago and I thought it would be difficult, but it's actually been fine. I shopped at Whole Foods for over a decade and there are staples I thought I couldn't…

If you’re turning to trader joe’s to boycott anti-union behavior, I have bad news for you…

Uh oh, just did a search... well that's too bad.

I guess my point still stands where I'm not buying all my eggs from 1 marketplace.

Re: Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

#139

Post by sinman »

Maschinesky wrote: post #79
bigDinosaur wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it is hyperbolic. Amazon is many bad things, but Nazis they are not (I shouldn't have to say that).

Are you aware of the following? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei?wprov=sfla1 In my opinion this it's very well.

I think the gp is kind to even call this "hyperbolic". There is no comparison between Amazon and a concentration camp, just because people are worked hard at amazon.

The reason Auschwitz was bad was not because people worked hard there. It was because people were enslaved and murdered there.

It would be like comparing a camp site to a concentration camp, because both are "camps". The comparison yields no useful insights.

Re: Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

#140

Post by unmole »

hnbad wrote: post #87
runeks wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are there to take care of the interests of their members. This is undeniably good for their members, but I'd like to remind you that it's not always good for outsiders. For example, the union of California's prison guards (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) have helped lobby for the "three strikes" rule to get more people in prison: https://academic.oup.com/book/11009/chapter-abstract/1593367.…

Arguably prisons should not be privatized in the first place. There are problems associated with prison and police unions in general but this specific problem is largely a result of prison guards having a direct incentive to want more people in prison.

> Arguably prisons should not be privatized in the first place.

Private prisons house ~8% of all prisoners in the US.

Post reply on HN