Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#161

Post by angry_octet » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 4:49 AM UTC

lovich wrote: post #141

endtime wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If most of the workers are making less now, why would they vote to unionize? You seem to be confusing the direction of time...

What we're the expected benefits of joining the union that they didn't get then? For instance in most low level jobs I've had like that, just getting a consistent schedule would be worth half the hourly wage, without a bonus all. You'd be able to have a life or a second job. When you don't have a union you get companies ignoring even basics like that and doing random scheduling with leaves you with the inability to d…

Yep there are heaps of reasons. For example, 'zero hours' contracts are all too common now. You have to be available for a shift, but if there is no work they send you home. (Or if you don't suck up to the supervisor he gives you less hours.) It's an unfair one way obligation.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#162

Post by seventhtiger » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 4:52 AM UTC

techsupporter wrote: post #18

andrestan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health comes from working harder?? What is your calculus that helped you arrive at it being the case that the now former monetary incentives' value was outweighed by the decrease in worker health that you have perceived?

In every thread like this, there's an argument like yours, taking the absolutist view that individual workers should have unlimited freedom ("completely and totally incapable," as you wrote) to sacrifice themselves for money. In the micro sense, you are possibly correct. However, as a society, we have decided at the macro level that no, workers are not free to make that decision because to do so would inherently driv…

You make a great point. We have to be careful when we design a race to the bottom. We don't let companies do it to themselves, so we shouldn't let them do it to their employees.

There's also the fact that if you are free to choose it, you could also be pressured to choose it. Like companies that give you the freedom to cash out your vacation instead of taking it. It'd be great because not all of us want to go on vacation every year.

But unless there's a mandatory minimum vacation, some employees will be pressured into literally never taking a vacation. Think of Japanese work culture. Top down work-life balance measures are completely ignored because they're not mandatory.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#163

Post by dboreham » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 4:55 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #123

dboreham wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you compare the UX at Walmart vs, say, Costco (which pays higher wages) I'm not so sure that paying the lowest is good business. i.e. is 1 Costco employee equal in productivity to 1 Walmart employee? I suspect not.

I'm not sure why they have to be 1 to 1 in worker productivity. They fill the specific roles they're looking for, and the companies aren't very interchangeable in either products or scale so it's hard to compare UX in any standard metric other than marketshare and goods throughput, in which case Walmart is bigger and better.

Seriously? A checkout operator at Costco is doing a significantly different job than one at Walmart?

You will get to compare the UX if you walk into any Walmart store...

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#164

Post by angry_octet » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:00 AM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #68

sethammons wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. I'm not convinced. My brother's work has a warehouse. The warehouse unionized (a large push by two folks who are no longer there). Most of the warehouse workers are now making _less_ than they were before due to union dues. There are guys that my brother would lov…

So who's running the union? Some measure of nonsensicality exists here in the idea of a union composed entirely of warehouse workers that is somehow magically acting against the best interests of those warehouse workers.

Traditionally the way it has played out is that casual workers are screwed in favour of permanents (who are more likely to be union members). The company saves on wages overall but some employees get better wages. And of course corrupt kickbacks to prevent industrial action, aka a protection racket.

There can be multiple unions too, and inter-union conflict. Some of the unions are very right wing (hate gays and women basically) and have e.g. opposed paid maternity leave in a zero sum game approach.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#165

Post by barry-cotter » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:06 AM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #160

barry-cotter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-08-27/why-walma... Walmart pays less because it has much lower profit margins. It serves far more customers and the average employee is a great deal less skilled. And it’s cheaper, with greater product choice. The average Walmart employee is definitely worse than the average Costco employee but Walmart is clearly the better business. It has higher gross profits, employs mo…

>Walmart pays less because it has much lower profit margins. Huh? Is that a rule? So when a given corporation's GPM drops, they have to give their workers a pay cut?

It’s a description of the economics of a corporation. If they have so much in revenues and so much in non wage costs the difference either goes to wages or profit. If revenues drop either profits will drop or wage costs will.

In the very long run your pay will tend towards your productivity but ease of replacibility will also play a role among other things. Sculptors and aerospace engineers are both highly skilled but there are many more jobs for the second than the first so they get paid more.

In the long run it is almost a rule that if gpm drops wages will. Profits could also drop. The mix of compensation could change. They could keep wages the same but fire the least productive staff so the wage bill drops but the remaining workers do more work.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#166

Post by ip26 » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:09 AM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #139

ip26 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you create a union that has the right amount of power? When unions are able to, & do, kill the host company through greed & short-term thinking, something is wrong with the structure.

> When unions are able to, & do, kill the host company through greed & short-term thinking, something is wrong with the structure. I love how this argument gets applied to unions but not to companies. Many companies have killed themselves through greed and short-term thinking, yet you are not arguing that something is wrong with corporate structure. Ultimately every human organization is prone to screwing up - unions…

I guess to me it just seems especially perverse, because the union is supposed to be working in the interest of the worker. The worker even pays the union. Yet sinking the company is not in the interest of the worker.

Corporations can sink themselves because they are granted self-determination. That's sort of fundamental, sans bailouts.

That said, I would be happy if we could tweak incentives to shift focus away from short term returns towards long term. Companies are not perfect either, and my omission was not meant to imply they were.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#167

Post by crooked-v » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:25 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #94

crooked-v wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet presumably the union would be quite happy with across-the-board raises, so the complaint tries to casually gloss over the implied conflict with management about who deserves a more limited supply of raises.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting there should be no pay differentiation for performance at all?

No, I'm suggesting that management and the union seem to disagree on who exactly has the higher performance in this situation.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#168

Post by Zarel » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:27 AM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #96

manigandham wrote: post #78

This is a direct attack on competitors, designed to enlist the help of the federal government to raise payroll and put pressure on arch nemesis Walmart and any other company that has lots of retail other jobs that are not conducive to automation. Remember that Amazon thinks 5 years ahead, and they waited for the perfect PR and political threshold to announce these changes and capitalize on the news.

If you compare the UX at Walmart vs, say, Costco (which pays higher wages) I'm not so sure that paying the lowest is good business. i.e. is 1 Costco employee equal in productivity to 1 Walmart employee? I suspect not.

If, like Costco, you refuse to sell to poor people, yes, you can get a much better profit margin.

But poor people still need food and various other necessities. I'm not convinced it's possible to pay high wages and also serve poor people.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#169

Post by crooked-v » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:28 AM UTC

davidwparker wrote: post #135

crooked-v wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet presumably the union would be quite happy with across-the-board raises, so the complaint tries to casually gloss over the implied conflict with management about who deserves a more limited supply of raises.

He's talking about a promotion. Presumably, that would come with a raise. But not every member of the union would be "promoted".

I think you missed my point, which is that management and the union seem to disagree on who exactly most deserves a promotion.

Re: Amazon Warehouse Workers Lose Bonuses, Stock Awards for Raises

#170

Post by manigandham » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:28 AM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #163

manigandham wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why they have to be 1 to 1 in worker productivity. They fill the specific roles they're looking for, and the companies aren't very interchangeable in either products or scale so it's hard to compare UX in any standard metric other than marketshare and goods throughput, in which case Walmart is bigger and better.

Seriously? A checkout operator at Costco is doing a significantly different job than one at Walmart? You will get to compare the UX if you walk into any Walmart store...

It seems like you're conflating several things. Productivity of the worker is different from the UX of the store brand and neither have anything to do with the job role.

A checkout operator at Costco can be 2x as efficient as a checkout operator at Walmart while having a completely different customer UX (both the worker and the store itself) and being paid different wages. So what? Walmart and Costco serve different markets and sell different products so of course they will be differently run businesses.

Nothing about this is abnormal so I don't understand your comparison. They are not interchangeable other than looking at them as general retail companies.