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

Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 458 posts

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#171

Post by kmlx »

sangnoir wrote: post #139
refresher wrote: post #48

The relevant excerpts from the job listings: >Analysts must be capable of engaging and informing L7+ ER Principals (attorney stakeholders) on sensitive topics that are highly confidential, including labor organizing threats against the company, establish and track funding and activities connected to corporate campaigns (internal and external) against Amazon, and provide sophisticated analysis on these topics >Analyst…

> ...hostile political leaders. Nice! It's always good to see corporates fight against elected politicians that are hostile to projects like HQ 2. This is not dystopian at all.

dystopian?

democracy is a flawed system so politicians should expect pushbacks.

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#172

Post by filoeleven »

mattacular wrote: post #73
ouid wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you're asking this question in good faith. Negotiating power is derived exclusively from the ability to walk away. When walking away from your employment means being evicted, starving, and being unable to afford medical care, your ability to do so is crippled.

I was and all of the replies so far are assuming UBI would cover all basic necessities in the long term in every part of the country. Many people with above avg income TODAY struggle with medical bills and even housing. So I'm not sure I buy the argument that a UBI would be able to cover them unless many other things change first.

Hence the need to strengthens social safety nets too. Universal health care removes the medical costs problem for individuals (I’m not weighing in on its societal cost here except to say that other countries manage it).

A UBI should cover the cost of housing and food, though it does not guarantee that you can live in a highly-sought after area without other income. That must be factored into employee compensation in the same way that it already is for desirable jobs today. It puts more pressure on cities to ensure that close, affordable housing exists for the lower-wage workers like retail and service workers who help make those cities desirable places to live. A job at a swanky downtown coffee shop with an hour commute becomes a lot less attractive if I can ditch that job and the transit costs without worrying about my basic survival. So the coffee shop has to increase pay or lose its employees and close up. Its downtown location and clientele will either absorb the price increase, or downtown will become a less competitive living space due to the loss of the business.

A UBI will not remove all of the reasons someone can’t pack up and leave if the area is too expensive, there are lots of human factors in play, but it will increase people’s ability to move elsewhere without having to fear for their very survival.

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#173

Post by dcre »

dakial1 wrote: post #65

US law does not protect employees' right to unionize? I'm from Brazil where we have some strict (too strict IMHO) labor laws and this type of hunt (and punishment) for union makers is wildly illegal here.

Technically this is probably illegal in the US as well, but enforcement is very weak.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#174

Post by TaylorAlexander »

sudosysgen wrote: post #117
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government will never be as in tune with the needs of the workers as the workers themselves. I think organized labor is a very good idea. We can see in the US how workers have been put in ever more precarious situations since the labor unions were significantly weakened 30-40 years ago. But actually I don’t think having a normal corporation with a board of directors and then a union at odds with that board really…

I think worker-owned cooperatives do make a ton of sense and bridge the interest gap between employers and employees. When the interests of the unions align with the interest of society at large in that we want to promote productivity, it fixes a lot of things.

Agreed. Germany has kept so many factories (it would seem) because labor doesn’t want to offshore their own jobs, even if management is indifferent.

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#175

Post by rumanator »

djsumdog wrote: post #138
colinmhayes wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, capitalism is awful, but it's by far the best idea we've got.

And keep in mind, we don't have a "pure" capitalism like the insane libertarian types would. (Remember how Ron Paul said Civil Rights legislation was unnecessary because the market would have taken care of it? It took years of fixing the system with child labour laws, union laws, anti-discrimination laws, factory strikes, workers riots, civil rights laws, minimum wage, etc. Capitalism works in the Nations where it do…

> Remember how Ron Paul said Civil Rights legislation was unnecessary because the market would have taken care of it?

I wonder how people could make such an argument if they have historical records of business owners rejecting more paying customers and spending more to put together duplicate infrastructure just because they felt that some paying customers had to be subjected to degraded levels of service just because.

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#176

Post by smnrchrds »

scarmig wrote: post #110
MrStonedOne wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each location should have its own union, grouping them all up allows the needs of the few to get drowned out by the wants of the many, and elevates union leadership to a position of power over the workers as union reps have easier access to spread their messaging to employees across locations while normal employees can only organize within their location.

It also significantly decreases negotiating power. The point of unions is that someone small (an individual) has a hard time fairly negotiating with an organization (a company). Multiple small single-site unions would be just as ineffective negotiating with one large multi-site company.

Especially since large companies are known for closing down locations as soon as they unionize.

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#177

Post by matz1 »

mattacular wrote: post #73
ouid wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you're asking this question in good faith. Negotiating power is derived exclusively from the ability to walk away. When walking away from your employment means being evicted, starving, and being unable to afford medical care, your ability to do so is crippled.

I was and all of the replies so far are assuming UBI would cover all basic necessities in the long term in every part of the country. Many people with above avg income TODAY struggle with medical bills and even housing. So I'm not sure I buy the argument that a UBI would be able to cover them unless many other things change first.

UBI is not meant to directly solve medical bills and housing.

medical bills is supposed to be solved by universal health care.

housing is another issue that can be solved one way by relaxing zoning ordinances for the purpose of increasing the development of affordable housing.

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#178

Post by tmpz22 »

rxhernandez wrote: post #167
reading-at-work wrote: post #17

Not surprised. Tech companies (Facebook and Google in this case, and probably others) have been known to retain Pinkerton agents to monitor employees. Yes, those Pinkertons. “Among other services, Pinkerton offers to send investigators to coffee shops or restaurants near a company’s campus to eavesdrop on employees’ conversations.” https://newrepublic.com/article/147619/pinkertons-still-neve...

In general, it's not a good idea to talk poorly about your employer in public if you want to keep your job; I've heard of at least a couple cases where someone was fired for "mouthing-off" to their spouse in a public place like a grocery store.

Pre-COVID it was very interesting sitting in a bar in downtown SF and listening to all the drunk tech workers mouthing off. You could hear a lot of illegal activites, particularly racist or poor hiring practices, boasted of or complained about very regularly.

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#179

Post by bhupy »

mattacular wrote: post #79
diebeforei485 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much easier to quit an abusive boss if you have some income to sustain yourself (UBI). You don't have to put up with the abuse for another month or two until you have a new job offer, etc.

If that were true then how come existing social safety netting in the form of unemployment benefits haven't helped people stuck in this type of situation?

You don't qualify for unemployment benefits if you refuse to take a job due to unfavorable terms.

Re: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’

#180

Post by kian »

heavyset_go wrote: post #163
MrStonedOne wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could ask you the same question, about unions. What I love are unions that set abnormally high union initiation fees, only offer payment plans on people who sign dues check off forms, then include language in that dues check off form that keeps you from cancelling it unless you do so during a 15 day window every year. As long as unions can forced on empolyees, unions can not be a market-based economy, it can not ev…

> As long as unions can forced on empolyees Nobody is forcing you to work a union job. You're free to take a non-union job or quit at any point.

Is this argument in any way distinguishable from someone saying 'Nobody is forcing you to work a non-union job. You're free to quit and take a union job any time you want'?
Post reply on HN