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

Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

doitwithoutdues.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 204 posts

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#181

Post by danShumway »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #178
danShumway wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look, its clear that you have a perspective and you’re not interested in other perspectives. I'm not going to force anyone to debate with me, but if your economic theory says that Amazon's prices should have dropped this year, and they didn't, then your economic theory is wrong and/or incomplete. That seems like a pretty straightforward test. Sometimes companies make more money and they don't lower prices, pass tho…

> I'm not going to force anyone to debate with me, but if your economic theory says that Amazon's prices should have dropped this year, and they didn't, then your economic theory is wrong and/or incomplete. That seems like a pretty straightforward test. Right, except that’s not what I said. So when you insist on a gross misreading of my theory, that happens to also not coincide with some fact you refer to, I question…

> > We know that "profits go up, prices go down" is too simplistic and/or flawed of a model to talk about the real world because it's not accurately predicting what companies do in the real world.

> Yeah we do. [...] So when you insist on a gross misreading of my theory

Literally two comments earlier:

> This is true and still misses the point that an increase in the cost of inputs results in an increase in costs, resulting in an increase in price.

I'm not the person here arguing that changes in input costs and prices are universally linearly coupled to each other.

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#182

Post by maybelsyrup »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #139
maybelsyrup wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I joined my union somewhat by accident, and it's opened my eyes to a lot of what you're talking about. (My workplace is not usually the kind of place that's known to be unionized in the US, so when I showed up I was surprised to hear it was a thing. I did my due diligence and decided to join.) I'm of an age and socioeconomic stratum where union membership is not only not really done - people don't even really know wh…

> no one tells you in middle school the point you're making here: a metric ton of that fancy six-figure salary is going to go to making up for the absence of benefits and services that could be provided in many cases much more efficiently and cheaply in a less reactionary developed country. I disagree with the factual assertion and the framing here. The money that you make is not “intended to ma[ke] up for” benefits…

Read the post, fella: I never said "intended". I never said anything about saving money, either.

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#183

Post by bayindirh »

cudgy wrote: post #170
bayindirh wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that workers who do physical work do not earn enough, it's not OK to simplify the work that sysadmins, developers and other people do. I for one work for 7 days a week for ~8 weeks now, and just sat and watched a wall to relax yesterday night because my brain and body refused to do absolutely anything . Every work is exhausting when overdone or just done with sufficient care.

And a warehouse worker would have to work 7 to 10 times longer in their “hell” to earn what you made.

To be brutally honest, I have great respect who work at manual jobs, work at shifts, work at weekends. In general who work hard, a lot and in unconventional hours.

I try to be extra nice to these people, try to release the burden on them, when I can. When chatting with my SO, we sometimes talk about these people and how bad I feel about their circumstances.

I want to reiterate that I think that they need to earn more and live better.

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#184

Post by Bakary »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #42
Bakary wrote: post #15

This is another reminder that we have some of the negative aspects of a cyberpunk future without the cool empowering hacking parts. I wonder about the sort of person who would design such a website. Surely you'd have to be dead inside to create such an abomination, even if it's just a job? I am not trying to be hyperbolic here.

>I wonder about the sort of person who would design such a website. Surely you'd have to be dead inside to create such an abomination, even if it's just a job? I am not trying to be hyperbolic here. Though I disagree with Amazon's official arguments, I'm even more opposed to the notion that anyone who agrees with them is dead inside.

It's not about the actual fact of being against unions, but the website itself. A self-parody

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#185

Post by chordalkeyboard »

danShumway wrote: post #181
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not going to force anyone to debate with me, but if your economic theory says that Amazon's prices should have dropped this year, and they didn't, then your economic theory is wrong and/or incomplete. That seems like a pretty straightforward test. Right, except that’s not what I said. So when you insist on a gross misreading of my theory, that happens to also not coincide with some fact you refer to, I question…

> > We know that "profits go up, prices go down" is too simplistic and/or flawed of a model to talk about the real world because it's not accurately predicting what companies do in the real world. > Yeah we do. [...] So when you insist on a gross misreading of my theory Literally two comments earlier: > This is true and still misses the point that an increase in the cost of inputs results in an increase in costs, res…

> ceteris paribus

> universally linearly coupled to each other.

Yeah, neither am I.

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#186

Post by chordalkeyboard »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #182
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one tells you in middle school the point you're making here: a metric ton of that fancy six-figure salary is going to go to making up for the absence of benefits and services that could be provided in many cases much more efficiently and cheaply in a less reactionary developed country. I disagree with the factual assertion and the framing here. The money that you make is not “intended to ma[ke] up for” benefits…

Read the post, fella: I never said "intended". I never said anything about saving money, either.

I guess I misunderstood, how do you think a less reactionary country would replicate the standard of living that is obtained with a six figure salary?

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#187

Post by cudgy »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #173
cudgy wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a warehouse worker would have to work 7 to 10 times longer in their “hell” to earn what you made.

Which reflects the relative scarcity of people who can work in warehousese vs. people who can do what he does.

The issue was comparing suffering. If one makes 7 times more than another, they only have to put up with it 1/7th the amount of time before earning enough to tell their employer to screw off. Hard to feel as sorry for the person making much more money.

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#188

Post by cudgy »

bayindirh wrote: post #183
cudgy wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a warehouse worker would have to work 7 to 10 times longer in their “hell” to earn what you made.

To be brutally honest, I have great respect who work at manual jobs, work at shifts, work at weekends. In general who work hard, a lot and in unconventional hours. I try to be extra nice to these people, try to release the burden on them, when I can. When chatting with my SO, we sometimes talk about these people and how bad I feel about their circumstances. I want to reiterate that I think that they need to earn more…

Have you ever worked a hard labor job? Do you expect never to have to? “They” might be you one day.

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#189

Post by ineedasername »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #151
ineedasername wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is free to refuse to sign any contract with the union that doesn't leave them with their desired level of profitability. Forming a union doesn't change that. Amazon undercuts competitors and plays hard ball with suppliers literally every day. That's business, that's life. I don't see why workers shouldn't take their opportunity to engage in tough negotiations with Amazon themselves.

> I don't see why workers shouldn't take their opportunity to engage in tough negotiations with Amazon themselves. Because collective bargaining results in a net decrease in value because of moral hazards, perverse incentives, and agent-principal problems.

That's a lot of those buzzwords that do not address the question of why negotiating for labor resources should be any different than some other resources the company needs.

What's more, all of those buzzwords can apply to the relationship between any other supplier as well. In addition, corporations are themselves a highly collected bargaining unit. They may nominally be a single entity, but they represent the financial interests of many people.

Re: Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

#190

Post by chordalkeyboard »

danShumway wrote: post #180
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These kinds of arguments are only ever applied to workers. Nonsense, people insisted that it was foolish to require bundling of routine insurance with catastrophic insurance, people advocate for the severability of hardward and operating systems, people oppose forced bundling of insurance and all kinds of other goods. > Nobody argues that a company having a single legal team that represents all of its managers and…

> people insisted that it was foolish to require bundling of routine insurance with catastrophic insurance, people advocate for the severability of hardware and operating systems, people oppose forced bundling of insurance and all kinds of other goods. None of that is collective bargaining. > This doesn’t offer a counterpoint to my point. One comment earlier: "Because collective bargaining results in a net decrease i…

> None of that is collective bargaining.

Neither were your examples.

> One comment earlier: "Because collective bargaining results in a net decrease in value"

That point still stands.

Post reply on HN