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

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

#201

Post by lovich » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 12:57 PM UTC

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #184

lovich wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Something we also take for granted in the tech world is companies running on ridiculously high net margins. Apple, for instance, makes about $400,000 in profit per employee. They could literally give every single one of their 123,000 workers a $200k raise and still be making tens of billions of dollars in profit per year. Now let's consider WalMart, the largest employer in the US and one many have chastised for poor…

On the other hand, you constantly see people defend ultra rich CEOs by dividing their salary across all employees in the company and showing how it would only be a raise of a few hundred a year. Those defenders then claim that's barely a raise so why take from the CEO?

When you are minimum wage even 100 extra a year would have absolutely helped. I thinks it's fairly disengenous for any company to be raking in billions in profits while employees need public assistance to survive.

Yea, you can suddenly double your work forces wage, but you can still improve the situation.

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

#202

Post by ilikehurdles » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 1:39 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #140

Apocryphon wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unions are notorious for having well-paid administrative staff and leadership Couldn't you say the same about corporations?

Corporations are spending their own money, unions are spending someone else's. That's the main difference. To be clear what I mean: At least in my country it is a legal requirement for the corporation to pay salaries of union leaders and staff - few FTEs per union.

Corporations are spending someone else’s money. They aren’t a mint. That is in no way different. A corporation is accountable to its owners, and a union is accountable to its owners. A corporation usually has fewer owners than a union, or at least can ignore most owners who aren’t on the board; whereas union leadership can be changed by its members, the workers.

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

#203

Post by apexalpha » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

anon49124 wrote: post #199

concerned_user wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Europe too, they have progressive system same as we do, if you earn below certain threshold you pay no taxes, and amount specified $15/hr is before tax. Someone from US can probably elaborate on the exact numbers where you start paying the tax, as far as I know it depends if you have children etc.

Yes, hourly earning in the US is customarily gross earning (before taxes). The median rule of hourly earnings to yearly earnings is 40 hours/week and 50 weeks/year, which results in every $1/hour == $2000/year in earnings. For $15/hour, that's about $30,000. For a single person in California, without dependents and claiming themselves for one exemption, it would be 4,264.50 (14.22%) in Federal taxes and 579.35 (1.93%…

50 weeks a year? That is only 2 weeks off!

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

#204

Post by Daishiman » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:56 PM UTC

okr wrote: post #44

Daishiman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And is US and Dubai really comparable? Why do people go so far, to work there? Don't they tell their relatives at home, how shitty it is? Why are they going? Why do they risk it? And who am i to judge their decision making? Because people taking this up live in even worse conditions in some of the most abject poverty there is and they have no way to climb up the social ladder that doesn't involve saving some money…

And here i am confused. So from their perspective, they can achieve something better for themselves, with that risk. And from my perspective, i see it as abuse of their situation, because iam on a different cushion level, where i dont have to risk my life for my job. Good luck to them!

The abuse component is completely unnecessary.

It's not about the type of labor or physical effort but the completely inhuman conditions. How the heck is that a contradiction?

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

#205

Post by jazzdev » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

mnsc wrote: post #156

ericd wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the union decide who gets raises, rather than the manager whose job it is to monitor and grade the performance of his employees?

Well the manager could decide that the best performance is the people who does their work and don't make a fuss. Those who go to work even when they are sick, do a little extra without expecting compensation. If you reward those "performing" employees you get everyone trying to do the same. The reward then might even be very small but it would be presented as "this year the general pay increase will be 0.69%, but you…

When it comes to Swedish soccer players, it looks like the top players are valued 5x more than the average.

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/867492/leading-swedish-n...

I worked with a software team once where the manager let the team divide up the raise pool. And they didn't divide it evenly. There was consensus about who deserved more each year. Of course that could still be a cultural value of working long hours or working when sick.

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

#206

Post by theandrewbailey » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

apexalpha wrote: post #203

anon49124 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, hourly earning in the US is customarily gross earning (before taxes). The median rule of hourly earnings to yearly earnings is 40 hours/week and 50 weeks/year, which results in every $1/hour == $2000/year in earnings. For $15/hour, that's about $30,000. For a single person in California, without dependents and claiming themselves for one exemption, it would be 4,264.50 (14.22%) in Federal taxes and 579.35 (1.93%…

50 weeks a year? That is only 2 weeks off!

50 paid weeks per year. If you're lucky, you have paid holidays and paid vacation time.

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

#207

Post by gnopgnip » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #184

lovich wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Something we also take for granted in the tech world is companies running on ridiculously high net margins. Apple, for instance, makes about $400,000 in profit per employee. They could literally give every single one of their 123,000 workers a $200k raise and still be making tens of billions of dollars in profit per year. Now let's consider WalMart, the largest employer in the US and one many have chastised for poor…

A union can provide value even if it is not tied directly to a raise, or to benefits like 401k matching, employer paid healthcare, or time off. Requiring just cause before firing an employee, having regular shifts that can be planned around, and having someone to look out for your behalf besides the dept of labor all go a long way to improving the working conditions of a job, and don't directly affect the bottom line. The lower turnover can even improve it in the long run.

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

#208

Post by com2kid » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #150

com2kid wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who worked as teenagers working at ice cream parlors report life long pain in their dominant wrist. Is that something you expect a 16 year old to know is going to happen? Biomechanics is a complicated subject.

Totally agree — my sarcasm may not have been clear. I worked on a farm throwing hay from 12-17. I ended up needing back surgery at 25.

Sorry, I read it as another one of those "dumb entitled kids get what they deserve!" posts.

It is hard to tell nowadays, with multiple people coming out and saying things like "millennials could afford houses if they didn't buy iPhones!"

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

#209

Post by crooked-v » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

jfnixon wrote: post #193

crooked-v wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, you aren’t arguing the union has a different idea who has higher performance. You are arguing the case that everyone should be paid more regardless of performance.

No, I'm not. I raised the "across-the-board raises" example to point out that the union obviously would not be opposed to more money for everyone, so there must be a reason they oppose more money for only the specific people chosen by management.

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

#210

Post by ip26 » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #179

ip26 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Yet sinking the company is not in the interest of the worker. It's not necessarily a big deal. The workers can just go and get another job. It's the owners who are really crying. It's not especially perverse for unions to be indifferent to the risk of sinking the company if the people they represent hold no stake in it. Especially since the threats that this will happen from the owners will be overblown.

I guess I didn't mention, but I'm most specifically thinking of unions that have sunk the company in a fight over pension obligations. Union has a choice of reduced pension payout, or drive the company under & everybody loses their pension as a result. Union, unwilling to reduce pension payout, chooses the latter. Everybody winds up worse off. It almost reminds me of The Scorpion and The Frog