Live data from Hacker News

Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

doitwithoutdues.com

201–204 of 204 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think given the info you've presented here, you can fairly make a comparison of union vs non.

Given my current position, I suppose not - but I’ve been in a union and my partner has never not been in a union. I have other family members in unions. It’s a topic I’m close to and very interested in. I see no reason I can’t weigh in on it.

Oh hey I didn't mean to say you don't belong in this, or any other discussion.

I just meant that the initial statement about your current benifits compared to someone in the union wasn't fair.

Sorry if I made it seem your opinion wasn't welcome, that wasnt my intent.

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

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The idea that Amazon is going to stop hiring workers if they get more pee breaks... that's just not how markets work. If Amazon could afford to let those workers go, it would have done it already. They will hire fewer workers.. there will be fewer profitable business ventures when the cost of one of the inputs to production increases. In some case, it's true that higher wages will reduce profits, instead of reducin…

> They will hire fewer workers.. Why isn't Amazon hiring fewer workers right now? Is the board wasting money on workers that it doesn't need? If Amazon could hit the shipping volumes it needs to hit with 50% of the current workforce, then it would be hiring ~50% of the current workforce -- if that's not the case, then somebody in the company that's making hiring decisions needs to be fired. > Price controls don't wor…

>>Why isn't Amazon hiring fewer workers right now? Is the board wasting money on workers that it doesn't need?

We can't prove that it's not hiring fewer workers than it otherwise would have. In the absence of the ability to run a controlled experiment on how a minimum wage affects Amazon behavior, we can only trust in Economics, the same way we trust in what epidemiology tells us about the efficacy of vaccines, and assume that a larger volume of people would be hired without an artificial floor on the price of labor.

>>A) no one is talking about price controls on final products, they're talking about price increases on one of the inputs.

You're talking about a price control on manual services in general, i.e. labor.

>>B) on the subject of wages and worker prices, minimum wage increases have been shown on multiple occasions to increase net welfare.

No they haven't. Studies on minimum wage cannot conclusively show anything, because they are not controlled, and minimum wages are too low to affect a significant number of jobs.

Meta-studies suggest that minimum wage tends to be harmful, just as you'd expect, though these are not definitive for the reasons mentioned.

>>and basic economic principles is that in Capitalism, price is what people will pay, not what a product costs to produce.

Yes I agree with that, but I didn't make the counter-argument, another commenter did.

>>Possible, but definitely not guaranteed.

Nothing is guaranteed in economics, but we should err on the side of basic economics in the absence of certainty and proof.

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

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot prove causality, but I think common sense dictates here. Everything we know about economics tells us that inhibiting contract liberty in the way that labor laws do in order to give unions monopolistic control over the negotiating power of a company's work force will be economically harmful and an objective review of US economic history validates that. >>The US auto industry is still very union-based, and bey…

> inhibiting contract liberty Alabama is a right-to-work state, so how is a union inhibiting contract liberty? You legally cannot be forced in Alabama to pay union dues if you don't want to be part of a union. Of course, an industry might decide not to work with people who are outside of the union, but an industry might also choose not to hire anyone who refuses to sign arbitration and/or anticompete agreements, and…

>>That's a very vague definition -- I wouldn't say that Tesla is producing wildly better cars than everyone else on the market. They're certainly very profitable, but if you're only thinking about profit marging and stock price, then you're going to end up opposing literally anything that improves worker conditions in any way.

1. Strength of industry is pretty commonly understood by its profitability. And profitability and worker conditions are positively correlated, so they are in no way opposing each other. The profitability of Tesla and the export revenue being brought into the US by Tesla's market success means more spending by Tesla on US-based operations which applies upward pressure on US wages. This is Economics 101.

2. If people are choosing their cars over other cars, that means they are producing better cars. Consumer choice is the only objective measure of quality we have.

3. Tesla is driving the entire car industry forward, by encouraging other auto makers to embrace electric cars, and also self-driving features, while expanding the recharging infrastructure needed for widespread use of electric vehicles.

>>And your solution to that is to oppose people's rights to collectively bargain?

If by "right to collectively bargain", you mean having laws that force companies to collectively bargain with unions, yes. Companies should be free to decide who to negotiate with, and free to reject requests to collectively bargain. The laws, as they are, are problematic.

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

#204

That very first * is the first major point for unions. Many unions protect part time workers, or protect workers from being excluded from a fair share of benefits based on their inputs. The reason for this is that there’s no incentive to push hours down until no one gets benefits. Which is not uncommon, unfortunately. Many companies tout incredible benefits with a significant portion of their workforce having no enti…

> Many unions protect part time workers, or protect workers from being excluded from a fair share of benefits based on their inputs. I can understand why this would be highly preferable for part time workers. Can you understand how a company might be able to afford to provide a $30,000/yr benefits package to workers who work 40 hours a week, but not be able to afford to provide a $30,000/yr benefits package to worker…

You should actually spend time reading up on unions. Present and historically.
Post reply on HN