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

Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 403 posts

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#271

Post by antisthenes »

mswift42 wrote: post #216
yojo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be either. In most cases it is likely both (shrinking margins, higher prices). The price is determined by the market. But there’s a demand curve. There are many prices that an item could sell at, with varying numbers of buyers at each price. In a highly competitive market, the price should be driven down close to the cost of production. This allows the most people to buy at the lowest possible price, at the…

I'd like to point out that amazon is making ginormous profits, meaning increasing wages and ensuring safe working conditions would hardly make a dent in amazons revenue.

They're making profits off of AWS, not the ecommerce division.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#272

Post by drewcoo »

koolba wrote: post #243
blamazon wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions and bicycling are two topics that I rarely enjoy reading HN comments about, but here I am.

I think the singularity will be reached when we discuss a unionized dev shop developing a defi bike sharing platform written in rust.

That conforms with my diet but not my exercise plan.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#273

Post by feet »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #230
hedora wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the impression the dollar amount didn't change. Instead, the existence of the market did. (None of the other parents we know have been able to find babysitters either.) Presumably, it'll even out after the labor shortages subside.

Have you tried offering $2,500 per hour? The market exists. There are babies that need babysitting, and people capable of babysitting. What does not exist is an intersection of the supply and demand curves of people willing and able to pay what people capable of babysitting want to get paid for babysitting.

No post body was provided.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#274

Post by mh- »

mswift42 wrote: post #216
yojo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be either. In most cases it is likely both (shrinking margins, higher prices). The price is determined by the market. But there’s a demand curve. There are many prices that an item could sell at, with varying numbers of buyers at each price. In a highly competitive market, the price should be driven down close to the cost of production. This allows the most people to buy at the lowest possible price, at the…

I'd like to point out that amazon is making ginormous profits, meaning increasing wages and ensuring safe working conditions would hardly make a dent in amazons revenue.

Does Amazon retail make ginormous profits? Genuine question. I googled for a few minutes but, given the way the company is structured with regards to AWS, it doesn't seem simple (possible?) for an outsider to determine the margins on their retail operations.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#275

Post by kennywinker »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #191
wahnfrieden wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

obviously amazon doesn't have a real case against unions, but they can try to use scary language to confuse people

Quoted post unavailable.

Is this satire? It feels like satire. A perfect sendup of “both sides”-ism.

If it’s not satire, I’ve only got one argument to offer: what are the odds that the advantages and disadvantages of both sides are equally balanced? Vanishingly small. So why would you “both sides” things when one is definitely going to be better. Figure out which side that is, and then advocate for it. That’s how progress happens.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#276

Post by hourago »

seabird wrote: post #252
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they can still choose it, since unions are not compulsory as far as I know? So what are we discussing about?

Not necessarily. Unions can and do negotiate terms that protect union members to ridiculous extents at the cost of making what is basically an underclass out of non-union employees and employees of other unions. You'll find terms that limit certain scopes of work exclusively to employees of a certain union, and even employees of that union with a certain standing within it. Some of this work is gravy train shit that…

Many rights that everybody enjoys were won by unions and applied to everybody. You are generalising to all unions some hypothetical case.

Better job opportunities for a part of the population means that all employers need to improve conditions to compete for employees.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#277

Post by yazaddaruvala »

kolinko wrote: post #185
bufferoverflow wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the costs of labor go up fast, they have much more incentive to automate. When right now they may think it's cheaper to hire humans.

This would only be true if there was a technology to automate and it was just too expensive. For jobs that Amazon hires people there isn’t a technology to automate right now. Such technology is being developed (better AI and better robotics), but increasing the budget wouldn’t necessarily speed things up.

Amazon’s Kiva robots, also https://youtu.be/d7J2_vr0ra4, are not installed in every FC.

They are not willing to pay to upgrade all the old FCs, new international FCs, etc. i.e. “it’s too expensive”.

This is also clear in how Amazon waited till the pandemic to add self checkout counters to many Whole Foods. They spent “$4 BB on safety measures for employees” and called self checkout a safety measure to reduce employee to employee density and employee to customer contact. Again it was previously “too expensive to do in mass” even if only for the terrible press it would have brought out side the pandemic.

Not saying “they will never get to it.” They will. Or that it’s not worth it. But the other commenter is also right that unions and hire wages could drive a larger investment in automation earlier than it would have otherwise.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#278

Post by jaredandrews »

hedora wrote: post #202
0n0n0m0uz wrote: post #109

People nowadays have no memory of the decades of struggle, sacrifice to win the rights we currently have. Unions are the most effective tool the working class has to affect change where they spend a majority of their waking life. No wonder why its demonized at every possible instance.

They used to be a tool to help the working class in the US. My parents had good experience with their unions. Every interaction every person I know in my generation has had with them (CWA, UAW, teamsters, railway unions, etc, etc.) has been strongly negative. The Amazon workers should form a new union if they want representation. Cards from existing corrupt national unions are definitely a trap. Once enough people si…

> The Amazon workers should form a new union if they want representation.

They did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Labor_Union

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#279

Post by wahnfrieden »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #191
wahnfrieden wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

obviously amazon doesn't have a real case against unions, but they can try to use scary language to confuse people

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#280

Post by the_only_law »

kennywinker wrote: post #275
xhkkffbf wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Is this satire? It feels like satire. A perfect sendup of “both sides”-ism. If it’s not satire, I’ve only got one argument to offer: what are the odds that the advantages and disadvantages of both sides are equally balanced? Vanishingly small. So why would you “both sides” things when one is definitely going to be better. Figure out which side that is, and then advocate for it. That’s how progress happens.

> So why would you “both sides” things when one is definitely going to be better.

Usually in an wish to maintain order and prevent chaotic conflict. Not going to explicitly say it's a good or bad thing, but that usually seems to be the intent.

Post reply on HN