Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’ • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by winphone1974 » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

kmlx wrote: post #157

dcolkitt wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also at the time that the leader of the NUM, the striking union, was a self-avowed Stalinist.[1] It's hard to overstate the extreme militancy of trade union leadership in the UK during the late 1970s. While Thatcher gets the blame for the disintegration of the labor movement, just as big an issue was that the union leadership no longer represented the opinions of its rank-and-file members. The 1984 miners strike larg…

don't know why you're getting downvoted. this is part of history and one of the many reasons unions have failed in the UK. and they're still failing having lower number of members every single year.

Probably because of the same sentiment towards rewriting history that's going around now. Rather then learn and move forward lots of people seem to prefer going back in time and judging history through today's lens.

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

#302

Post by winphone1974 » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #184

rumanator wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Faith doesn't require evidence.

Worse: fail rejects evidence

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

#303

Post by umvi » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

ARandumGuy wrote: post #289

umvi wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't this just be because unions can have a deteriorating effect on meritocracy? Say you have 10 workers - 2 are rock stars and make $50/hr, 6 are average and make $20/hr, and 2 are bad and make $10/hr (min wage - because they are never promoted). Average "non-union" pay is: $24/hr Now say you unionize and the union forces you to start paying the bad employees $20/hr like all the other average ones. So now you pa…

I'm not sure what companies you've worked for, but salary is almost never based on a 'meritocracy,' it's based on the minimum amount an employer thinks they can get away with. That value has nothing to do with an employee's output, and everything to do with minimizing costs.

Well, speak for yourself and the companies you've worked for, but that hasn't been my experience at all.

At both of the companies I've worked at we got a yearly "merit-based" increase depending on how your manager ranks you vs. your peers. The increase is anywhere from 0-5%, and the manager can only recommend their top employees for the high (5%) merit-based increases. This is on top of other increases (such as promotion-based increases), btw. I've gotten several pretty high merit-based increases back-to-back, and those +5% really start to compound with other forms of increase (promotions, bonuses, etc) after a few years.

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

#304

Post by andybak » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #81

smnrchrds wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you call them goons? Politicians, activists, all sorts of people go door knocking around the time of elections and referendums. What made this interaction so different that you call them goons sent there to intimidate you, not activists trying to attract your vote?

Union activists in the UK have a reputation of being bullies, and in some cases in the past they've used physical violence to try to get people to do things their way. At the height of union fever back in the 80s it got so bad at one point that union activists dropped a concrete block on someone's head from a bridge because he was trying to get into work and they thought he should be striking (David Wilkie.) I would…

This is a fairly slanted take on things.

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

#305

Post by andybak » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #116

caoilte wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love the way you've got to reach back literally 36 years to find one example of union violence. The reputation that British unions actually have is for getting shat on by bullying employers.

I think it was a pretty watershed moment in union relations in the UK. It's what a lot of people think of when they think of unions in the UK. They're pretty unpopular here. I was explaining why a British person might call them goons.

Brit here. Don't listen to this person.

I'm mostly centrist/moderate left. None of this rings true.

Typing on phone so excuse the brevity.

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

#306

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

fiter wrote: post #296

sudosysgen wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite simple. They either cut profits, or offer employees equity in compensation for lower wages. That goes against what the owners want, but it helps the workers and maintains the usefulness of the enterprise.

I believe in the competitive scenario, there are no profits to cut. It's not clear to me if equity is worth anything if there are no profits to distribute and the company is not growing. I think the point is that whether it is a "nice employer" or a union, the company will be less competitive. This strikes me as a tragedy of the commons which would have to be resolved by legislation to force all market participants t…

Equity is always worth something, because companies own capital, and capital is inherently valuable.

In this scenario, there is no loss in competitiveness. The union bargains for pay when there is profit, and when there is no profit it bargains for capital. At the limit, when the workers own the company entirely, then their own self-interest will be to reduce their salary in order to protect their equity. In this sense, their salaries will fall in line with what they would earn in another company, or slightly higher, but they will have massively more assets and equity than if they didn't have a union.

Of course, in reality, if there was no growth there would be bigger problems, but you get the gist.

I really fail to see how unions in this scenario make the company less competitive, or create worse conditions for the workers than without the union.

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

#307

Post by edent » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

kmlx wrote: post #157

dcolkitt wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also at the time that the leader of the NUM, the striking union, was a self-avowed Stalinist.[1] It's hard to overstate the extreme militancy of trade union leadership in the UK during the late 1970s. While Thatcher gets the blame for the disintegration of the labor movement, just as big an issue was that the union leadership no longer represented the opinions of its rank-and-file members. The 1984 miners strike larg…

don't know why you're getting downvoted. this is part of history and one of the many reasons unions have failed in the UK. and they're still failing having lower number of members every single year.

"The number of employees in the UK who were trade union members rose by 91,000 on the year to 6.44 million in 2019." https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/trade-union-statist...

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

#308

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #298

sudosysgen wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be interested in what Richard Wolff has to say.

I’ve met him! He signed my copy of Democracy at Work. So yes you’re right! :)

Damn, lucky you! Anyways, I'm glad my prediction was accurate :)

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

#309

Post by dhosek » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

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...

For those who aren't aware of Pinkerton's history, from wikipedia:

>One of the first union busting agencies was the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, which came to public attention as the result of a shooting war that broke out between strikers and three hundred Pinkerton agents during the Homestead Strike of 1892. When the Pinkerton agents were withdrawn, state militia forces were deployed. The militia repulsed attacks on the steel plant, and prevented violence against strikebreakers crossing picket lines, causing a decisive defeat of the strike, and ended the power of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers at the Homestead plant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...

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

#310

Post by GavinMcG » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #287

I am surprised from the reactions here. What is the best way to deal with worker union blackmails according to you? I know people like to portray worker and amazon as good guy and bad guy, but I think most of us has seen some demands that are pretty outrageous from them. I think it is best if both sides have contact person with whom they can negotiate. Don't get me wrong, I think worker unions are essential for pushi…

Unions don't end up with outright control over business. Generally speaking, companies and unions do continue to negotiate throughout the term of a contract, which negotiations are formalized in Memoranda of Understanding. And during contract negotiations, if negotiations over a particular issue stall, the law empowers companies to make a "last and final" offer, which is then included in the contract presented to the workforce. (This is U.S.-specific.)

The idea that a company must "agree to every demand" from a union seems to me a strawman. Bargaining ideally maximizes net value, and true collapses in bargaining are rare.

"Outrageous" demands that are met, therefore, represent a company's unwillingness to reallocate the value of those demands towards other contract elements (that is, to say "we can't do that, but we'll offer this instead"). If they were truly too costly, the company would have either a) refused the terms, or b) failed to bear the cost and gone under.