Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by Larrikin » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

flatline wrote: post #224

xhkkffbf wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I like the idea of unions, I can say that they've been a disappointment in my career. One of my colleagues desperately needed the protection of the union at work when he got caught up in office politics. Some of his rivals for a big promotion got him accused of something that had nothing to do with work. It was all cancel culture. The union, though, didn't back him up at all. They make a big show about somehow…

I’m reading this as, he made racist or otherwise hateful statements in a semi-public forum and nobody was going to put their organization’s name behind that. It’s an interesting problem. On the one hand it’s a free country you can say what you please and your employee can fire you for it. On the other hand I think it’s inhumane for someone to lose their job - and most notably healthcare - because they are one of a la…

I think someone who is willing to speak out hatefully against large swathes of the population based on things like sex and race are exactly the kind of people that should be ostracized. In the case of the work environment, getting fired. If they aren't, they stick around, making coworkers uncomfortable, possibly getting promoted and then ensuring the group they hate doesn't get hired or promoted

But HR departments are not usually doing that as a first step. They talk to the employee and try to get an apology if needed. The stories in the news are always egregious examples or people with a long history and it was the last straw

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

#302

Post by pyuser583 » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

flatline wrote: post #224

xhkkffbf wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I like the idea of unions, I can say that they've been a disappointment in my career. One of my colleagues desperately needed the protection of the union at work when he got caught up in office politics. Some of his rivals for a big promotion got him accused of something that had nothing to do with work. It was all cancel culture. The union, though, didn't back him up at all. They make a big show about somehow…

I’m reading this as, he made racist or otherwise hateful statements in a semi-public forum and nobody was going to put their organization’s name behind that. It’s an interesting problem. On the one hand it’s a free country you can say what you please and your employee can fire you for it. On the other hand I think it’s inhumane for someone to lose their job - and most notably healthcare - because they are one of a la…

Without a due process ensured by a union, it’s very hard to know what they did.

Even if someone does something truly horrific, unions still need to protect their rights to a proper hearing, evidence, etc.

A while ago a reporter was fired from the NYTimes for repeating racist language used by a third party.

The reporter had works at the NYTimes for decades with a clear record. A few years before the incident, they became part of unions negotiating team.

Once they joined the negotiating team, the paper suddenly began disciplining then for minor infractions.

Once the allegations about racist language came about, they had a dirty record.

Per the union agreement, had a right to see the evidence against them. The paper refused to do that.

If this person hadn’t been part of union negotiating team, they would have had a clean record, and likely would have survived.

They are now working as a reporter at the Economist.

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

#303

Post by britch » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

baron816 wrote: post #181

smugma wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon has significantly increased wages. They were at the forefront of the $15 wage, more than double the federal minimum wage. I think at the time Walmart was at $10 or $11. I live in very liberal SF but outside of my bubble, I hear people complain that it’s not possible to hire Nannies/housecleaners/employees anymore when Amazon and Starbucks pay $18/hr. Seems like the answer is easy: pay them more or make the job…

Yes, a big chunk of the labor shortages in hospitality, child care, etc. we’ve seen the last two years is a direct result of Amazon hiring lots and lots of people. And as shitty as the conditions of those jobs may be, they’re often still better than where they’re coming from. Sticking labels to boxes and moving them around a warehouse all day may still be better than dealing with handsy bar hounds or screaming childr…

wages are one thing, working conditions are another.

It doesn't matter how much you pay me if I can't see my kids and have to pee in a bottle.

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

#304

Post by d1sxeyes » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

laweijfmvo wrote: post #285

No doubt that Amazon is being scummy here, but you can’t quote someone/something and put a phrase (“don’t sign”) in quotations unless it’s a direct quote…

The article has a photo of a slide with the words “don’t sign” on it at the top.

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

#305

Post by feet » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

ghastmaster wrote: post #294

feet wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Another metric: "How long does it take to earn enough for my baseline expenses (rent, food, health, retirement money, etc.)". In my opinion, this is the only valid metric. If a business cannot pay people enough to live, the business should not exist. Businesses do not have more of a right to exist than the workers that make them up. Full stop.

> If a business cannot pay people enough to live, the business should not exist. I'll assume you are talking about full time all year jobs. Each one of the baseline expenses defined above are not nominally set in stone. They are different for every person. I might define baseline food as beans and rice, while others might define it as steak and lobster. The same goes for the other baseline expenses defined above. Thi…

I'm talking about all jobs

Capitalism was good for the time between feudalism and the industrial revolution, but now we have an excess of goods, food, and housing yet corporations are creating artificial scarcity in order to continue enriching a few people at the expense of everyone else.

We have enough empty housing in California alone to house all homeless people in the US yet we still have people living in the streets. We have people starving while we produce enough food to not only feed all of the US but also Africa, yet corporations throw away good food to create artificial scarcity to protect the profits of a few.

Forming cooperatives owned by the workers who make up the business would be a good step in the right direction, and making the excuses like 'some people don't need that baseline' is horse shit. The purpose of a system is what it does and those jobs aren't just filled by young people, there are older people who should be retired worming minimum wage jobs. There are people trying to support their families in those positions. If those jobs are meant for kids, why are the business open during schools hours?

If we work together we can improve living conditions for all humans

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

#306

Post by pyuser583 » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

flatline wrote: post #224

xhkkffbf wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I like the idea of unions, I can say that they've been a disappointment in my career. One of my colleagues desperately needed the protection of the union at work when he got caught up in office politics. Some of his rivals for a big promotion got him accused of something that had nothing to do with work. It was all cancel culture. The union, though, didn't back him up at all. They make a big show about somehow…

I’m reading this as, he made racist or otherwise hateful statements in a semi-public forum and nobody was going to put their organization’s name behind that. It’s an interesting problem. On the one hand it’s a free country you can say what you please and your employee can fire you for it. On the other hand I think it’s inhumane for someone to lose their job - and most notably healthcare - because they are one of a la…

> Some of his rivals for a big promotion got him accused of something that had nothing to do with work.

How does that translate into making racist or hateful statements?

A better translation is they were in a forum where racist or hateful statements were made, but did it participate in making them.

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

#307

Post by ghastmaster » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

TimeBearingDown wrote: post #290

feet wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Another metric: "How long does it take to earn enough for my baseline expenses (rent, food, health, retirement money, etc.)". In my opinion, this is the only valid metric. If a business cannot pay people enough to live, the business should not exist. Businesses do not have more of a right to exist than the workers that make them up. Full stop.

So, you would have the government step in and deny the right of an individual to earn what they may need at that moment, in their specific circumstance, to form a contract with another person - a business owner? The bureaucracy knows better, and if the individual can’t find another job at a level to even scrape by then the bureaucracy steps in again, but is this a path to a solid job in 20 years? The higher the wage,…

> I personally did not have my own shit together enough to earn minimum wage, not quite, at the very start. $15/hr+ starts to become a mountain that the least well-off cannot land a position earning, or cannot stay competitive at that rate, in some parts of the nation.

This is the most salient point in my opinion when discussing minimum wages. Employers have to decide which potential employee can produce enough to make up for the wages that they pay. The higher the minimum wage goes, there are less opportunities to get a career started due to not being hired. Experience is highly valued in almost every field. If you cannot get a low paying job just to build some experience in your resume, you delay or never get the next high paying job. Minimum wage ends up crippling the very people it was meant to help.

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

#308

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

IMTDb wrote: post #295

noisy_boy wrote: post #5

> The ALU may ask you to sign an authorization card or share a QR code to fill out an online authorization card. > This is a legally binding document Ooh scary ... is the employment contract signed by Amazon's employees not legally binding? How is it Amazon's business what their grown-ass employees can or cannot sign? > By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are providing the ALU your pers…

>> By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are authorizing the ALU to speak on your behalf. > And thats terrible how? You really can't see the issue with authorising a group you have little to no control over, speak on your behalf ? I can totally understand that people share some views with what unions are currently defending. But the requirement on signing a paper that says "whatever the u…

> "whatever the union currently says and will say in the future 100% represents my point of view"

Is that what it says? It says that you have to agree to be legally responsible for the union's opinions on netflix shows, or of your cousin's marriage?

No, it says that you're agreeing for them to represent you with the company, not some made-up all-encompassing scaremongering paraphrasing of that.

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

#309

Post by brokenodometer » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

IMTDb wrote: post #295

noisy_boy wrote: post #5

> The ALU may ask you to sign an authorization card or share a QR code to fill out an online authorization card. > This is a legally binding document Ooh scary ... is the employment contract signed by Amazon's employees not legally binding? How is it Amazon's business what their grown-ass employees can or cannot sign? > By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are providing the ALU your pers…

>> By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are authorizing the ALU to speak on your behalf. > And thats terrible how? You really can't see the issue with authorising a group you have little to no control over, speak on your behalf ? I can totally understand that people share some views with what unions are currently defending. But the requirement on signing a paper that says "whatever the u…

A union authorization card does not “join” someone to a union, nor is it an irrevocable endorsement of “whatever the union will say in the future.”

A union authorization card is simply a means of demonstrating the 30% employee support required for the NLRB to order an election. That’s it. Unions will generally not hold elections until 60% of employees have signed cards, because a majority vote is required.

From the anti-union National Right to Work Foundation:

“You have a legal right to revoke any union authorization card that you have signed. It is illegal for a union to restrict your right to revoke a union authorization card that you signed.”

https://www.nrtw.org/rights-card-check-private/

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

#310

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #308

IMTDb wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are authorizing the ALU to speak on your behalf. > And thats terrible how? You really can't see the issue with authorising a group you have little to no control over, speak on your behalf ? I can totally understand that people share some views with what unions are currently defending. But the requirement on signing a paper that says "whatever the u…

> "whatever the union currently says and will say in the future 100% represents my point of view" Is that what it says? It says that you have to agree to be legally responsible for the union's opinions on netflix shows, or of your cousin's marriage? No, it says that you're agreeing for them to represent you with the company, not some made-up all-encompassing scaremongering paraphrasing of that.

The same criticism still works, though. I can like their position for negotiating with Amazon today, without necessarily having to agree that I'm going to like it forever.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily on Amazon's side here. Their scare-mongering is pretty slimy, to say no more. But IMTDb's objection is valid, even adjusted for your criticism.