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

Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 632 posts

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#341

Post by nobody9999 »

mc32 wrote: post #109
duxup wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm waiting for the Libertarian party to embrace drivers licenses ;)

It’s a very large tent party though sparse in density. Some of us see the need for aspects of regulation and frameworks, others prefer the more idealist semi pastoralist view of the world. I’m more in the Johnson camp ;)

>It’s a very large tent party though sparse in density.

I'm not so sure about that.

I have strong libertarian (small 'l') leanings, specifically that government should stay the hell out of people's lives and bodies as much as possible. And that humans should be free to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with others doing the same.

But that's where I part ways with the Libertarian (big 'L') Party.

Because I do believe that, human nature being what it is, that the government does have a role to play in helping those who are disadvantaged in our society.

What's more, I believe that government has a role to play in evening the playing field and attempting to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed in our society.

The Libertarian Party doesn't believe in any of that, so I have no interest in supporting them.

I'd note that privatized everything (not saying you support that) isn't libertarian at all. Rather it's anarcho-capitalism[0], which would completely destroy our society.

While the implementation of the idea that minorities should be protected against the "tyranny of the majority" by the government has been pretty poor in the US, it has improved somewhat in recent years.

I look forward to that progress continuing. And the Libertarian Party won't be the one's that help us do that.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#343

Post by JPKab »

sudosteph wrote: post #305
arrosenberg wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This response has the echoes of so many dark parts of human history. If that's actually true, then Amazon needs to be destroyed for all our sake.

If it's destroyed, another retailer will take it's place. I worked at Target back in the day, and I still remember the onboarding videos they showed us. Half of it was ridiculous drivel about how much they love employees and support LGBT and minorities, and the other half was literal anti-union propaganda and fear-mongering. When it came right down to it, Target is just as happy to treat human workers as disposable t…

I used to do extensive data science work with various retailers, including Target, Walmart, and Amazon.

Compared to Walmart, Target is absolutely abysmal on many fronts. The amount of wasted fuel caused by their horrifically inept logistics makes Walmart look like the Sierra Club. And they were the model for substituting low-impact inclusion messaging in place of actually treating workers decently.

I live near Boulder, Colorado, and it was infuriating seeing friends of mine protesting and proudly stopping the construction of a Walmart, while happily shopping at Target and Amazon. People are absolute lemmings when it comes to "feel-good" activism. Hearing my rather hippyish and moralistic friend talk about "Walmart destroys small businesses" while noticing the pile of Amazon packages at her door is absolutely infuriating.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#344

Post by ModernMech »

missedthecue wrote: post #297
toomuchtodo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As a trillion dollar company we can't afford better working conditions and pay for you"? The only reason Amazon raised their fulfillment pay was because Bernie Sanders shamed them into it [1]. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+bernie+sanders+pay

You really think the only reason they increased their labor costs by billions is because a now irrelevant populist from Vermont doesn't like rich people?

Bernie Sanders is now the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He's not irrelevant, that's a position with actual power. His committee is the one from which the current 1.9T stimulus bill originates, for instance. That bill doesn't get passed without going through him first. That's far from irrelevant.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#345

Post by soperj »

vertex-four wrote: post #290
soperj wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you have multiple jobs, then you clearly have time to find another job.

If you have multiple jobs and must take every hour they ask of you, you clearly do not have time to find another job; you are very likely working more than a full-time job without adequate protections. Look, here’s how it goes: 1) you have no job 2) you take the first job that comes your way, even if it doesn’t actually pay enough to survive - a little money is better than no money 3) you take the second job that com…

if you have multiple jobs, you already have another job, so it was clearly possible.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#346

Post by mc32 »

sudosysgen wrote: post #321
mc32 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In SV parlance unions are rent seekers. They are a bandaid over the symptom not the cure.

Unions do not rent seek. They provide value to society via higher wages and act as a counterbalance to externalities from capital. They are indeed not a cure, but the cure to the symptoms we are seeing is nothing short of a total overhaul of the capitalist system, which is both not politically feasible, and requires something like unions to make politically feasible to begin with. That is because by definition such a…

There were and are workers’ unions in communist countries. They didn’t always have their worker’ best interests in mind. Often they were a tool of the communist state to control workers. In addition sometimes you had student movements pitted against workers’ unions and so on.

Exploitation or at the minimum the potential for it exists in every economic system. It’s not a feature exclusive to capitalism as much as people dream it to be so. Even in a barter economy, can I not take advantage of another worker? Of course I can!

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#347

Post by SilasX »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #322
SilasX wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what's "getting lost" is the fact that the original comment says nothing about that, and how that part has nothing to do with all the kvetching about "omg six detailed pages!" -- you know, the focus of that very comment.

At this point I don't really know how to respond other than, again, everyone else is on the same page here.

All such people are so blinded by the outrage they can't take a few seconds to make clear what they're actually outraged about in way that can convince others to join them? Yeah, sounds about right.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#349

Post by danShumway »

chrisseaton wrote: post #128
HarryHirsch wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common experience is that performance reviews are bullshit and that scores are determined by warm fuzzies and management's political needs. Rachel has story after story. If you are politically astute, by all means don't join the union, but all this talk about "results" doesn't sound as if you are.

Do you not have the imagination to think of any situation where the majority of workers may want something that's not in your interests? For example you morally support allowing new people to enter your field but the union is mostly comprised of more established people and they vote for credentialism to restrict supply. Probably I'm very aligned with my employer on wanting to lower barriers to entry for the field!

> Probably I'm very aligned with my employer on wanting to lower barriers to entry for the field!

Well... until you start looking at advancing into upper management and realize that seniority-based hiring decisions and credentialism are very often in the best interest of the established managers and higher-ups.

In most large companies, the people making hiring decisions in upper management probably don't want to lower barriers of entry for their fields. They want to hire people who look like them, who have gone to the same schools as them and worked the same jobs as them, and they want to set up a performance system that makes it hard for them to get fired or demoted.

It's easy to make the mistake of thinking of corporations like they're some kind of impartial oiled machine, but the reality is that they're made of people who are just as biologically prone as anyone else is to forming cliques and gatekeeping their own jobs.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#350

Post by soperj »

Cederfjard wrote: post #293
soperj wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm responding to what's written. If you have a job at walmart, they can't both have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at walmart and have another job.

...but they can have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at Walmart, and to the other job? You're saying they should keep the Walmart job and get rid of the other, and spend the time freed up searching for one that's full time and paid enough to replace both, right? But if you can't support yourself and your dependants on the Walmart job alone, then that's risky.

if they have the other job already, then they clearly had time. I'm not saying they should do anything. I'm saying it doesn't make sense that you can be beholden to a job because of too many hours, and have reduced hours. It's one or the other.
Post reply on HN