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

Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

doitwithoutdues.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 204 posts

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

#51

Post by steve_adams_86 »

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 entitlement to it because of arbitrary suppression of their shifts.

I don’t believe unions are universally perfect. When they’re well run and union members participate and have a voice, they can be quite amazing. My partner’s union makes my cosy software job seem like it’s missing something. Sure she pays huge dues, but she’s also given protections and benefits I couldn’t even dream of.

I net about 4x as much as her on paper, but if you figured in the cumulative value of her union agreement, it would be much more than her dues. Collective bargaining is no joke. She has life insurance that would cost me an arm and a leg, a great pension plan, incredible leave options, very generous extended health/vision/dental benefits... It’s a long list.

I could say my money is better but it’s nowhere near as secure and dependable, and although it looks so much better paper, I’d be spending a huge amount to get the same benefits privately.

I think she gets something like 6 weeks of leave per year, too. If I don’t work, I don’t get paid, period.

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

#52

Post by ineedasername »

captainzidgel wrote: post #41

> IF YOU’RE PAYING DUES… it will be RESTRICTIVE meaning it won’t be easy to be as helpful and social with each other. So be a DOER, stay friendly and get things done versus paying dues What is this line even supposed to mean? Probably the most incomprehensible union busting talking point I've ever heard.

I was confused at that as well. Ultimately I decided it was a veiled threat that management would be angry and make their lives harder.

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

#53

Post by hansvm »

bbreier wrote: post #47
hansvm wrote: post #35

Genuine question: From Amazon's perspective unions are strictly a net-loss. Even if the unions offered the employees zero advantages, the same paychecks from Amazon would have less impact on workers because of dues/meetings, so you'd expect moderately higher attrition and other negative effects. On the flip side though, is it actually clear that an Amazon union _would_ benefit workers once accounting for the overhead…

https://www.fastcompany.com/90227665/the-economy-is-booming-... Quick Google search turned this up, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole but this line seems relevant: > Factors like race, gender, and educational attainment have an undeniable effect on people’s economic outcomes over time that unions do not necessarily flatten, but certainly helped to mitigate. For instance, macro-level data show that union…

Interesting. 3% of $25k/yr easily translates into $500 in post-tax income, and that's on the low end.

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

#54

Post by chordalkeyboard »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #17

Wow. Just...wow. Maybe the line with the worst rhetorical trick is this bullshit in the "joining a union" FAQ: "Q: Will a union provide better wages and benefits? A: A union cannot guarantee better wages and benefits. With union negotiations, you could end up with more, the same.... or less than what you make today." I love that because it works exactly as well when you just negate the question: "Q: Will NOT having a…

Q: Will NOT having a union provide better wages and benefits? A: Yes, it could. Unions introduce parasitic loss and collective bargaining. Collective bargaining allows a large part of the workforce to negotiate as one unit and consequently higher performing workers are unable to negotiate a salary commensurate with their performance. In order to retain higher performing workers, corporations end up paying average performing workers more and high performers less under union conditions. The amount of benefit you receive from collective bargaining, and if you receive a benefit at all, are directly related to your productivity relative to the median worker.

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

#55

Post by julienreszka »

C19is20 wrote: post #44
julienreszka wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not difficult to find many regular people who hate unions vehemently. I would be angry too is someone spoke in my name without my consent.

You must be angry a lot - and often, too.

This isn't true. Why would you think so?

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

#56

Post by handmodel »

intenex wrote: post #22
handmodel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly am skeptical. AMZN already pays more than other small businesses and even medium/large businesses. It doesn't make money by paying its workers less - it makes money with efficiency and volume. Alabama is a right-to-work state. My understanding is that it would be completely legal for Amazon to hire new employees the second someone doesn't show up because of a strike, so I'm not sure their leverage. These w…

If that's true...then why do you think Amazon is so afraid of/against them joining a union if it can't do anything?

A) If the union has a good chance of increasing wages 400 to 600 per year locally, then that is a great deal for the union organizers, a passable deal for the workers, and a bad deal for Amazon. I didn't say they won't be able to raise wages at all - just maybe not enough to justify the $500 union fees.

B) Not every state is a right-to-work state. So, from a 'worker's of the world unite' perspective then obviously making a union in Alabama will help other places form unions.

I could be very wrong and perhaps the union could get 1 or 2k more per year - but I am skeptical.

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

#57

Post by zerocrates »

lend000 wrote: post #50

I wonder how many people commenting have actually been part of a union. I have. My take is that if it's voluntary: great. If the union has negotiated that a company cannot hire you without being a part of the union: not great. Perhaps that should even be illegal. Forcing people making minimum wage to pay union dues is as far from helping people at the bottom as you can get. Unions are typically about benefitting peop…

What you're talking about making illegal, requiring all employees to join the union or pay dues, that's already illegal in much of the country: that's what "right-to-work" laws do.

Alabama is one of the states with a right-to-work law.

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

#58

Post by ineedasername »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #28

What I don't understand is why anybody would believe opinion pieces put out by their employer regarding if a union is right for you or not. Your interests are clearly not aligned. Is there some segment of workers who can't appreciate that fact? Whenever anybody gives you an opinion on anything, it will be tainted with their interests. Is pondering a topic from another party's perspective an exceptional critical think…

Don't take it completely at face value. This wasn't just to to try to convince people that a union was a bad choice, this was a scare tactic to indicate how angry Amazon will be if they go ahead & unionize, and the consequences of that anger. See the part about not being so "helpful".

Unionization efforts also always take place against the backdrop of former employers simply shutting down the business location and moving elsewhere to avoid unions: Subtle and not so subtle threats of that are always in play during unionization efforts.

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

#59

Post by scotth »

ineedasername wrote: post #52
captainzidgel wrote: post #41

> IF YOU’RE PAYING DUES… it will be RESTRICTIVE meaning it won’t be easy to be as helpful and social with each other. So be a DOER, stay friendly and get things done versus paying dues What is this line even supposed to mean? Probably the most incomprehensible union busting talking point I've ever heard.

I was confused at that as well. Ultimately I decided it was a veiled threat that management would be angry and make their lives harder.

That, or they're pitting union and non-union members against each other.

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

#60

Post by tacitusarc »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #26
CryptoPunk wrote: post #19

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…

Unions increase the negotiating power of those selling their labor. That’s not forcing the private sector to act like a charity, it’s just giving workers more leverage. The thing I don’t understand about your argument is that you say that giving “monopolistic control over the negotiating power of a company's work force will be economically harmful”. But companies already have monopolistic (well, monopsonistic) contro…

The broad strokes claim that "companies" are monopsonistic is inaccurate... Some are, but it largely depends on location.

I think do unions in right to work states are excellent, though.

Post reply on HN