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

541–550 of 632 posts

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

#541

Post by htnsao »

gowld wrote: post #537
htnsao wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Care to explain or elaborate? Ok. I once took a massive pay cut to go from piece-work to union hourly wages. The days were longer and overall crew production was around 1/3 of what it should be. Work availability was based on seniority within the union instead of performance. Unions are all about receiving more for doing less, and are very detrimental to businesses. In my experience union workers are a lazy bunch th…

Replacing "union" with "management" yields a substantially equivalent argument.

Ha. True. I could be talking about myself now.

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

#542

Post by mtnGoat »

smnrchrds wrote: post #286
A12-B wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core of the issue is that people don't believe a company that big would break the law so easily. In reality it's the opposite: When you're that big breaking the law becomes really easy because you have the strongest legal defence. Amazon won't see a single minute of court time for this.

To add to that, fines can and do bankrupt small businesses. I cannot remember the last time a big company went bankrupt by fines. Breaking the law poses existential threat to small businesses, not large enterprises.

they just claim they are "job creators" and if they were fined it would force them to lay people off... then magically the public is behind them again because no one wants someone to lose a job. its a vicious circle that only benefits ultra large corps.

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

#543

Post by randomdude402 »

sudosteph wrote: post #453
Dirlewanger wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media targeting Wal-Mart allowed them to pump themselves up as a viable alternative. Also, people like their cutesy red and white commercials.

You're right about both - their marketing is really on point. But allow me to propose a few additional reasons for Target's popularity among suburban liberals: 1. Prices are slightly higher that Walmart, which keeps away the most budget conscious shoppers (ie, couponers & low-income people will go to walmart to stretch their money). Because lower-class shoppers are less visible at Target, middle-class shoppers flock…

In my area, Target is far less crowded and has very short waits at checkout because they actually have people staffing the registers.

Walmart will have one cashier at the special register line where they sell cigarettes, during the dinnertime rush when there are 30 people up front wanting to check out.

Then there will be somebody telling you that if you don't need cigarettes, go wait in the massive line at self checkout.

I don't mind paying a couple percent more for goods if they are paying cashiers with that cash so I can go home sooner.

If those same couple bucks are what is keeping the store and parking lot less crowded... I'll take it. Walmart is a hellhole over here.

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

#544

Post by zelon88 »

notriddle wrote: post #327
smnrchrds wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to that, fines can and do bankrupt small businesses. I cannot remember the last time a big company went bankrupt by fines. Breaking the law poses existential threat to small businesses, not large enterprises.

Fines should be proportional to income. They're supposed to be a deterrent, not a revenue source.

I've been saying this for years. It's refreshing to see someone else hold the same opinion.

Having arbitrary amounts that don't scale is both bribery and slavery. A speeding ticket for example that cripples someone with low income for weeks is just the cost of doing business for someone with enough wealth. It's really not that far off from actual bribery.

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

#545

Post by bitdizzy »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #512
shmageggy wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just being cynical but I disagree. It may have appeared so outwardly, but I'm skeptical that the core motivation for mainstream journalism has ever been objectivity. I mean Manufacturing Consent is from 1988 and covers much of the 20th century, and it's not like things have improved since.

Do you think the media landscape of the 90s and 00s was just as partisan and sensationalist as today? Can you imagine the media reporting outright, easily verifiable falsehoods on their front page? Where were the 90s reporters standing in front of a burning building talking about “mostly peaceful protests”? Or the Damore memo being called “an anti-diversity screed” or the whole Covington Catholic affair? That was onc…

The media helped the Bush administration manufacture consent for the second gulf war. The infamous lies peddled on every major news channel and newspaper are recorded for all time.

Parenti wrote Inventing Reality and Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in the 80's. Your examples of lies that that you believe demonstrate how especially bad media is today just reveal that you only notice certain exaggerations or interpretations of news that go against your politics.

I presume you think yourself unbiased too.

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

#546

Post by zelon88 »

mtnGoat wrote: post #542
smnrchrds wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to that, fines can and do bankrupt small businesses. I cannot remember the last time a big company went bankrupt by fines. Breaking the law poses existential threat to small businesses, not large enterprises.

they just claim they are "job creators" and if they were fined it would force them to lay people off... then magically the public is behind them again because no one wants someone to lose a job. its a vicious circle that only benefits ultra large corps.

And then everyone unironically agrees how terrible it is that the overworked and underpaid warehouse worker won't be able to feed his family anymore. Like these jobs were ever doing a good job of feeding anyone on the $30k they pay.

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

#547

Post by zelon88 »

A12-B wrote: post #273
dillondoyle wrote: post #256

There are a couple mentions but no top comments: Amazon has installed a mailbox at their facility, this mail piece specifically says to use it. AND this mail piece says 'BE DONE by 3/1' when workers have until the end of the month to vote (context: amazon must stop anti-union mandatory meetings etc during voting). This could be a legal violation & is a big deal. I think at a minimum breaks the spirit of the NLRB mail…

The core of the issue is that people don't believe a company that big would break the law so easily. In reality it's the opposite: When you're that big breaking the law becomes really easy because you have the strongest legal defence. Amazon won't see a single minute of court time for this.

And when Amazon dodges everything that gets thrown at them the burnt-out regulators will probably find some mom-and-pop store to take out their frustration on instead.

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

#548

Post by kick »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #512
shmageggy wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just being cynical but I disagree. It may have appeared so outwardly, but I'm skeptical that the core motivation for mainstream journalism has ever been objectivity. I mean Manufacturing Consent is from 1988 and covers much of the 20th century, and it's not like things have improved since.

Do you think the media landscape of the 90s and 00s was just as partisan and sensationalist as today? Can you imagine the media reporting outright, easily verifiable falsehoods on their front page? Where were the 90s reporters standing in front of a burning building talking about “mostly peaceful protests”? Or the Damore memo being called “an anti-diversity screed” or the whole Covington Catholic affair? That was onc…

Fox News was notoriously famous for having extremely negative coverage on African Americans during the 1990s through 2014. They still are famous for that. National Review was extremely famous for it, too. The New York Times was also a conservative outlet, as I mention elsewhere, having hawked for every war since Vietnam.

Even the person Damore was inspired to write his manifesto because of (SlateStarCodex) admitted it was too far.

Biased reporting isn't new, it's always been universal, and it'll never go away. You just sound like you want more conservative outlets. Here's a tip: Turn on your local news. Local news in America is almost always owned by one of three conservative companies (Sinclair and Nextstar come to mind most immediately), and all of them have an extremely conservative bent.

That's not even getting into the bias of media on scientific issues. HIV/AIDS never got proper coverage, and the coverage it did get was usually outright wrong and hostile during the 1990s. Climate change? Completely debatable! A matter of emotion! They were still pushing that up until a few years ago. Encryption? Can be government-crackable and still secure! That's been a constant topic since the 1990s, too!

https://www.vox.com/2015/3/26/8296091/media-bias-race-crime

According to a report by the progressive research center Media Matters, New York City television stations give disproportionate coverage to crimes involving black suspects.

The Media Matters study found that between August 18 and December 13, 2014, the stations (WCBS, WNBC, WABC, and WNYW) used their late-night broadcasts to report on murder, theft, and assault cases in which African Americans were suspects at rates that far exceeded African-American arrest rates for those crimes.

There's always bias. Always will be bias. The above issue was even worse in the past.

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

#549

Post by SllX »

chc wrote: post #494
SllX wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can leave a company and get a new job. That’s a good time to renegotiate your terms of employment. You can even use the impending threat of your departure as a negotiating tactic. Unions complicate an otherwise cut and dry relationship of your employer trying to extract value from you and you trying to extract value from your employer until you reach an equilibrium.

As a worker, you want "complications" in that relationship, because in its natural form, the balance of power is extremely lopsided toward the employer.

It’s a bad habit to tell people what they want.

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

#550

Post by whoknew1122 »

secfirstmd wrote: post #443
staticautomatic wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hired actual fucking Pinkertons, which says enough about how aggressive they are. The gloves have been off for a while now.

Pinkerton are the corporate security company of choice for a lot of organisations...including Facebook

Pinkerton is the union-busting company of choice for Amazon. Amazon has its own very expansive security apparatus.
Post reply on HN