Live data from Hacker News

Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

youtube.com

81–90 of 138 posts

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#81
post #31
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a good comparison because democratic states are consistently better than non-democratic ones, so we have evidence that democracy is an improvement compared to other methods.

> democratic states are consistently better than non-democratic ones Union wages are consistently higher than non-union wages, so we have evidence that unions are an improvement compared to direct relationships with employers. Source: literally every long-term economic comparison of wages done for the last 50 years.

Union wages have always been consistently higher enough to make the idea of shutting down and rebuilding on the other side of the planet just to ship the goods back attractive to many companies.

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#82
post #4

Absurdity of this video aside, but I just wish there was room in today's political environment to discuss pros and cons to unions and non-unions. There are some pretty good examples of unions being corrupt, there are examples where unions work. There are examples where like Amazon says, having a direct relationship with your employer is the best. Nuance is gone which is the biggest loss.

It comes down to information asymmetry and mitigating free-riders. This seminal 1965 book explains the necessity of unions in game theoretic terms.

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

As for particular criticisms of any particular org (unions, corporations, government, whomever), the evergreen all purpose prescription is to increase transparency, responsibility, and accountability. What's going on, how are decisions made, who gets the blame.

Everything else is just rhetoric (partisan squabbling).

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#83
post #4

Absurdity of this video aside, but I just wish there was room in today's political environment to discuss pros and cons to unions and non-unions. There are some pretty good examples of unions being corrupt, there are examples where unions work. There are examples where like Amazon says, having a direct relationship with your employer is the best. Nuance is gone which is the biggest loss.

> examples of unions being corrupt This is largely a legacy of the police Red squads funded by the capitalists all over the USA starting in the 1930's. To get the radicals and other effective organizers and voices of the working classes out of the unions, local politicians and the police looked the other way as organized crime gained influence over many unions, thus simultaneously corrupting local governments, law en…

[flagged]

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#84
post #4

Absurdity of this video aside, but I just wish there was room in today's political environment to discuss pros and cons to unions and non-unions. There are some pretty good examples of unions being corrupt, there are examples where unions work. There are examples where like Amazon says, having a direct relationship with your employer is the best. Nuance is gone which is the biggest loss.

So little is said about unions today. There was a time when newspapers had a "union beat", and you'd read about who was elected head of the UAW local and how the Steelworkers negotiations were going. It's been a long time since WCFL radio, "The Voice of Labor in Chicago".

Few people know how unions work any more. They vary as much as companies do. Some are top down, some are bottom up. Some run their own insurance and pension plans. Some are craft oriented, like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and some cover everyone in a plant, like the United Auto Workers.

For the "tech" industry, the Hollywood unions are worth looking at as a model. Most are under the umbrella of IATSE, The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. The Animation Guild represents most of the animators at the major studios. IATSE has grown over the last decade, which is unusual for unions today. They've picked up many people in Hollywood effects houses. They have not, however, been able to organize the game industry, despite trying.

IATSE figured out the "gig economy" long ago. Their contracts cover things like "minimum call time" (if you're called into work for an emergency, that's not only paid time, there's a minimum number of hours, usually 4), and overtime (not just paid, but time and a half and double time during crunches). This is why, as I've pointed out before, film scheduling is an organized discipline but software development scheduling is a joke.

There are advantages to working at a company with a partly unionized workforce even if you're not in a unionized job. There's less being jerked around. Management is aware that their authority is not unlimited. Hours also tend to be more reasonable.

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#85
post #4

Absurdity of this video aside, but I just wish there was room in today's political environment to discuss pros and cons to unions and non-unions. There are some pretty good examples of unions being corrupt, there are examples where unions work. There are examples where like Amazon says, having a direct relationship with your employer is the best. Nuance is gone which is the biggest loss.

> examples of unions being corrupt This is largely a legacy of the police Red squads funded by the capitalists all over the USA starting in the 1930's. To get the radicals and other effective organizers and voices of the working classes out of the unions, local politicians and the police looked the other way as organized crime gained influence over many unions, thus simultaneously corrupting local governments, law en…

Do you have some citations for this claim?

I would be VERY interested in a reading list of any kind, as I have lived near Chicago, which has an interesting history with both police officers and unions.

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#86
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a good comparison because democratic states are consistently better than non-democratic ones, so we have evidence that democracy is an improvement compared to other methods.

That's not really true, for instance Singapore isn't really democratic (it's effectively a one-party semi-totalitarian 'democracy') and you know what, it works really well there.

Singapore has also really only existed in its current form for a bit more than a half century and has had three leaders, two of which were immediate family. It hasn't really shown that autocracy works over longer time scales - in history there are plenty of cases where benevolent autocratic governments (monarchies, empires, etc) had extended periods of stability and prosperity.

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#87
post #62

Given the wage stagnation in the U.S. since the mid-1970s, it is fairly clear in 2019 that capital won and labor lost.

The conflict between labor and capital comes from the nature of labor and the nature of capital. It won't ever be won or lost; the conflict will carry on or labor and capital will no longer describe how our productive capacity is organized.

1970 to 2020 is 50 years. Consider how long feudalism lasted before it was discarded.

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#88
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certainly no expert, but it's my impression that workers for large corporations generally get screwed when unions are weak. Based on data from the past several decades.

Unions were very weak in the late 19th century, because the only tools at their disposal were extra-judicial violence, which was met with state retaliation. During that period, when contracting rights were at their strongest, workers saw wages grow at the fastest rate in US history. Unions in the private sector became much weaker over the last 40 years, but that was not due to the labor laws that empower unions being…

You're basically just arguing that corporations will operate where there's the best mix of worker ability and low wages. That's understandable, but short-sighted. Because poor people aren't good customers.

It's a prisoners' dilemma thing. Businesses that can move production to low-wage countries are leeching off businesses that can't move. Also, it rather destroys the concept of a nation, where workers and businesses depend on each other.

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#89

If Amazon's work force unionizes, Amazon will cease to be a dynamic company that sees rapid foreign expansion and growth in export revenue it earns for the US. The US will see yet another major driver of innovation and production growth, this time the tech industry, succumb to social activists and their rent-seeking-motivated ideological narratives. A century of pro-union-monopoly advocacy will not change the fact th…

Reminder to everyone that a downvote is not an "I disagree" button. This is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have; stop mobbing people for having a controversial opinion (or at least, mob them with replies and arguments)

Re: Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]

#90
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions were very weak in the late 19th century, because the only tools at their disposal were extra-judicial violence, which was met with state retaliation. During that period, when contracting rights were at their strongest, workers saw wages grow at the fastest rate in US history. Unions in the private sector became much weaker over the last 40 years, but that was not due to the labor laws that empower unions being…

You're basically just arguing that corporations will operate where there's the best mix of worker ability and low wages. That's understandable, but short-sighted. Because poor people aren't good customers. It's a prisoners' dilemma thing. Businesses that can move production to low-wage countries are leeching off businesses that can't move. Also, it rather destroys the concept of a nation, where workers and businesses…

When wages were rapidly growing in the late 19th century, the US offered the highest wages in the world.

It's possible to have both high wages and competitive production facilities. That happens when the skill-set of the workforce and the infrastructure and supply-chain of the nation improve enough to compensate for the higher wages.

Forcing companies to pay wages that are above the level that they would be at if left to market forces results in parties in the US less effectively utilizing labor and capital to raise productivity. Less productivity growth ultimately means less wage growth.

The wage boost that comes from a law mandating companies pay higher wages is a one time event, that results from an increase in labor's share of total income, and comes at the expense of lower recurring boosts to wages, because the disruption to the economy caused by such a law reduces the rate of economic growth.

So laws that force companies to pay higher wages mean, in the long run, people being poorer than they would otherwise be.

Post reply on HN