Live data from Hacker News

Amazon is intimidating and harassing organizing workers in Montreal

jacobin.com

81–90 of 303 posts

Re: Amazon is intimidating and harassing organizing workers in Montreal

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did not really define the interests of other people. What kind of interests could one have, that are contrary to forming a union?

Very concrete example - in the UK most unions support one particular political party. If you don't like some of the positions of that party - for example you support the Greens or you’re a Liberal, or don't like what Labour did during the wars, or hated Corbyn, or hate Starmer - then you might find it offensive to join a union that campaigns for Labour.

A more concrete example - in the UK the unions support Labour on the basis of workers rights, that is to say a part of their program. If Labour tomorrow say - we don't care about worker rights and want to remove the minimal wage - they will get 0 support from the unions.

Just because you have alignment with someone does not mean it's all or nothing and you agree with everything. By that logic we need 60mil ppl in the House as everyone will have their own views.

+ being in a union is not the same as supporting a political party. The unions didn't go around and say: "This war... Best thing ever! Everyone - support it pls" at least AFAIK - happy to be proven wrong

Re: Amazon is intimidating and harassing organizing workers in Montreal

#83
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, imagine a website publishing opinion pieces with diverse viewpoints, some of which you find repulsive... I fail to see how that is relevant for this particular article.

Because it's not presented as an opinion from a single viewpoint but as news, which we expect (perhaps naively) to be balanced and have multiple viewpoints. That's the failure.

On the About Us page:

> Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.

https://jacobin.com/about

Re: Amazon is intimidating and harassing organizing workers in Montreal

#84
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never join a union.

Isn't that irrational? If the union provides you with benefits, why would you not join?

Union dues are not insignificant, I would never join a union for that reason unless I had to.

Same reason I will never buy a home with a HOA.

Re: Amazon is intimidating and harassing organizing workers in Montreal

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, you could have sane laws that make that kind of behaviour illegal.

Germany in theory has laws against that. But this still happens - the problem is that you can’t just make “close warehouse” illegal and then things come down to what you can and cannot prove about the motivations of the company. And that’s often hard.

Sure, nothing is perfect. But it is about raising the cost and uncertainty of the bad action.

Re: Amazon is intimidating and harassing organizing workers in Montreal

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. For example, say you're a talented younger worker and the majority of the union votes for pay by seniority, that's going against your interests.

Being in the union means you have a chance to influence those kinds of decisions.

Is it actually true that most people feel efficacy over their union’s policies? The only unions I’ve been involved with or heard of where fairly indifferent to most of their members’ preferences.

Re: Amazon is intimidating and harassing organizing workers in Montreal

#87
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Could you please elaborate in what way exactly the union "binds you to lowest performing co-worker"? As it stands your accusation is both vague and a classic anti-union scaremongering buzzword.

No the op, but as I've mentioned before:

1. I 100% support unions in general and in principle; and 100% support their causes

2. All (every.single.one) unions I've actually personally seen or experienced, in North America, in real life, absolutely were about lowest common denominator.

All unions I've witnessed were solely about seniority. Merit, hard work, initiative, skills, etc were simply not in the contract / not relevant / not a consideration in any sense. Best performing / hardest working, and worst performing person are paid exactly the same, if they are at the same seniority level. So in the most obvious sense you tie yourself to the lowest performing worker. I have literally, literally seen a person competent to operate a machine, replaced by union with a person not trained to operate machine, because of seniority. It was something out of Kafkian Monty Python but it happens frequently.

All unions I've witnessed spent majority of their time, energy and credit fighting for the lowest performing worker. And not in the emotional movie starring Will Smith poor downtrodden worker. No, I mean poop on the factory floor, come to work drunk, then not come to work, then lather rinse repeat, for months. And I mean every one of those words literally, and no it was not a "friend of a cousin of a brother of a guy". It is extremely damaging for the morale of any good worker, and for the relationship with management/business, when union behaves like that. You don't feel like they're a partner, you don't feel they have your best interests in mind.

The slightly more office oriented unions I've witnessed were still suicidal, in the sense that they never ever ever looked at business and the market; they'll strike for a month to get them something that'll close the business in a year.

So, I fully understand that I am lucky, privileged, and have the absolute luxury to not need a union right now. I fully understand that may change and I may be having short sighted perspectives. I firmly believe unions can be a necessary force for good. I fully agree that if you're in a Amazon warehouse today, you probably darn tootin' well want to be unionized.

But I also fully understand how somebody might not be 100% ready to sign "Yes" even without fear mongering and propaganda and bullying, i.e. for legitimate personal and general reasons. In my mind it's still a different kind of propaganda / blindness to believe that every vote for No is because of intimidation (and let's not forget unions can and do intimidate in their own way. Try to cross a striking line or fight for meritocracy or against seniority or not toe the union line and see how long the smiles last. It's ultimately just another kind of bureaucracy / social institution with its own life and rules). Not everybody who wants to have a meaningful discussion and present/is aware of multiple sides to an issue, is "classic anti-union scaremongering".

Re: Amazon is intimidating and harassing organizing workers in Montreal

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The have an interest in not being given demerits for using the bathroom (aka: "time off task")

That still doesn't answer the question. Nor does it address the issue of people who abuse policies, such as those who hide in the bathroom for 1/8th of the shift. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Unions had served a good purpose, but in no way do they serve the interests of everybody, especially in modern society given labor laws. My experience in several unions only demonstrated how corrupt, inept, and self-serv…

Yes it does. They have specific material concerns and concerns about their working conditions that aren't being addressed.

We're returning to the 19th century it seems with worker protections being eroded. It makes sense that Unionization would make a comeback.

Post reply on HN