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

Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 403 posts

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#81

Post by formerly_proven »

mschuster91 wrote: post #59
jstanley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you ban people from going on strike? The entire point of a strike is that you're not working when you're supposed to be.

In Germany, police officers, soldiers and (depending on the state) teachers and other sort of public officials swear an oath of office that bans them from strikes ("Beamte").

OTOH they can't be fired, get excellent and cheap health insurance for the entire family, and retirement pay is far beyond the normal pension system, meanwhile the pay increases are often coupled to the results negotiated by unions for equivalent employees.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#82

Post by mistrial9 »

coldpie wrote: post #63
koolba wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, who the hell is in the teachers union if not teachers? Professional bureaucrats. Teachers unions in public schools are the worst. They hold our childrens’ futures hostage and get paid out by politicians buying votes, who pass the bill to the next generation.

My mom was a negotiator for the teacher's union for about a decade. She was a para-professional, working with disabled students, for about 20 years. You should try talking with the people you are making claims about. I bet they're very different from what you think.

I suspect your Mom is an extra-ordinary super-hero sort, and more power to her. However, here in the Western USA, urban public schools are a disaster -- the bigger the district, the bigger the disaster -- and the union is not innocent in continuing that. no easy answers

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#83

Post by gruez »

closewith wrote: post #54
nxmnxm99 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Higher prices in exchange for basic labour rights. Seems like a price worth paying to me.

That's easy for someone making 6 figures to say, but what about someone making close to minimum wage?

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#84

Post by GuB-42 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #10

Realistically an Amazon-wide union is the only way Amazon workers are going to get decent wage increases. If the USA is going to allow manufacturers to outsource the majority of well-paid (~$30/hr avg) manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China, without having any cross-border capital flow penalities (neoliberal globalism in a nutshell), then the major employers like Amazon and Walmart are going to have to double their w…

> Yes, that means less for the executives and shareholders. They may have to sell some of their properties, oh dear.

Is it what usually happens when workers unionize? It seems like most of the times, the result is a higher price for the customer, at least when things go well.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#85

Post by q1w2 »

jaclaz wrote: post #34
photochemsyn wrote: post #10

Realistically an Amazon-wide union is the only way Amazon workers are going to get decent wage increases. If the USA is going to allow manufacturers to outsource the majority of well-paid (~$30/hr avg) manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China, without having any cross-border capital flow penalities (neoliberal globalism in a nutshell), then the major employers like Amazon and Walmart are going to have to double their w…

I may be wrong, but besides and before the wage increases, it seems to me like the priority would be for decent working conditions, if what is published from time to time on media is actually true, the biggest issues are about lack of (normal, decent) pauses or rest periods, continuous summoning for increases in productivity, total control on the workers, etc.

> if what is published from time to time on media is actually true

That's a big IF. Unions were invented after the onset of the industrial revolution to combat truly unsafe work conditions in industrial settings where worker's dying was common.

OSHA did away with all that.

The current generation of "bad work condition" complaints is around getting adequate bathroom breaks.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#86

Post by closewith »

gruez wrote: post #83
closewith wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher prices in exchange for basic labour rights. Seems like a price worth paying to me.

That's easy for someone making 6 figures to say, but what about someone making close to minimum wage?

It's hard to believe this comment is for real? Labour rights - including the right to a living wage and civil working conditions - benefit those on the minimum wage more than high-earners. It's not a zero-sum game.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#87

Post by wahnfrieden »

collegeburner wrote: post #78
wahnfrieden wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

go look up what other illegal union busting behaviors they've gotten away with. and look at democrat or republican behaviors, such as biden actively strike-busting the other day

strike busting public unions is good. we should never recognize public unions. there is no middleman to reduce profits with the government, higher wages means we pay more, there's no "evil capitalist" who will get less instead.

thanks for pointing this out. I definitely agree when it comes to police unions. need to learn more about this situation though

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#88

Post by jupp0r »

Retric wrote: post #64
jupp0r wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you are taking the price increases and inefficiencies that a nationally isolated economy would produce into account. People with less disposable income would suffer most from this. If you don’t like supply chain issues and inflation right now, you won’t like the model you propose.

How much do you think Amazon can actually raise prices before people just shop elsewhere? The simple truth is warehouse employee salaries aren’t significant because of throughput. Someone making 30$/hour vs 15$/hour sounds huge but when people are picking 300+ items an hour that’s 5 cents a pop. But, more realistic unionized job would be 17$/hour but only 250 items a sub 2 cents increase.

100% agreed. My comment was referring to the part of OPs comment where they criticized globalization and proposed capital controls.

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#89

Post by gruez »

formerly_proven wrote: post #66
ravel-bar-foo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Larger unions sometimes hire staff to represent their interests who are do not work in the profession represented: negotiators, lawyers, etc. It sets up a bit of a principle/agent problem, but it also makes a lot of sense: a professional lawyer may be much better at negotiating on your behalf than the people from your profession who win the union elections.

At least in theory unions have the correct incentive structure, as they get a fixed percentage of their member's incomes, so to get more money from their members, they need to negotiate better salaries for them.

Except unions aren't for-profit, so it's unclear where those extra money is going to. Senior leadership perhaps? But unions beholden to members, which means there's no "fixed percentage", because that's decided by the members themselves. We can see a parallel in public sector compensation: democratically controlled organizations are very reluctant to spend extra money on compensating leadership (or any other high paying staff, for that matter).

Re: Amazon instructs New York workers “don't sign” union cards

#90

Post by JWlrCk9PkipFTDq »

bombcar wrote: post #79
JWlrCk9PkipFTDq wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point, but that's specifically compulsory union membership (which I agree is undesirable). It's a huge leap from that to "unions should be illegal". Side note - where I am (Australia) compulsory union membership is illegal. At its core a trade union is an organisation that represents workers interests, and that formally negotiates on behalf of its members. To say that unions should be illegal is to say tha…

I believe in most cases in the US you have compulsory union membership (or as matters most, compulsory union dues).

Definitely agree that compulsory union membership (or compulsory membership of any political organisation for that matter) is a terrible idea!
Post reply on HN