5 ms·

Amazon's Aggressive Anti-Union Tactics Revealed in Leaked Video

128 points by amaccuish 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
draw_down 8y ago
> Opinions can be mild, like, ‘I’d rather work with associates directly,’ or strong: ‘Unions are lying, cheating rats.’ The law protects both! Mmm, indeed it does.
devoply 8y ago
Someone needs to create a unionize Amazon website along with a social media presence.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mywittyname 8y ago
This is not unique to Amazon. It's standard practice at most non-union places for training materials to emphasize the dangers of unionization and to inform management how to identify and deal with threats effectively. If only companies were this diligent about preventing workplace harassment.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  There are already laws surrounding workplace harassment.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    My point is companies do the minimum required by law to prevent harassment and will often systematically impede the victim in their attempts at recourse. If that same person was being bullied into unionizing, the company would solve the problem in an hour.
rekshaw 8y ago
Say what you will about Amazon, but what I did not appreciate about that Gizmodo article is they are misleading on purpose. They put a massive screenshot of the video showing a "TIPS" acronym that apparently stands for Threat, Investigate, Promise, Spy. Then in tiny grey text the caption states its a screenshot of what the company does NOT advise Management doing. Obviously very few will read that tiny caption. Sensationalism at its best.
- xg15 8y ago
  And Amazon is so concerned that its managers could spontaneously forget not to do any of those four specific things that they made this handy acronym to help them remember. /s But this image appears at about the middle of the article, after the fold - so whatever the rationale, it wouldn't be particularly useful clickbait. The rest of the article is pretty unambigous though. The expectation that employees should focus more on "customer obsession" than their own wage is rather funny. The "warning signs" and general language is less so. I'm not sure how the legal situation in the US is - but the quotes seem like they very carefully try to stay out of legal trouble, but go as far far as they can in anti-union tactics otherwise.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mywittyname 8y ago
  > Obviously very few will read that tiny caption. Sounds like the point. It's like having a police PSA to prevent robbery that describes in detail how to effectively commit robbery and get away with it. Afterwards, in tiny letters it says, "don't do this."
tempaccount140 8y ago
I'm glad I live in the country where these tactics would be completely illegal, as workers have the lawful right to unionize in businesses that have a certain number of employees. In fact there are agreements, per industrial branch, large corporations have to follow regarding unions. In US even workers who would benefit from unionizing think unions are a bad thing. This behavior is definitely a vestige of puritan morals. I guess that's why the richest men in the world are american as well.
- saas_sam 8y ago
  If the best argument you can fathom for being anti-union is "puritan morals" I highly recommend you spend 5 minutes researching the issue. This is a good rule of thumb for ANY time you are unable to come up with a reasonable argument against your position. I mean, have you EVER changed your mind about an important issue? Were you being stupid or irrational EVERY time you did that, or are some issues legitimately tough to think through and both sides have positions grounded in a reasonable assessment of the available evidence, just perhaps differing weights on that evidence? Whenever someone expresses a strong opinion to me, this is a simple test: "What's the best argument you've heard against your position?" If they can't come up with anything, or resort to an exaggerated caricature of their opponents, I know they are merely being emotional and cannot be trusted, at least on that particular issue.
  - xg15 8y ago
    So what's the better arguments then?
    - dx87 8y ago
      Being forced to keep around dead weight because they can't be fired, the potential for an entire company to be shutdown due to a union strike, being forced to only hire individuals who are part of a union, regardless of whether they're the most qualified. For workers, they may be fine with the pay and benefits provided by the company, but get forced to pay union dues and deal with strikes and walkouts because union leadership says so. I'm generally in favor of unions, but there are enough downsides and examples of corrupt unions that they can't be considered objectively good. Also, not all companies treat non-union employees the same as walmart and amazon. My father works for a large multi-national company that is mixed union and non-union, and the non-union employees get paid more than the union employees, and get equivalent raises whenever the union employees get one. Money and benefits for employees aren't really a huge issue for the company, but the threat of a union organized shutdown is, so they pay basically reward the non-union employees for not having an implicit threat of shutting down if they don't get their way.

128 points by amaccuish 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

> Opinions can be mild, like, ‘I’d rather work with associates directly,’ or strong: ‘Unions are lying, cheating rats.’ The law protects both! Mmm, indeed it does.

devoply 8y ago

Someone needs to create a unionize Amazon website along with a social media presence.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mywittyname 8y ago

This is not unique to Amazon. It's standard practice at most non-union places for training materials to emphasize the dangers of unionization and to inform management how to identify and deal with threats effectively. If only companies were this diligent about preventing workplace harassment.

jimmy1 8y ago
There are already laws surrounding workplace harassment.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  My point is companies do the minimum required by law to prevent harassment and will often systematically impede the victim in their attempts at recourse. If that same person was being bullied into unionizing, the company would solve the problem in an hour.

rekshaw 8y ago

Say what you will about Amazon, but what I did not appreciate about that Gizmodo article is they are misleading on purpose. They put a massive screenshot of the video showing a "TIPS" acronym that apparently stands for Threat, Investigate, Promise, Spy. Then in tiny grey text the caption states its a screenshot of what the company does NOT advise Management doing. Obviously very few will read that tiny caption. Sensationalism at its best.

xg15 8y ago
And Amazon is so concerned that its managers could spontaneously forget not to do any of those four specific things that they made this handy acronym to help them remember. /s But this image appears at about the middle of the article, after the fold - so whatever the rationale, it wouldn't be particularly useful clickbait. The rest of the article is pretty unambigous though. The expectation that employees should focus more on "customer obsession" than their own wage is rather funny. The "warning signs" and general language is less so. I'm not sure how the legal situation in the US is - but the quotes seem like they very carefully try to stay out of legal trouble, but go as far far as they can in anti-union tactics otherwise.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mywittyname 8y ago
> Obviously very few will read that tiny caption. Sounds like the point. It's like having a police PSA to prevent robbery that describes in detail how to effectively commit robbery and get away with it. Afterwards, in tiny letters it says, "don't do this."

tempaccount140 8y ago

I'm glad I live in the country where these tactics would be completely illegal, as workers have the lawful right to unionize in businesses that have a certain number of employees. In fact there are agreements, per industrial branch, large corporations have to follow regarding unions. In US even workers who would benefit from unionizing think unions are a bad thing. This behavior is definitely a vestige of puritan morals. I guess that's why the richest men in the world are american as well.

saas_sam 8y ago
If the best argument you can fathom for being anti-union is "puritan morals" I highly recommend you spend 5 minutes researching the issue. This is a good rule of thumb for ANY time you are unable to come up with a reasonable argument against your position. I mean, have you EVER changed your mind about an important issue? Were you being stupid or irrational EVERY time you did that, or are some issues legitimately tough to think through and both sides have positions grounded in a reasonable assessment of the available evidence, just perhaps differing weights on that evidence? Whenever someone expresses a strong opinion to me, this is a simple test: "What's the best argument you've heard against your position?" If they can't come up with anything, or resort to an exaggerated caricature of their opponents, I know they are merely being emotional and cannot be trusted, at least on that particular issue.
- xg15 8y ago
  So what's the better arguments then?
  - dx87 8y ago
    Being forced to keep around dead weight because they can't be fired, the potential for an entire company to be shutdown due to a union strike, being forced to only hire individuals who are part of a union, regardless of whether they're the most qualified. For workers, they may be fine with the pay and benefits provided by the company, but get forced to pay union dues and deal with strikes and walkouts because union leadership says so. I'm generally in favor of unions, but there are enough downsides and examples of corrupt unions that they can't be considered objectively good. Also, not all companies treat non-union employees the same as walmart and amazon. My father works for a large multi-national company that is mixed union and non-union, and the non-union employees get paid more than the union employees, and get equivalent raises whenever the union employees get one. Money and benefits for employees aren't really a huge issue for the company, but the threat of a union organized shutdown is, so they pay basically reward the non-union employees for not having an implicit threat of shutting down if they don't get their way.