11 ms·

Glad to see this from Amazon, although I see it heading off the inevitable. Wouldn't this be the most powerful moment for employees in 'essential' services to e

Glad to see this from Amazon, although I see it heading off the inevitable. Wouldn't this be the most powerful moment for employees in 'essential' services to engage in worker strikes? Is there any legal precedent for what governments would do? With all this war rhetoric thrown around, it seems a reasonable jump to declare essential workers troops on the frontline deserving of what we give other troops (free health care, pension, heavily subsidized secondary education)

dahfizz 7y ago
> Is there any legal precedent for what governments would do? There is a long history of the government using the military to break strikes and fill the labor gap for things deemed necessary for national security. I'm not sure Amazon warehouses are in the same class as coal mines though...
- leetcrew 7y ago
  not quite, but delivery services are extremely important to the vulnerable population right now. many of these people are old and, as we all know, these are the people that vote most consistently. no sitting politician wants to be the one who sat on their hands while a strike prevented the elderly from receiving their hand sanitizer order.
  - srtjstjsj 7y ago
    People shut in at home don't need hand sanitizer.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      I mean that's sort of beside the point; it only matters whether they think they do. the older people I know are aggressively sanitizing stuff whenever they have anything delivered.
- caymanjim 7y ago
  The government would absolutely step in and stop a strike at Amazon right now, or just about any other business. Anyone trying to strike right now would be run out of town by citizens with torches as well. It might sound like a good idea in the abstract, but if you factor in the emotional state of the country, people would be up in arms and those on strike would get zero sympathy.
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    I would be sympathetic.
  - reedwolf 7y ago
    What would the Government do? Force people to go back to work at gunpoint? I'd love to see them try.
    - xxpor 7y ago
      The state of education in this country about the history of the labor movement is seriously depressing. I'm sure that's intentional though.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        No, it’s covered. You might just be shocked to learn that children don’t really care about collective bargaining history anymore than the dates of important battles in WW2.
        xxpor 7y ago
        We covered the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, the muckrakers, and Roosevelt's war against trusts, but I don't ever recall hearing the name Eugene Debs, or say the Haymarket massacre.
        tomcatfish 7y ago
        > but I don't ever recall hearing the name Eugene Debs, or say the Haymarket massacre. These are both covered in the popular APUSH American History courses.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > I'm not sure Amazon warehouses are in the same class as coal mines though... Essential for food security and biosafety? I'd say the same class.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    That's quite a stretch. Amazon is not the sole seller of any of it's goods, and calling hand sanitizer essential for national security would not go over well...
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Ask yourself again in two weeks whether it's a stretch.
- srtjstjsj 7y ago
  > There is a long history of the government using the military to break strikes and fill the labor gap for things deemed necessary yes > for national security not so much. More for capitalist profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States#Union_busting_with_police_and_military_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    It's very easy to look back 100 years and say "the governments actions helped rich people! Capitalism!!!!" But it's really not so simple. If you had a angry man blocking your driveway and refusing to leave, you would call the police. If there were hundreds, you would like to be able to call the military. I'm no lover of government, and certainly it was fumbling and violent when performing it's duty (as always). That said, the purpose of breaking a strike is to allow people who want to work (strike breakers) to do business with people who want to employ them. A core function of government is to facilitate mutual transactions. There's nothing inherently immoral about that.
Klinky 7y ago
With how 9/11 first responders were treated, or how veterans are treated now, don't count on the US making good on any promises it makes to its heroes. There is tons of hero worship and thumping of patriotic chests, but tangible actions typically fall well short of the level of care you'd expect. Lots of talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
- sbilstein 7y ago
  Yea. Trump even pardoned a special forces killer against the wishes of fellow vets, the military, etc. our respect for veterans is flimsy.
bredren 7y ago
Yes. When the bailouts for so many others are happening, people in meat-packing plants, checking out groceries and delivering mail etc need major wage increases. I think around 3X current levels. USPS mail carriers and handlers are being given no guidance or support right now either.
- dehrmann 7y ago
  > When the bailouts for so many others are happening I don't disagree that the support for, say, airlines, are bailouts, but the connotation that word has from 2008-2009 mischaracterizes what's going on right now. When this all blows over, you absolutely want airlines ready for business. Letting heavily impacted businesses fail is a recipe for a depression.
  - Klinky 7y ago
    It's probably time to nationalize the airline industry entirely. Why do they enrich themselves during good times, and then we bail them out during bad times? If it's essential to economic stability and national security, and it keeps costing taxpayers a ton of money, then why even continue this facade of "private" airlines? The same excuse was used for banks during the recession. We need banks when the economy recovers, and we need people who know the system to unwind the major screw ups they did. What happened is most of the people who were responsible for the recession remained in power making a lot of money. Lessons were not really learned, other than that being too big to fail is a good position to be in.
    - dehrmann 7y ago
      > Why do they enrich themselves during good times Did they? Airline stock prices have collapsed, so unless insiders sold everything in January, "enrich themselves" really means standard executive pay...which might be high, but that's another issue. Airlines, as businesses, didn't behave especially irresponsibly for the past decade. It's nothing like the banking excesses in 2007 that causes 2008. Air travel in the US was significantly more expensive when it was heavily regulated. By your logic, you very quickly get to a Chinese level of state ownership of businesses. Practically every large cap company would be on that list.
jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
>War rhetoric Wait, like a real war? Who's talking about a war? Between what parties? I have heard nothing about a war, please explain.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  Based on downvotes I'm gonna go ahead and guess that there is no war (aside from the wars that are already going) and this use of the word "war" was referring to something else. Still I would like someone to please confirm that there is not a real war coming.
  - abnercoimbre 7y ago
    I heard this was about France declaring war on the virus. I assume if they're officially declaring war (again, against the virus), certain government powers / resources are immediately available.
    - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
      I suppose that could be the case. I don't know how power is distributed throughout the French government. Thanks for clarifying. I live in the Pacific, so I don't follow much European news.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > I'm gonna go ahead and guess that there is no war That's not really right, because that implies that other people are using the word wrong. It's more that it's a word with a lot of uses, and you got stuck on one of them.
    - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
      They are using it wrong. I think when op said "war" op meant "public health policy" which is really far away from war. It's actually the complete opposite thing.
seneca 7y ago
Striking in order to exploit a global disaster for personal gain would be a great way for organized labor to turn many people against them for a life time. It may work in the short term, but even that is debatable. Many people would gladly see the national guard break a strike if it's between them and basic essentials. Long term, the optics of that kind of move are so damning that it would likely be a net-loss.
- bdefore 7y ago
  Depends on the spin. Couldn't you argue this is exploitation of the health of desperate low-paid workers, their family and their communities?
  - seneca 7y ago
    > Couldn't you argue this is exploitation of the health of desperate low-paid workers, their family and their communities? Giving people a raise to incentivize them to voluntarily work to supply resources people desperately need is pretty difficult to spin into exploitation. Many people are out there volunteering to do such things for free because they understand how badly it's needed. I suspect those likely to be sympathetic to that line made up their minds about such things long before this event. I do agree with you that some folks will definitely try that angle though.
    - bdefore 7y ago
      I acknowledge that asking for increased wages may not pitch well. Perhaps the more effective angle is for strikers to demand all health expenses these workers incur during this time be covered.
  - realpolitik0 7y ago
    Yes, you could argue that; thereafter, the overwhelming majority of people indifferent to worker conditions in the gig-delivery supply chain would then notice, rather acutely, when their preparedness meter inches toward zero. If we were living in a world where they then took time to study the issue and hear your argument, we may arrive at your outcome. Since we are not, more accurately, when people and politicians fresh out of toilet paper snap assess their dilemma and are conveniently presented with a picket line to blame in the media, we arrive at the unpleasant outcome being forecast for you. (I would argue a worse one.) Negative consequences of Internet supply chain worker organization right now are a certainty due to intense delivery demand (the IKEA cart is barely functional today), and those optics are an element of the gig/delivery economic equation which I don’t think anyone has thought about until now. That economic model promised to somewhat free the worker and, quite predictably given its proponents, instead seems to have done the opposite. More than ever before, workers are essential to survival. Striking isn’t just the UAW setting back 2022 Fords a bit, these days. Organizational actions have very, very real potential to collapse parts of the intertwined economy under these circumstances. We will need to consider that reality on the other side of the pandemic but you do not want to so much as blow on the world economy right now. There is a mountain of latent panic waiting for the excuse you’d hand it to organize and manifest. Important: I’m not saying it’s “right,” just illustrating political and economic realities which make selecting the next move carefully all that more crucial. The entire planet is on a razor’s edge, and if you’re keen to dismiss my position as irrational, organize an Amazon walkout.
nerfhammer 7y ago
if there's massive unemployment many people are going to be happy just to have a job and will not want to risk losing it
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vkou 7y ago
> Wouldn't this be the most powerful moment for employees in 'essential' services to engage in worker strikes? No, because there's currently/there will soon be an army of unemployed retail/service workers who will happily take their jobs.
Consultant32452 7y ago
If that happens I'll show up at my local warehouse and work for free. People are dying.
- Klinky 7y ago
  Why aren't you doing this already then?
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Because the market is still working right now. Amazon is raising wages and hiring like crazy.
    - Klinky 7y ago
      Pretty sure they still need more help. Why don't you apply? Unless you'd only offer your services for free in order to spite striking workers asking for better working conditions? How noble of you...
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        We have laws in place that ban critical workers from striking. Air traffic controllers aren't allowed to just stop working. Usually Amazon warehouse workers are not critical infrastructure, but this month they are. Talking about "spite" implies I would be concerned about their opinion in any way if they were to start striking. Their feelings would be irrelevant.
        Klinky 7y ago
        Again, why you don't you go sign up for the labor-intensive warehouse and delivery work, with significant risk of contracting COVID-19 while having poor health coverage and no sick leave, along with people demanding that you should absolutely be forced to work those conditions? Please, go volunteer your time, you seem to so apt to make other people's jobs mandatory, and oddly they are jobs you don't seem to want to do! It again sounds like you only want to volunteer your time to this crisis if it involves the unlikely circumstance of strike busting. Very noble. I hope you gave yourself a big pat on the back.
TomMckenny 7y ago
The administration would certainly order employees back to work under the Taft–Hartley Act under threat of imprisonment. While it resists ordering companies to produce critically need medical supplies on ideological grounds[1], there can be no doubt that it would not miss an opportunity to damage labor organizations. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-supplies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/us/politics/trump-coronav...
- srtjstjsj 7y ago
  > no doubt that it would not miss ERROR: Stack Overflow
bpfrh 7y ago
Don't get to excited on the other hand they fire workers who are ill and can't work. E.g. you have people still trying to come into work to get paid and spreading the sickness.
tanilama 7y ago
Strike right now means government will chime in and force them back to work.
OrangeUnicorn12 7y ago
... whatever Amazon does, it is always "however", "although" and "but" on HN People, please get real. You all are running (or dreaming of) your own small business. How much of payrise are you willing to give your workforce now? This news is pure win for workers, consumers and amazon.
- mardifoufs 7y ago
  As much as Amazon is willing to pay for? Why do you assume Amazon is just being benevolent? I'm all for capitalism but this is what capitalism is, the workers don't have to just be happy with whatever Amazon throws at them, they can negotiate I guess a good question would be "How much of a profit can Amazon make now?". The answer is as much as the market is willing to give, and that's the same for the workers' salary.
- guacamole4 7y ago
  > You all are running (or dreaming of) your own small business. Do you have a source for this?
dillondoyle 7y ago
The nurse union has had a small amount of success with just the threat. Unfortunately there isn't a lot to give them. Even time is limited with a shrinking ceiling on staff as they sit two weeks out with symptoms.
marcosdumay 7y ago
> Is there any legal precedent for what governments would do? I don't think you should be looking for legal precedent, just practical one. Depending on the severity of the impact, governments would (and did several times): 1 - Declare the strike illegal and order people back to work, fine and at the worst case arrest the organizers if they don't comply. 2 - Declare the involved unions illegal, free companies to hire whoever they want and disobey agreements. 3 - Conscript people into doing the work, either by using the company as middle-men or by literally enrolling them on the military and absorbing the work. But I don't think any government will have to do any of that. A strike does not fit this crisis very well, no party would gain anything.
all_blue_chucks 7y ago
That might be the worst idea I've ever heard. Shutting down the supply lines during a pandemic would have disastrous consequences for everyone.
kortilla 7y ago
Iirc during ww2 the military was there to just take union workers jobs if they went on strike in critical sections like mines.
c3534l 7y ago
As Calvin Coolidge said "there is no right to strike against the public safety." People can organize all they want, but they can't conspire to harm people, holding lives up as not-that-metaphorical hostages in a negotiation. It's the idea of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Putting people's lives in danger for literal personal profit would be a sure-fire way to turn people against unionization.
- hker 7y ago
  Interesting. What about “strike for the public safety”? Performing a strike to achieve a goal for public safety, such as, when the government of a city decided, against public opinion, not to close the border even when bordering a large country with lots of infected patients, some essential workers decided to go on strike to demand the close of the border? Even more interestingly, if the essential workers are themselves public safety workers, hence their strike would put some people in risks, while hoping for saving more people when the demands are met---real life Trolley problem. Not hypothetical, I have an actual case in mind.
  - c3534l 7y ago
    That's somewhat ingenious. I sometimes hear about walkouts when a company has some military contract - I bet that would be a good time to unionize; make ending the contract part of deal.
jshevek 7y ago
>Wouldn't this be the most powerful moment for employees in 'essential' services to engage in worker strikes? Many would have no sympathy for workers exploiting a crisis like this.
ineedasername 7y ago
A strike now would incur the hatred of the public in general and a bipartisan political wrath. Nope, their best position of leverage will be just after the crisis when appreciation is at its highest, people haven't forgotten what they've done, and they have a strong argument to say, "look how essential we are, we should be a happy & valued workforce"

dahfizz 7y ago

> Is there any legal precedent for what governments would do? There is a long history of the government using the military to break strikes and fill the labor gap for things deemed necessary for national security. I'm not sure Amazon warehouses are in the same class as coal mines though...

leetcrew 7y ago
not quite, but delivery services are extremely important to the vulnerable population right now. many of these people are old and, as we all know, these are the people that vote most consistently. no sitting politician wants to be the one who sat on their hands while a strike prevented the elderly from receiving their hand sanitizer order.
- srtjstjsj 7y ago
  People shut in at home don't need hand sanitizer.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    I mean that's sort of beside the point; it only matters whether they think they do. the older people I know are aggressively sanitizing stuff whenever they have anything delivered.
caymanjim 7y ago
The government would absolutely step in and stop a strike at Amazon right now, or just about any other business. Anyone trying to strike right now would be run out of town by citizens with torches as well. It might sound like a good idea in the abstract, but if you factor in the emotional state of the country, people would be up in arms and those on strike would get zero sympathy.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  I would be sympathetic.
- reedwolf 7y ago
  What would the Government do? Force people to go back to work at gunpoint? I'd love to see them try.
  - xxpor 7y ago
    The state of education in this country about the history of the labor movement is seriously depressing. I'm sure that's intentional though.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      No, it’s covered. You might just be shocked to learn that children don’t really care about collective bargaining history anymore than the dates of important battles in WW2.
      - xxpor 7y ago
        We covered the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, the muckrakers, and Roosevelt's war against trusts, but I don't ever recall hearing the name Eugene Debs, or say the Haymarket massacre.
        tomcatfish 7y ago
        > but I don't ever recall hearing the name Eugene Debs, or say the Haymarket massacre. These are both covered in the popular APUSH American History courses.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> I'm not sure Amazon warehouses are in the same class as coal mines though... Essential for food security and biosafety? I'd say the same class.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  That's quite a stretch. Amazon is not the sole seller of any of it's goods, and calling hand sanitizer essential for national security would not go over well...
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Ask yourself again in two weeks whether it's a stretch.
srtjstjsj 7y ago
> There is a long history of the government using the military to break strikes and fill the labor gap for things deemed necessary yes > for national security not so much. More for capitalist profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States#Union_busting_with_police_and_military_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
- dahfizz 7y ago
  It's very easy to look back 100 years and say "the governments actions helped rich people! Capitalism!!!!" But it's really not so simple. If you had a angry man blocking your driveway and refusing to leave, you would call the police. If there were hundreds, you would like to be able to call the military. I'm no lover of government, and certainly it was fumbling and violent when performing it's duty (as always). That said, the purpose of breaking a strike is to allow people who want to work (strike breakers) to do business with people who want to employ them. A core function of government is to facilitate mutual transactions. There's nothing inherently immoral about that.

Klinky 7y ago

With how 9/11 first responders were treated, or how veterans are treated now, don't count on the US making good on any promises it makes to its heroes. There is tons of hero worship and thumping of patriotic chests, but tangible actions typically fall well short of the level of care you'd expect. Lots of talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

sbilstein 7y ago
Yea. Trump even pardoned a special forces killer against the wishes of fellow vets, the military, etc. our respect for veterans is flimsy.

bredren 7y ago

Yes. When the bailouts for so many others are happening, people in meat-packing plants, checking out groceries and delivering mail etc need major wage increases. I think around 3X current levels. USPS mail carriers and handlers are being given no guidance or support right now either.

dehrmann 7y ago
> When the bailouts for so many others are happening I don't disagree that the support for, say, airlines, are bailouts, but the connotation that word has from 2008-2009 mischaracterizes what's going on right now. When this all blows over, you absolutely want airlines ready for business. Letting heavily impacted businesses fail is a recipe for a depression.
- Klinky 7y ago
  It's probably time to nationalize the airline industry entirely. Why do they enrich themselves during good times, and then we bail them out during bad times? If it's essential to economic stability and national security, and it keeps costing taxpayers a ton of money, then why even continue this facade of "private" airlines? The same excuse was used for banks during the recession. We need banks when the economy recovers, and we need people who know the system to unwind the major screw ups they did. What happened is most of the people who were responsible for the recession remained in power making a lot of money. Lessons were not really learned, other than that being too big to fail is a good position to be in.
  - dehrmann 7y ago
    > Why do they enrich themselves during good times Did they? Airline stock prices have collapsed, so unless insiders sold everything in January, "enrich themselves" really means standard executive pay...which might be high, but that's another issue. Airlines, as businesses, didn't behave especially irresponsibly for the past decade. It's nothing like the banking excesses in 2007 that causes 2008. Air travel in the US was significantly more expensive when it was heavily regulated. By your logic, you very quickly get to a Chinese level of state ownership of businesses. Practically every large cap company would be on that list.

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago

>War rhetoric Wait, like a real war? Who's talking about a war? Between what parties? I have heard nothing about a war, please explain.

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
Based on downvotes I'm gonna go ahead and guess that there is no war (aside from the wars that are already going) and this use of the word "war" was referring to something else. Still I would like someone to please confirm that there is not a real war coming.
- abnercoimbre 7y ago
  I heard this was about France declaring war on the virus. I assume if they're officially declaring war (again, against the virus), certain government powers / resources are immediately available.
  - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
    I suppose that could be the case. I don't know how power is distributed throughout the French government. Thanks for clarifying. I live in the Pacific, so I don't follow much European news.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > I'm gonna go ahead and guess that there is no war That's not really right, because that implies that other people are using the word wrong. It's more that it's a word with a lot of uses, and you got stuck on one of them.
  - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
    They are using it wrong. I think when op said "war" op meant "public health policy" which is really far away from war. It's actually the complete opposite thing.

seneca 7y ago

Striking in order to exploit a global disaster for personal gain would be a great way for organized labor to turn many people against them for a life time. It may work in the short term, but even that is debatable. Many people would gladly see the national guard break a strike if it's between them and basic essentials. Long term, the optics of that kind of move are so damning that it would likely be a net-loss.

bdefore 7y ago
Depends on the spin. Couldn't you argue this is exploitation of the health of desperate low-paid workers, their family and their communities?
- seneca 7y ago
  > Couldn't you argue this is exploitation of the health of desperate low-paid workers, their family and their communities? Giving people a raise to incentivize them to voluntarily work to supply resources people desperately need is pretty difficult to spin into exploitation. Many people are out there volunteering to do such things for free because they understand how badly it's needed. I suspect those likely to be sympathetic to that line made up their minds about such things long before this event. I do agree with you that some folks will definitely try that angle though.
  - bdefore 7y ago
    I acknowledge that asking for increased wages may not pitch well. Perhaps the more effective angle is for strikers to demand all health expenses these workers incur during this time be covered.
- realpolitik0 7y ago
  Yes, you could argue that; thereafter, the overwhelming majority of people indifferent to worker conditions in the gig-delivery supply chain would then notice, rather acutely, when their preparedness meter inches toward zero. If we were living in a world where they then took time to study the issue and hear your argument, we may arrive at your outcome. Since we are not, more accurately, when people and politicians fresh out of toilet paper snap assess their dilemma and are conveniently presented with a picket line to blame in the media, we arrive at the unpleasant outcome being forecast for you. (I would argue a worse one.) Negative consequences of Internet supply chain worker organization right now are a certainty due to intense delivery demand (the IKEA cart is barely functional today), and those optics are an element of the gig/delivery economic equation which I don’t think anyone has thought about until now. That economic model promised to somewhat free the worker and, quite predictably given its proponents, instead seems to have done the opposite. More than ever before, workers are essential to survival. Striking isn’t just the UAW setting back 2022 Fords a bit, these days. Organizational actions have very, very real potential to collapse parts of the intertwined economy under these circumstances. We will need to consider that reality on the other side of the pandemic but you do not want to so much as blow on the world economy right now. There is a mountain of latent panic waiting for the excuse you’d hand it to organize and manifest. Important: I’m not saying it’s “right,” just illustrating political and economic realities which make selecting the next move carefully all that more crucial. The entire planet is on a razor’s edge, and if you’re keen to dismiss my position as irrational, organize an Amazon walkout.

nerfhammer 7y ago

if there's massive unemployment many people are going to be happy just to have a job and will not want to risk losing it

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

vkou 7y ago

> Wouldn't this be the most powerful moment for employees in 'essential' services to engage in worker strikes? No, because there's currently/there will soon be an army of unemployed retail/service workers who will happily take their jobs.

Consultant32452 7y ago

If that happens I'll show up at my local warehouse and work for free. People are dying.

Klinky 7y ago
Why aren't you doing this already then?
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Because the market is still working right now. Amazon is raising wages and hiring like crazy.
  - Klinky 7y ago
    Pretty sure they still need more help. Why don't you apply? Unless you'd only offer your services for free in order to spite striking workers asking for better working conditions? How noble of you...
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      We have laws in place that ban critical workers from striking. Air traffic controllers aren't allowed to just stop working. Usually Amazon warehouse workers are not critical infrastructure, but this month they are. Talking about "spite" implies I would be concerned about their opinion in any way if they were to start striking. Their feelings would be irrelevant.
      - Klinky 7y ago
        Again, why you don't you go sign up for the labor-intensive warehouse and delivery work, with significant risk of contracting COVID-19 while having poor health coverage and no sick leave, along with people demanding that you should absolutely be forced to work those conditions? Please, go volunteer your time, you seem to so apt to make other people's jobs mandatory, and oddly they are jobs you don't seem to want to do! It again sounds like you only want to volunteer your time to this crisis if it involves the unlikely circumstance of strike busting. Very noble. I hope you gave yourself a big pat on the back.

TomMckenny 7y ago

The administration would certainly order employees back to work under the Taft–Hartley Act under threat of imprisonment. While it resists ordering companies to produce critically need medical supplies on ideological grounds[1], there can be no doubt that it would not miss an opportunity to damage labor organizations. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-supplies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/us/politics/trump-coronav...

srtjstjsj 7y ago
> no doubt that it would not miss ERROR: Stack Overflow

bpfrh 7y ago

Don't get to excited on the other hand they fire workers who are ill and can't work. E.g. you have people still trying to come into work to get paid and spreading the sickness.

tanilama 7y ago

Strike right now means government will chime in and force them back to work.

OrangeUnicorn12 7y ago

... whatever Amazon does, it is always "however", "although" and "but" on HN People, please get real. You all are running (or dreaming of) your own small business. How much of payrise are you willing to give your workforce now? This news is pure win for workers, consumers and amazon.

mardifoufs 7y ago
As much as Amazon is willing to pay for? Why do you assume Amazon is just being benevolent? I'm all for capitalism but this is what capitalism is, the workers don't have to just be happy with whatever Amazon throws at them, they can negotiate I guess a good question would be "How much of a profit can Amazon make now?". The answer is as much as the market is willing to give, and that's the same for the workers' salary.
guacamole4 7y ago
> You all are running (or dreaming of) your own small business. Do you have a source for this?

dillondoyle 7y ago

The nurse union has had a small amount of success with just the threat. Unfortunately there isn't a lot to give them. Even time is limited with a shrinking ceiling on staff as they sit two weeks out with symptoms.

marcosdumay 7y ago

> Is there any legal precedent for what governments would do? I don't think you should be looking for legal precedent, just practical one. Depending on the severity of the impact, governments would (and did several times): 1 - Declare the strike illegal and order people back to work, fine and at the worst case arrest the organizers if they don't comply. 2 - Declare the involved unions illegal, free companies to hire whoever they want and disobey agreements. 3 - Conscript people into doing the work, either by using the company as middle-men or by literally enrolling them on the military and absorbing the work. But I don't think any government will have to do any of that. A strike does not fit this crisis very well, no party would gain anything.

all_blue_chucks 7y ago

That might be the worst idea I've ever heard. Shutting down the supply lines during a pandemic would have disastrous consequences for everyone.

kortilla 7y ago

Iirc during ww2 the military was there to just take union workers jobs if they went on strike in critical sections like mines.

c3534l 7y ago

As Calvin Coolidge said "there is no right to strike against the public safety." People can organize all they want, but they can't conspire to harm people, holding lives up as not-that-metaphorical hostages in a negotiation. It's the idea of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Putting people's lives in danger for literal personal profit would be a sure-fire way to turn people against unionization.

hker 7y ago
Interesting. What about “strike for the public safety”? Performing a strike to achieve a goal for public safety, such as, when the government of a city decided, against public opinion, not to close the border even when bordering a large country with lots of infected patients, some essential workers decided to go on strike to demand the close of the border? Even more interestingly, if the essential workers are themselves public safety workers, hence their strike would put some people in risks, while hoping for saving more people when the demands are met---real life Trolley problem. Not hypothetical, I have an actual case in mind.
- c3534l 7y ago
  That's somewhat ingenious. I sometimes hear about walkouts when a company has some military contract - I bet that would be a good time to unionize; make ending the contract part of deal.

jshevek 7y ago

>Wouldn't this be the most powerful moment for employees in 'essential' services to engage in worker strikes? Many would have no sympathy for workers exploiting a crisis like this.

ineedasername 7y ago

A strike now would incur the hatred of the public in general and a bipartisan political wrath. Nope, their best position of leverage will be just after the crisis when appreciation is at its highest, people haven't forgotten what they've done, and they have a strong argument to say, "look how essential we are, we should be a happy & valued workforce"