19 ms·

Tech companies in general and Amazon specifically seem scared to death of unionization. I think Amazon's actions in this matter are going to backfire tremendou

Tech companies in general and Amazon specifically seem scared to death of unionization. I think Amazon's actions in this matter are going to backfire tremendously.

koheripbal 7y ago
...and anyone who's had to work with a union can understand why.
- jhayward 7y ago
  You mean like, most of the companies in Europe?
  - mrosett 7y ago
    Europe, which has a per-capita GDP ~1/3 lower than the US.
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      This didn't pass the smell test, and sure enough Monaco, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Iceland, all have higher per capita GDPs. Denmark, Sweden, Austria, and Finland are in the same ballpark or a little lower. Germany and Belgium are lower, but still above 1/3 lower. UK and France are ~1/3 lower. Italy and Spain are ~50% lower.
      - aidenn0 7y ago
        2018 numbers I found[1] show the EU as having ~69% the per-capita GDP of US. That's pretty close to 1/3 less. 1: https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-per-capita https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-per-capita
        pjc50 7y ago
        The EU includes a lot of less developed countries from former dictatorships, former communist countries, and the former Yugoslavia. There's a lot of catching up which hasn't finished yet. Plus it's mostly missing the US's oil resources. Straight-up GDP comparisons don't tell you so much about quality of life for the average person in the street.
        standardUser 7y ago
        Right, and if the United States merged with a cross section of less developed countries our GDP per capita would look smaller, too.
        leetcrew 7y ago
        but it didn't, and this is moving the goalposts. the original claim was correct.
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        The original claim was also a bad and misleading comparison. It doesn't make sense to compare a single country to an entire continent of 44 different countries, which are quite different from each other in a large variety of salient ways.
        leetcrew 7y ago
        why not? the US is a large country (with more land area than the "entire continent" it's being compared against) with fifty states that are also quite different from each other. the US states are less autonomous than EU, but the country is large and diverse enough that it makes more sense to compare it to the entire EU than a very wealthy subset of US state-sized countries.
        oecdnerd 7y ago
        It doesn't make sense to compare the EU to a federation with more than double its land area, composed of 50 different states, which are quite different from each other in a large variety of salient ways.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        some of those countries have smaller populations than some US municipalities, of which there are many wealthy ones to cherrypick data from.
      - oecdnerd 7y ago
        Not making any causal claims about unions, but using the OECD numbers[1]: (USGDPPC - EU28GDPPC) / AVERAGE(USGDPPC, EU28GDPPC) = 0.338 So the comment you're replying to was correct, for at least one plausible definition of "1/3 lower than the US". As for the countries you mentioned: Monaco: < 1 square mile, not reproducible in a larger country Norway: Giant oil reserves / tiny population, not reproducible without that Switzerland: Valid Ireland: GDP numbers shouldn't be taken at face value because tax laws[2] encourage corporations to attribute EU-wide revenues to Ireland. Reported GDP per capita is 135% of the US value, but 2016 median household income[3] was only 87% of the US value[4]. This cuts both ways, though - other EU countries should have their estimates nudged upwards. Iceland: 92% of US GDP per capita[1] Denmark: 91% of US GDP per capita[1] Sweden: 86% of US GDP per capita[1] Austria: 91% of US GDP per capita[1] Finland: 79% of US GDP per capita[1] UK: 75% of US GDP per capita[1] France: 74% of US GDP per capita[1] Italy: 68% of US GDP per capita[1] Spain: 65% of US GDP per capita[1] EU (all 28 countries): 71% of US GDP per capita[1] [1] https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement [3] https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-gpii/geographicalprofilesofincomeinireland2016/incomeinireland/ https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-gpii/geog... [4] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/acs/acsbr16-02.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
      - JamesBarney 7y ago
        US population 330m gdp/capita 59k --Higher GDP European state-- Switzerland pop: 8.5m gdp/capita: 65k -- reputation as a tax haven Ireland pop: 6.5m gdp/capita: 69k -- reputation as a tax haven Norway pop: 5.3m gdp/capita: 85k -- petrostate Iceland pop: 364,260 gpd/capita: 54,753 Monaco pop: 37,497 gdp/capita: 162k -- french riviera --Most populous Western Europe nations-- Germany pop: 82m gdp/capita: 44k France pop: 67m gdp/capita: 38k UK pop: 66m gdp/capita: 39k Italy pop: 60m gdp/capita: 32k Look I'm all for a larger welfare state, and there are plenty of things our nation could learn from Europe. But to pretend that if we made our country more European our economy would grow to resemble a tiny nation/tax haven like Ireland more than the UK, France, or Germany is unrealistic.
        koheripbal 7y ago
        Thank you for pulling up the numbers. It seemed very suspicious when the comment above selected the smallest EU states.
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        > Ireland pop: 6.5 million Reality: 4.8 million
        JamesBarney 7y ago
        Oh yeah it looks like the number I found was for the island not the country.
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        Yeah, the problem is you double-counted the population there due to also including the UK. I didn't check the others.
      - pembrook 7y ago
        In fairness, Monaco, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland and Iceland are all tiny, distorted one-trick ponies. Norway is all oil, Ireland is the tax haven of the Fortune 500, Ditto Switzerland, Monaco is the tax haven of the rich, and Iceland is pure tourism. Pulling out Iceland or Monaco and comparing them to the entire US is like pulling out Palo Alto and Seattle and comparing them to all of the EU. UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc are a much better representation of what larger, mores diverse European economies look like. In fact, if you take the whole EU together (as you should, the US number also includes places like the South and the Midwest), the parent comment is correct.
    - cbg0 7y ago
      And still the place that most people would prefer over the US given health care costs and lack of social safety nets.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        people say this, but I have yet to see anyone I know actually move to europe, even those with dual citizenship or an easy path to get it. I do however work with many eastern european expats.
    - bantunes 7y ago
      Social support networks have a cost. It's great to make more money until you go bankrupt from healthcare costs. Also, Europe enjoys lower crime and higher life expectancy.
    - mattcaldwell 7y ago
      Why does the average person care about GDP?
      - desert_boi 7y ago
        For the sake of Economic Piety. It's an easy number to track, but it's not all there is. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/emphasize-production-not-consumption/576625/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/emphasize-... I lived in Germany for a couple years and now live in one of the poor(er) states. A comment above this says to jettisoning Idaho will game GDP numbers for the US. I'm currently experiencing earthquake aftershocks AND low GDP. I honestly think for most people, Germany had a high quality of living (if you ignore AC when it's 35 degrees in summer). But in the US, we've got Mammon and, for better or worse, GDP is how we track that.
    - ajross 7y ago
      Not because of labor unions, it doesn't. In fact the developed nations of the EU tend to have the strongest unions. You're conflating lack of development due to the cold war with... worker unionization?
    - wonnage 7y ago
      It's fine, that extra 1/3 is just going to healthcare anyway
    - whymauri 7y ago
      Big number good. All jokes aside, I'd make that trade any day for the relevant social safety nets.
    - qqssccfftt 7y ago
      GDP is obviously the only metric that ever matters.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Having worked with unions, is it because they tend to have better benefits and support for their employees? Having a union rep in their disciplinary activities? I assume your comment is that Amazon would lose money if a union happened?
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    Having worked with unions, it is because they introduce and entirely new and superfluous bureaucratic hierarchy to a company. I have had situations where it was not allowed to move a computer monitor from one cube to another - that had to be done by a union employee. Literally taking a unused spare monitor from one desk, and putting it on another employees desk where it was need. ...and there was a formal requisition process to get that done which took two weeks to get through approvals, assignment, and finally have it done. I have had union workers walk off the job during a major system outage because their facility managers forced them to take their break time. The whole company was down - it was all-hands-on-deck outage due to Hurricane Sandy. The actual union workers wanted to help us get the systems back online for the company, but the union rep wouldn't let them work. I have had great workers quit or refuse jobs with our company because they knew and loathed the union - not the company, but the UNION. I don't have any problem with unions at companies that protect the SAFETY of workers, as they are needed in various industrial jobs. ...but at a TECH companies where workers are making six figures, have matched 401k plans, and safe and comfortable desk jobs? ...it just screams "ridiculous" to me.
    - droopyEyelids 7y ago
      Superfluous might not be the right word. The union is not superfluous to the employees- it is the only thing negotiating on their behalf in a power-imbalanced, often exploitative situation. The union is not superfluous to the employer- it is actually a hostile counterparty in terms of wages and exploitation. Thats not to say the added bureaucracy is always welcomed- it sucks.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      > I have had situations where it was not allowed to move a computer monitor from one cube to another - that had to be done by a union employee Can you explain to me where this is a union thing? Like I'd honestly like you to point out and explain your logic why this is specifically because of a union. The reason why I bring this up is because I have encountered the same issues at my prior jobs which were non-union. Literally the exact same issue, where I was not allowed to move a computer monitor because it had to be done by another department after submitting a formal request. I feel like people tend to blame unions for everything and yet I see the exact same shit people blame unions for at my non-union jobs. Is that because of an invisible union? Is there something I'm missing?
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  _
  - fastball 7y ago
    GC was talking about people that need to work with unions (and those in them), not the people actually in the unions. Saying people in unions like unions and so they can't be bad is like saying that oligarchs like being part of an oligarchy so oligarchy can't be bad. I think unions do good, but they can also be an enemy of progress. Here is a piece about unions that I found on google. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/unnecessary-and-political-why-unions-are-bad-for-america/258405/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/unneces...
- 101404 7y ago
  Maybe with US unions. It very much depends on the legal framework that organized workers and organized employers interact in.
- ransom1538 7y ago
  My girlfriend worked at Macys. She was paid $14hr to do white collar admin work and was in a "union". Each month we would walk a few blocks away downtown to a small office. This is where we paid "dues". We couldn't pay online or have it deduct from her check. The person we handed our check to would just roll their eyes and throw her check into a pile of checks. She couldn't afford these dues. The best part? You were required to be in the union. The union helped Macys layoff thousands of workers including her with no severance in a nice streamlined fashion. I am wrong, but this is what I learned: Unions are basically fat cat organizations that leach hard working people.
  - arrosenberg 7y ago
    Poorly run unions produce bad outcomes. There are also governments and corporations that leech off hard working people. It's a human dynamics problem, not a problem specifically with unions.
  - frabbit 7y ago
    Like democracies, unions will exploit the people in them if the people in them do not organize and agitate actively for their own interests. Like democracies, unions suck, but they are not as bad as the alternative -- unless you're the boss or the generalissimo.
    - moron4hire 7y ago
      Are you saying that union members need to... unionize against their union? It's all unions, all the way down.
      - morelisp 7y ago
        Non-ironically, yes, and many union members in the US agree. Even before COVID-19, there were high-profile wildcat strikes this year, and it's only accelerating now.
      - frabbit 7y ago
        Essentially yes. Unions have varying levels of active members which sometimes leads to a self-interested bureaucracy acting against the wishes of the membership. See for instance this recent well-known example: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nidhiprakash/bernie-sanders-nevada-caucus-culinary-union https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nidhiprakash/bernie-san... There is nothing magic about unions or democracy which means that they guarantee good outcomes. You have to work at it and be involved. In fact everyone has to.
grecy 7y ago
It's extremely easy to understand why. They won't be able to treat the employees like trash anymore, and profits will go down as a result. Think about it logically, if the outcome was the opposite (profits go up) Amazon, etc. would love unions. So it's just a question of whether you want more corporate power and profits, or you want employees to be treated well.
ipsocannibal 7y ago
Corporate lawyers are terrible at Opsec. Watch them go on a hunt to find and fire the leaker causing even worse PR. Let this be a lesson. "When you sling mud, you lose ground" https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/02/amazon-executive-fired-worker/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/02/amazon-...

Tech companies in general and Amazon specifically seem scared to death of unionization. I think Amazon's actions in this matter are going to backfire tremendously.

koheripbal 7y ago

...and anyone who's had to work with a union can understand why.

jhayward 7y ago
You mean like, most of the companies in Europe?
- mrosett 7y ago
  Europe, which has a per-capita GDP ~1/3 lower than the US.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    This didn't pass the smell test, and sure enough Monaco, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Iceland, all have higher per capita GDPs. Denmark, Sweden, Austria, and Finland are in the same ballpark or a little lower. Germany and Belgium are lower, but still above 1/3 lower. UK and France are ~1/3 lower. Italy and Spain are ~50% lower.
    - aidenn0 7y ago
      2018 numbers I found[1] show the EU as having ~69% the per-capita GDP of US. That's pretty close to 1/3 less. 1: https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-per-capita https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-per-capita
      - pjc50 7y ago
        The EU includes a lot of less developed countries from former dictatorships, former communist countries, and the former Yugoslavia. There's a lot of catching up which hasn't finished yet. Plus it's mostly missing the US's oil resources. Straight-up GDP comparisons don't tell you so much about quality of life for the average person in the street.
      - standardUser 7y ago
        Right, and if the United States merged with a cross section of less developed countries our GDP per capita would look smaller, too.
        leetcrew 7y ago
        but it didn't, and this is moving the goalposts. the original claim was correct.
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        The original claim was also a bad and misleading comparison. It doesn't make sense to compare a single country to an entire continent of 44 different countries, which are quite different from each other in a large variety of salient ways.
        leetcrew 7y ago
        why not? the US is a large country (with more land area than the "entire continent" it's being compared against) with fifty states that are also quite different from each other. the US states are less autonomous than EU, but the country is large and diverse enough that it makes more sense to compare it to the entire EU than a very wealthy subset of US state-sized countries.
        oecdnerd 7y ago
        It doesn't make sense to compare the EU to a federation with more than double its land area, composed of 50 different states, which are quite different from each other in a large variety of salient ways.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      some of those countries have smaller populations than some US municipalities, of which there are many wealthy ones to cherrypick data from.
    - oecdnerd 7y ago
      Not making any causal claims about unions, but using the OECD numbers[1]: (USGDPPC - EU28GDPPC) / AVERAGE(USGDPPC, EU28GDPPC) = 0.338 So the comment you're replying to was correct, for at least one plausible definition of "1/3 lower than the US". As for the countries you mentioned: Monaco: < 1 square mile, not reproducible in a larger country Norway: Giant oil reserves / tiny population, not reproducible without that Switzerland: Valid Ireland: GDP numbers shouldn't be taken at face value because tax laws[2] encourage corporations to attribute EU-wide revenues to Ireland. Reported GDP per capita is 135% of the US value, but 2016 median household income[3] was only 87% of the US value[4]. This cuts both ways, though - other EU countries should have their estimates nudged upwards. Iceland: 92% of US GDP per capita[1] Denmark: 91% of US GDP per capita[1] Sweden: 86% of US GDP per capita[1] Austria: 91% of US GDP per capita[1] Finland: 79% of US GDP per capita[1] UK: 75% of US GDP per capita[1] France: 74% of US GDP per capita[1] Italy: 68% of US GDP per capita[1] Spain: 65% of US GDP per capita[1] EU (all 28 countries): 71% of US GDP per capita[1] [1] https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement [3] https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-gpii/geographicalprofilesofincomeinireland2016/incomeinireland/ https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-gpii/geog... [4] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/acs/acsbr16-02.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
    - JamesBarney 7y ago
      US population 330m gdp/capita 59k --Higher GDP European state-- Switzerland pop: 8.5m gdp/capita: 65k -- reputation as a tax haven Ireland pop: 6.5m gdp/capita: 69k -- reputation as a tax haven Norway pop: 5.3m gdp/capita: 85k -- petrostate Iceland pop: 364,260 gpd/capita: 54,753 Monaco pop: 37,497 gdp/capita: 162k -- french riviera --Most populous Western Europe nations-- Germany pop: 82m gdp/capita: 44k France pop: 67m gdp/capita: 38k UK pop: 66m gdp/capita: 39k Italy pop: 60m gdp/capita: 32k Look I'm all for a larger welfare state, and there are plenty of things our nation could learn from Europe. But to pretend that if we made our country more European our economy would grow to resemble a tiny nation/tax haven like Ireland more than the UK, France, or Germany is unrealistic.
      - koheripbal 7y ago
        Thank you for pulling up the numbers. It seemed very suspicious when the comment above selected the smallest EU states.
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        > Ireland pop: 6.5 million Reality: 4.8 million
        JamesBarney 7y ago
        Oh yeah it looks like the number I found was for the island not the country.
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        Yeah, the problem is you double-counted the population there due to also including the UK. I didn't check the others.
    - pembrook 7y ago
      In fairness, Monaco, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland and Iceland are all tiny, distorted one-trick ponies. Norway is all oil, Ireland is the tax haven of the Fortune 500, Ditto Switzerland, Monaco is the tax haven of the rich, and Iceland is pure tourism. Pulling out Iceland or Monaco and comparing them to the entire US is like pulling out Palo Alto and Seattle and comparing them to all of the EU. UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc are a much better representation of what larger, mores diverse European economies look like. In fact, if you take the whole EU together (as you should, the US number also includes places like the South and the Midwest), the parent comment is correct.
  - cbg0 7y ago
    And still the place that most people would prefer over the US given health care costs and lack of social safety nets.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      people say this, but I have yet to see anyone I know actually move to europe, even those with dual citizenship or an easy path to get it. I do however work with many eastern european expats.
  - bantunes 7y ago
    Social support networks have a cost. It's great to make more money until you go bankrupt from healthcare costs. Also, Europe enjoys lower crime and higher life expectancy.
  - mattcaldwell 7y ago
    Why does the average person care about GDP?
    - desert_boi 7y ago
      For the sake of Economic Piety. It's an easy number to track, but it's not all there is. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/emphasize-production-not-consumption/576625/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/emphasize-... I lived in Germany for a couple years and now live in one of the poor(er) states. A comment above this says to jettisoning Idaho will game GDP numbers for the US. I'm currently experiencing earthquake aftershocks AND low GDP. I honestly think for most people, Germany had a high quality of living (if you ignore AC when it's 35 degrees in summer). But in the US, we've got Mammon and, for better or worse, GDP is how we track that.
  - ajross 7y ago
    Not because of labor unions, it doesn't. In fact the developed nations of the EU tend to have the strongest unions. You're conflating lack of development due to the cold war with... worker unionization?
  - wonnage 7y ago
    It's fine, that extra 1/3 is just going to healthcare anyway
  - whymauri 7y ago
    Big number good. All jokes aside, I'd make that trade any day for the relevant social safety nets.
  - qqssccfftt 7y ago
    GDP is obviously the only metric that ever matters.
Pfhreak 7y ago
Having worked with unions, is it because they tend to have better benefits and support for their employees? Having a union rep in their disciplinary activities? I assume your comment is that Amazon would lose money if a union happened?
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Having worked with unions, it is because they introduce and entirely new and superfluous bureaucratic hierarchy to a company. I have had situations where it was not allowed to move a computer monitor from one cube to another - that had to be done by a union employee. Literally taking a unused spare monitor from one desk, and putting it on another employees desk where it was need. ...and there was a formal requisition process to get that done which took two weeks to get through approvals, assignment, and finally have it done. I have had union workers walk off the job during a major system outage because their facility managers forced them to take their break time. The whole company was down - it was all-hands-on-deck outage due to Hurricane Sandy. The actual union workers wanted to help us get the systems back online for the company, but the union rep wouldn't let them work. I have had great workers quit or refuse jobs with our company because they knew and loathed the union - not the company, but the UNION. I don't have any problem with unions at companies that protect the SAFETY of workers, as they are needed in various industrial jobs. ...but at a TECH companies where workers are making six figures, have matched 401k plans, and safe and comfortable desk jobs? ...it just screams "ridiculous" to me.
  - droopyEyelids 7y ago
    Superfluous might not be the right word. The union is not superfluous to the employees- it is the only thing negotiating on their behalf in a power-imbalanced, often exploitative situation. The union is not superfluous to the employer- it is actually a hostile counterparty in terms of wages and exploitation. Thats not to say the added bureaucracy is always welcomed- it sucks.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    > I have had situations where it was not allowed to move a computer monitor from one cube to another - that had to be done by a union employee Can you explain to me where this is a union thing? Like I'd honestly like you to point out and explain your logic why this is specifically because of a union. The reason why I bring this up is because I have encountered the same issues at my prior jobs which were non-union. Literally the exact same issue, where I was not allowed to move a computer monitor because it had to be done by another department after submitting a formal request. I feel like people tend to blame unions for everything and yet I see the exact same shit people blame unions for at my non-union jobs. Is that because of an invisible union? Is there something I'm missing?
ilikehurdles 7y ago
_
- fastball 7y ago
  GC was talking about people that need to work with unions (and those in them), not the people actually in the unions. Saying people in unions like unions and so they can't be bad is like saying that oligarchs like being part of an oligarchy so oligarchy can't be bad. I think unions do good, but they can also be an enemy of progress. Here is a piece about unions that I found on google. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/unnecessary-and-political-why-unions-are-bad-for-america/258405/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/unneces...
101404 7y ago
Maybe with US unions. It very much depends on the legal framework that organized workers and organized employers interact in.
ransom1538 7y ago
My girlfriend worked at Macys. She was paid $14hr to do white collar admin work and was in a "union". Each month we would walk a few blocks away downtown to a small office. This is where we paid "dues". We couldn't pay online or have it deduct from her check. The person we handed our check to would just roll their eyes and throw her check into a pile of checks. She couldn't afford these dues. The best part? You were required to be in the union. The union helped Macys layoff thousands of workers including her with no severance in a nice streamlined fashion. I am wrong, but this is what I learned: Unions are basically fat cat organizations that leach hard working people.
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  Poorly run unions produce bad outcomes. There are also governments and corporations that leech off hard working people. It's a human dynamics problem, not a problem specifically with unions.
- frabbit 7y ago
  Like democracies, unions will exploit the people in them if the people in them do not organize and agitate actively for their own interests. Like democracies, unions suck, but they are not as bad as the alternative -- unless you're the boss or the generalissimo.
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    Are you saying that union members need to... unionize against their union? It's all unions, all the way down.
    - morelisp 7y ago
      Non-ironically, yes, and many union members in the US agree. Even before COVID-19, there were high-profile wildcat strikes this year, and it's only accelerating now.
    - frabbit 7y ago
      Essentially yes. Unions have varying levels of active members which sometimes leads to a self-interested bureaucracy acting against the wishes of the membership. See for instance this recent well-known example: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nidhiprakash/bernie-sanders-nevada-caucus-culinary-union https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nidhiprakash/bernie-san... There is nothing magic about unions or democracy which means that they guarantee good outcomes. You have to work at it and be involved. In fact everyone has to.

grecy 7y ago

It's extremely easy to understand why. They won't be able to treat the employees like trash anymore, and profits will go down as a result. Think about it logically, if the outcome was the opposite (profits go up) Amazon, etc. would love unions. So it's just a question of whether you want more corporate power and profits, or you want employees to be treated well.

ipsocannibal 7y ago

Corporate lawyers are terrible at Opsec. Watch them go on a hunt to find and fire the leaker causing even worse PR. Let this be a lesson. "When you sling mud, you lose ground" https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/02/amazon-executive-fired-worker/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/02/amazon-...