6 ms·

>Honestly, you have pretty little real leverage. Warehouse workers are going to have to form a union and threaten to really shut down amazon's profits The way

>Honestly, you have pretty little real leverage. Warehouse workers are going to have to form a union and threaten to really shut down amazon's profits The way that unions fought capital in the early 20th was they went on strike and remained on strike until capital conceded to demands or they were shutdown by "detective agencies" ie strike breakers. Staying on strike cost money - food, rent for strikers. National unions like the wobblies and AFL-CIO would funnel national dues to locals. Are there even really national unions anymore? Personally I would donate money to Amazon workers striking if there were a call for it even though I wouldn't be in their hypothetical union. Edit: lol downvotes from shareholders triggered by the word "strike"

0x262d 6y ago
Yeah that's absolutely important, and donations like that have been important for keeping strikes going. But unfortunately we're not at that point yet.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  But we never will be because the professional/middle class is a buffer between labor and capital right? That's the beauty of divisive class politics that pits the middle class against the working class - we're discouraged from identifying with working class problems so that we don't support them in their fight.
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
    Compared to the upper upper class we are all working class. The sooner we realise it the better.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      The whole upper/middle/... arrangement is confusing the issue. IMO, we should rather be talking about the worker class and the rentier class, defined solely by the proportion of their earned vs unearned income. Basically, if you can lose a job and still pay your living expenses, then you're in the rentier class. If you have to sell your labor to pay your bills, you're a worker - even if you sell it for a lot of money.
      - wutbrodo 6y ago
        > If you have to sell your labor to pay your bills, you're a worker - even if you sell it for a lot of money. There are useful distinctions even between this though. What Piketty refers to as the "patrimonial middle class" has significant assets during and at the end of their life, but still needs to sell their labor to pay their bills. This distinction aligns more closely with the traditional lower/upper/middle arrangement (they'd be upper-middle class). This article[1] (unfortunately paywalled if you don't have an Economist subscription) covers it pretty well, but it's pretty well-trod ground at this point: there's a substantial chunk of the population that isn't rentier/leisure class, but often aligns with them politically, and your proposal's elision of this group means it's missing an important dynamic in class politics. [1] https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2017/06/29/why-the-20-and-not-the-1-are-the-real-problem https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2017/06/29/why-the-...
        gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
        Yes it is these upper middle class that need to realise they are in fact closer to a tramp than to Trump/Bezos/Gates in terms of their finances.
        wutbrodo 6y ago
        Eh, I'm not so sure. Early retirement is in reach for much of this group, as long as it's accompanied by an adjustment in living standards; that's practically what defines them. If the rentier/laborer divide is the _only_ important distinction, why is it so relatively easy for this group to skip across the line?
        gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
        It isn't they could be wiped out by one piece of bad luck.
  - 0x262d 6y ago
    The interesting thing about capitalism is how it is driven forward by its own internal logic and motion of ever-expanding profits, which in the long run doesn't allow the middle class to comfortably exist without chipping away at their standard of living. We're slowly getting towards a vibrant class politics even in the US.
    - throwlaplace 6y ago
      I am less optimistic than you. Early 20th was vibrant class consciousness. I don't see anything like that now. What I do see is simply the fall out from 100 years of neoliberalism.
      - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
        Arguably Trump voters in many ways are very class conscious and his working class voters are well aware of their working class status. They have voted for Trump because he promised things to them that Obama and people before him failed to deliver.
        mnemonicsloth 6y ago
        I don't buy that argument. I think it's basically the elite's attempt to impose some rationality on Trump's slice of the electorate, when it's pretty clear that his popularity has visceral/emotional/anti-intellectual roots. If it was about his promises, they wouldn't vote for him again because he hasn't delivered on them. The border wall he made the centerpiece of his campaign is nowhere, and most of his other plans have failed. But his people still think he's wonderful and will turn out in droves to vote for him.
        cmrdporcupine 6y ago
        I don't think the core of what I said is about _fulfilling_ said promises -- they're obviously nonsense -- so much as Trump's deliberate marketing to the working class. He's selling one thing, but delivering another. His first public appearance as president elect was to walk into a $$$ steak restaurant in Manhattan where he walked around letting every wealthy person in there know he was "going to lower your taxes." A couple weeks after running basically anti-semitic ads attacking the global elite and wealthy bankers and George Soros and what not.
vcarl 6y ago
One significant change since that era of unionization is that programmers can't actually shut down the business with a strike. If programmers stop working, that doesn't actually directly impact revenue—if a group of factory, warehouse, or service workers strike, then the business halts until the strike is resolved. SRE/Ops could take down revenue generation, but that starts to be something with legal liability. Laws prevent businesses from hiring new workers to break a strike, but if you sabotage the code, then my understanding is that there could be criminal charges against you. That's not really relevant in the context of Amazon's _warehouse_ workers unionizing, but I think it's an interesting constraint for us as software developers.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  >a group of factory, warehouse, or service workers strike, then the business halts until the strike is resolved Well indeed I am suggesting a warehouse worker that we as software engineers support financially
- omeze 6y ago
  I don’t work at AWS bit I think youre being a bit optimistic about the level of automation most services have. If there are no SREs present for a month, things will break at even the most sophisticated tech shops.
  - vcarl 6y ago
    I meant this as a commentary on the strike as a tactic for tech workers generally. SREs and Ops are the teams that seem most able to effectively use a strike to disrupt revenue, to be sure. Many services, though, would be able to operate for months or longer without intervention.
- throwaway17_17 6y ago
  Your statement that ‘Laws prevent businesses from hiring new workers to break a strike’ is not legally correct. The Mackay Doctrine (from the US Supreme Court in NLRB V Mackay) explicitly formulates the right of employers to hire replacement workers. There are some requirements on this action by employers but just wanted to get the legal facts out there.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 6y ago
IWW is still around, and even unionizing some shops.

0x262d 6y ago

Yeah that's absolutely important, and donations like that have been important for keeping strikes going. But unfortunately we're not at that point yet.

throwlaplace 6y ago
But we never will be because the professional/middle class is a buffer between labor and capital right? That's the beauty of divisive class politics that pits the middle class against the working class - we're discouraged from identifying with working class problems so that we don't support them in their fight.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  Compared to the upper upper class we are all working class. The sooner we realise it the better.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    The whole upper/middle/... arrangement is confusing the issue. IMO, we should rather be talking about the worker class and the rentier class, defined solely by the proportion of their earned vs unearned income. Basically, if you can lose a job and still pay your living expenses, then you're in the rentier class. If you have to sell your labor to pay your bills, you're a worker - even if you sell it for a lot of money.
    - wutbrodo 6y ago
      > If you have to sell your labor to pay your bills, you're a worker - even if you sell it for a lot of money. There are useful distinctions even between this though. What Piketty refers to as the "patrimonial middle class" has significant assets during and at the end of their life, but still needs to sell their labor to pay their bills. This distinction aligns more closely with the traditional lower/upper/middle arrangement (they'd be upper-middle class). This article[1] (unfortunately paywalled if you don't have an Economist subscription) covers it pretty well, but it's pretty well-trod ground at this point: there's a substantial chunk of the population that isn't rentier/leisure class, but often aligns with them politically, and your proposal's elision of this group means it's missing an important dynamic in class politics. [1] https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2017/06/29/why-the-20-and-not-the-1-are-the-real-problem https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2017/06/29/why-the-...
      - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
        Yes it is these upper middle class that need to realise they are in fact closer to a tramp than to Trump/Bezos/Gates in terms of their finances.
        wutbrodo 6y ago
        Eh, I'm not so sure. Early retirement is in reach for much of this group, as long as it's accompanied by an adjustment in living standards; that's practically what defines them. If the rentier/laborer divide is the _only_ important distinction, why is it so relatively easy for this group to skip across the line?
        gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
        It isn't they could be wiped out by one piece of bad luck.
- 0x262d 6y ago
  The interesting thing about capitalism is how it is driven forward by its own internal logic and motion of ever-expanding profits, which in the long run doesn't allow the middle class to comfortably exist without chipping away at their standard of living. We're slowly getting towards a vibrant class politics even in the US.
  - throwlaplace 6y ago
    I am less optimistic than you. Early 20th was vibrant class consciousness. I don't see anything like that now. What I do see is simply the fall out from 100 years of neoliberalism.
    - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
      Arguably Trump voters in many ways are very class conscious and his working class voters are well aware of their working class status. They have voted for Trump because he promised things to them that Obama and people before him failed to deliver.
      - mnemonicsloth 6y ago
        I don't buy that argument. I think it's basically the elite's attempt to impose some rationality on Trump's slice of the electorate, when it's pretty clear that his popularity has visceral/emotional/anti-intellectual roots. If it was about his promises, they wouldn't vote for him again because he hasn't delivered on them. The border wall he made the centerpiece of his campaign is nowhere, and most of his other plans have failed. But his people still think he's wonderful and will turn out in droves to vote for him.
        cmrdporcupine 6y ago
        I don't think the core of what I said is about _fulfilling_ said promises -- they're obviously nonsense -- so much as Trump's deliberate marketing to the working class. He's selling one thing, but delivering another. His first public appearance as president elect was to walk into a $$$ steak restaurant in Manhattan where he walked around letting every wealthy person in there know he was "going to lower your taxes." A couple weeks after running basically anti-semitic ads attacking the global elite and wealthy bankers and George Soros and what not.

vcarl 6y ago

One significant change since that era of unionization is that programmers can't actually shut down the business with a strike. If programmers stop working, that doesn't actually directly impact revenue—if a group of factory, warehouse, or service workers strike, then the business halts until the strike is resolved. SRE/Ops could take down revenue generation, but that starts to be something with legal liability. Laws prevent businesses from hiring new workers to break a strike, but if you sabotage the code, then my understanding is that there could be criminal charges against you. That's not really relevant in the context of Amazon's _warehouse_ workers unionizing, but I think it's an interesting constraint for us as software developers.

throwlaplace 6y ago
>a group of factory, warehouse, or service workers strike, then the business halts until the strike is resolved Well indeed I am suggesting a warehouse worker that we as software engineers support financially
omeze 6y ago
I don’t work at AWS bit I think youre being a bit optimistic about the level of automation most services have. If there are no SREs present for a month, things will break at even the most sophisticated tech shops.
- vcarl 6y ago
  I meant this as a commentary on the strike as a tactic for tech workers generally. SREs and Ops are the teams that seem most able to effectively use a strike to disrupt revenue, to be sure. Many services, though, would be able to operate for months or longer without intervention.
throwaway17_17 6y ago
Your statement that ‘Laws prevent businesses from hiring new workers to break a strike’ is not legally correct. The Mackay Doctrine (from the US Supreme Court in NLRB V Mackay) explicitly formulates the right of employers to hire replacement workers. There are some requirements on this action by employers but just wanted to get the legal facts out there.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

int_19h 6y ago

IWW is still around, and even unionizing some shops.