4 ms·

re: Amazon's union-busting efforts. This is one of the reasons I feel the pendulum has maxed. That said, this takes us straight to the familiar for/against dis

re: Amazon's union-busting efforts. This is one of the reasons I feel the pendulum has maxed. That said, this takes us straight to the familiar for/against discussion, just with a sharper edge. The union busting debate needs to be had too, but it doesn't tell us much about the type of union they want to build and what that means. The linked article (thanks) is another case in point, I think. It talks about union busting. Ways in which (like your quote) working conditions aren't good. ... OK. I don't mean to disparage... IMO, the elephant in the room isn't being addressed. What would a "union win" in amazon (or other young megacorp) mean? More pay, how much more, how would that work? Let's compare to another field: sports. The UFC is currently experiencing player union agitations. What a "union win" looks like is fairly defined. Other sports leagues are unionized. The realistic range of outcomes is understood. Forget the conflict side for a moment, what's the goal?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It'd mean that working rules are set according to what feels fair rather than the minimum standards of the law. The security line thing is I think emblematic of the problem; anyone can see you ought to be paid during the time you're stuck on company property and not allowed to leave, but Amazon contractors (with Supreme Court support: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-433 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-433) say they're not legally obligated to pay so they won't.
- quibbler 6y ago
  There is no law that says you have to enter a contract that only gives you the minimum requirements of the law. (ianal, though). If you are unhappy with a contract, don't sign it.
  - comex 6y ago
    That’s essentially what a union is: a mechanism for collective negotiation of employment contracts.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I agree with what you're saying, and I'm very skeptical of the argument you sometimes see that everyone ought to unionize out of solidarity. But some workers don't feel they can get a contract they're happy with on their own, and for people in that situation unionization makes sense.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    Law of nature says people have to eat. Amazon warehouse worker is a low-skill, low-education job - how much bargaining leverage do you think an individual has in this situation?
    - quibbler 6y ago
      The proper response to helping those people is to create more jobs, so that they have alternative choices. It is not Amazon's fault that these people are low skilled and hungry. Amazon should be applauded for giving low skilled people job opportunities, not be attacked for it.
  - harimau777 6y ago
    People don't necessarily have a choice. If that's the best contract that you can get then there is not much that you can do about it.
  - nathanlied 6y ago
    This is exactly what these workers are doing. They're unhappy with their contracts, so they're trying to negotiate better terms. Normally, you negotiate your contract because your company wants you, and finding someone else that would agree to the contract is a non-trivial amount of effort, so they'll hear you out. In these people's cases, all they'd hear is "lol, no" if they tried to negotiate individually, because they'd have virtually no power. As a result they're trying to find leverage in numbers: We want the freedom to negotiate all our contracts to our advantage, otherwise we're striking. Allow me to put things differently: There is no law that says that Amazon must accept whatever terms are put forth by these unions. Amazon can, if they wish, outright refuse their terms and tell them that the contract is as-is and will not be altered. While I'm not saying this is your case, I am puzzled at people who argue against unions with your last line, because it really does cut both ways. "If you are unhappy with a contract, don't sign it". Well, a union is a form of negotiating said contract, and to the companies being proposed those terms: "If you are unhappy with the terms, don't sign it". Makes sense, right?
    - quibbler 6y ago
      Don't know about rhe US, but in my country, unions abs their members get special rights (afaik). So it wouldn't simply be a matter of rejecting the contract if Amazon doesn't like it. It's a back door for government intervention. Otherwise, "union busting" wouldn't make much sense, you can't prevent people from acting as a group.
- 6510 6y ago
  I believe there is no law if you cant finance legal action. Nowadays we have tons of flexible and temporary contracts. These people have just about the right to do as they are told. If you have a contract for a fixed number of hours and unlimited duration that doesn't mean the employer has to stick to the rules. It really doesn't matter what laws or contracts there are. In some companies (hard to tell how many) it's a game of looking what they can get away with. For a union there is prestige in court over [say] a 30 euro pay cut or a few unpaid hours.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

It'd mean that working rules are set according to what feels fair rather than the minimum standards of the law. The security line thing is I think emblematic of the problem; anyone can see you ought to be paid during the time you're stuck on company property and not allowed to leave, but Amazon contractors (with Supreme Court support: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-433 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-433) say they're not legally obligated to pay so they won't.

quibbler 6y ago
There is no law that says you have to enter a contract that only gives you the minimum requirements of the law. (ianal, though). If you are unhappy with a contract, don't sign it.
- comex 6y ago
  That’s essentially what a union is: a mechanism for collective negotiation of employment contracts.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I agree with what you're saying, and I'm very skeptical of the argument you sometimes see that everyone ought to unionize out of solidarity. But some workers don't feel they can get a contract they're happy with on their own, and for people in that situation unionization makes sense.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  Law of nature says people have to eat. Amazon warehouse worker is a low-skill, low-education job - how much bargaining leverage do you think an individual has in this situation?
  - quibbler 6y ago
    The proper response to helping those people is to create more jobs, so that they have alternative choices. It is not Amazon's fault that these people are low skilled and hungry. Amazon should be applauded for giving low skilled people job opportunities, not be attacked for it.
- harimau777 6y ago
  People don't necessarily have a choice. If that's the best contract that you can get then there is not much that you can do about it.
- nathanlied 6y ago
  This is exactly what these workers are doing. They're unhappy with their contracts, so they're trying to negotiate better terms. Normally, you negotiate your contract because your company wants you, and finding someone else that would agree to the contract is a non-trivial amount of effort, so they'll hear you out. In these people's cases, all they'd hear is "lol, no" if they tried to negotiate individually, because they'd have virtually no power. As a result they're trying to find leverage in numbers: We want the freedom to negotiate all our contracts to our advantage, otherwise we're striking. Allow me to put things differently: There is no law that says that Amazon must accept whatever terms are put forth by these unions. Amazon can, if they wish, outright refuse their terms and tell them that the contract is as-is and will not be altered. While I'm not saying this is your case, I am puzzled at people who argue against unions with your last line, because it really does cut both ways. "If you are unhappy with a contract, don't sign it". Well, a union is a form of negotiating said contract, and to the companies being proposed those terms: "If you are unhappy with the terms, don't sign it". Makes sense, right?
  - quibbler 6y ago
    Don't know about rhe US, but in my country, unions abs their members get special rights (afaik). So it wouldn't simply be a matter of rejecting the contract if Amazon doesn't like it. It's a back door for government intervention. Otherwise, "union busting" wouldn't make much sense, you can't prevent people from acting as a group.
6510 6y ago
I believe there is no law if you cant finance legal action. Nowadays we have tons of flexible and temporary contracts. These people have just about the right to do as they are told. If you have a contract for a fixed number of hours and unlimited duration that doesn't mean the employer has to stick to the rules. It really doesn't matter what laws or contracts there are. In some companies (hard to tell how many) it's a game of looking what they can get away with. For a union there is prestige in court over [say] a 30 euro pay cut or a few unpaid hours.