3 ms·

So... two points. One is that automation proceeds with or without unionization. It's a labour issue, if it's an "issue" regardless of unions. Second is unions

So... two points. One is that automation proceeds with or without unionization. It's a labour issue, if it's an "issue" regardless of unions. Second is unions aren't really about "minimum wages." If the game is lower minimum wages or automation... that game is long lost as a viable way of making a living. Amazon is already highly automated relative to the malls it replaces. Still, it's one of the worlds biggest employers. There's another way of thinking about automation. Automation raises labour efficiency, by definition. In that sense it increases labour's earning potential. Put even more blunty, the reason why unionisation @ amzn is meaningful is that amazon have a lot to bargain for. Amazon will always prefer to automate than to hire. But they'll also prefer to pay high wages than have disruptive labour disputes.

jedberg 6y ago
> Second is unions aren't really about "minimum wages." They basically are. They negotiate the minimum benefits the company can offer for a particular set of workers, which includes benefits and salary, ie. total wages. > One is that automation proceeds with or without unionization. True, but it is hastened by unionization. Automation always has a cost involved. Sometimes it's worth the cost, and sometimes it's not based on the cost of the human labor that is being replaced. If the cost of the human labor goes up for any reason (such as unionization) then the cost of automation looks more attractive.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  >>it is hastened by unionization True in a technical sense, but misses the point. Sure, there's technically a price point at which automation is "worth it." If labour costs more, demand for labour is lower. That might be because of automation, or any of many ways that demand reacts to price: efficiency, decreased production, increased capital expenditure, outsourcing, whatever. So really, the true generality is not that "the biggest thing working against unionization is automation." The biggest thing working against labour is wages. Higher wages, less demand for labour. This is also true about anything, not just labour and it's somewhat banal. If cornflakes or netflix cost more, people will buy less. That doesn't mean you always have to price to lose money as a business. Same for labour/unions. In any case, the bigger point is that if some job is almost "worth automating" at minimum, market or union wage... That's not worth defending. It will probably be automated soon anyway, and there's little to gain by defending it. >> Unions are about minimum wages. This is very far from true. For one thing, most people don't earn minimum wage. Most union workers don't. No one wants to. In fact, neglecting the lowest rungs is a habitual mistake of unions. Starting from the premise that unions are about minimum wages misses most of why the current amazon stuff is even interesting. Depending on what kind of union(s) they form (getting back to my original point) unionisation could mean a pretty wide range of outcomes. Amazon has a big pay scale. There's nothing to say that unionisation means nothing for those at the $200k point on that scale. The basic premise of an amazon union is (1) amazon is very profitable (2) Negotiation power/leverage is always relative to the size of the pie. A union is what you negotiate with, profit is what you negotiate for. Bluntly, amazon have $100bn in profits and 1 million employees = $100k per employee. Rarely has a plumper prize been seen on the horizon.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    I didn't say the union was about minimum wage. I said it was about minimum wages. ie. What is the lowest you can pay a specific worker. For example, the actor's labor union has set the minimum pay at $750 a day. That's far more than the legal minimum wage, but it is the lowest a movie studio is allowed to pay an actor. Therefore they have now negotiated the minimum wage for an actor. It's still higher than the legal minimum wage, but it's still a minimum wage. The studio would pay less if they could. That's what unions are all about. Setting the minimum compensation for a particular worker.

jedberg 6y ago

> Second is unions aren't really about "minimum wages." They basically are. They negotiate the minimum benefits the company can offer for a particular set of workers, which includes benefits and salary, ie. total wages. > One is that automation proceeds with or without unionization. True, but it is hastened by unionization. Automation always has a cost involved. Sometimes it's worth the cost, and sometimes it's not based on the cost of the human labor that is being replaced. If the cost of the human labor goes up for any reason (such as unionization) then the cost of automation looks more attractive.

dalbasal 6y ago
>>it is hastened by unionization True in a technical sense, but misses the point. Sure, there's technically a price point at which automation is "worth it." If labour costs more, demand for labour is lower. That might be because of automation, or any of many ways that demand reacts to price: efficiency, decreased production, increased capital expenditure, outsourcing, whatever. So really, the true generality is not that "the biggest thing working against unionization is automation." The biggest thing working against labour is wages. Higher wages, less demand for labour. This is also true about anything, not just labour and it's somewhat banal. If cornflakes or netflix cost more, people will buy less. That doesn't mean you always have to price to lose money as a business. Same for labour/unions. In any case, the bigger point is that if some job is almost "worth automating" at minimum, market or union wage... That's not worth defending. It will probably be automated soon anyway, and there's little to gain by defending it. >> Unions are about minimum wages. This is very far from true. For one thing, most people don't earn minimum wage. Most union workers don't. No one wants to. In fact, neglecting the lowest rungs is a habitual mistake of unions. Starting from the premise that unions are about minimum wages misses most of why the current amazon stuff is even interesting. Depending on what kind of union(s) they form (getting back to my original point) unionisation could mean a pretty wide range of outcomes. Amazon has a big pay scale. There's nothing to say that unionisation means nothing for those at the $200k point on that scale. The basic premise of an amazon union is (1) amazon is very profitable (2) Negotiation power/leverage is always relative to the size of the pie. A union is what you negotiate with, profit is what you negotiate for. Bluntly, amazon have $100bn in profits and 1 million employees = $100k per employee. Rarely has a plumper prize been seen on the horizon.
- jedberg 6y ago
  I didn't say the union was about minimum wage. I said it was about minimum wages. ie. What is the lowest you can pay a specific worker. For example, the actor's labor union has set the minimum pay at $750 a day. That's far more than the legal minimum wage, but it is the lowest a movie studio is allowed to pay an actor. Therefore they have now negotiated the minimum wage for an actor. It's still higher than the legal minimum wage, but it's still a minimum wage. The studio would pay less if they could. That's what unions are all about. Setting the minimum compensation for a particular worker.