7 ms·

For those who identify strongly with unions, union-busting stuff like this is triggering... like "bringing up the war" in a war traumatised nation. I get that.

For those who identify strongly with unions, union-busting stuff like this is triggering... like "bringing up the war" in a war traumatised nation. I get that. But... 2020 isn't 1920 or even 1980. Fresh eyes might see more clearly. To the advantage of union organisers, mass communication and organisation is a lot easier today. Surveillance is easier too. IDK. Yes, Bezos does not want an amazon union and won't just let it happen without a fight. Same as always. That said, if people want to hear what an amazon union organiser has to say... it's almost impossible to stop it. I don't think the central factor here is Pinkertons. Union organising is the actual determinant. If they can get enough amazon employees interested, they'll probably succeed regardless.

formercoder 6y ago
Tough ask for an average warehouse employee to practice enough opsec to hide the talks from Amazon.
- badRNG 6y ago
  Harder still, if they retain Pinkerton agents to spy on you even after you clock out [1] [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp3yn/amazon-leaked-reports-expose-spying-warehouse-workers-labor-union-environmental-groups-social-movements https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp3yn/amazon-leaked-reports...
kayodelycaon 6y ago
> Yes, Bezos does not want an amazon union and won't just let it happen without a fight. Same as always. Which is, if I recalled correctly, illegal.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Maybe in spirit. In reality, bezos and any future amazon union are opposed to one another. That's a pretty firmly embedded truism in union thinking too. No point getting outraged over the trite. Also, this is not even amazon getting serious yet. Imagine what happens when/if amazon union organisers ever make a credible effort.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    Don't underestimate what a desperate individual will do when they've lost everything to Bezos greed.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  Not if you're rich
  - jlarocco 6y ago
    Maybe, but that doesn't make it right, and it won't change unless people are aware of it and fight against it, which is why this article is pointing it.
- markus_zhang 6y ago
  Law is meaningless when there are a lot of money/power involved. After all it's the ruling class who made them.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    While true, it need not. be this way. Elite rich american failure to follow the letter and spirit of the law trickles down way faster then economics.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Not in democracies. It does make it somewhat harder though.
    - markus_zhang 6y ago
      Democracies or not, regardless, I think the key for citizens is to have both a scientific mind as well as a fighting spirit. Lack of either would be a disaster. So that it's pretty costly for the ruling class to push ordinary people around. Not that they can't, I mean they still control the army and police so technically they can still do whatever they want, but in reality it's going to be very expensive, financially and politically to push people around if ordinary people possess both qualities.
- pydry 6y ago
  Depends how you fight. Some union busting tactics are illegal, others legal and a few skirt the borders of illegality. Even if they do do it illegally, the justice department has to be motivated to go after them. Which, with a Biden administration that is close to Bezos is unlikely: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-tech/amazon-and-big-tech-cozy-up-to-biden-camp-with-cash-and-connections-idINKBN26M5O2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-tech/amazon-... These workers can't really rely on the justice Department.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Which is, if I recalled correctly, illegal Retaliation against employees is illegal. Shutting down a unionised facility is not.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  Didn't stop Google from firing two employees in regards to union organizing. It doesn't matter what they did, if the NLRB is backing the employees, the company is in the wrong. Having to wait for a government agency to respond to your case of being wrongfully terminated is a PITA as it is. The fact that they determined the employee was conducting protected behavior which Google actively disagrees with just goes to show these companies are so large they're more than willing to just eliminate union organizers and wait for the government to tell them they broke the law as opposed to ensuring they follow it in the first place.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    See also Google conspiring to suppress worker wages for many years until they were caught and given a slap on the wrist.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      For those who are not familiar, Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay all colluded with one another to keep tech worker compensation below its market value[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
- anon73044 6y ago
  >Which is, if I recalled correctly, illegal. Entirely legal in a "Right to work" state.
  - anon73044 6y ago
    Down vote me all you want, its 100% the truth. Don't like it? Contact your representatives in the state legislature and get these laws repealed.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
simias 6y ago
If employees know that discussing unionizing or showing any pro-union tendency or behavior is going to arm their career prospects (or maybe even make them lose their job altogether) it's definitely going to be a lot harder for them to organize. I can't believe people here people here manage to justify this abject behavior as "business as usual". This is not normal, not legal and shouldn't be accepted.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  It’s HN. Every time there’s an article about FB going too far, everyone seems to chime in about how FB is evil and anyone who works there must be evil as well, “so what did you expect?” It’s the same with Amazon or any FAANG company, and it gets quite tiring sometimes.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    I don't think facebook is evil. It's just run by a naive dictator who isn't willing to make the tough decisions that will allow democracy to continue. The intentions aren't bad but the outcome is horrible.
    - jacobush 6y ago
      Evil is what evil does.
eli_gottlieb 6y ago
>I don't think the central factor here is Pinkertons. Union organising is the actual determinant. "If you didn't want to be spied-on, you wouldn't try to unionize"? Really?
- dalbasal 6y ago
  I didn't say it isn't a factor. I said determining factor.
ardy42 6y ago
> To the advantage of union organisers, mass communication and organisation is a lot easier today. But that's a double-edged sword. It's also an advantage to employers and businesses. And recent history has shown they have the advantage: they been successful at thwarting union formation (see Wal-Mart, the movie American Factory, etc.) and even labor laws (e.g. Prop 22).
- travisoneill1 6y ago
  Well if you thwart union formation and legislation by using communication to persuade people that you're right and to vote for your side, that's called democracy.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Well if you thwart union formation and legislation by using communication to persuade people that you're right and to vote for your side, that's called democracy. That's neither here nor there. The point I was disputing was the idea that changes in mass communication technology gives an advantage to unions. However, to your point: your phrasing "using communication to persuade people...to vote for your side, that's called democracy," obscures some important distinctions. If your success at persuasion stems mainly from the greater power you have to project your message (e.g. via wealth), then that's arguably not actually very democratic. That's pretty easy to see when greater political power is used (e.g. the CCP suppressing dissenting voices and successfully persuading the people with a thick blanket of weakly-opposed propaganda), but there's a similar dynamic when one side can greatly outspend its opponent, since wealth is a kind of power [1]. For a union vote, the employer typically has both greater wealth and greater political power: it can blanket the workplace with anti-union messages and require employees to repeatedly attend anti-union "education" sessions during work hours (which is typical before a union vote), while the union organizers have much more limited access, and must try to reach employees outside of work. [1] this is an area of tension in liberal democracy, where trade-offs need to be made.
  - wyre 6y ago
    That’s called propaganda, not democracy.
elihu 6y ago
> To the advantage of union organisers, mass communication and organisation is a lot easier today. Surveillance is easier too. For those of us who are working from home due to the pandemic (or other reasons), we don't have any way to communicate with our co-workers except via electronic channels that can be logged. Pre-covid, one could reasonably expect that if one were to mention unionization in conversation over lunch, there wouldn't be a permanent electronic record of it. Now, it's just not something you can discreetly discuss with someone unless you have their outside-of-work contact information.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  The situation is what it is. That said "communicating via electronic channels" is not an insurmountable problem. It could be turned into and advantage. If union organizers post a letter, video or whatnot... amazon employees can see it. If people want to sign up to an unsurveiled "stream," they can. The reality of secrecy and anonymity are what they are. Amazon are feisty, but they aren't the KGB. Secrecy is hard, probably unattainable. Anonymity is doable, but not default. Circulation is easy, assuming recipients are into it. etc.

formercoder 6y ago

Tough ask for an average warehouse employee to practice enough opsec to hide the talks from Amazon.

badRNG 6y ago
Harder still, if they retain Pinkerton agents to spy on you even after you clock out [1] [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp3yn/amazon-leaked-reports-expose-spying-warehouse-workers-labor-union-environmental-groups-social-movements https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp3yn/amazon-leaked-reports...

kayodelycaon 6y ago

> Yes, Bezos does not want an amazon union and won't just let it happen without a fight. Same as always. Which is, if I recalled correctly, illegal.

dalbasal 6y ago
Maybe in spirit. In reality, bezos and any future amazon union are opposed to one another. That's a pretty firmly embedded truism in union thinking too. No point getting outraged over the trite. Also, this is not even amazon getting serious yet. Imagine what happens when/if amazon union organisers ever make a credible effort.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Don't underestimate what a desperate individual will do when they've lost everything to Bezos greed.
hanniabu 6y ago
Not if you're rich
- jlarocco 6y ago
  Maybe, but that doesn't make it right, and it won't change unless people are aware of it and fight against it, which is why this article is pointing it.
markus_zhang 6y ago
Law is meaningless when there are a lot of money/power involved. After all it's the ruling class who made them.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  While true, it need not. be this way. Elite rich american failure to follow the letter and spirit of the law trickles down way faster then economics.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Not in democracies. It does make it somewhat harder though.
  - markus_zhang 6y ago
    Democracies or not, regardless, I think the key for citizens is to have both a scientific mind as well as a fighting spirit. Lack of either would be a disaster. So that it's pretty costly for the ruling class to push ordinary people around. Not that they can't, I mean they still control the army and police so technically they can still do whatever they want, but in reality it's going to be very expensive, financially and politically to push people around if ordinary people possess both qualities.
pydry 6y ago
Depends how you fight. Some union busting tactics are illegal, others legal and a few skirt the borders of illegality. Even if they do do it illegally, the justice department has to be motivated to go after them. Which, with a Biden administration that is close to Bezos is unlikely: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-tech/amazon-and-big-tech-cozy-up-to-biden-camp-with-cash-and-connections-idINKBN26M5O2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-tech/amazon-... These workers can't really rely on the justice Department.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Which is, if I recalled correctly, illegal Retaliation against employees is illegal. Shutting down a unionised facility is not.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Didn't stop Google from firing two employees in regards to union organizing. It doesn't matter what they did, if the NLRB is backing the employees, the company is in the wrong. Having to wait for a government agency to respond to your case of being wrongfully terminated is a PITA as it is. The fact that they determined the employee was conducting protected behavior which Google actively disagrees with just goes to show these companies are so large they're more than willing to just eliminate union organizers and wait for the government to tell them they broke the law as opposed to ensuring they follow it in the first place.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  See also Google conspiring to suppress worker wages for many years until they were caught and given a slap on the wrist.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    For those who are not familiar, Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay all colluded with one another to keep tech worker compensation below its market value[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
anon73044 6y ago
>Which is, if I recalled correctly, illegal. Entirely legal in a "Right to work" state.
- anon73044 6y ago
  Down vote me all you want, its 100% the truth. Don't like it? Contact your representatives in the state legislature and get these laws repealed.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

simias 6y ago

If employees know that discussing unionizing or showing any pro-union tendency or behavior is going to arm their career prospects (or maybe even make them lose their job altogether) it's definitely going to be a lot harder for them to organize. I can't believe people here people here manage to justify this abject behavior as "business as usual". This is not normal, not legal and shouldn't be accepted.

colejohnson66 6y ago
It’s HN. Every time there’s an article about FB going too far, everyone seems to chime in about how FB is evil and anyone who works there must be evil as well, “so what did you expect?” It’s the same with Amazon or any FAANG company, and it gets quite tiring sometimes.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  I don't think facebook is evil. It's just run by a naive dictator who isn't willing to make the tough decisions that will allow democracy to continue. The intentions aren't bad but the outcome is horrible.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    Evil is what evil does.

eli_gottlieb 6y ago

>I don't think the central factor here is Pinkertons. Union organising is the actual determinant. "If you didn't want to be spied-on, you wouldn't try to unionize"? Really?

dalbasal 6y ago
I didn't say it isn't a factor. I said determining factor.

ardy42 6y ago

> To the advantage of union organisers, mass communication and organisation is a lot easier today. But that's a double-edged sword. It's also an advantage to employers and businesses. And recent history has shown they have the advantage: they been successful at thwarting union formation (see Wal-Mart, the movie American Factory, etc.) and even labor laws (e.g. Prop 22).

travisoneill1 6y ago
Well if you thwart union formation and legislation by using communication to persuade people that you're right and to vote for your side, that's called democracy.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Well if you thwart union formation and legislation by using communication to persuade people that you're right and to vote for your side, that's called democracy. That's neither here nor there. The point I was disputing was the idea that changes in mass communication technology gives an advantage to unions. However, to your point: your phrasing "using communication to persuade people...to vote for your side, that's called democracy," obscures some important distinctions. If your success at persuasion stems mainly from the greater power you have to project your message (e.g. via wealth), then that's arguably not actually very democratic. That's pretty easy to see when greater political power is used (e.g. the CCP suppressing dissenting voices and successfully persuading the people with a thick blanket of weakly-opposed propaganda), but there's a similar dynamic when one side can greatly outspend its opponent, since wealth is a kind of power [1]. For a union vote, the employer typically has both greater wealth and greater political power: it can blanket the workplace with anti-union messages and require employees to repeatedly attend anti-union "education" sessions during work hours (which is typical before a union vote), while the union organizers have much more limited access, and must try to reach employees outside of work. [1] this is an area of tension in liberal democracy, where trade-offs need to be made.
- wyre 6y ago
  That’s called propaganda, not democracy.

elihu 6y ago

> To the advantage of union organisers, mass communication and organisation is a lot easier today. Surveillance is easier too. For those of us who are working from home due to the pandemic (or other reasons), we don't have any way to communicate with our co-workers except via electronic channels that can be logged. Pre-covid, one could reasonably expect that if one were to mention unionization in conversation over lunch, there wouldn't be a permanent electronic record of it. Now, it's just not something you can discreetly discuss with someone unless you have their outside-of-work contact information.

dalbasal 6y ago
The situation is what it is. That said "communicating via electronic channels" is not an insurmountable problem. It could be turned into and advantage. If union organizers post a letter, video or whatnot... amazon employees can see it. If people want to sign up to an unsurveiled "stream," they can. The reality of secrecy and anonymity are what they are. Amazon are feisty, but they aren't the KGB. Secrecy is hard, probably unattainable. Anonymity is doable, but not default. Circulation is easy, assuming recipients are into it. etc.