21 ms·

Amazon Warehouse Workers to Decide Whether to Form Company's First U.S. Union

343 points by jimmy2020 6y ago

CobrastanJorji 6y ago
I wonder what percentage of otherwise very liberal Amazon devs read sentences like "The company for years successfully fought off labor organizing efforts in the U.S." and come away thinking "we're definitely the good guys."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nostromo 6y ago
  Honest question: does the Democratic Party care about labor anymore? It feels like anti-Trumpism, identity issues (race, trans issues, etc.), and immigration have sucked all the oxygen out of the room. I can’t remember the last time I saw a Democrat run with supporting labor as their headline issue.
  - vdnkh 6y ago
    On the off chance you're serious, here's Biden's union stance https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/ https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/.
    - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
      Actions > Words
  - the-dude 6y ago
    You left out climate. In NW Europe it is no different : anything goes as long as it not labor.
  - Jcampuzano2 6y ago
    As far as I know they very much do support labor issues, they just haven't been as much of the flavor of the month lately due to the headlines of racial, transgender, and other related political issues since those usually garner more views in the media. Part of the reason may be that the divide between Democrats and Republicans is much wider on those issues vs labor issues.
  - pydry 6y ago
    I rather thought that the function of these other issues was to suck the oxygen out of the room so they didn't have to talk about labor issues. Their donors tend to be wealthy and anti-union.
    - rjbwork 6y ago
      Generally the point of most social wedge issues from the point of view of the moneyed and political elite is to not have to talk about any kind of economic issues that affect the bulk of society, yes.
      - asdff 6y ago
        And also to divide the working class vote. Could you imagine how progressive this country could be if the working poor was united and consistently voted in line with their economic interests? FDRs ghost would be dancing in the street.
  - logicslave 6y ago
    You arent aloud to say this!
  - pugets 6y ago
    There are a lot of liberal/leftist communities online with that same gripe. Democrats pander to "pop politics" but have no plans for labor reform, healthcare reform, etc. that would go a long ways to helping the majority of the people in this country. It's all theater.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Obamacare got a lot of workers at places like amazon warehouses healthcare. Cancelling student debt will help a shit tonne more workers. He has a section on his campaign website addressing Union specifics: https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/ https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/ Well see what he can actually does, but with the senate in democrat hands, the sky is the limit.
    - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
      "Cancelling student debt will help a shit tonne more workers." I will feel terrible if that ever happens for folks that were smart with money and didn't incur tons of debt. It's gonna be a real bummer when you learn that you paid off your educational debt or never had any and that now you get to pay off debt of others that made bad decisions.
      - kuang_eleven 6y ago
        I, as someone with no outstanding student debts anymore, would be ecstatic to have universal student loan forgiveness. It is the right thing to do, and part of being a conscientious citizen is advocating for issues that help society, even if they don't help yourself.
        txsoftwaredev 6y ago
        Have you considered reaching out to some students or grads with debt and writing them a check to help them pay off their debt?
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        You're describing me. I agree emotionally. But that's life, if you actually believe in education you can only really pay if forwards...
      - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
        What a shitty attitude. "bad decisions" Imagine thinking that earning a degree was a "bad decision".
  - myownpetard 6y ago
    The Democratic Party is too large of an umbrella these days. Anybody whose primary concerns are among fiscal responsibility/the deficit, public education, effective foreign policy, civil rights, human rights, political corruption, science based public health/policy, climate change, domestic extremism, an independent judiciary etc. has moved into the democratic party. The Republican Party is for people whose primary concern is one of a theocratic judiciary, paying less taxes if you make more than $400k/yr, white nationalism, extractive industries, military contractors, unrestricted access to any/all classes of firearms. In both of those groups there are large pro-business, anti-labor contingents. Hopefully one day we will move to ranked choice voting and other mechanisms that allow 3rd parties to compete and we can have more meaningful and direct connections between parties and specific policies instead of these two loose coalitions.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Have you ever talked to a single Republican? You’re way off base, especially with the race baiting.
      - moate 6y ago
        What do you view the Republican platform as being? What specifically is he wrong about?
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        OP is wrong about unrestricted access to all weapons. And not all Republicans are anti-abortion, although that is a big part of their platform due to the control it gives over evangelicals. (That is to say, I think if there is a schism, the more centric version of the party would not be anti-abortion.) Also, white nationalism is only embraced by a small percentage of the party. It's not really part of their platform, it's just what the loudest shouters in the party want. (Disclaimer: I do not identify as repbulican, but if this is your best faith effort to define their platform, you lack empathy for them which means you'll never understand even their lucid ideas. Granted, many of their ideas are vague and not lucid.)
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    > I can’t remember the last time I saw a Democrat run with supporting labor as their headline issue. Bernie Sanders and AOC would like a word. Most of their platform is based around supporting the working class.
- amzsdethrowaway 6y ago
  Why would you think any of us think that?
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Well, let's see some solidarity with the warehouse rank and file to prove it.
- DenisM 6y ago
  Sometime during the last year the usually heavily statist left became heavily corporatist. I'm not sure what to make of it.
  - MaslowsPyramid 6y ago
    Based on purely anecdotal evidence, I agree. I've seen an increased number of supposed "eat the rich" types voicing support for corporate interests, to an almost laughable degree of irony. For instance, Twitter users who have "#eattherich" in their bio saying that social media should be left unregulated because the owners of the platforms should be able to do whatever they want with it.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The way I see it is that among those, they haven't actually been able to form a leftist worldview free of economic liberalism. It's normal, because modern opposing alternatives are basically completely absent from the mainstream.
      - DenisM 6y ago
        > haven't actually been able to form a leftist worldview free of economic liberalism Very good point! I did not think of this at all. Perhaps the collapse of the Soviet Union discredited the planned economy as means of social equalization and they never quite regained their footing.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        There is actually a lot more to non-liberal economics than planned economies, but certainly the collapse of the Soviet Union would play a part in it. If I had to analyze the root cause of it though, I'd say the proximate cause really is Cultural Hegemony. Pretty much every piece of media and every interaction you have assumes liberal economics so much that it is very hard to even realize that you are working within that framework. An unknown known, kinda.
  - 6y ago
- tinyhouse 6y ago
  It doesn't matter if there's a union or not. It matters what actually is being done. From the news it seems that Amazon has been consistently improving conditions of its warehouse employees. For example, making the minimum wage $15/hour.
  - robert_foss 6y ago
    Even if unions are affecting no change, their are able to give the workers at least some power. Who knows, maybe they'll make Amazon to allow unmetered bathroom breaks one day.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Bathroom breaks aren't metered in Amazon warehouses.
      - calvano915 6y ago
        Besides using your own break time to go, they are absolutely metered for many direct roles in the exact sense that using the restroom can decrease your speed performance metrics which can lead to progressive coaching or other negative consequences. It literally is considered time off task (TOT) when you stop for a restroom break outside of your scheduled break times. There is always the option for people with increased medical restroom needs to seek specific accommodations to essentially excuse the TOT for their needs.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Maybe there’s a confusion of terms here, because I think everything you’re saying is what it means for a bathroom break to be unmetered. You can go to the restroom whenever you’d like, as long as you’re getting the work done. If you had specific declared bathroom breaks where the company keeps count and pauses performance metrics for the duration, that’s what I’d call metered breaks.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- franczesko 6y ago
  The harsh truth is that RSUs stand higher in the list of priorities, than other people's problems.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
    RSUs are an effective way for workers to get a better chunk of the actual value they create. The negotiating power of unions is another.
paul7986 6y ago
They should and should be making no less then $20 an hour to start!
- bequanna 6y ago
  > ... should be making no less then $20 an hour to start! Why? A company should have the right to pay whatever they deem appropriate and an individual should have the right to choose to pursue whichever job they wish.
- ryanmercer 6y ago
  I don't even make 20$ an hour after 15 years at my job... when I was 18 I was doing the kind of work Amazon workers do for minimum wage which was 5.15 an hour IIRC. I was happy to have a job and fully understood warehouse work is not a career. 20$ an hour is 2.75x the minimum wage here in Indiana. A significant portion of the people I know don't even gross 41k a year.
  - sct202 6y ago
    Other people getting their employer to pay them more doesn't harm you. There are already people in warehouses that make that much. The warehouse I used to work started at $18 (for general labor, and like double that for mechanics and machine operators) and that was a decade ago.
    - ryanmercer 6y ago
      >Other people getting their employer to pay them more doesn't harm you. It does when it drives cost of goods and services up that their employer provides.
- filoleg 6y ago
  > They should be making no less then $20 an hour to start! This is a noble goal, and I am all for seeing it happen. But if you think it won't just give Amazon warehouses a stronger foothold, you are mistaken. I, personally, don't think it is necessarily a bad thing if Amazon warehouses gain more workers due to their conditions becoming better as a result of unionization. But quite a lot of people will disagree with that statement. You know why, despite all those current awful-sounding conditions, people are still signing up to work at Amazon warehouses in droves? And no, it isn't because those workers are dumb and don't know what's better for them or because they are that desperate. It is because warehouse jobs are usually always somewhat hellish, and Amazon warehouse jobs tend to be a bit less hellish than other warehouse jobs, while paying quite a bit more. Bumping the pay up to $20/hr will make it even more not worth it to work any other warehouse jobs, when Amazon ones give you a no-brainer choice that is even better all around than before. Again, not commenting on whether it would be a good or bad thing, just an observation. I, personally, think it would be a good thing if those workers got paid more and got better conditions. But the externalities of that decision (giving Amazon more power) might be a bit too much for a lot of people to swallow. I will admit, I haven't thought about those externalities much past what I have already described in this comment, so I definitely could be missing something. In which case, I would love to learn more about those, if someone has meaningful points to contribute to this discussion in the comments.
notJim 6y ago
See this related article, which suggests that Amazon is dragging down wages for the sector: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-12-17/amazon-amzn-job-pay-rate-leaves-some-warehouse-employees-homeless https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-12-17/amazon-am... Discussed here previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25463000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25463000
simpixelated 6y ago
Along with the unionization at Google, I think it's a good trend to see them happening at big tech companies. As it says in the article: "Unions are a prominent presence at Amazon in Europe, but the company for years successfully fought off labor organizing efforts in the U.S." It's sad that Amazon, along with FB and Google, etc. have managed to squash unions so completely here in the US. There's a lot of propaganda around unions that helps prevent them from every gaining much power. Obviously Amazon warehouse employees desperately need unionization much more than software devs, but I think both are needed.
- j_walter 6y ago
  Unions in the US and unions is Europe are completely different. In one they cooperate to see that the company succeeds...and in the other they seek to drive up the cost of doing business to the point that shitty products are extremely expensive (GM, Ford). Unions used to be for protecting the workers and ensuring that companies were getting the very best skillsets when hiring. Now they protect the lazy, promote the well connected and drain efficiency from businesses. Longshoreman are the most shining example of how to destroy businesses...Port of Portland is now shuttered because they intentionally slowed down work to the point of forcing companies to go elsewhere. ILWU was hit with a $19M judgment because of the things it did in Portland.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    The quality of a union is a function of membership engagement and organizational structure. Shitty unions, shitty companies, these are all who is in charge and how they're governed and the transparency available. Better to admit we need better operating models for unions (and that unions need to work in partnership with management to create sustainable relationships and businesses), rigorous governance and oversight of them, and that that is likely superior to the current situation of labor's collective power to continue to erode over the last four decades. Not only does labor need a seat at the table, employee ownership should be strongly encouraged through policy (this also financially aligns incentives between management and labor, which is a good thing imho). "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
oarabbus_ 6y ago
To be honest I find it much more likely Amazon would just shut down the Bessemer, Alabama warehouse, terminate the employment of any workers who joined the union, and open a new warehouse within a 50 mile radius of the current one. edit: since there are labor law repercussions to terminate the unionized workers, they'd likely just shut down the plant in its entirety.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eplanit 6y ago
  And invest (even more) heavily in robotics.
- amelius 6y ago
  That would cause even more outrage.
  - oarabbus_ 6y ago
    And? It's a business decision, not a popularity contest. Amazon is not afraid of "outrage".
- maxerickson 6y ago
  My understanding is that it would be illegal to do that under Federal labor law (they can't punish the workers that joined the union for joining the union).
  - oarabbus_ 6y ago
    I think you're right, but they have ways to do it. They'd simply shut down the plant in it's entirety, and open another warehouse far away. They can dress it up as "operational inefficiencies" or "poor location for shipping" etc. The fact the workers were going to unionize? Oh, just a coincidence! We were already planning to shut down our Alabama location anyway.
legitster 6y ago
I have to imagine unions have a bit of an uphill battle right now, they took some major black eyes in 2020: - Police unions openly declaring war on their own citizens - Teachers unions causing general chaos in school reopening plans I understand that public sector unions are a different beast, but purely from an optics perspective I have to imagine public sentiment for unions can't be very high right now.
- eplanit 6y ago
  Public sector unions are the worst of the union beasts -- a layer of financially interested and un-elected bureaucrats between taxpayers and the services they are paying for. In California, the teachers union has a grotesque level of influence -- and the quality of the kids' education isn't so special, as a result.
  - BitwiseFool 6y ago
    Same story in Hawaii. The unions completely dominate local politics and it's a one party state.
- j_walter 6y ago
  I've never fully understood public unions to be honest. Unions used to be the best way to protect yourself from a bad employer...but the employer is the government (and to some extent the people). It used to be that public sector workers made less in exchange for better benefits, but in the last few years the war was waged on the public to increase wages to that of "private companies". Now teachers in my state make more than an average BS degree and work 9 months of the year...along with better medical and retirement benefits. They still claim they are underpaid and taxes just keep going up.
  - BitwiseFool 6y ago
    Public Sector Unions make perfect sense from a political standpoint. It accomplishes two big things - it's a massive barrier to scaling back bureaucracy and it's a boon for any politician who supports the union.
partingshots 6y ago
I just realized the 4D chess move Google was making in announcing union formation.
- twox2 6y ago
  Google has nothing to do with it, their employees do.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Care to share it with the class?
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
I asked this in the google union thread, but was too late to the party to get any answers. Copy pasting it here: Everybody here seems to agree that unions have the potential to do good or bad in every thread on it. The next logical step to me is that there needs to be a selection mechanism in place. For companies, the selection mechanism is competition. If someone else does better, the consumer or worker can choose someone else. And we have anti-monopoly laws to make sure that that someone else exists, to foster that competition and choice. Is there such a mechanism for unions? My ideal scenario wouldn't be me on my own as it is today. I'd want a handful of unions to pick from to represent me, not too differently from my choice of medical insurer. Five unions to represent 575,000 amazon warehouse workers would still average 115,000 members each, so it's a huge step forward in collective bargaining. And then people can change unions if one of them ends up how folks are worried about in every union thread. It seems like it would get at all sides of the issue. We'd get collective representation and a safeguard against the potential pitfalls. How could this scenario come about? Could it be something like medical insurance with an open enrollment season? There would need to be something akin to anti-competitive behavior built in, so you couldn't end up with an agreement saying you can only hire from our union. What else would it take?
- WitCanStain 6y ago
  >Is there such a mechanism for unions? Unions should be democratic. The workers in the union should collectively decide how it is run, and it should have a fairly flat hierarchical structure. So if you feel that your union does not sufficiently represent your interests, you can get rid of the leadership and change the union for the better. As opposed to companies where you essentially have the choice to tolerate it or leave if you don't like what's happening (without unions, that is).
  - Sodman 6y ago
    The problem is that democracy is imperfect, it can be (and is) frequently gamed and manipulated. Many people are worried about the following scenario: - Software engineers unionize - Some "bad" rules get implemented, perhaps passing vote by misleading slogans or over-represented groups etc. Maybe it was a narrow 51% vs 49% vote. - Top talent leaves, over time that 51% in favor of the bad rules becomes a larger and larger majority - Now your option is essentially tolerate it or leave if you don't like what's happening. So it's the same as before, except now you owe union dues. - "Top talent" starts new company that's more focused on "work" and has fewer rules. - Company grows... - Software engineers unionize... repeat When I say "bad rules" I'm thinking things that are the software equivalent to existing union rules like "Only union members can plug in that HDMI cable" etc etc.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Can anyone outline what unionisation means in this case? If they vote yes, is everyone at this location required to join? Are amazon required to negotiate with the union? Can amazon simply close the plant? Presumably if unionisation works for these workers (better pay etc) then other centres will follow suit...
- kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
  Hi, I was a union organizer before I was a software engineer. I'll try answer your questions without much commentary: Is everyone required to join? No. Following Janus, they might not even be required to pay dues. However, the union contract will apply to everyone in the bargaining unit (generally all non-management) regardless of membership. Is Amazon required to negotiate? Yes, they're legally required to make good faith negotiations. Whether or not they actually do this is an open question, as companies regularly stall here. Can Amazon simply close the plant? Not legally, no. They would probably end up owing the workers quite a bit of money if they did. Whether or not they take that course of action may be a business decision.
  - fat_pikachu 6y ago
    Janus was public sector unions only.
    - kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
      Well, guess they'll have to pay their dues then (which makes me happy).
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Thanks. So what happens if amazon's offer is exactly what they're offering now? I think it will be very interesting to see what the unions wants: * cash raises (and what sort of structure) * non cash benefits (health etc, more breaks, shorter lines to clock in and out) * guaranteed hrs * job security * political faff
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
sergiotapia 6y ago
Is it going to be a proper union or a political tool for alt-left ideals (like Google's recent unionization attempt)?
- kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
  I don't know what the alt-left is, but I imagine these extremely exploited workers are going to focus on their terrible working conditions.
  - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
    How are they exploited? Is amazon the only company they are able to work at?
    - kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
      Go work there and then tell me they're not exploited. Edit: This was flippant because I was annoyed. There are a lot of people who work in well-paying jobs and have never really experienced what the labor that enables their relatively privileged lifestyle actually feels like. They often weigh in with "well, get a better job" but not only is that not an option for everyone, it means you're devaluing absolutely critical work. The snobbery among people who fail to see that is aggravating.
      - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
        I've worked painting dorm rooms. Worked cleaning out freezers in an ice cream factory. I've done plenty of crappy manual jobs. But I knew that's what I would get at the time as I was uneducated and unskilled. I was happy to have an income that relied on not needing any skills. Sorry you are annoyed, it's my opinion.
        kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
        "I've had crappy manual jobs" and "I've been in a situation where crappy manual jobs were my only viable option" are very different situations. But also, why didn't you want more money at the time? Why were you so happy to have a crappy job cleaning out freezers when you could have organized and got a better paying job cleaning out freezers? This future millionaire mindset, where you were "happy to have an income" because you anticipated better future returns, is ugly and detrimental to everyone around you. Every job that needs doing should be done for decent pay and with dignity, at a minimum.
greenie_beans 6y ago
woot woot! proud this is in alabama.
ibudiallo 6y ago
Unions were proponents for worker safety, fair wages, anti-discrimination. They are the reason why such thing as OSHA exists today. They are the reason some laws were passed to protect workers in the US. But once these mandates became law, corporations used the arguments of "why do we need unions if the law already protects workers?" This and following Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers changed the image of unions. They were now corrupt middlemen that charged you a fee to be part of the club. And it worked. Trying to form a union is now news instead of being the natural course of things. I wager that most people in the tech side of Amazon have a hard time grasping why their coworkers are trying to unionize. (we get paid well, what's the fuss all about?) I hope they vote in their interest, but I'm doubtful it will pass (I hope I'm wrong). These laws that are supposed to protect workers are enforced by the company's HR department[1]. The problem is that HR will side with the company before siding with any employee. I think we need to start looking into reforming HR and making it a public service. [1]: https://idiallo.com/blog/unions-are-not-coming-back https://idiallo.com/blog/unions-are-not-coming-back
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers It was illegal for the controllers to strike.
  - wincy 6y ago
    It’s pretty smart to make the things that benefit the weak and hurt the powerful illegal.
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
      That argument doesn't hold water when were talking about public sector employees. You don't become a public worker to get rich. Thusly being a public worker, the government can do as they please. And unlike a private company, the government can break the law.
  - ibudiallo 6y ago
    Unless I'm missing something obvious, striking is the only leverage a union has. If striking is illegal, what's their leverage?
jandrese 6y ago
Given the multiple reports of deplorable working conditions in Amazon warehouses it seems like they would be ripe for unionization. Unions can be seen as the backpressure on corporations mistreating the workers, which Amazon has become notorious for. It's one of those things businesses have to take into account when trying to compete. You can abuse your employees to gain competitive advantage over your rivals, but in the long term such tactics tend to result in the formation of a union which is a major competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. It's bad news for Amazon if they can no longer honor next day delivery for Prime members because of strikes at the warehouses. The workers have some leverage with strikes. It's not like coal miners where strikes were rather abstract because the lights never went out. This pain will be felt by the customers, and it's not like there aren't other businesses out there where you can mail order stuff. Maybe not all from the same shop and maybe you have to pay for shipping, but if Amazon doesn't know when it will be delivered because the product is in the warehouse and labor negotiations have stalled it's a reasonable tradeoff.
- jamiequint 6y ago
  I have family that has worked in Amazon warehouses who say these claims are either grossly exaggerated or only a representation of how they were run in the past. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of warehouse workers, it's inevitable there will be exceptions, but that doesn't mean the mean experience is the same.
varispeed 6y ago
It's weird that the US didn't catch up with the UK how to "solve" the "problem" of unions. You see last year we got changes to a law that is called "IR35" which essentially says that people working like employees should be taxed as employees. Nothing wrong with that - until now (I simplified this), if someone had a business of providing a service (for example bespoke software development) and if they realised their relationship with the client is of the employment in all but name, they had to declare themselves in scope of IR35 and pay the tax accordingly. Person inside IR35 has to pay all the taxes employees pay, but they don't have any employment rights (because they are not employees). And here is the genius twist - someone thought, what if the decision about the relationship is made by the client? That sounds innocent, right? Now (from April) a company can start hiring contractors instead of employees and write their contracts in a way that will make them always caught by IR35 (and declare the relationship as such). Since contractors are not protected by any employment laws, such de facto employees cannot form unions, can be hired and fired at will and don't have other protections - for example if your "employee" gets pregnant, they can be fired without consequences.
nexuist 6y ago
I know that the general consensus seems to be that corporations despise unions because it inhibits their unrestrained profits, but I have a pet theory as to why American corporations specifically avoid unionization whilst other corporations in other Western countries seem to accept it as a reality of doing business. I view it as a sort of prisoner's dilemma between two corporate boards. As a primer for those who are not familiar, there are two prisoners in solitary confinement who are given the choice of remaining silent or testifying against the other in exchange for being set free. The two prisoners cannot communicate with each other. * If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves two years in prison * If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison * If A remains silent but B betrays A, A will serve three years in prison and B will be set free * If A and B both remain silent, both of them will serve only one year in prison (on the lesser charge). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma In my example, the prisoners are presented with two options: unionize, or stay un-unionized. There are a few tweaks I will make. I view "prison" as the consequences of picking either option (there is no way to be set free). A short sentence represents the consequences of not unionizing: negative PR, labor lawsuits, and committing moral sins in whatever belief system you subscribe to. A long sentence is the consequence of unionizing: lost profits as wages and benefits are negotiated. A and B's investors will not approve of either getting a long sentence. Lastly, betrayal will be punished, not rewarded. * If A and B unionize, they will both be sent to prison with long sentences. * If A betrays B by unionizing but B doesn't, A goes to prison with a long sentence and B gets a short sentence. * If B betrays A, A gets a short sentence and B gets the long sentence. * If A and B do not unionize, both of them get the short sentence. Given these rules, the only logical choice is to not unionize. If A or B unionize, they are hit with the long sentence. Corporations avoid unionization because their investors will punish them. HOWEVER! Imagine if A and B unionized, and every other prisoner in the prison also chose to unionize. The investors cannot punish every prisoner, because there is no one else left to invest in! Therefore, the long sentences (lower profits) are simply accepted because there is no way out - no way to avoid the long sentence. That is why unionization enforced by government succeeds better than voluntary unionization. Investors are forced to accept the low results because they cannot choose to avoid unionized companies in favor of un-unionized ones. However, as long as the ability to avoid unionization exists, investors will do their damnedest to make sure that company boards work against worker movements. The boards must comply regardless of their personal beliefs, because they will lose the game if they allow the company to be unionized.
txsoftwaredev 6y ago
Amazon is a private company. They should be able to stop unionization if they so choose.
- kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
  Why should a private company be able to break the law? Why should workers give up rights that thousands of us died for? This is a frankly disgusting sentiment.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  What a repulsive thing to say.
kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
I worked at and organized a local grocery store in 2015 into the UFCW local. Workers there have six weeks of vacation after a year, much higher than average wages and excellent health benefits. They also have a real shield from arbitrary discipline, which had been a rampant problem. Seeing all the anti-union propaganda makes me wonder how many people spreading it have ever been in a union. It seems like most of it is just buying into the ambient pro-business propaganda without direct experience.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Positions on unions should not be absolute. There are many people who are these anti-establishment, universally pro-union types, as if they improve everything they touch and there are no downsides. The reality is that unions are a big tradeoff. For grocery workers and warehouse workers and other low skill positions, they tend to make sense. Labor laws are definitely a better way to handle things. Unions should also be a last resort. Folks need to stop assuming that their employer is oppressive and give them a chance to accommodate their grievances, and they should be reasonable in what they expect from an employer/employee relationship. The best possible outcome is having an employer who gives you what you want (within reason) without a union. Folks who make hundreds of K per year, get unlimited vacation, flexible working time, free gourmet meals, the best health benefits on the market have a lot less reason ti resort to such a blunt instrument than a factory worker in a one factory town. They should also be sincere in their evaluation of rebuttals. It’s import to build trust on both sides. Sometimes threats of a plant closure are bluffing as a negotiating tactic, but sometimes they aren’t. For what it’s worth, I have been a union member and many of my family members are in unions. I do not have good things to say about them at all, but it’s true that some places are even worse without them.
  - kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
    I worked directly with them, so I have TONS of criticisms of unions. They're far from perfect and frankly weak in the US. There's room for improvement for sure. And there are downsides - you're committing to a permanently adversarial relationship with management. I'd argue that relationship often exists without workers even realizing it, but having now entered the world of highly-compensated professionals (and seeing that their management structures tend to be less authoritarian) I can see why people might shy away from that. But the difference a union contract made in my day-to-day life when I was a grocery worker was astounding. I didn't have to worry about retaliatory discipline. I had better wages, better healthcare and better vacation. And it built camaraderie among union members even if it damaged relationships with management. I'm proud of what we accomplished there.
jedberg 6y ago
I sympathize with the folks who want to unionize and I wish them luck, but I suspect this will quickly backfire on them. Of all the companies in the world, the one I would be most worried about automating away human jobs would be Amazon. If this warehouse unionizes, I suspect it will quickly become their number one automation test site. As the cost of labor goes up and the cost of automation goes down, they'll have a higher incentive to do this quickly. Just look at what they announced during re:invent this year. The AWS Panorama was basically designed to replace people in Amazon warehouses. The Amazon Go store was basically a test bed to ~~get rid of the already~~ prevent unionized labor at Whole Foods. I wish the workers luck, but in the long term, they're probably just hastening their replacement by increasing their own costs to the company.
- robert_foss 6y ago
  If they could replace all humans they already would have. They still employ people in the EU, so it can't be that close.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    As pointed out elsewhere, unions in Europe are very different from US unions. They actually work to maintain lower costs for the company as well as making sure workers aren't abused.
- kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
  Whole Foods has never been unionized. I don't know where you got that impression.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Yeah, you're right my bad. They've been trying to unionize and formed a group to push for unionization but haven't been successful yet. I thought they had actually succeeded.
Mountain_Skies 6y ago
From personal experience, I can say working in a closed shop UFCW grocery store was better on almost every level than when I worked in a non-union grocery store. I count that as a positive experience but I've also seen unions that are little more than extortion rackets. There's one particular union active in my area that protests any job site where they wanted their members hired exclusively and didn't get their way. The members of the union don't themselves protest, instead they hire minimum wage workers to harass passersby. They line both sides of sidewalks, leaving only a very small path through. Each person on both sides of the sidewalk will push a sheet of paper in the face of anyone trying to get by, being careful to not actually touch the person. The paper is their demand that the job site hire them. These lines can be twenty or thirty people deep, with each participating in the just legal enough harassment. They also issue whistles to these faux protestors to blow throughout the day in order to make life as miserable as possible in the area. They know the limits to what they can legally get away with. Doubt anyone who has had to run that gauntlet more than once came away with a positive view of unions. Not sure what's the solution to this type of behavior and this is an extreme example but in general unions often take the public hostage in their disputes which makes their image with the public negative.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  I think the fair solution is to just evaluate wages of executives vs average of lower level employees. If it's disproportionately higher than average, then unionization should be lawful. If it's not, then it should be illegal. The point I'm getting at is most of the wages that could go to employees go to executives. Not even to the board or funneled back into the company for investment. Some businesses are fair and obviously pay the CEO fair compensation package. But not egregious ones like 100x the lowest paid employee or even higher. That's just flat out absurd then at that point and clearly someone can't stand not being able to compete in a worthless yacht race or some bourgeoisie garbage.
telaelit 6y ago
Tech company unions are going to be the most powerful organizations in the next 10-20 years.
Alupis 6y ago
Honestly curious - are there any laws that would stop Amazon from just terminating employment for anyone found to be participating in this union? When a company can hire 100,000 new employees at the drop of a hat[1], I see no reason why Amazon would ever cave into unfavorable union demands. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/amazon-to-hire-100000-warehouse-and-delivery-workers.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/amazon-to-hire-100000-wareho...
atmosx 6y ago
Following the 2017 "Power and Politics" lectures at Yale[1] on Youtube (lecture 5) I came across this graph[2] showcasing the relationship between inequality and union membership. I know that correlation does not imply causation but here there are at least two strong narratives offered at the lecture supporting the relationship. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDqvzFY72mg&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyViG2ar68jkgEi4y6doNZy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDqvzFY72mg&list=PLh9mgdi4rN... [2]: https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-and-the-rise-of-the-top-10-percents-share-of-income/ https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-and-the-rise-...
458aperta 6y ago
Still there is this weird cognitive dissonance amongst software engineers in non-FANG companies that union is somehow bad and that preventing people working over the weekend for free is detrimental to the industry.
Simulacra 6y ago
I'm not sure a union is the best idea for a technology company, and I am not there is a value proposition from being in that union, unless the union decides you cannot work for Google unless you are in the union. Then that would be truly awful.

343 points by jimmy2020 6y ago

I wonder what percentage of otherwise very liberal Amazon devs read sentences like "The company for years successfully fought off labor organizing efforts in the U.S." and come away thinking "we're definitely the good guys."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nostromo 6y ago
Honest question: does the Democratic Party care about labor anymore? It feels like anti-Trumpism, identity issues (race, trans issues, etc.), and immigration have sucked all the oxygen out of the room. I can’t remember the last time I saw a Democrat run with supporting labor as their headline issue.
- vdnkh 6y ago
  On the off chance you're serious, here's Biden's union stance https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/ https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/.
  - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
    Actions > Words
- the-dude 6y ago
  You left out climate. In NW Europe it is no different : anything goes as long as it not labor.
- Jcampuzano2 6y ago
  As far as I know they very much do support labor issues, they just haven't been as much of the flavor of the month lately due to the headlines of racial, transgender, and other related political issues since those usually garner more views in the media. Part of the reason may be that the divide between Democrats and Republicans is much wider on those issues vs labor issues.
- pydry 6y ago
  I rather thought that the function of these other issues was to suck the oxygen out of the room so they didn't have to talk about labor issues. Their donors tend to be wealthy and anti-union.
  - rjbwork 6y ago
    Generally the point of most social wedge issues from the point of view of the moneyed and political elite is to not have to talk about any kind of economic issues that affect the bulk of society, yes.
    - asdff 6y ago
      And also to divide the working class vote. Could you imagine how progressive this country could be if the working poor was united and consistently voted in line with their economic interests? FDRs ghost would be dancing in the street.
- logicslave 6y ago
  You arent aloud to say this!
- pugets 6y ago
  There are a lot of liberal/leftist communities online with that same gripe. Democrats pander to "pop politics" but have no plans for labor reform, healthcare reform, etc. that would go a long ways to helping the majority of the people in this country. It's all theater.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Obamacare got a lot of workers at places like amazon warehouses healthcare. Cancelling student debt will help a shit tonne more workers. He has a section on his campaign website addressing Union specifics: https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/ https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/ Well see what he can actually does, but with the senate in democrat hands, the sky is the limit.
  - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
    "Cancelling student debt will help a shit tonne more workers." I will feel terrible if that ever happens for folks that were smart with money and didn't incur tons of debt. It's gonna be a real bummer when you learn that you paid off your educational debt or never had any and that now you get to pay off debt of others that made bad decisions.
    - kuang_eleven 6y ago
      I, as someone with no outstanding student debts anymore, would be ecstatic to have universal student loan forgiveness. It is the right thing to do, and part of being a conscientious citizen is advocating for issues that help society, even if they don't help yourself.
      - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
        Have you considered reaching out to some students or grads with debt and writing them a check to help them pay off their debt?
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      You're describing me. I agree emotionally. But that's life, if you actually believe in education you can only really pay if forwards...
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      What a shitty attitude. "bad decisions" Imagine thinking that earning a degree was a "bad decision".
- myownpetard 6y ago
  The Democratic Party is too large of an umbrella these days. Anybody whose primary concerns are among fiscal responsibility/the deficit, public education, effective foreign policy, civil rights, human rights, political corruption, science based public health/policy, climate change, domestic extremism, an independent judiciary etc. has moved into the democratic party. The Republican Party is for people whose primary concern is one of a theocratic judiciary, paying less taxes if you make more than $400k/yr, white nationalism, extractive industries, military contractors, unrestricted access to any/all classes of firearms. In both of those groups there are large pro-business, anti-labor contingents. Hopefully one day we will move to ranked choice voting and other mechanisms that allow 3rd parties to compete and we can have more meaningful and direct connections between parties and specific policies instead of these two loose coalitions.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Have you ever talked to a single Republican? You’re way off base, especially with the race baiting.
    - moate 6y ago
      What do you view the Republican platform as being? What specifically is he wrong about?
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        OP is wrong about unrestricted access to all weapons. And not all Republicans are anti-abortion, although that is a big part of their platform due to the control it gives over evangelicals. (That is to say, I think if there is a schism, the more centric version of the party would not be anti-abortion.) Also, white nationalism is only embraced by a small percentage of the party. It's not really part of their platform, it's just what the loudest shouters in the party want. (Disclaimer: I do not identify as repbulican, but if this is your best faith effort to define their platform, you lack empathy for them which means you'll never understand even their lucid ideas. Granted, many of their ideas are vague and not lucid.)
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  > I can’t remember the last time I saw a Democrat run with supporting labor as their headline issue. Bernie Sanders and AOC would like a word. Most of their platform is based around supporting the working class.
amzsdethrowaway 6y ago
Why would you think any of us think that?
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Well, let's see some solidarity with the warehouse rank and file to prove it.
DenisM 6y ago
Sometime during the last year the usually heavily statist left became heavily corporatist. I'm not sure what to make of it.
- MaslowsPyramid 6y ago
  Based on purely anecdotal evidence, I agree. I've seen an increased number of supposed "eat the rich" types voicing support for corporate interests, to an almost laughable degree of irony. For instance, Twitter users who have "#eattherich" in their bio saying that social media should be left unregulated because the owners of the platforms should be able to do whatever they want with it.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The way I see it is that among those, they haven't actually been able to form a leftist worldview free of economic liberalism. It's normal, because modern opposing alternatives are basically completely absent from the mainstream.
    - DenisM 6y ago
      > haven't actually been able to form a leftist worldview free of economic liberalism Very good point! I did not think of this at all. Perhaps the collapse of the Soviet Union discredited the planned economy as means of social equalization and they never quite regained their footing.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        There is actually a lot more to non-liberal economics than planned economies, but certainly the collapse of the Soviet Union would play a part in it. If I had to analyze the root cause of it though, I'd say the proximate cause really is Cultural Hegemony. Pretty much every piece of media and every interaction you have assumes liberal economics so much that it is very hard to even realize that you are working within that framework. An unknown known, kinda.
- 6y ago
tinyhouse 6y ago
It doesn't matter if there's a union or not. It matters what actually is being done. From the news it seems that Amazon has been consistently improving conditions of its warehouse employees. For example, making the minimum wage $15/hour.
- robert_foss 6y ago
  Even if unions are affecting no change, their are able to give the workers at least some power. Who knows, maybe they'll make Amazon to allow unmetered bathroom breaks one day.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Bathroom breaks aren't metered in Amazon warehouses.
    - calvano915 6y ago
      Besides using your own break time to go, they are absolutely metered for many direct roles in the exact sense that using the restroom can decrease your speed performance metrics which can lead to progressive coaching or other negative consequences. It literally is considered time off task (TOT) when you stop for a restroom break outside of your scheduled break times. There is always the option for people with increased medical restroom needs to seek specific accommodations to essentially excuse the TOT for their needs.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Maybe there’s a confusion of terms here, because I think everything you’re saying is what it means for a bathroom break to be unmetered. You can go to the restroom whenever you’d like, as long as you’re getting the work done. If you had specific declared bathroom breaks where the company keeps count and pauses performance metrics for the duration, that’s what I’d call metered breaks.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
franczesko 6y ago
The harsh truth is that RSUs stand higher in the list of priorities, than other people's problems.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  RSUs are an effective way for workers to get a better chunk of the actual value they create. The negotiating power of unions is another.

paul7986 6y ago

They should and should be making no less then $20 an hour to start!

bequanna 6y ago
> ... should be making no less then $20 an hour to start! Why? A company should have the right to pay whatever they deem appropriate and an individual should have the right to choose to pursue whichever job they wish.
ryanmercer 6y ago
I don't even make 20$ an hour after 15 years at my job... when I was 18 I was doing the kind of work Amazon workers do for minimum wage which was 5.15 an hour IIRC. I was happy to have a job and fully understood warehouse work is not a career. 20$ an hour is 2.75x the minimum wage here in Indiana. A significant portion of the people I know don't even gross 41k a year.
- sct202 6y ago
  Other people getting their employer to pay them more doesn't harm you. There are already people in warehouses that make that much. The warehouse I used to work started at $18 (for general labor, and like double that for mechanics and machine operators) and that was a decade ago.
  - ryanmercer 6y ago
    >Other people getting their employer to pay them more doesn't harm you. It does when it drives cost of goods and services up that their employer provides.
filoleg 6y ago
> They should be making no less then $20 an hour to start! This is a noble goal, and I am all for seeing it happen. But if you think it won't just give Amazon warehouses a stronger foothold, you are mistaken. I, personally, don't think it is necessarily a bad thing if Amazon warehouses gain more workers due to their conditions becoming better as a result of unionization. But quite a lot of people will disagree with that statement. You know why, despite all those current awful-sounding conditions, people are still signing up to work at Amazon warehouses in droves? And no, it isn't because those workers are dumb and don't know what's better for them or because they are that desperate. It is because warehouse jobs are usually always somewhat hellish, and Amazon warehouse jobs tend to be a bit less hellish than other warehouse jobs, while paying quite a bit more. Bumping the pay up to $20/hr will make it even more not worth it to work any other warehouse jobs, when Amazon ones give you a no-brainer choice that is even better all around than before. Again, not commenting on whether it would be a good or bad thing, just an observation. I, personally, think it would be a good thing if those workers got paid more and got better conditions. But the externalities of that decision (giving Amazon more power) might be a bit too much for a lot of people to swallow. I will admit, I haven't thought about those externalities much past what I have already described in this comment, so I definitely could be missing something. In which case, I would love to learn more about those, if someone has meaningful points to contribute to this discussion in the comments.

notJim 6y ago

See this related article, which suggests that Amazon is dragging down wages for the sector: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-12-17/amazon-amzn-job-pay-rate-leaves-some-warehouse-employees-homeless https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-12-17/amazon-am... Discussed here previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25463000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25463000

simpixelated 6y ago

Along with the unionization at Google, I think it's a good trend to see them happening at big tech companies. As it says in the article: "Unions are a prominent presence at Amazon in Europe, but the company for years successfully fought off labor organizing efforts in the U.S." It's sad that Amazon, along with FB and Google, etc. have managed to squash unions so completely here in the US. There's a lot of propaganda around unions that helps prevent them from every gaining much power. Obviously Amazon warehouse employees desperately need unionization much more than software devs, but I think both are needed.

j_walter 6y ago
Unions in the US and unions is Europe are completely different. In one they cooperate to see that the company succeeds...and in the other they seek to drive up the cost of doing business to the point that shitty products are extremely expensive (GM, Ford). Unions used to be for protecting the workers and ensuring that companies were getting the very best skillsets when hiring. Now they protect the lazy, promote the well connected and drain efficiency from businesses. Longshoreman are the most shining example of how to destroy businesses...Port of Portland is now shuttered because they intentionally slowed down work to the point of forcing companies to go elsewhere. ILWU was hit with a $19M judgment because of the things it did in Portland.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  The quality of a union is a function of membership engagement and organizational structure. Shitty unions, shitty companies, these are all who is in charge and how they're governed and the transparency available. Better to admit we need better operating models for unions (and that unions need to work in partnership with management to create sustainable relationships and businesses), rigorous governance and oversight of them, and that that is likely superior to the current situation of labor's collective power to continue to erode over the last four decades. Not only does labor need a seat at the table, employee ownership should be strongly encouraged through policy (this also financially aligns incentives between management and labor, which is a good thing imho). "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

oarabbus_ 6y ago

To be honest I find it much more likely Amazon would just shut down the Bessemer, Alabama warehouse, terminate the employment of any workers who joined the union, and open a new warehouse within a 50 mile radius of the current one. edit: since there are labor law repercussions to terminate the unionized workers, they'd likely just shut down the plant in its entirety.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eplanit 6y ago
And invest (even more) heavily in robotics.
amelius 6y ago
That would cause even more outrage.
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  And? It's a business decision, not a popularity contest. Amazon is not afraid of "outrage".
maxerickson 6y ago
My understanding is that it would be illegal to do that under Federal labor law (they can't punish the workers that joined the union for joining the union).
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  I think you're right, but they have ways to do it. They'd simply shut down the plant in it's entirety, and open another warehouse far away. They can dress it up as "operational inefficiencies" or "poor location for shipping" etc. The fact the workers were going to unionize? Oh, just a coincidence! We were already planning to shut down our Alabama location anyway.

legitster 6y ago

I have to imagine unions have a bit of an uphill battle right now, they took some major black eyes in 2020: - Police unions openly declaring war on their own citizens - Teachers unions causing general chaos in school reopening plans I understand that public sector unions are a different beast, but purely from an optics perspective I have to imagine public sentiment for unions can't be very high right now.

eplanit 6y ago
Public sector unions are the worst of the union beasts -- a layer of financially interested and un-elected bureaucrats between taxpayers and the services they are paying for. In California, the teachers union has a grotesque level of influence -- and the quality of the kids' education isn't so special, as a result.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  Same story in Hawaii. The unions completely dominate local politics and it's a one party state.
j_walter 6y ago
I've never fully understood public unions to be honest. Unions used to be the best way to protect yourself from a bad employer...but the employer is the government (and to some extent the people). It used to be that public sector workers made less in exchange for better benefits, but in the last few years the war was waged on the public to increase wages to that of "private companies". Now teachers in my state make more than an average BS degree and work 9 months of the year...along with better medical and retirement benefits. They still claim they are underpaid and taxes just keep going up.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  Public Sector Unions make perfect sense from a political standpoint. It accomplishes two big things - it's a massive barrier to scaling back bureaucracy and it's a boon for any politician who supports the union.

partingshots 6y ago

I just realized the 4D chess move Google was making in announcing union formation.

twox2 6y ago
Google has nothing to do with it, their employees do.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Care to share it with the class?

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

I asked this in the google union thread, but was too late to the party to get any answers. Copy pasting it here: Everybody here seems to agree that unions have the potential to do good or bad in every thread on it. The next logical step to me is that there needs to be a selection mechanism in place. For companies, the selection mechanism is competition. If someone else does better, the consumer or worker can choose someone else. And we have anti-monopoly laws to make sure that that someone else exists, to foster that competition and choice. Is there such a mechanism for unions? My ideal scenario wouldn't be me on my own as it is today. I'd want a handful of unions to pick from to represent me, not too differently from my choice of medical insurer. Five unions to represent 575,000 amazon warehouse workers would still average 115,000 members each, so it's a huge step forward in collective bargaining. And then people can change unions if one of them ends up how folks are worried about in every union thread. It seems like it would get at all sides of the issue. We'd get collective representation and a safeguard against the potential pitfalls. How could this scenario come about? Could it be something like medical insurance with an open enrollment season? There would need to be something akin to anti-competitive behavior built in, so you couldn't end up with an agreement saying you can only hire from our union. What else would it take?

WitCanStain 6y ago
>Is there such a mechanism for unions? Unions should be democratic. The workers in the union should collectively decide how it is run, and it should have a fairly flat hierarchical structure. So if you feel that your union does not sufficiently represent your interests, you can get rid of the leadership and change the union for the better. As opposed to companies where you essentially have the choice to tolerate it or leave if you don't like what's happening (without unions, that is).
- Sodman 6y ago
  The problem is that democracy is imperfect, it can be (and is) frequently gamed and manipulated. Many people are worried about the following scenario: - Software engineers unionize - Some "bad" rules get implemented, perhaps passing vote by misleading slogans or over-represented groups etc. Maybe it was a narrow 51% vs 49% vote. - Top talent leaves, over time that 51% in favor of the bad rules becomes a larger and larger majority - Now your option is essentially tolerate it or leave if you don't like what's happening. So it's the same as before, except now you owe union dues. - "Top talent" starts new company that's more focused on "work" and has fewer rules. - Company grows... - Software engineers unionize... repeat When I say "bad rules" I'm thinking things that are the software equivalent to existing union rules like "Only union members can plug in that HDMI cable" etc etc.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Can anyone outline what unionisation means in this case? If they vote yes, is everyone at this location required to join? Are amazon required to negotiate with the union? Can amazon simply close the plant? Presumably if unionisation works for these workers (better pay etc) then other centres will follow suit...

kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
Hi, I was a union organizer before I was a software engineer. I'll try answer your questions without much commentary: Is everyone required to join? No. Following Janus, they might not even be required to pay dues. However, the union contract will apply to everyone in the bargaining unit (generally all non-management) regardless of membership. Is Amazon required to negotiate? Yes, they're legally required to make good faith negotiations. Whether or not they actually do this is an open question, as companies regularly stall here. Can Amazon simply close the plant? Not legally, no. They would probably end up owing the workers quite a bit of money if they did. Whether or not they take that course of action may be a business decision.
- fat_pikachu 6y ago
  Janus was public sector unions only.
  - kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
    Well, guess they'll have to pay their dues then (which makes me happy).
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Thanks. So what happens if amazon's offer is exactly what they're offering now? I think it will be very interesting to see what the unions wants: * cash raises (and what sort of structure) * non cash benefits (health etc, more breaks, shorter lines to clock in and out) * guaranteed hrs * job security * political faff
Mountain_Skies 6y ago

sergiotapia 6y ago

Is it going to be a proper union or a political tool for alt-left ideals (like Google's recent unionization attempt)?

kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
I don't know what the alt-left is, but I imagine these extremely exploited workers are going to focus on their terrible working conditions.
- txsoftwaredev 6y ago
  How are they exploited? Is amazon the only company they are able to work at?
  - kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
    Go work there and then tell me they're not exploited. Edit: This was flippant because I was annoyed. There are a lot of people who work in well-paying jobs and have never really experienced what the labor that enables their relatively privileged lifestyle actually feels like. They often weigh in with "well, get a better job" but not only is that not an option for everyone, it means you're devaluing absolutely critical work. The snobbery among people who fail to see that is aggravating.
    - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
      I've worked painting dorm rooms. Worked cleaning out freezers in an ice cream factory. I've done plenty of crappy manual jobs. But I knew that's what I would get at the time as I was uneducated and unskilled. I was happy to have an income that relied on not needing any skills. Sorry you are annoyed, it's my opinion.
      - kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
        "I've had crappy manual jobs" and "I've been in a situation where crappy manual jobs were my only viable option" are very different situations. But also, why didn't you want more money at the time? Why were you so happy to have a crappy job cleaning out freezers when you could have organized and got a better paying job cleaning out freezers? This future millionaire mindset, where you were "happy to have an income" because you anticipated better future returns, is ugly and detrimental to everyone around you. Every job that needs doing should be done for decent pay and with dignity, at a minimum.

greenie_beans 6y ago

woot woot! proud this is in alabama.

ibudiallo 6y ago

Unions were proponents for worker safety, fair wages, anti-discrimination. They are the reason why such thing as OSHA exists today. They are the reason some laws were passed to protect workers in the US. But once these mandates became law, corporations used the arguments of "why do we need unions if the law already protects workers?" This and following Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers changed the image of unions. They were now corrupt middlemen that charged you a fee to be part of the club. And it worked. Trying to form a union is now news instead of being the natural course of things. I wager that most people in the tech side of Amazon have a hard time grasping why their coworkers are trying to unionize. (we get paid well, what's the fuss all about?) I hope they vote in their interest, but I'm doubtful it will pass (I hope I'm wrong). These laws that are supposed to protect workers are enforced by the company's HR department[1]. The problem is that HR will side with the company before siding with any employee. I think we need to start looking into reforming HR and making it a public service. [1]: https://idiallo.com/blog/unions-are-not-coming-back https://idiallo.com/blog/unions-are-not-coming-back

WalterBright 6y ago
> Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers It was illegal for the controllers to strike.
- wincy 6y ago
  It’s pretty smart to make the things that benefit the weak and hurt the powerful illegal.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
    That argument doesn't hold water when were talking about public sector employees. You don't become a public worker to get rich. Thusly being a public worker, the government can do as they please. And unlike a private company, the government can break the law.
- ibudiallo 6y ago
  Unless I'm missing something obvious, striking is the only leverage a union has. If striking is illegal, what's their leverage?

jandrese 6y ago

Given the multiple reports of deplorable working conditions in Amazon warehouses it seems like they would be ripe for unionization. Unions can be seen as the backpressure on corporations mistreating the workers, which Amazon has become notorious for. It's one of those things businesses have to take into account when trying to compete. You can abuse your employees to gain competitive advantage over your rivals, but in the long term such tactics tend to result in the formation of a union which is a major competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. It's bad news for Amazon if they can no longer honor next day delivery for Prime members because of strikes at the warehouses. The workers have some leverage with strikes. It's not like coal miners where strikes were rather abstract because the lights never went out. This pain will be felt by the customers, and it's not like there aren't other businesses out there where you can mail order stuff. Maybe not all from the same shop and maybe you have to pay for shipping, but if Amazon doesn't know when it will be delivered because the product is in the warehouse and labor negotiations have stalled it's a reasonable tradeoff.

jamiequint 6y ago
I have family that has worked in Amazon warehouses who say these claims are either grossly exaggerated or only a representation of how they were run in the past. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of warehouse workers, it's inevitable there will be exceptions, but that doesn't mean the mean experience is the same.

varispeed 6y ago

It's weird that the US didn't catch up with the UK how to "solve" the "problem" of unions. You see last year we got changes to a law that is called "IR35" which essentially says that people working like employees should be taxed as employees. Nothing wrong with that - until now (I simplified this), if someone had a business of providing a service (for example bespoke software development) and if they realised their relationship with the client is of the employment in all but name, they had to declare themselves in scope of IR35 and pay the tax accordingly. Person inside IR35 has to pay all the taxes employees pay, but they don't have any employment rights (because they are not employees). And here is the genius twist - someone thought, what if the decision about the relationship is made by the client? That sounds innocent, right? Now (from April) a company can start hiring contractors instead of employees and write their contracts in a way that will make them always caught by IR35 (and declare the relationship as such). Since contractors are not protected by any employment laws, such de facto employees cannot form unions, can be hired and fired at will and don't have other protections - for example if your "employee" gets pregnant, they can be fired without consequences.

nexuist 6y ago

I know that the general consensus seems to be that corporations despise unions because it inhibits their unrestrained profits, but I have a pet theory as to why American corporations specifically avoid unionization whilst other corporations in other Western countries seem to accept it as a reality of doing business. I view it as a sort of prisoner's dilemma between two corporate boards. As a primer for those who are not familiar, there are two prisoners in solitary confinement who are given the choice of remaining silent or testifying against the other in exchange for being set free. The two prisoners cannot communicate with each other. * If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves two years in prison * If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison * If A remains silent but B betrays A, A will serve three years in prison and B will be set free * If A and B both remain silent, both of them will serve only one year in prison (on the lesser charge). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma In my example, the prisoners are presented with two options: unionize, or stay un-unionized. There are a few tweaks I will make. I view "prison" as the consequences of picking either option (there is no way to be set free). A short sentence represents the consequences of not unionizing: negative PR, labor lawsuits, and committing moral sins in whatever belief system you subscribe to. A long sentence is the consequence of unionizing: lost profits as wages and benefits are negotiated. A and B's investors will not approve of either getting a long sentence. Lastly, betrayal will be punished, not rewarded. * If A and B unionize, they will both be sent to prison with long sentences. * If A betrays B by unionizing but B doesn't, A goes to prison with a long sentence and B gets a short sentence. * If B betrays A, A gets a short sentence and B gets the long sentence. * If A and B do not unionize, both of them get the short sentence. Given these rules, the only logical choice is to not unionize. If A or B unionize, they are hit with the long sentence. Corporations avoid unionization because their investors will punish them. HOWEVER! Imagine if A and B unionized, and every other prisoner in the prison also chose to unionize. The investors cannot punish every prisoner, because there is no one else left to invest in! Therefore, the long sentences (lower profits) are simply accepted because there is no way out - no way to avoid the long sentence. That is why unionization enforced by government succeeds better than voluntary unionization. Investors are forced to accept the low results because they cannot choose to avoid unionized companies in favor of un-unionized ones. However, as long as the ability to avoid unionization exists, investors will do their damnedest to make sure that company boards work against worker movements. The boards must comply regardless of their personal beliefs, because they will lose the game if they allow the company to be unionized.

txsoftwaredev 6y ago

Amazon is a private company. They should be able to stop unionization if they so choose.

kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
Why should a private company be able to break the law? Why should workers give up rights that thousands of us died for? This is a frankly disgusting sentiment.
Pfhreak 6y ago
What a repulsive thing to say.

kieselguhr_kid 6y ago

I worked at and organized a local grocery store in 2015 into the UFCW local. Workers there have six weeks of vacation after a year, much higher than average wages and excellent health benefits. They also have a real shield from arbitrary discipline, which had been a rampant problem. Seeing all the anti-union propaganda makes me wonder how many people spreading it have ever been in a union. It seems like most of it is just buying into the ambient pro-business propaganda without direct experience.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Positions on unions should not be absolute. There are many people who are these anti-establishment, universally pro-union types, as if they improve everything they touch and there are no downsides. The reality is that unions are a big tradeoff. For grocery workers and warehouse workers and other low skill positions, they tend to make sense. Labor laws are definitely a better way to handle things. Unions should also be a last resort. Folks need to stop assuming that their employer is oppressive and give them a chance to accommodate their grievances, and they should be reasonable in what they expect from an employer/employee relationship. The best possible outcome is having an employer who gives you what you want (within reason) without a union. Folks who make hundreds of K per year, get unlimited vacation, flexible working time, free gourmet meals, the best health benefits on the market have a lot less reason ti resort to such a blunt instrument than a factory worker in a one factory town. They should also be sincere in their evaluation of rebuttals. It’s import to build trust on both sides. Sometimes threats of a plant closure are bluffing as a negotiating tactic, but sometimes they aren’t. For what it’s worth, I have been a union member and many of my family members are in unions. I do not have good things to say about them at all, but it’s true that some places are even worse without them.
- kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
  I worked directly with them, so I have TONS of criticisms of unions. They're far from perfect and frankly weak in the US. There's room for improvement for sure. And there are downsides - you're committing to a permanently adversarial relationship with management. I'd argue that relationship often exists without workers even realizing it, but having now entered the world of highly-compensated professionals (and seeing that their management structures tend to be less authoritarian) I can see why people might shy away from that. But the difference a union contract made in my day-to-day life when I was a grocery worker was astounding. I didn't have to worry about retaliatory discipline. I had better wages, better healthcare and better vacation. And it built camaraderie among union members even if it damaged relationships with management. I'm proud of what we accomplished there.

jedberg 6y ago

I sympathize with the folks who want to unionize and I wish them luck, but I suspect this will quickly backfire on them. Of all the companies in the world, the one I would be most worried about automating away human jobs would be Amazon. If this warehouse unionizes, I suspect it will quickly become their number one automation test site. As the cost of labor goes up and the cost of automation goes down, they'll have a higher incentive to do this quickly. Just look at what they announced during re:invent this year. The AWS Panorama was basically designed to replace people in Amazon warehouses. The Amazon Go store was basically a test bed to ~~get rid of the already~~ prevent unionized labor at Whole Foods. I wish the workers luck, but in the long term, they're probably just hastening their replacement by increasing their own costs to the company.

robert_foss 6y ago
If they could replace all humans they already would have. They still employ people in the EU, so it can't be that close.
- jedberg 6y ago
  As pointed out elsewhere, unions in Europe are very different from US unions. They actually work to maintain lower costs for the company as well as making sure workers aren't abused.
kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
Whole Foods has never been unionized. I don't know where you got that impression.
- jedberg 6y ago
  Yeah, you're right my bad. They've been trying to unionize and formed a group to push for unionization but haven't been successful yet. I thought they had actually succeeded.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

From personal experience, I can say working in a closed shop UFCW grocery store was better on almost every level than when I worked in a non-union grocery store. I count that as a positive experience but I've also seen unions that are little more than extortion rackets. There's one particular union active in my area that protests any job site where they wanted their members hired exclusively and didn't get their way. The members of the union don't themselves protest, instead they hire minimum wage workers to harass passersby. They line both sides of sidewalks, leaving only a very small path through. Each person on both sides of the sidewalk will push a sheet of paper in the face of anyone trying to get by, being careful to not actually touch the person. The paper is their demand that the job site hire them. These lines can be twenty or thirty people deep, with each participating in the just legal enough harassment. They also issue whistles to these faux protestors to blow throughout the day in order to make life as miserable as possible in the area. They know the limits to what they can legally get away with. Doubt anyone who has had to run that gauntlet more than once came away with a positive view of unions. Not sure what's the solution to this type of behavior and this is an extreme example but in general unions often take the public hostage in their disputes which makes their image with the public negative.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
I think the fair solution is to just evaluate wages of executives vs average of lower level employees. If it's disproportionately higher than average, then unionization should be lawful. If it's not, then it should be illegal. The point I'm getting at is most of the wages that could go to employees go to executives. Not even to the board or funneled back into the company for investment. Some businesses are fair and obviously pay the CEO fair compensation package. But not egregious ones like 100x the lowest paid employee or even higher. That's just flat out absurd then at that point and clearly someone can't stand not being able to compete in a worthless yacht race or some bourgeoisie garbage.

telaelit 6y ago

Tech company unions are going to be the most powerful organizations in the next 10-20 years.

Alupis 6y ago

Honestly curious - are there any laws that would stop Amazon from just terminating employment for anyone found to be participating in this union? When a company can hire 100,000 new employees at the drop of a hat[1], I see no reason why Amazon would ever cave into unfavorable union demands. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/amazon-to-hire-100000-warehouse-and-delivery-workers.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/amazon-to-hire-100000-wareho...

atmosx 6y ago

Following the 2017 "Power and Politics" lectures at Yale[1] on Youtube (lecture 5) I came across this graph[2] showcasing the relationship between inequality and union membership. I know that correlation does not imply causation but here there are at least two strong narratives offered at the lecture supporting the relationship. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDqvzFY72mg&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyViG2ar68jkgEi4y6doNZy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDqvzFY72mg&list=PLh9mgdi4rN... [2]: https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-and-the-rise-of-the-top-10-percents-share-of-income/ https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-and-the-rise-...

458aperta 6y ago

Still there is this weird cognitive dissonance amongst software engineers in non-FANG companies that union is somehow bad and that preventing people working over the weekend for free is detrimental to the industry.

Simulacra 6y ago

I'm not sure a union is the best idea for a technology company, and I am not there is a value proposition from being in that union, unless the union decides you cannot work for Google unless you are in the union. Then that would be truly awful.