11 ms·

Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

164 points by woodgrainz 6y ago

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
I love the *Applies to full time employees... The most basic of caste systems.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  Are they born into part-time employment?
  - ouchjars 6y ago
    If you have any of a number of disabilities, that is exactly the case.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    I don't know about Amazon, but many employers don't let most employees work full time. If that's the case these workers sort of are born into part-time employment since the socioeconomic class you grow up in is the biggest factor of success.
chmod775 6y ago
Yuck. After that particular piece of slimy corporate propaganda I suddenly feel the urge to join a union. And I don't even work for Amazon. I guess when you can't make a proper case, just use 50pt fonts and stock-art-esque images of people giving thumbs up. That'll convince 'em!
CryptoPunk 6y ago
The best argument against unions is thay they violate contract liberty, and thereby inhibit market freedom and increase economic rent seeking. With a couple notable exceptions, like Hollywood, any industry in the US that came to be dominated by unions became uncompetitive: the auto industry, US Steel, and the passenger rail service, which went bankrupt as a result of the demands of the "Brotherhoods". Numerous states have been straddled with trillions in pension obligations and increasingly inefficient public sectors, due to unions. Unfortunately, those working for the media are all unionized now so even the prism through which we interpret the world is now propagandized by the left.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  > states have been straddled with trillions in pension obligations and increasingly inefficient public sectors Yeah, like the police unions... we should get rid of those first.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    Yes, police unions are associated with increase in police misconduct.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hackyhacky 6y ago
  You're asserting causality based on very few data points. The US auto industry is still very union-based, and beyond the occasional bailout, seems to be doing well. Moreover, plenty of industries that didn't become dominated by unions also became uncompetitive. You say that "those working for the media are all unionized" but I have no idea what you're talking about. Citation? Unionization does not cure bad management, it merely makes sure that the employees are treated fairly, regardless of the quality of management. Remember: the reason people have jobs is to feed their families, not to support the company.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    I cannot prove causality, but I think common sense dictates here. Everything we know about economics tells us that inhibiting contract liberty in the way that labor laws do in order to give unions monopolistic control over the negotiating power of a company's work force will be economically harmful and an objective review of US economic history validates that. >>The US auto industry is still very union-based, and beyond the occasional bailout, seems to be doing well. The US auto industry is now protected by trade barriers so the bleed has stopped, but it saw a massive drop in market share since the early 1960s: https://detroitwillrise.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/1/18213209/7879577_orig.jpg https://detroitwillrise.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/1/18213209/... Tesla is doing great, and its workforce is not unionized. >>You say that "those working for the media are all unionized" but I have no idea what you're talking about. Citation? Look at the New York Times: https://www.nyguild.org/about-the-new-york-times https://www.nyguild.org/about-the-new-york-times Or the Washington Post: https://postguild.org/ https://postguild.org/ Or any other major news organization. >Unionization does not cure bad management, it merely makes sure that the employees are treated fairly, regardless of the quality of management. It reduces managerial discretion. It makes it so that the labor market is not free. It makes unionized workers into a privileged set of insiders who do not compete on an level playing field with other workers. It also reduces the range of options available to investors/entrepreneurs, in inhibiting their contract liberty. Reducing optionality in voluntary interaction is going to be an economic net negative. >>Remember: the reason people have jobs is to feed their families, not to support the company. The reason people invest in companies, or buy from a company, is to personally profit, not to provide people with jobs. Once you force the private sector to act like a charity, you are introducing top-down control and limiting the free market that is so effective at coordinating large numbers of people to better meet their collective needs. responding to below: chmod775: >>Worker's unions are compatible with free markets as much as corporate groups or large companies are. Yes, that is true. I meant under the current laws, where a union can force their employer to negotiate exclusively with them. This is mandated collective bargaining, as opposed to mutually voluntary collective bargaining. >>Except that a most of the competition that leapfrogged them has famously strong unions. Besides the unionized German auto sector, I don't know what you're referring to. Some of my examples, like the US passenger rail service which went bankrupt soon after the unions took over, or the public sector, had/have no foreign competition. With respect to Germany, it should be noted that Germany's wage/GDP growth has been quite stagnant since the 1970s as well. Its auto industry has been successful, but that can be attributed to numerous other factors, like its effective education system, its engineering culture, and government policy focused on promoting auto manufacturing, all of which can counter-act the negative effects of its unions. Also it should be noted that the relationship between unions and employers in Germany is more cooperative that in the US. jakelazaroff: >>Unions increase the negotiating power of those selling their labor. That’s not forcing the private sector to act like a charity, it’s just giving workers more leverage. They increase that negotiating power by preventing the employer from negotiating with the larger labor pool. It is a zero sum gain that enables unionized workers to extract economic rent. danShumway: >>Alabama is a right-to-work state, so how is a union inhibiting contract liberty? You legally cannot be forced in Alabama to pay union dues if you don't want to be part of a union. Federal labor laws, that force employers to collectively bargain if a union demands it, still apply in Alabama. But yes, right to work has gone some way in restoring contract liberty, and has been a lifeline for the US auto industry, and US manufacturing in general. The Biden administration is planning to get rid of right to work: https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2020/10/21/biden--senate-democrats-announce-right-to-work-laws-are-on-the-chopping-block-if-they-win/?sh=7d7c1df87a2d https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2020/10/21/biden... > Tesla is doing great, and its workforce is not unionized. >>By what definition? There have been multiple articles and accounts describing Tesla's factories as awful places to work, and its management tried to pressure its workers to ignore COVID restrictions. We're talking about the strength of industry here. By that standard, Tesla is doing great. As for labor conditions, the massive export revenue that Tesla is bringing into the US will help US workers overall. I recommend looking at the big picture. There's no sense mandating that all jobs provide great working conditions if it leads to stagnation of US industry, and a lack of profitable employers that pay high wages. monsiousbanana: >>I can't believe you're saying that with a straight face, talking about Jeff Bezzos' company, after covid and 2020. I don't know if you realize how much Amazon helped people during the lockdowns.. Cost-effective and timely home delivery of consumer goods was an absolute lifesaver, literally. Amazon is also a massive employer. Without all those jobs that Amazon's export revenue creates in the US, the US worker would be much worse off. olliej: >>Such rent as sick leave, holidays, weekends, basic health insurance (US), ...? That rent? The benefits that employers provide should be based on market demand, not mandated by cookie cutter rules. What if an employee prefers higher wages over health insurance? Cookie cutter mandatory benefits prevent that arrangement. They prevent optimal trade-offs, that would be found if benefits were the product of mutually voluntary interaction, from being found. It's not economically sound policy. An economy is far far too complex and fast-evolving to regiment in this top-down way.
lxe 6y ago
> We've got you covered *asterisk It's almost like a parody of itself
Lammy 6y ago
I like how the main objection would be instantly nullified if Amazon paid their workers more. Do you think a union would be able to negotiate for more than $500 of extra compensation?
- handmodel 6y ago
  I honestly am skeptical. AMZN already pays more than other small businesses and even medium/large businesses. It doesn't make money by paying its workers less - it makes money with efficiency and volume. Alabama is a right-to-work state. My understanding is that it would be completely legal for Amazon to hire new employees the second someone doesn't show up because of a strike, so I'm not sure their leverage. These workers are probably making between 30k and 50k a year so $500 isn't nothing.
  - intenex 6y ago
    If that's true...then why do you think Amazon is so afraid of/against them joining a union if it can't do anything?
    - handmodel 6y ago
      A) If the union has a good chance of increasing wages 400 to 600 per year locally, then that is a great deal for the union organizers, a passable deal for the workers, and a bad deal for Amazon. I didn't say they won't be able to raise wages at all - just maybe not enough to justify the $500 union fees. B) Not every state is a right-to-work state. So, from a 'worker's of the world unite' perspective then obviously making a union in Alabama will help other places form unions. I could be very wrong and perhaps the union could get 1 or 2k more per year - but I am skeptical.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        wages ∈ compensation
  - ineedasername 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jasonhansel 6y ago
Maybe if we WRITE IN ALL CAPS it will SOUND MORE PERSUASIVE.
Bakary 6y ago
This is another reminder that we have some of the negative aspects of a cyberpunk future without the cool empowering hacking parts. I wonder about the sort of person who would design such a website. Surely you'd have to be dead inside to create such an abomination, even if it's just a job? I am not trying to be hyperbolic here.
- sosodev 6y ago
  A lot of people believe their corporations when they say "unions are bad for everybody"
- julienreszka 6y ago
  It's not difficult to find many regular people who hate unions vehemently. I would be angry too is someone spoke in my name without my consent.
  - C19is20 6y ago
    You must be angry a lot - and often, too.
    - julienreszka 6y ago
      This isn't true. Why would you think so?
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Probably they assume that you live somewhere where the government (or someone else) is regularly claiming to speak for you.
- LMYahooTFY 6y ago
  >I wonder about the sort of person who would design such a website. Surely you'd have to be dead inside to create such an abomination, even if it's just a job? I am not trying to be hyperbolic here. Though I disagree with Amazon's official arguments, I'm even more opposed to the notion that anyone who agrees with them is dead inside.
CobrastanJorji 6y ago
Wow. Just...wow. Maybe the line with the worst rhetorical trick is this bullshit in the "joining a union" FAQ: "Q: Will a union provide better wages and benefits? A: A union cannot guarantee better wages and benefits. With union negotiations, you could end up with more, the same.... or less than what you make today." I love that because it works exactly as well when you just negate the question: "Q: Will NOT having a union provide better wages and benefits? A: Without a union, Amazon cannot guarantee better wages and benefits. Without union negotiations, you could end up with more, the same.... or less than what you make today."
- conanbatt 6y ago
  There is an asymmetry because the union collects a due even if the fail to do the wage negotiation.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Q: Will NOT having a union provide better wages and benefits? A: Yes, it could. Unions introduce parasitic loss and collective bargaining. Collective bargaining allows a large part of the workforce to negotiate as one unit and consequently higher performing workers are unable to negotiate a salary commensurate with their performance. In order to retain higher performing workers, corporations end up paying average performing workers more and high performers less under union conditions. The amount of benefit you receive from collective bargaining, and if you receive a benefit at all, are directly related to your productivity relative to the median worker.
  - flower-giraffe 6y ago
    > higher performing workers Do you mean the ones that sit at their keyboards earning a multiple of the salaries of those who do the actual physical work necessary to serve customers. I often remind my colleagues that we are very lucky to have such easy and well paid jobs by asking the simple question, “how many bags of sand did you carry yesterday?”
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Sebguer 6y ago
Why is blatant union suppression like this even allowed?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Why is blatant union suppression like this even allowed? First Amendment. (To be clear, this is a terrible site. But as long as it isn’t threatening or lying, I don’t see why the government should be able to suppress it.)
- beaner 6y ago
  I think we should keep asking that question about everything spoken or printed that someone, somewhere might potentially disagree with or find objectionable. Free speech means freedom from disagreement and objection. So all speech should be approved ("allowed") by the proper authorities before being able to be communicated. Free speech is restricted speech.
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  Same reason why Amazon can cut service to Parler. The First Amendment guarantees the right for private companies to govern their own properties, literature, and procedures. If you do not like it you may criticize them publicly, boycott their business, or start your own competing employer with the policies you prefer.
- refurb 6y ago
  Is every time someone pushes against something it's now "suppression"? The National Labor Relations Act allows employers to argue against the employees voting for union formation.
- boomlinde 6y ago
  I'm personally glad that Amazon are able to express this sentiment for all to see. That the only time they've ever supposedly cared about the spending power of the workers they employ concerns union membership dues should be quite telling. They're betting that unions are going to cost them money because they believe that high union membership will lead to better wages, costly improvements to working conditions or other costly responsibilities. There's no other conceivable reason for them to publish this trite because it is in their interest to pay as little as possible for as much productive power as possible. It's not at all in their interest that you could buy a fancy dinner for the money you'd spend on membership dues.
Simulacra 6y ago
Amazon warehouses are one of the few reasons, I think we can all agree, that a union has a place. There is the argument to be made that if someone doesn't like the job, go elsewhere, it's the free market. True, but I see a lot of these fulfillment centers in small towns. They become a major employer, sometimes eclipsing even the local Walmart. It's a place where jobs are hard to come by, so maybe Amazon offers something the desperate, the poor, and the struggling something they can't get elsewhere. I don't have an answer for it, but shifting a little power away from the corporate monolith and to the citizens of the community it inhabits, sounds like a good idea.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>. It's a place where jobs are hard to come by, so maybe Amazon offers something the desperate, the poor, and the struggling something they can't get elsewhere. If you make it illegal to provide bad jobs, those jobs will not be substituted one-for-one for good jobs. That's not how an economy works. You're only hurting low-skilled workers by mandating higher minimum work standards. Responding to below: Yes, every so-called labor protection for adults, except protection against contract fraud, should be abolished, for exactly that reason. Even child labor laws only became practical when per capita GDP reached a level where prohibiting child labor wouldn't lead to an increase in people dying from privation. Child labor is also very different than most types of labor, in involving parties who cannot in many cases provide informed consent, so laws relating to it can be justified in a society based on voluntary interaction.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    You can make this argument about literally any labor protection. “You’re only hurting people desperate for work by mandating safety requirements.” “You’re only hurting poor families by banning child labor.”
  - tacitusarc 6y ago
    This is a very tidy theoretical argument, but in practice you don't build a warehouse in a rural area along a shipping route then just abandon it when the community unionizes. Companies stick around for as long as they can possibly make a return on that investment, even if it means paying the people at the top less or decreasing margin to comply with union demands. And yeah, unions can go too far, but Amazon warehouses seem like a great place for them. Also, as long as the state is right to work so union participation is voluntary, what's the problem with it?
tyingq 6y ago
"" I noticed on other Squarespace sites that second comment is usually just the domain minus the TLD. I wonder if "cranberry groundhog" means anything in particular. Edit: Guess it's autogenerated? https://cranberry-groundhog-8agy.squarespace.com/ https://cranberry-groundhog-8agy.squarespace.com/
- jrockway 6y ago
  I tried it in curl before your edit and yeah, "curl https://ext-sq.squarespace.com https://ext-sq.squarespace.com -H 'Host: cranberry-groundhog-8agy.squarespace.com'" just returns this site. Probably something to use before your IT team sets up the CNAME record.
jrockway 6y ago
I really like it when lawyers have to sign off on your propaganda and you end up with an asterisk pointing to fine print less than two sentences in.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
What I don't understand is why anybody would believe opinion pieces put out by their employer regarding if a union is right for you or not. Your interests are clearly not aligned. Is there some segment of workers who can't appreciate that fact? Whenever anybody gives you an opinion on anything, it will be tainted with their interests. Is pondering a topic from another party's perspective an exceptional critical thinking skill of sorts? I ask because it seems this sort of advertising is often effective.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Don't take it completely at face value. This wasn't just to to try to convince people that a union was a bad choice, this was a scare tactic to indicate how angry Amazon will be if they go ahead & unionize, and the consequences of that anger. See the part about not being so "helpful". Unionization efforts also always take place against the backdrop of former employers simply shutting down the business location and moving elsewhere to avoid unions: Subtle and not so subtle threats of that are always in play during unionization efforts.
  - Meph504 6y ago
    Well businesses closing and moving, has happened a considerable amount, and often to devastating effects to a community, so it seems like something that would be of real concern. Realistically, how much would it hurt to move amazon warehouses near the border of any neighboring state? The days of the factories, and none movable infrastructure a long gone, so it is a strong factor to consider.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      It doesn't even have to be another state. It can be a few miles away: Fire all current employees because you're shutting down. Open the new place, hire new people. I literally witnessed this threat first hand growing up when my mom was involved in union efforts.
wojciii 6y ago
Amazon recently opened up in Sweden. According to this (Danish) https://fagbladet3f.dk/artikel/svenske-amazon-arbejdere-faar-overenskomst https://fagbladet3f.dk/artikel/svenske-amazon-arbejdere-faar... the workers are in an union.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  I believe like 70% of all workers in Sweden are in an union. It's basically the same in Finland (I'm Finnish and in an union).
  - detaro 6y ago
    Yeah, and like 90% are covered by union agreements. Just culturally and legally a very different environment.
MattGaiser 6y ago
This seems like the most mundane anti union campaign. Other times there are veiled threats about "competitiveness" and work allocation and such. Amazon: "Don't pay $500 in dues" Their main argument is that it is not worth the money.
hansvm 6y ago
Genuine question: From Amazon's perspective unions are strictly a net-loss. Even if the unions offered the employees zero advantages, the same paychecks from Amazon would have less impact on workers because of dues/meetings, so you'd expect moderately higher attrition and other negative effects. On the flip side though, is it actually clear that an Amazon union _would_ benefit workers once accounting for the overhead? Is that even the goal, or are prospective Amazon unions just trying to improve safety levels to something on par with other warehouses? Are there other factors?
- bbreier 6y ago
  https://www.fastcompany.com/90227665/the-economy-is-booming-your-salary-is-not-blame-the-decline-of-unions https://www.fastcompany.com/90227665/the-economy-is-booming-... Quick Google search turned this up, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole but this line seems relevant: > Factors like race, gender, and educational attainment have an undeniable effect on people’s economic outcomes over time that unions do not necessarily flatten, but certainly helped to mitigate. For instance, macro-level data show that unionized workers, in general, see a wage boost of around 20%. When VanHeuvelen controlled for various demographic factors like race and geographic location, he tracked wage increases between 3% and 12.5% for union members. I'd like my chances that will add up to more than $500 over the year if I were a union worker, and this does not take into account the other potential upsides.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    Interesting. 3% of $25k/yr easily translates into $500 in post-tax income, and that's on the low end.
captainzidgel 6y ago
> IF YOU’RE PAYING DUES… it will be RESTRICTIVE meaning it won’t be easy to be as helpful and social with each other. So be a DOER, stay friendly and get things done versus paying dues What is this line even supposed to mean? Probably the most incomprehensible union busting talking point I've ever heard.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I was confused at that as well. Ultimately I decided it was a veiled threat that management would be angry and make their lives harder.
  - scotth 6y ago
    That, or they're pitting union and non-union members against each other.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      Usually it's all or nothing: a place unionizes, everyone is a member of the union. Technically, you could say "no I'm not going to be a member". But you're still part of what is called the bargaining unit. In some cases it is even possible to opt out of the union dues... there was a Supreme Court case about it recently that came down on the side of allowing opt-out, but I don't know the full extent/ramifications of that ruling.
      - Meph504 6y ago
        The ramifications are pretty massive. here is a decent summary. https://www3.swipeclock.com/blog/union-employers-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-union-dues/ https://www3.swipeclock.com/blog/union-employers-what-you-ne...
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  My wife worked in the event planning industry - the few unionized venues she had to deal with were a huge pain loaded with restrictions. As a client you couldn't even move a table by yourself on the spot - a union employee had to do it as part of an assigned task. Perhaps it's warning of similar red tape that gets in the way of doing work directly.
jerry1979 6y ago
I love reading through things like this. Interesting and inconsistent use of the oxford comma.
ineedasername 6y ago
I got a weird vibe of WW II-era propaganda from it, the cute music bopping dog... like a modern version of something out of a newsreel piece, or a parody of it from a Fallout videogame. It's so blatant & over the top that I'd almost believe the union organizers set it up to make Amazon look bad. And it's telling that they focus pretty exclusively on the $500 in dues: They pay their employees little enough that they know ~$10/week might be a significant decision making factor here.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  <strike>They pay their employees so much that they only make $1k/employee in profit.</strike> The dues on top of whatever useless shit the union negotiates for could put amazon back into the read without any benefit for anyone except union officials. Pleade strike the first sentence of this comment, thanks.
  - batiudrami 6y ago
    No, they agressively undercut competitors (to attempt to force them out of the market) so much that they only make $1k/employee profit. What a ridiculous narrative you're trying to push.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > they agressively undercut competitors (to attempt to force them out of the market) so much That they provide excellent value to consumers. Indeed the recent pandemic would have been much worse without them. > What a ridiculous narrative you're trying to push. Maybe try understanding others’ perspectives instead of ridiculing them.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Amazon is free to refuse to sign any contract with the union that doesn't leave them with their desired level of profitability. Forming a union doesn't change that. Amazon undercuts competitors and plays hard ball with suppliers literally every day. That's business, that's life. I don't see why workers shouldn't take their opportunity to engage in tough negotiations with Amazon themselves.
aphextron 6y ago
Solidarity forever.
lend000 6y ago
I wonder how many people commenting have actually been part of a union. I have. My take is that if it's voluntary: great. If the union has negotiated that a company cannot hire you without being a part of the union: not great. Perhaps that should even be illegal. Forcing people making minimum wage to pay union dues is as far from helping people at the bottom as you can get. Unions are typically about benefitting people with TENURE. It's one of the reasons you end up with lots of tenured teachers with great pay who are impossible to fire, while the best young teachers with relatively terrible terms defect to private or charter schools, burn out, or become cynics and wait their turn to do nothing once they have tenure.
- zerocrates 6y ago
  What you're talking about making illegal, requiring all employees to join the union or pay dues, that's already illegal in much of the country: that's what "right-to-work" laws do. Alabama is one of the states with a right-to-work law.
  - Meph504 6y ago
    So from 1977 until 2018, you could be required to pay union dues, even if you weren't a member of the union even in "right to work" states, 22 of them. So it isn't like you've been free and clear to not have a union interfere with you being hired. It took the supreme court (which over threw its own ruling) to remove this. Additionally, even in places where you have union and non-union employees, the unions can make things difficult, and costly for non-union employees. My personal experience was that I removed from a wall mount a wi-fi router, rebooted it, and placed it back on the wall. This resulted in me reprimanded, my department having to pay a 4 hour call out fee, to the union electrician. So, my choices are to call out a union electrician to service the mounted piece of equipment. Or "accidentally" bump the IO switch on the surge protector. It was this, and countless other stupid shit, that made me really dislike working in a place with a union.
    - ahepp 6y ago
      This is pretty much the only complaint about unions I can get behind. I think the best solution is to give the union a substantial ownership stake in the company, so that they have an incentive to operate efficiently
steve_adams_86 6y ago
That very first * is the first major point for unions. Many unions protect part time workers, or protect workers from being excluded from a fair share of benefits based on their inputs. The reason for this is that there’s no incentive to push hours down until no one gets benefits. Which is not uncommon, unfortunately. Many companies tout incredible benefits with a significant portion of their workforce having no entitlement to it because of arbitrary suppression of their shifts. I don’t believe unions are universally perfect. When they’re well run and union members participate and have a voice, they can be quite amazing. My partner’s union makes my cosy software job seem like it’s missing something. Sure she pays huge dues, but she’s also given protections and benefits I couldn’t even dream of. I net about 4x as much as her on paper, but if you figured in the cumulative value of her union agreement, it would be much more than her dues. Collective bargaining is no joke. She has life insurance that would cost me an arm and a leg, a great pension plan, incredible leave options, very generous extended health/vision/dental benefits... It’s a long list. I could say my money is better but it’s nowhere near as secure and dependable, and although it looks so much better paper, I’d be spending a huge amount to get the same benefits privately. I think she gets something like 6 weeks of leave per year, too. If I don’t work, I don’t get paid, period.
- Meph504 6y ago
  Are you in the U.S.? You say you don't get paid leave as a software developer, are you a contractor?
  - steve_adams_86 6y ago
    I’m in Canada, but I work an hourly contract with no explicit vacation time. By law I need to be paid some minimum amount to cover the bare minimum of vacation time (4% of my wage, I think) but ultimately if I’m on vacation, I’m not going to get a pay cheque.
    - Meph504 6y ago
      maybe there is a language thing here buy you said you are on an hourly contract? Are you employed by this company as a full time employee, or are you a contractor? In the U.S. at least, this is a night and day difference so I guess that is why I am trying to get clarification on that.
lefrenchy 6y ago
> Don’t buy that dinner, don’t buy those school supplies, don’t buy those gifts because you won’t have that almost $500 you paid in dues. WHY NOT save the money and get the books, gifts & things you want? DO IT without dues! Man, that is really grim. Basically admitting that $500 will be make or break for many of these employees, while the company itself is hitting record numbers.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/26/technology/amazon-q2-earnings/ https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/26/technology/amazon-q2-earnin... I edited to remove my mistake, the downstream convo is gonna be wacky
  - pensatoio 6y ago
    Context which will be blithely ignored.
    - lefrenchy 6y ago
      If being one of the most successful businesses in the world means you can’t pay your employees a living wage, then I think there’s a fundamental problem. That’s also context.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > If being one of the most successful businesses in the world means you can’t pay your employees a living wage, then I think there’s a fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that the government keeps mandating policies that drive up the cost of living so that low-skilled and unskilled workers are constantly struggling to keep their head above water, then tries to solve the problem by doubling down on the same failed policies that make it harder for poor and working class people to survive. Some people don’t make very much when they negotiate because their labor actually isn’t worth very much on the market. Its not worth very much when translated into goods and services. So they work a lot and they don’t have very much and its sad. So people feel bad for them and change the law so they have to get paid more money for the same work. But they aren’t any more productive so there isn’t any more stuff to go around, so when they take their more money to the market, they bid up the prices of goods and end up where they started, sometimes even a bit further behind. But they spent the money at a business that makes a profit. And that profit eventually ends up in the pocket of someone who owns that business. But the working class person is still dependent on that artificially high wage, and the cycle repeats itself.
cosmotic 6y ago
Side stepping all the union talk, this site is ugly and inaccessible. The contrast ratios are awful; white text sitting on top of full screen, lightly colored videos? This was made in haste by some amateurs. Or maybe it's trying to be trendy? It's tragic either way. Doubly so if you actually read the content.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  I imagine they allocated like an hour to make the site. The FAQ are just a bunch of poor-quality JPEG images. Guessing that properly layouting that FAQ would've taken too much time.
staz 6y ago
everybody seems to be talking about wages negotiation but let's remember that some Amazon employees had to pee in bottles. It's easier to collectively bargain for toilets to be better located (though it's sad that you have to)
nickkell 6y ago
How embarrassing! What would you do if you were asked to make this site?
ornornor 6y ago
> you will have to PAY from your PAYCHECK that’s insulting, why CAPITALIZE words in such SHORT sentences? Do they really THINK their employees are SO dumb that they can’t even read a FULL sentence?
cudgy 6y ago
Doesn’t the existence of the website validate that Amazon considers the union to be favorable for workers and, therefore, unfavorable to them? Otherwise, why would Amazon care enough to create it? I doubt it was truly due to Amazon’s concern for the workers alone.

164 points by woodgrainz 6y ago

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago

I love the *Applies to full time employees... The most basic of caste systems.

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
Are they born into part-time employment?
- ouchjars 6y ago
  If you have any of a number of disabilities, that is exactly the case.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  I don't know about Amazon, but many employers don't let most employees work full time. If that's the case these workers sort of are born into part-time employment since the socioeconomic class you grow up in is the biggest factor of success.

chmod775 6y ago

Yuck. After that particular piece of slimy corporate propaganda I suddenly feel the urge to join a union. And I don't even work for Amazon. I guess when you can't make a proper case, just use 50pt fonts and stock-art-esque images of people giving thumbs up. That'll convince 'em!

CryptoPunk 6y ago

The best argument against unions is thay they violate contract liberty, and thereby inhibit market freedom and increase economic rent seeking. With a couple notable exceptions, like Hollywood, any industry in the US that came to be dominated by unions became uncompetitive: the auto industry, US Steel, and the passenger rail service, which went bankrupt as a result of the demands of the "Brotherhoods". Numerous states have been straddled with trillions in pension obligations and increasingly inefficient public sectors, due to unions. Unfortunately, those working for the media are all unionized now so even the prism through which we interpret the world is now propagandized by the left.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
> states have been straddled with trillions in pension obligations and increasingly inefficient public sectors Yeah, like the police unions... we should get rid of those first.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  Yes, police unions are associated with increase in police misconduct.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hackyhacky 6y ago
You're asserting causality based on very few data points. The US auto industry is still very union-based, and beyond the occasional bailout, seems to be doing well. Moreover, plenty of industries that didn't become dominated by unions also became uncompetitive. You say that "those working for the media are all unionized" but I have no idea what you're talking about. Citation? Unionization does not cure bad management, it merely makes sure that the employees are treated fairly, regardless of the quality of management. Remember: the reason people have jobs is to feed their families, not to support the company.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  I cannot prove causality, but I think common sense dictates here. Everything we know about economics tells us that inhibiting contract liberty in the way that labor laws do in order to give unions monopolistic control over the negotiating power of a company's work force will be economically harmful and an objective review of US economic history validates that. >>The US auto industry is still very union-based, and beyond the occasional bailout, seems to be doing well. The US auto industry is now protected by trade barriers so the bleed has stopped, but it saw a massive drop in market share since the early 1960s: https://detroitwillrise.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/1/18213209/7879577_orig.jpg https://detroitwillrise.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/1/18213209/... Tesla is doing great, and its workforce is not unionized. >>You say that "those working for the media are all unionized" but I have no idea what you're talking about. Citation? Look at the New York Times: https://www.nyguild.org/about-the-new-york-times https://www.nyguild.org/about-the-new-york-times Or the Washington Post: https://postguild.org/ https://postguild.org/ Or any other major news organization. >Unionization does not cure bad management, it merely makes sure that the employees are treated fairly, regardless of the quality of management. It reduces managerial discretion. It makes it so that the labor market is not free. It makes unionized workers into a privileged set of insiders who do not compete on an level playing field with other workers. It also reduces the range of options available to investors/entrepreneurs, in inhibiting their contract liberty. Reducing optionality in voluntary interaction is going to be an economic net negative. >>Remember: the reason people have jobs is to feed their families, not to support the company. The reason people invest in companies, or buy from a company, is to personally profit, not to provide people with jobs. Once you force the private sector to act like a charity, you are introducing top-down control and limiting the free market that is so effective at coordinating large numbers of people to better meet their collective needs. responding to below: chmod775: >>Worker's unions are compatible with free markets as much as corporate groups or large companies are. Yes, that is true. I meant under the current laws, where a union can force their employer to negotiate exclusively with them. This is mandated collective bargaining, as opposed to mutually voluntary collective bargaining. >>Except that a most of the competition that leapfrogged them has famously strong unions. Besides the unionized German auto sector, I don't know what you're referring to. Some of my examples, like the US passenger rail service which went bankrupt soon after the unions took over, or the public sector, had/have no foreign competition. With respect to Germany, it should be noted that Germany's wage/GDP growth has been quite stagnant since the 1970s as well. Its auto industry has been successful, but that can be attributed to numerous other factors, like its effective education system, its engineering culture, and government policy focused on promoting auto manufacturing, all of which can counter-act the negative effects of its unions. Also it should be noted that the relationship between unions and employers in Germany is more cooperative that in the US. jakelazaroff: >>Unions increase the negotiating power of those selling their labor. That’s not forcing the private sector to act like a charity, it’s just giving workers more leverage. They increase that negotiating power by preventing the employer from negotiating with the larger labor pool. It is a zero sum gain that enables unionized workers to extract economic rent. danShumway: >>Alabama is a right-to-work state, so how is a union inhibiting contract liberty? You legally cannot be forced in Alabama to pay union dues if you don't want to be part of a union. Federal labor laws, that force employers to collectively bargain if a union demands it, still apply in Alabama. But yes, right to work has gone some way in restoring contract liberty, and has been a lifeline for the US auto industry, and US manufacturing in general. The Biden administration is planning to get rid of right to work: https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2020/10/21/biden--senate-democrats-announce-right-to-work-laws-are-on-the-chopping-block-if-they-win/?sh=7d7c1df87a2d https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2020/10/21/biden... > Tesla is doing great, and its workforce is not unionized. >>By what definition? There have been multiple articles and accounts describing Tesla's factories as awful places to work, and its management tried to pressure its workers to ignore COVID restrictions. We're talking about the strength of industry here. By that standard, Tesla is doing great. As for labor conditions, the massive export revenue that Tesla is bringing into the US will help US workers overall. I recommend looking at the big picture. There's no sense mandating that all jobs provide great working conditions if it leads to stagnation of US industry, and a lack of profitable employers that pay high wages. monsiousbanana: >>I can't believe you're saying that with a straight face, talking about Jeff Bezzos' company, after covid and 2020. I don't know if you realize how much Amazon helped people during the lockdowns.. Cost-effective and timely home delivery of consumer goods was an absolute lifesaver, literally. Amazon is also a massive employer. Without all those jobs that Amazon's export revenue creates in the US, the US worker would be much worse off. olliej: >>Such rent as sick leave, holidays, weekends, basic health insurance (US), ...? That rent? The benefits that employers provide should be based on market demand, not mandated by cookie cutter rules. What if an employee prefers higher wages over health insurance? Cookie cutter mandatory benefits prevent that arrangement. They prevent optimal trade-offs, that would be found if benefits were the product of mutually voluntary interaction, from being found. It's not economically sound policy. An economy is far far too complex and fast-evolving to regiment in this top-down way.

lxe 6y ago

> We've got you covered *asterisk It's almost like a parody of itself

Lammy 6y ago

I like how the main objection would be instantly nullified if Amazon paid their workers more. Do you think a union would be able to negotiate for more than $500 of extra compensation?

handmodel 6y ago
I honestly am skeptical. AMZN already pays more than other small businesses and even medium/large businesses. It doesn't make money by paying its workers less - it makes money with efficiency and volume. Alabama is a right-to-work state. My understanding is that it would be completely legal for Amazon to hire new employees the second someone doesn't show up because of a strike, so I'm not sure their leverage. These workers are probably making between 30k and 50k a year so $500 isn't nothing.
- intenex 6y ago
  If that's true...then why do you think Amazon is so afraid of/against them joining a union if it can't do anything?
  - handmodel 6y ago
    A) If the union has a good chance of increasing wages 400 to 600 per year locally, then that is a great deal for the union organizers, a passable deal for the workers, and a bad deal for Amazon. I didn't say they won't be able to raise wages at all - just maybe not enough to justify the $500 union fees. B) Not every state is a right-to-work state. So, from a 'worker's of the world unite' perspective then obviously making a union in Alabama will help other places form unions. I could be very wrong and perhaps the union could get 1 or 2k more per year - but I am skeptical.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      wages ∈ compensation
- ineedasername 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jasonhansel 6y ago

Maybe if we WRITE IN ALL CAPS it will SOUND MORE PERSUASIVE.

Bakary 6y ago

This is another reminder that we have some of the negative aspects of a cyberpunk future without the cool empowering hacking parts. I wonder about the sort of person who would design such a website. Surely you'd have to be dead inside to create such an abomination, even if it's just a job? I am not trying to be hyperbolic here.

sosodev 6y ago
A lot of people believe their corporations when they say "unions are bad for everybody"
julienreszka 6y ago
It's not difficult to find many regular people who hate unions vehemently. I would be angry too is someone spoke in my name without my consent.
- C19is20 6y ago
  You must be angry a lot - and often, too.
  - julienreszka 6y ago
    This isn't true. Why would you think so?
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Probably they assume that you live somewhere where the government (or someone else) is regularly claiming to speak for you.
LMYahooTFY 6y ago
>I wonder about the sort of person who would design such a website. Surely you'd have to be dead inside to create such an abomination, even if it's just a job? I am not trying to be hyperbolic here. Though I disagree with Amazon's official arguments, I'm even more opposed to the notion that anyone who agrees with them is dead inside.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago

Wow. Just...wow. Maybe the line with the worst rhetorical trick is this bullshit in the "joining a union" FAQ: "Q: Will a union provide better wages and benefits? A: A union cannot guarantee better wages and benefits. With union negotiations, you could end up with more, the same.... or less than what you make today." I love that because it works exactly as well when you just negate the question: "Q: Will NOT having a union provide better wages and benefits? A: Without a union, Amazon cannot guarantee better wages and benefits. Without union negotiations, you could end up with more, the same.... or less than what you make today."

conanbatt 6y ago
There is an asymmetry because the union collects a due even if the fail to do the wage negotiation.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Q: Will NOT having a union provide better wages and benefits? A: Yes, it could. Unions introduce parasitic loss and collective bargaining. Collective bargaining allows a large part of the workforce to negotiate as one unit and consequently higher performing workers are unable to negotiate a salary commensurate with their performance. In order to retain higher performing workers, corporations end up paying average performing workers more and high performers less under union conditions. The amount of benefit you receive from collective bargaining, and if you receive a benefit at all, are directly related to your productivity relative to the median worker.
- flower-giraffe 6y ago
  > higher performing workers Do you mean the ones that sit at their keyboards earning a multiple of the salaries of those who do the actual physical work necessary to serve customers. I often remind my colleagues that we are very lucky to have such easy and well paid jobs by asking the simple question, “how many bags of sand did you carry yesterday?”
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago

Sebguer 6y ago

Why is blatant union suppression like this even allowed?

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Why is blatant union suppression like this even allowed? First Amendment. (To be clear, this is a terrible site. But as long as it isn’t threatening or lying, I don’t see why the government should be able to suppress it.)
beaner 6y ago
I think we should keep asking that question about everything spoken or printed that someone, somewhere might potentially disagree with or find objectionable. Free speech means freedom from disagreement and objection. So all speech should be approved ("allowed") by the proper authorities before being able to be communicated. Free speech is restricted speech.
drak0n1c 6y ago
Same reason why Amazon can cut service to Parler. The First Amendment guarantees the right for private companies to govern their own properties, literature, and procedures. If you do not like it you may criticize them publicly, boycott their business, or start your own competing employer with the policies you prefer.
refurb 6y ago
Is every time someone pushes against something it's now "suppression"? The National Labor Relations Act allows employers to argue against the employees voting for union formation.
boomlinde 6y ago
I'm personally glad that Amazon are able to express this sentiment for all to see. That the only time they've ever supposedly cared about the spending power of the workers they employ concerns union membership dues should be quite telling. They're betting that unions are going to cost them money because they believe that high union membership will lead to better wages, costly improvements to working conditions or other costly responsibilities. There's no other conceivable reason for them to publish this trite because it is in their interest to pay as little as possible for as much productive power as possible. It's not at all in their interest that you could buy a fancy dinner for the money you'd spend on membership dues.

Simulacra 6y ago

Amazon warehouses are one of the few reasons, I think we can all agree, that a union has a place. There is the argument to be made that if someone doesn't like the job, go elsewhere, it's the free market. True, but I see a lot of these fulfillment centers in small towns. They become a major employer, sometimes eclipsing even the local Walmart. It's a place where jobs are hard to come by, so maybe Amazon offers something the desperate, the poor, and the struggling something they can't get elsewhere. I don't have an answer for it, but shifting a little power away from the corporate monolith and to the citizens of the community it inhabits, sounds like a good idea.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
>>. It's a place where jobs are hard to come by, so maybe Amazon offers something the desperate, the poor, and the struggling something they can't get elsewhere. If you make it illegal to provide bad jobs, those jobs will not be substituted one-for-one for good jobs. That's not how an economy works. You're only hurting low-skilled workers by mandating higher minimum work standards. Responding to below: Yes, every so-called labor protection for adults, except protection against contract fraud, should be abolished, for exactly that reason. Even child labor laws only became practical when per capita GDP reached a level where prohibiting child labor wouldn't lead to an increase in people dying from privation. Child labor is also very different than most types of labor, in involving parties who cannot in many cases provide informed consent, so laws relating to it can be justified in a society based on voluntary interaction.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  You can make this argument about literally any labor protection. “You’re only hurting people desperate for work by mandating safety requirements.” “You’re only hurting poor families by banning child labor.”
- tacitusarc 6y ago
  This is a very tidy theoretical argument, but in practice you don't build a warehouse in a rural area along a shipping route then just abandon it when the community unionizes. Companies stick around for as long as they can possibly make a return on that investment, even if it means paying the people at the top less or decreasing margin to comply with union demands. And yeah, unions can go too far, but Amazon warehouses seem like a great place for them. Also, as long as the state is right to work so union participation is voluntary, what's the problem with it?

tyingq 6y ago

"" I noticed on other Squarespace sites that second comment is usually just the domain minus the TLD. I wonder if "cranberry groundhog" means anything in particular. Edit: Guess it's autogenerated? https://cranberry-groundhog-8agy.squarespace.com/ https://cranberry-groundhog-8agy.squarespace.com/

jrockway 6y ago
I tried it in curl before your edit and yeah, "curl https://ext-sq.squarespace.com https://ext-sq.squarespace.com -H 'Host: cranberry-groundhog-8agy.squarespace.com'" just returns this site. Probably something to use before your IT team sets up the CNAME record.

jrockway 6y ago

I really like it when lawyers have to sign off on your propaganda and you end up with an asterisk pointing to fine print less than two sentences in.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

What I don't understand is why anybody would believe opinion pieces put out by their employer regarding if a union is right for you or not. Your interests are clearly not aligned. Is there some segment of workers who can't appreciate that fact? Whenever anybody gives you an opinion on anything, it will be tainted with their interests. Is pondering a topic from another party's perspective an exceptional critical thinking skill of sorts? I ask because it seems this sort of advertising is often effective.

ineedasername 6y ago
Don't take it completely at face value. This wasn't just to to try to convince people that a union was a bad choice, this was a scare tactic to indicate how angry Amazon will be if they go ahead & unionize, and the consequences of that anger. See the part about not being so "helpful". Unionization efforts also always take place against the backdrop of former employers simply shutting down the business location and moving elsewhere to avoid unions: Subtle and not so subtle threats of that are always in play during unionization efforts.
- Meph504 6y ago
  Well businesses closing and moving, has happened a considerable amount, and often to devastating effects to a community, so it seems like something that would be of real concern. Realistically, how much would it hurt to move amazon warehouses near the border of any neighboring state? The days of the factories, and none movable infrastructure a long gone, so it is a strong factor to consider.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    It doesn't even have to be another state. It can be a few miles away: Fire all current employees because you're shutting down. Open the new place, hire new people. I literally witnessed this threat first hand growing up when my mom was involved in union efforts.

wojciii 6y ago

Amazon recently opened up in Sweden. According to this (Danish) https://fagbladet3f.dk/artikel/svenske-amazon-arbejdere-faar-overenskomst https://fagbladet3f.dk/artikel/svenske-amazon-arbejdere-faar... the workers are in an union.

Hamuko 6y ago
I believe like 70% of all workers in Sweden are in an union. It's basically the same in Finland (I'm Finnish and in an union).
- detaro 6y ago
  Yeah, and like 90% are covered by union agreements. Just culturally and legally a very different environment.

MattGaiser 6y ago

This seems like the most mundane anti union campaign. Other times there are veiled threats about "competitiveness" and work allocation and such. Amazon: "Don't pay $500 in dues" Their main argument is that it is not worth the money.

hansvm 6y ago

Genuine question: From Amazon's perspective unions are strictly a net-loss. Even if the unions offered the employees zero advantages, the same paychecks from Amazon would have less impact on workers because of dues/meetings, so you'd expect moderately higher attrition and other negative effects. On the flip side though, is it actually clear that an Amazon union _would_ benefit workers once accounting for the overhead? Is that even the goal, or are prospective Amazon unions just trying to improve safety levels to something on par with other warehouses? Are there other factors?

bbreier 6y ago
https://www.fastcompany.com/90227665/the-economy-is-booming-your-salary-is-not-blame-the-decline-of-unions https://www.fastcompany.com/90227665/the-economy-is-booming-... Quick Google search turned this up, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole but this line seems relevant: > Factors like race, gender, and educational attainment have an undeniable effect on people’s economic outcomes over time that unions do not necessarily flatten, but certainly helped to mitigate. For instance, macro-level data show that unionized workers, in general, see a wage boost of around 20%. When VanHeuvelen controlled for various demographic factors like race and geographic location, he tracked wage increases between 3% and 12.5% for union members. I'd like my chances that will add up to more than $500 over the year if I were a union worker, and this does not take into account the other potential upsides.
- hansvm 6y ago
  Interesting. 3% of $25k/yr easily translates into $500 in post-tax income, and that's on the low end.

captainzidgel 6y ago

> IF YOU’RE PAYING DUES… it will be RESTRICTIVE meaning it won’t be easy to be as helpful and social with each other. So be a DOER, stay friendly and get things done versus paying dues What is this line even supposed to mean? Probably the most incomprehensible union busting talking point I've ever heard.

ineedasername 6y ago
I was confused at that as well. Ultimately I decided it was a veiled threat that management would be angry and make their lives harder.
- scotth 6y ago
  That, or they're pitting union and non-union members against each other.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Usually it's all or nothing: a place unionizes, everyone is a member of the union. Technically, you could say "no I'm not going to be a member". But you're still part of what is called the bargaining unit. In some cases it is even possible to opt out of the union dues... there was a Supreme Court case about it recently that came down on the side of allowing opt-out, but I don't know the full extent/ramifications of that ruling.
    - Meph504 6y ago
      The ramifications are pretty massive. here is a decent summary. https://www3.swipeclock.com/blog/union-employers-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-union-dues/ https://www3.swipeclock.com/blog/union-employers-what-you-ne...
drak0n1c 6y ago
My wife worked in the event planning industry - the few unionized venues she had to deal with were a huge pain loaded with restrictions. As a client you couldn't even move a table by yourself on the spot - a union employee had to do it as part of an assigned task. Perhaps it's warning of similar red tape that gets in the way of doing work directly.

jerry1979 6y ago

I love reading through things like this. Interesting and inconsistent use of the oxford comma.

ineedasername 6y ago

I got a weird vibe of WW II-era propaganda from it, the cute music bopping dog... like a modern version of something out of a newsreel piece, or a parody of it from a Fallout videogame. It's so blatant & over the top that I'd almost believe the union organizers set it up to make Amazon look bad. And it's telling that they focus pretty exclusively on the $500 in dues: They pay their employees little enough that they know ~$10/week might be a significant decision making factor here.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
<strike>They pay their employees so much that they only make $1k/employee in profit.</strike> The dues on top of whatever useless shit the union negotiates for could put amazon back into the read without any benefit for anyone except union officials. Pleade strike the first sentence of this comment, thanks.
- batiudrami 6y ago
  No, they agressively undercut competitors (to attempt to force them out of the market) so much that they only make $1k/employee profit. What a ridiculous narrative you're trying to push.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > they agressively undercut competitors (to attempt to force them out of the market) so much That they provide excellent value to consumers. Indeed the recent pandemic would have been much worse without them. > What a ridiculous narrative you're trying to push. Maybe try understanding others’ perspectives instead of ridiculing them.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Amazon is free to refuse to sign any contract with the union that doesn't leave them with their desired level of profitability. Forming a union doesn't change that. Amazon undercuts competitors and plays hard ball with suppliers literally every day. That's business, that's life. I don't see why workers shouldn't take their opportunity to engage in tough negotiations with Amazon themselves.

aphextron 6y ago

Solidarity forever.

lend000 6y ago

I wonder how many people commenting have actually been part of a union. I have. My take is that if it's voluntary: great. If the union has negotiated that a company cannot hire you without being a part of the union: not great. Perhaps that should even be illegal. Forcing people making minimum wage to pay union dues is as far from helping people at the bottom as you can get. Unions are typically about benefitting people with TENURE. It's one of the reasons you end up with lots of tenured teachers with great pay who are impossible to fire, while the best young teachers with relatively terrible terms defect to private or charter schools, burn out, or become cynics and wait their turn to do nothing once they have tenure.

zerocrates 6y ago
What you're talking about making illegal, requiring all employees to join the union or pay dues, that's already illegal in much of the country: that's what "right-to-work" laws do. Alabama is one of the states with a right-to-work law.
- Meph504 6y ago
  So from 1977 until 2018, you could be required to pay union dues, even if you weren't a member of the union even in "right to work" states, 22 of them. So it isn't like you've been free and clear to not have a union interfere with you being hired. It took the supreme court (which over threw its own ruling) to remove this. Additionally, even in places where you have union and non-union employees, the unions can make things difficult, and costly for non-union employees. My personal experience was that I removed from a wall mount a wi-fi router, rebooted it, and placed it back on the wall. This resulted in me reprimanded, my department having to pay a 4 hour call out fee, to the union electrician. So, my choices are to call out a union electrician to service the mounted piece of equipment. Or "accidentally" bump the IO switch on the surge protector. It was this, and countless other stupid shit, that made me really dislike working in a place with a union.
  - ahepp 6y ago
    This is pretty much the only complaint about unions I can get behind. I think the best solution is to give the union a substantial ownership stake in the company, so that they have an incentive to operate efficiently

steve_adams_86 6y ago

That very first * is the first major point for unions. Many unions protect part time workers, or protect workers from being excluded from a fair share of benefits based on their inputs. The reason for this is that there’s no incentive to push hours down until no one gets benefits. Which is not uncommon, unfortunately. Many companies tout incredible benefits with a significant portion of their workforce having no entitlement to it because of arbitrary suppression of their shifts. I don’t believe unions are universally perfect. When they’re well run and union members participate and have a voice, they can be quite amazing. My partner’s union makes my cosy software job seem like it’s missing something. Sure she pays huge dues, but she’s also given protections and benefits I couldn’t even dream of. I net about 4x as much as her on paper, but if you figured in the cumulative value of her union agreement, it would be much more than her dues. Collective bargaining is no joke. She has life insurance that would cost me an arm and a leg, a great pension plan, incredible leave options, very generous extended health/vision/dental benefits... It’s a long list. I could say my money is better but it’s nowhere near as secure and dependable, and although it looks so much better paper, I’d be spending a huge amount to get the same benefits privately. I think she gets something like 6 weeks of leave per year, too. If I don’t work, I don’t get paid, period.

Meph504 6y ago
Are you in the U.S.? You say you don't get paid leave as a software developer, are you a contractor?
- steve_adams_86 6y ago
  I’m in Canada, but I work an hourly contract with no explicit vacation time. By law I need to be paid some minimum amount to cover the bare minimum of vacation time (4% of my wage, I think) but ultimately if I’m on vacation, I’m not going to get a pay cheque.
  - Meph504 6y ago
    maybe there is a language thing here buy you said you are on an hourly contract? Are you employed by this company as a full time employee, or are you a contractor? In the U.S. at least, this is a night and day difference so I guess that is why I am trying to get clarification on that.

lefrenchy 6y ago

> Don’t buy that dinner, don’t buy those school supplies, don’t buy those gifts because you won’t have that almost $500 you paid in dues. WHY NOT save the money and get the books, gifts & things you want? DO IT without dues! Man, that is really grim. Basically admitting that $500 will be make or break for many of these employees, while the company itself is hitting record numbers.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/26/technology/amazon-q2-earnings/ https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/26/technology/amazon-q2-earnin... I edited to remove my mistake, the downstream convo is gonna be wacky
- pensatoio 6y ago
  Context which will be blithely ignored.
  - lefrenchy 6y ago
    If being one of the most successful businesses in the world means you can’t pay your employees a living wage, then I think there’s a fundamental problem. That’s also context.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > If being one of the most successful businesses in the world means you can’t pay your employees a living wage, then I think there’s a fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that the government keeps mandating policies that drive up the cost of living so that low-skilled and unskilled workers are constantly struggling to keep their head above water, then tries to solve the problem by doubling down on the same failed policies that make it harder for poor and working class people to survive. Some people don’t make very much when they negotiate because their labor actually isn’t worth very much on the market. Its not worth very much when translated into goods and services. So they work a lot and they don’t have very much and its sad. So people feel bad for them and change the law so they have to get paid more money for the same work. But they aren’t any more productive so there isn’t any more stuff to go around, so when they take their more money to the market, they bid up the prices of goods and end up where they started, sometimes even a bit further behind. But they spent the money at a business that makes a profit. And that profit eventually ends up in the pocket of someone who owns that business. But the working class person is still dependent on that artificially high wage, and the cycle repeats itself.

cosmotic 6y ago

Side stepping all the union talk, this site is ugly and inaccessible. The contrast ratios are awful; white text sitting on top of full screen, lightly colored videos? This was made in haste by some amateurs. Or maybe it's trying to be trendy? It's tragic either way. Doubly so if you actually read the content.

Hamuko 6y ago
I imagine they allocated like an hour to make the site. The FAQ are just a bunch of poor-quality JPEG images. Guessing that properly layouting that FAQ would've taken too much time.

staz 6y ago

everybody seems to be talking about wages negotiation but let's remember that some Amazon employees had to pee in bottles. It's easier to collectively bargain for toilets to be better located (though it's sad that you have to)

nickkell 6y ago

How embarrassing! What would you do if you were asked to make this site?

ornornor 6y ago

> you will have to PAY from your PAYCHECK that’s insulting, why CAPITALIZE words in such SHORT sentences? Do they really THINK their employees are SO dumb that they can’t even read a FULL sentence?

cudgy 6y ago

Doesn’t the existence of the website validate that Amazon considers the union to be favorable for workers and, therefore, unfavorable to them? Otherwise, why would Amazon care enough to create it? I doubt it was truly due to Amazon’s concern for the workers alone.