5 ms·

Ugh, this is disgusting and so patronising. Edit: Also, why are "union avoidance consultants" a thing? The US needs to fix its culture around unions. That's ab

Ugh, this is disgusting and so patronising. Edit: Also, why are "union avoidance consultants" a thing? The US needs to fix its culture around unions. That's absolutely wild.

TheCraiggers 6y ago
I don't think that's caused from the culture around unions so much as it's caused by the culture around capitalism. There are plenty of scummy niches that people have found ways of getting paid for. Everything from consultants to show your company how to layoff people to religious leaders and snake oil salesmen and conmen. It's a big spectrum.
falcolas 6y ago
Why pay your employees when you can pay a consultant to show how to keep your employee costs low? /s
- phone8675309 6y ago
  IF your company thinks spending $X on keeping you from unionizing is worth it then the benefit to you is at least ($X+1)/$num_workers to unionize.
  - chasd00 6y ago
    do you have any idea how big the num_workers number is? I'd wager for the average employee the benefit will be neagative, as in paycheck - union dues. The real benefit goes to the union bosses as num_workers * union_dues.
    - bjoli 6y ago
      Now, I am not very up to date on statistics, but unionised workers have traditionally earned about 10% more than non-uniomized ones in the US since at least the 80s. The article mentions 11%, which seems in line with what I know since before. I doubt any union would charge anywhere near that much.
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        Amazon's own literature says "almost $500" in dues[1]. If they get a 10% pay increase, then everyone making more than $5k comes out ahead. Everyone making $10k or more comes out more ahead than the union. The union bosses probably come out the most ahead because that $500 * (a lot of workers) goes to (a small number of union management types). It's hopefully obvious that the union makes it better for at least the lower 50% of performers. It seems likely to me that it makes things better for more like the bottom 90% of performers or more. A lot of anti-union literature is based upon the fact that most people think they are above average. 1: https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/ https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/
        phone8675309 6y ago
        $500 in dues per year is around $20 per paycheck if you're paid twice a month or every two weeks. The increase in benefits and working conditions might well be worth that, depending on the job.
- hn8788 6y ago
  My father used to work at a facility that actually paid non-union employees more than union employees. It was at a remote location, so any sort of strike would have cost tons of money with no way to get replacements in. Any time the union negotiated a raise, the company gave the non-union employees a bigger raise, because the extra cost was worth not having to worry about a strike shutting everything down.
  - youareostriches 6y ago
    So in other words, all workers at the company still benefitted from having a union.
Taylor_OD 6y ago
Unions are so unpopular even with people that in theory support unions. Look at the normal, non in power, peoples response to unions at any mid/large tech company.
- pbourke 6y ago
  And yet there are many software and tech people who are part of unions such as in the public sector or specialist unions like SPEEA for aerospace.
- Taylor_OD 6y ago
  Disclaimer: I've a pro union Vermont raised Bernie loving person. But its impossible to see any recent unionization effort and not see the majority of people who are skeptical at best and sucking in and repeating the company propaganda at worst.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  Depending on where you're from, there have been cases of corruption or incompetence. Unions are not magically good.
  - goostavos 6y ago
    Spending some of my early career in Las Vegas and Philadelphia really destroyed by youthful view of unions as a unquestionable force for good. One thing which can said with absolute certainty: they're not a structure which breeds efficiency.
    - Taylor_OD 6y ago
      100%. Not all unions are created equally. Most people who have had union employees have stories about employees who knew they were not going to lose their job, easily, so they didn't do a lot. But if unions were more common place would there be more efficiency or more in the average union? Would it be better for many people to have some job security instead of a company having efficiency?
phone8675309 6y ago
Union Avoidance Consultants, historically, have been Pinkertons with machine guns that would not hesitate to gun down union leaders, so, if anything, this is a soft touch approach.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Amazon's union avoidance efforts involve Pinkertons; they haven't brought out machine guns yet. Though, to be fair, that's probably not kindness on Amazons part so much as a change in the legal environment since that was common. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-spies-worker-labor-unions-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-spies-worke...
lazide 6y ago
It has been a ebb and flow [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_...], but in general it’s fair to say that Unions won the battle in Europe and lost it in the United States. Lots of analysis could be done around the macro-socio-economics of the why, but in general I believe it’s because of the availability of remote, work starved populations, historically concentrated capital, and ease (from a cultural and legal perspective) of moving businesses and doing intracountry trade, have meant there was generally always a place industry could move, get what they want (including cheap labor), and sell to the same customer base or maket. Labor loses a lot of power when the company can just up and go somewhere else. This has historically been harder in Europe due to historically hard border controls and strong national identities - it will be interesting to see how this shakes out in the EU! This is obviously not absolute (or Labor would not have gotten the power it has now, which is still non trivial in the US), but it is much more the case than Europe, where Labor has been able to dictate terms for awhile, and movements related to this problem were major contributors to the world wars. One could also make arguments around shortage of labor in Europe due to deaths from the many world wars (which had only a minor impact on the US), or the world wars weakening the established sources of Capital or control in Europe more than the US, or shifts in population phenotypes due to mass migration to the Americas and susceptibility to certain types of working conditions or living styles (are children of folks who immigrate for work more like to move for jobs and take harsh living conditions as part of the deal?). Overall, it’s hard to not notice that no one seems to actually be enforcing labor laws designed to protect workers, or that Labor isn’t organizing effectively and using it’s muscle. That may be changing, but especially on the low end it seems kinda unlikely right now.
btown 6y ago
The US has had an "us vs. them" mindset towards unions since the 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th... Back then, titans of industry hired Pinkertons to attack and kill striking workers. Now, they buy media companies and tech companies that are designed to incentivize viewers to violently threaten the politicians and organizers who support striking workers. It's the same continuum, just evolved in subtlety.
- durnygbur 6y ago
  > Now, they buy media companies and tech companies that are designed to incentivize viewers Now they still hire Pinkerton to know what the employees are up to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-has-pinkerton-agents-surveil-workers-who-try-to-form-unions?t=1614269131000 https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-h...
tor11 6y ago
unions are useful for managing and firing in bulk.

Ugh, this is disgusting and so patronising. Edit: Also, why are "union avoidance consultants" a thing? The US needs to fix its culture around unions. That's absolutely wild.

TheCraiggers 6y ago

I don't think that's caused from the culture around unions so much as it's caused by the culture around capitalism. There are plenty of scummy niches that people have found ways of getting paid for. Everything from consultants to show your company how to layoff people to religious leaders and snake oil salesmen and conmen. It's a big spectrum.

falcolas 6y ago

Why pay your employees when you can pay a consultant to show how to keep your employee costs low? /s

phone8675309 6y ago
IF your company thinks spending $X on keeping you from unionizing is worth it then the benefit to you is at least ($X+1)/$num_workers to unionize.
- chasd00 6y ago
  do you have any idea how big the num_workers number is? I'd wager for the average employee the benefit will be neagative, as in paycheck - union dues. The real benefit goes to the union bosses as num_workers * union_dues.
  - bjoli 6y ago
    Now, I am not very up to date on statistics, but unionised workers have traditionally earned about 10% more than non-uniomized ones in the US since at least the 80s. The article mentions 11%, which seems in line with what I know since before. I doubt any union would charge anywhere near that much.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      Amazon's own literature says "almost $500" in dues[1]. If they get a 10% pay increase, then everyone making more than $5k comes out ahead. Everyone making $10k or more comes out more ahead than the union. The union bosses probably come out the most ahead because that $500 * (a lot of workers) goes to (a small number of union management types). It's hopefully obvious that the union makes it better for at least the lower 50% of performers. It seems likely to me that it makes things better for more like the bottom 90% of performers or more. A lot of anti-union literature is based upon the fact that most people think they are above average. 1: https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/ https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/
      - phone8675309 6y ago
        $500 in dues per year is around $20 per paycheck if you're paid twice a month or every two weeks. The increase in benefits and working conditions might well be worth that, depending on the job.
hn8788 6y ago
My father used to work at a facility that actually paid non-union employees more than union employees. It was at a remote location, so any sort of strike would have cost tons of money with no way to get replacements in. Any time the union negotiated a raise, the company gave the non-union employees a bigger raise, because the extra cost was worth not having to worry about a strike shutting everything down.
- youareostriches 6y ago
  So in other words, all workers at the company still benefitted from having a union.

Taylor_OD 6y ago

Unions are so unpopular even with people that in theory support unions. Look at the normal, non in power, peoples response to unions at any mid/large tech company.

pbourke 6y ago
And yet there are many software and tech people who are part of unions such as in the public sector or specialist unions like SPEEA for aerospace.
Taylor_OD 6y ago
Disclaimer: I've a pro union Vermont raised Bernie loving person. But its impossible to see any recent unionization effort and not see the majority of people who are skeptical at best and sucking in and repeating the company propaganda at worst.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
Depending on where you're from, there have been cases of corruption or incompetence. Unions are not magically good.
- goostavos 6y ago
  Spending some of my early career in Las Vegas and Philadelphia really destroyed by youthful view of unions as a unquestionable force for good. One thing which can said with absolute certainty: they're not a structure which breeds efficiency.
  - Taylor_OD 6y ago
    100%. Not all unions are created equally. Most people who have had union employees have stories about employees who knew they were not going to lose their job, easily, so they didn't do a lot. But if unions were more common place would there be more efficiency or more in the average union? Would it be better for many people to have some job security instead of a company having efficiency?

phone8675309 6y ago

Union Avoidance Consultants, historically, have been Pinkertons with machine guns that would not hesitate to gun down union leaders, so, if anything, this is a soft touch approach.

dragonwriter 6y ago
Amazon's union avoidance efforts involve Pinkertons; they haven't brought out machine guns yet. Though, to be fair, that's probably not kindness on Amazons part so much as a change in the legal environment since that was common. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-spies-worker-labor-unions-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-spies-worke...

lazide 6y ago

It has been a ebb and flow [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_...], but in general it’s fair to say that Unions won the battle in Europe and lost it in the United States. Lots of analysis could be done around the macro-socio-economics of the why, but in general I believe it’s because of the availability of remote, work starved populations, historically concentrated capital, and ease (from a cultural and legal perspective) of moving businesses and doing intracountry trade, have meant there was generally always a place industry could move, get what they want (including cheap labor), and sell to the same customer base or maket. Labor loses a lot of power when the company can just up and go somewhere else. This has historically been harder in Europe due to historically hard border controls and strong national identities - it will be interesting to see how this shakes out in the EU! This is obviously not absolute (or Labor would not have gotten the power it has now, which is still non trivial in the US), but it is much more the case than Europe, where Labor has been able to dictate terms for awhile, and movements related to this problem were major contributors to the world wars. One could also make arguments around shortage of labor in Europe due to deaths from the many world wars (which had only a minor impact on the US), or the world wars weakening the established sources of Capital or control in Europe more than the US, or shifts in population phenotypes due to mass migration to the Americas and susceptibility to certain types of working conditions or living styles (are children of folks who immigrate for work more like to move for jobs and take harsh living conditions as part of the deal?). Overall, it’s hard to not notice that no one seems to actually be enforcing labor laws designed to protect workers, or that Labor isn’t organizing effectively and using it’s muscle. That may be changing, but especially on the low end it seems kinda unlikely right now.

btown 6y ago

The US has had an "us vs. them" mindset towards unions since the 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th... Back then, titans of industry hired Pinkertons to attack and kill striking workers. Now, they buy media companies and tech companies that are designed to incentivize viewers to violently threaten the politicians and organizers who support striking workers. It's the same continuum, just evolved in subtlety.

durnygbur 6y ago
> Now, they buy media companies and tech companies that are designed to incentivize viewers Now they still hire Pinkerton to know what the employees are up to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-has-pinkerton-agents-surveil-workers-who-try-to-form-unions?t=1614269131000 https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-h...

tor11 6y ago

unions are useful for managing and firing in bulk.