15 ms·
Inspired by Alabama’s union battle, Amazon workers elsewhere consider organizing
- nannal 6y agoIsn't WaPo owned by Amazon's ex-ceo Jeff Bezos, I'd be concerned about a conflict of interest with regard to its reporting on the matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#The_Washington_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#The_Washington_Post
- granzymes 6y ago> (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Every Post article about Amazon includes that disclaimer.
- nannal 6y agoOnce, a third of the way down the page. But sure it is there.
- Jtsummers 6y agoIf this article were anti-Union, or pro-Amazon, there might be a case for concern. But after reading it, it seems somewhat pro-Union (not outright, but nothing anti-union that I saw) and anti-Amazon's tactics (is this mailbox in the parking lot legit? Amazon was being intimidating by putting police officers outside a warehouse during a walk out). Not the sort of piece you'd expect if Bezos was heavy handed in editorial control over the Post.
- pydry 6y agoIt benefits them more to maintain the appearance of objectivity while controlling the messaging. Good PR doesn't try to hide mistakes that are out in the open and will try to maintain the pretence of objectivity. It would be interesting to see how much WaPo gets the benefit of the doubt when reporting on Amazon here vis a vis RT reporting on Russia: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=rt.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=rt.com
- setr 6y agoThe problem with this argument is that Washington Post could be 100% objective and your argument would remain the same. I'm not sure there was anything they could that would alleviate your concern, except removing bezos as owner altogether -- because anything they do could potentially benefit bezos (partly because he got some kind of relationship to pretty much everything at this point)
- pydry 6y agoMentioning the traffic lights story would have alleviated my concern. I didn't expect it to be included and I wasn't surprised that it wasn't. https://www.rt.com/usa/515972-amazon-alabama-traffic-light-union/ https://www.rt.com/usa/515972-amazon-alabama-traffic-light-u... (there are plenty of non RT sources for this but the feeling you get when you see me using RT as a source neatly illustrates my point) You're right in a sense. I wouldn't trust North Koreans to report on themselves and I wouldn't trust Amazon to do it either, pretty much no matter what they said.
- MattGaiser 6y agoNewspapers need to cater to people who don't bother read the article?
- johnchristopher 6y agoOf course they should. They make the titles of their articles very public and what they choose to report on or not is an important metadata.
- granzymes 6y agoWill Amazon just close the warehouse if it votes to unionize?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sct202 6y agoThey might pull the old oops the plumbing broke and is unfixable excuse. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over-labor-activism/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-ove...
- batmaniam 6y agoThat story was from 2015. Was there ever a resolution, 6 years later?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Pfhreak 6y agoSolidarity with all those who are voting to unionize. Hopefully they can all vote without threats or interference from Amazon.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoAmazon is spending tens of millions trying to crush this. Honestly, that warehouse is probably the most outright hostile place to work in America. The mainstream (cnn/fox/msnbc/nyt/wsj) reporting on this isn't great, but there are a bunch of lefty podcasts covering the unionization with great insights and interviews.
- ivraatiems 6y agoGood. I hope against hope that Amazon's publicity blitz on this backfires. I was a little astonished at how ham-fisted their messaging was: "Don't let evil unions take your dues money!" It felt like they thought their workers were stupid, or at least, easily connived into making choices against their own interest. I think there's a good chance they get proven wrong. Edit, to add: An employee could absolutely decide against a union on ideological grounds or because it doesn't make sense for their personal situation - my point here is more that Amazon's approach seems to think their employees are rubes who will do whatever the bright posters say they should.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoWell, the reason their messaging can be so direct is that there's a legitimate difference of opinion here. I'd kinda argue that your description of Amazon can be better applied to union organizers, who seem to have a pervasive attitude that any worker who opposes a union must have been tricked or bullied into their position. Some people legitimately believe that a union might be bad for their interests, and they're the ones Amazon is trying to reach - the confidently pro-union employees will probably vote for one regardless of how Amazon presents their case.
- ivraatiems 6y ago> I'd kinda argue that your description of Amazon can be better applied to union organizers, who seem to have a pervasive attitude that any worker who opposes a union must have been tricked or bullied into their position I can't speak for union organizers, as I'm not one, but I don't think this is exactly how one sees people who're acting against their own interests. It's more of a frustration/confusion/concern they don't have all the facts. It's absolutely possible for someone to have all the relevant information at hand, and make a decision I wouldn't make. I think what's got me more surprised is the blunt and obviously propagandistic way Amazon is messaging on this; I think they risk coming off cartoonishly corporate/self-interested.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
- chaganated 6y agohow quiet you all are...
- minikites 6y agoIt says a lot about how effective unions are by how vehemently Amazon and most other companies fight against them. If unions were as dysfunctional as conservatives claim they are, Amazon wouldn't be spending this much money or fighting this hard.
- dylan604 6y agoThe same could be said about any change really, but especially when it will affect a business' bottom line. Look at the fight against raising the minimum wage at any amount, not just the current $15/hour fight. The fight to bring corporate offshore money back, the fight against pollution, etc. If any regulation is going to cost a business money, there will always be a fight. Doing the right thing is not normally free to implement.
- swebs 6y agoThe majority of conservatives I know are in trade unions. Visit middle America someday.
- blinding-streak 6y agoFor reference, Amazon's anti-union site: https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/ https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/
- elliekelly 6y ago> HEY BHM1 DOERS, why pay almost $500 in dues? We’ve got you covered* This made me laugh. Of course they've got an asterisk next to their promise. But the site itself is just sad. The points made are "justified" with completely unrelated FUD: > 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. This sentence doesn't make any logical sense.
- antattack 6y agoRecently I came to realization that unions may be an obstacle to $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare and overall improvement of work environment. It seems backwards at first, unions after all are supposed to protect the workers. However, union to exist needs a reason for people to join and that reason is that they negotiate better wages and better healthcare, for example. This is not a speculation on my part but direct observation of Democratic primaries, Manchin's opposition to 15 minimum's wage and local union negotiations.
- whatshisface 6y agoOne solution is always opposed to all alternative solutions, but that does not mean that any of the solutions are opposed to solving the problem.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoSome people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the light.
- tablespoon 6y agoThat's nonsense. The movement for $15 minimum wage is also a movement union rights: https://fightfor15.org/why-we-strike/ https://fightfor15.org/why-we-strike/: > We know striking works. By standing up and going on strike for $15/hr and union rights we won $70 billion in raises for 24 million people across the country — more than 30 percent of the nation’s workforce. It also partners with major unions: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/fight-for-15-teams-up-with-a-major-union-to-turn-out-votes.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/fight-for-15-teams-u...: > The campaign marks just how influential Fight for 15 has become since it formed in 2012. Working in partnership with SEIU and other advocacy groups, its workers have helped drive minimum wage increases in multiple states... Also, your contrarian thinking seems to carry the assumption that the union organizations are somehow independent of their membership and are more interested in the organization's selfish interests than the achievement of its goals, which I think is generally not true. If that was true, I think you'd need a situation where the union was both 1) a monopoly and 2) undemocratic, because union members are basically customers of their union, and those are the conditions an organization needs to exploit its customers.
- throwawaysea 6y agoWhy are unions given any special allowance in law? I feel like unions are just a separate service company, but with a monopoly granted by the law. If people want to "organize", why not form their own service company that contracts out their labor? That way the company they're leaving is still allowed choice in who they work with and under what conditions. Otherwise, the entire notion feels like a serious abridgement on the freedom of those who own the company.
- jariel 6y agoUnions are given rights due to asymmetries in power. Professionals with credentials have some power in the market, they can command a price. Unskilled labour cannot. Without regulations, they would be paid $2 an hour, i.e. what the market will bear. If you thought the 'Dollar Store' was cheap, imagine the '25 cent store' - where people survive on extreme minimums. Favellas and tiny illegal homes pop up, without plumbing etc. and entire mini-industries are created around the ultra-low working class. A $1 Trillion dollar corporation has 'all the power' an individual has none, and it's existential: 'work for just enough wages to barely keep you alive or die'. That's what the market will push towards and a lot of people will think that it's fair. The market allocates money based on power. That's it. In a purely market based anything, if you don't have power - you die, or close to it. People living in favelas with no plumbing can't hope to send their children to school etc. so it creates generational problems. This is why we have minimum wage, safety laws, anti-discrimination etc. That said - unions can often be a detriment and their power can be good only for the members and nobody else. It's not a black and white issue.
- donaldo 6y agoSeems unlikely that everyone making minimum wage would suddenly be making $2 if there was no minimum wage. What’s your reasoning? If it was a pure race to the bottom then why aren’t SWEs paid min wage?
- jariel 6y agoSWE's have bargaining power, $100K is their market rate. Those without any leverage whatsoever, unskilled workers rate will be the 'absolute minimum required to survive'. Somewhere around $2/hour over the long haul. Millions of people living in tiny, one room apartments, without basic amenities. We know people will accept this to survive because they do, all around the world.
- codekansas 6y agoIs there am American industry that is heavily unionized that is globally competitive? Education, policing, auto manufacturing, and steel come to mind for me as both heavily unionized and significantly poorer quality in America relative to comparable peers. Maybe the entertainment industry though? I'm genuinely curious
- asdff 6y agoI'd argue autoworkers and steel workers in America probably die less than their more productive and globally competitive peers in countries like China.
- igorstellar 6y agoThe original question was about industry competitiveness. First thing that comes to mind is Google but their unionizing is just starting.
- schnevets 6y agoAnd let's not forget automotive unions exist in Japan, Germany, and other countries that dominate the industry.
- sangnoir 6y ago> Is there am American industry that is heavily unionized that is globally competitive? Hollywood. Everyone from the highest paid stars to the set-builders are union members - you literally cannot say a word on film if you're not union, and Hollywood is globally competitive in spite of (or because of?) this. The talent is still able to negotiate individually (a common, yet inaccurate aspersion thrown at unions is that someone will take over role of negotiations - but that's just for the baseline) For contrast, the ancillary VFX industry is not unionized, and there are endless horror stories of exploitation there.
- woodgrainz 6y agoMost large newspapers in the US are unionized. Like the NY Times (https://www.nyguild.org/ https://www.nyguild.org/) and the Washington Post (https://postguild.org/ https://postguild.org/) for example. News orgs are obviously facing difficult times but many journalists are in unions.
- jcpham2 6y agoRoll Tide ya'll. This was already happening in the Automotive industry same state as well for years since Honda and Mercedes came.
- dehrmann 6y agoThis is an interesting time for this. On one hand, the massive increase in sales and staffing gives workers more leverage, but on the other, they're unskilled, unemployment is still high, and sales might contract some once people have ordered everything they want or things start reopening.
- savant_penguin 6y agoIf unions are indeed so positive why do they have to force people into paying them dues? (Aka NY teachers unions) I'm sure many other organizations would love the power to force people into their subscriptions. And I'm sure their high ranking officials would come up with incredibly good reasons as to why they are absolutely essential to social justice or whatever
- tablespoon 6y agoSame reason taxes aren't optional: freeloading.
- savant_penguin 6y agoYou are still forced do pay even if you do not want any of their services. And unions are not the US government.
- Context_free 6y agoIf corporations are indeed so positive why do they have to force people into paying them dividend profits? (Aka Fortune 500) I'm sure many other organizations would love the power to force people into their subscriptions. And I'm sure their high ranking officials would come up with incredibly good reasons as to why they are absolutely essential to social justice or whatever.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> force people into paying them dividend profits? (Aka Fortune 500) What?
- skynet-9000 6y agoIncorrect title. Nothing in the title about workers elsewhere being inspired. Wapo title: Amazon fights aggressively to defeat union drive in Alabama, fearing a coming wave Subtitle: Amazon’s relentless push to beat back a union drive among warehouse workers mirrors the company’s past efforts to oppose unions in Seattle, New York, Canada and the United Kingdom
- blinding-streak 6y agoThe title I posted was the title of the story at the time on WaPo. Story titles change often on news sites. Look at the archive link, you'll see the correct title (shortened for HN limits) was used: https://archive.vn/NqWET https://archive.vn/NqWET
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]