10 ms·

It's the standard anti union playbook: you're giving up your power to negotiate as an individual! we're a family! you'll have to pay dues now! The fact is that

It's the standard anti union playbook: you're giving up your power to negotiate as an individual! we're a family! you'll have to pay dues now! The fact is that there is no solid argument against unionization in an industry like warehouse work. Anything the union might do wrong the bosses might do as well, except in the union the worker can vote and influence those decisions. The reason the arguments are so dumb is that there aren't any downsides to the union vs not having a union. Unions aren't perfect but they're almost always better than not having one

eplanit 6y ago
It's a great time to be a roboticist.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Hypothetically the union could negotiate for $0.01/hour less than what a robot would cost., which would be an improvement over $0.01/hour more than the bare minimum an individual worker of a certain skillset would accept.
  - ed312 6y ago
    This is already happening - there is an absolute glut of warehouse robotics companies at this point. Mostly in adding robotics to legacy warehouses. New warehouses will almost exclusively be built with automation in mind.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      Then it sounds like the workers are on the way out even if they don't unionize, so there's not much to lose.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Very easy position to take if you’re not a warehouse work worker that thinks a union is a difference between you losing your job
      - toast0 6y ago
        Automation is a cost optimization thing. If the union raises Amazon's costs, it pushes up the automation time frame. And if the union doesn't raise Amazon's costs, it probably didn't provide the workers any benefits. Then the question for workers becomes would you like to have this job for longer with current conditions or for less time with better conditions. I don't think an Amazon warehouse worker union is going to be able to get any sort of long term job availability promises from Amazon (but I could be wrong, of course).
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Unless the first step by the union is to forbid the use of robots. A union's first mandate is to protect jobs. Any technology that replaces union members with machinery is open to direct attack. I have seen this in the entertainment industry. Newsrooms wanted to replace camera people with what were effectively industrial robots that moved the cameras around the studio as needed. Unions put up all sort of barriers, as is their mandate. Similar fights happened when projectionists were replaced by digital tech.
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    Then the warehouse will get built right across state lines or actually be owned and operated by a subsidiary.
  - bumby 6y ago
    Keep in mind the Union and Company enter a contract. The Union can’t just enact any policy they want. With that said, I imagine a “no robot” policy would be a non-starter for Amazon to enter into such a contract
    - sandworm101 6y ago
      "Never robots" would indeed be totally unworkable, but a union could easily argue for a specific number of human workers per square foot of warehouse space. Local governments would likely want to support such a scheme as it keeps money local. I imagine insurance companies have an opinion too on minimum manning levels for automated facilities.
      - bumby 6y ago
        They could but I would be skeptical if it would work. I’m speaking from previous robotics experience in auto assembly plants with heavy and established unions. Even then, line employment was decimated by robots.
  - solsane 6y ago
    IMO, this would be a bad outcome for all parties involved. The jobs being replaced are highly tedious, ie, fold the box, put the thing in the box, repeat for next 8 hrs. Those displaced would likely find better jobs.
random5634 6y ago
Oddly, one complaint workers have about unions is they keep on workers who don't work or are lazy. Interestingly OTHER WORKERS are annoyed by this.
- pydry 6y ago
  People complain about lazy workers and favoritism in every workplace. The boss is only interested when they don't have unilateral control over who gets fired and why.
  - random5634 6y ago
    Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired by the boss - because there is an overlap of interests. Saying the boss is not interested is totally not true. When I went to school we ALL knew (even the kids) that one teacher simply basically did not teach. It didn't matter they were totally protected. Principle would have fired them in a minute. Old white dude, massive seniority, union officer I think so he also may have gotten time off teaching for that ? Anyways, the rest of the teachers were amazing, but imagine you are a female minority teacher having to deal with extra class sizes because of this dufus. At least when I was growing up the union officers was an old boys club situation.
    - pydry 6y ago
      >Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired by the boss I can recall so many counter examples. Relatives, drinking buddies, snitches, people whom the boss was somewhat in awe of because they saw them as "rock stars", people for whom firing would have reflected badly on the boss, people who were good at pulling the wool over his eyes. Generally the people I've seen fired were for insubordination not laziness - often they worked much harder than other workers.
      - random5634 6y ago
        Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen that happen to, and there is a natural result - good workers leave and the business dies. If you think Amazon is hiring based on this - fantastic, they are doomed by only hiring lazy drinking buddies and relatives. Reality? Amazon has probably a very driven workforce and working culture. But maybe you are right it's all just a bunch of drinking buddies.
MuffinFlavored 6y ago
What do Amazon workers want that they don't already have though? Aren't they already some of the highest compensated "low-level" workers in the industry? Is it higher wages they want? Better benefits? Work less hours? What does "better working conditions" logistically break down to?
- toxik 6y ago
  Assertion 1: they have enough as it is, and should not seek collective bargaining as a sign of loyalty or something. Ridiculous. If they're well-treated now, it is not by the benevolence of the company, but more likely because they could be paid much more and still turn a handsome profit. Assertion 2: not being the bottom of the barrel means improvement is not to be sought. Clearly a ridiculous position again: others having a shitty situation does not mean that you should count your blessings and stop seeking improvement.
  - MuffinFlavored 6y ago
    Put it into numbers. How much would you like to see an Amazon warehouse worker make? Remember, mom + pop warehouses need to be competitive too. They don't have a multi-billion dollar "cloud platform" to move profits from around. I'm guessing Amazon already pays between $15-$17/hr. What would you like to see, $20? $25? Wouldn't that just push Amazon to automate harder/faster, putting these people from $15/hr -> $0/hr when they are out of a job altogether when it vanishes?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- efficax 6y ago
  They raised wages to head off worker organization. Just to start: maybe they could get bathroom breaks! https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse-jobs-worker-conditions-bathroom-breaks https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse...
_huayra_ 6y ago
This is what I always tell people who are considering whether to join a union or believe the corporate overlords: why would the company be going so hard in the paint to get you to NOT join the union? Do you think they would be spewing propaganda against people at work joining a disc golf team that required dues? Even if they give you a last-minute raise to dissuade you from joining a union, it's only because they know that a union would mean an even higher raise! Whenever the selfish faux-self-bootstrapping "fascist lite" folks come out against raising the minimum wage by pointing to countries that don't have it (e.g. many Scandinavian countries iirc) saying "see? you can have high wages without a minimum wage". Well sure, we don't need a minimum wage if we had a heavily unionized workforce like pretty much all of those countries!
- cperciva 6y ago
  Do you think they would be spewing propaganda against people at work joining a disc golf team that required dues? They might if some people voting to join a disc golf team resulted in everyone else being forced to pay dues despite not being interested in disc golf.
  - raegis 6y ago
    The supreme court (USA) ruled that you no longer have to pay dues (or the equivalent) if you are not a member of the union.
    - bumby 6y ago
      Are you referring to Janus v AFSCME? I may be wrong but I thought that only applies to public sector unions, so it may not apply to the Amazon case
- fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
  > why would the company be going so hard in the paint to get you to NOT join the union I don’t think this is a very compelling argument. In general, many things are good for both the employer and employee, or bad for both employer and employee. For example, the employer and employee probably both agree on whether a government subsidy for the industry is good for them. Suppose someone was proposing that 1% of wages at a factory be set on fire in the dumpster out back. You’d expect both the employee and the employer to oppose that. The employee wants that 1% and the employer doesn’t want to have to raise wages 1% to prevent their employees from going to work somewhere else where 1% of wages aren’t being set on fire. If you believe the employer’s argument that unions aren’t useful and basically just exist to fund their own operations through dues, then it’s analogous to the “light 1% of the wages on fire” scenario.
acomjean 6y ago
Grad students voted at my school to unionize. I wasn’t In the thick of it (not grad student) but the anti union messaging was subtle and more effective then I thought it would be. They still voted to unionize but it wasn’t a slam dunk. All staff here benefit because we get some of the union benefits even though we’re not union eligible.
- whoisburbansky 6y ago
  What was the anti union messaging in question, I’m curious?
  - acomjean 6y ago
    I was subtle questions on posters put up, about controlling your own destiny, not paying "dues to Harvard/ autoworkers union". They were kinda amorphous. I forget the exact wording but it played up graduate students tendency to be competitive. One anti group was name "liberals against Unionization of Graduate Level Students". edit: They left the anti-union web page up: https://criticalgsu.wordpress.com/six-arguments/ https://criticalgsu.wordpress.com/six-arguments/ https://s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails.thecrimson.com/photos/2016/11/15/201326_1318810.jpg.2000x1333_q95_crop-smart_upscale.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails.thecrimson.com/photos/20... You can see a couple of the unit-untion posters in the slide show. There were lots of others.https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2018/04/union-election https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2018/04/union-election
- bumby 6y ago
  Do you have to pay agency fees ? (lower dues for non-union members who benefit from the Union policies)
  - acomjean 6y ago
    No. Some of the unions negotiated some inexpensive tuitions and the university gave that to everyone (so I was told)..
Rule35 6y ago
Unions are a tool from when jobs could kill you, or were in exploitative company towns. They're a very big hammer to use for things you can do on your own, and when there are many other jobs to take. But they come with a lot of drawbacks that are more obvious the less useful their main mission is. Pretty much every union becomes a job protection scheme where bad workers are protected from being fired, and they feel the need to speak politically for the workers in broader issues than simple worker safety, etc. In today's climate it seems like they'd feel the need to act like school administrators, policing nonsense and being a bigger threat to your job than the management. The union would probably be refusing to box Dr Seuss books, etc. Considering that Amazon workers are paid fairly well, and treated well (pee stories notwithstanding), it's not an open and shut decision as it would be for other jobs.
- efficax 6y ago
  Why don't you ask the union organizers in the Alabama union drive what they are hoping for. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/23/amazon-bessemer-alabama-union https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/23/amazon-be... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/us/politics/amazon-union-alabama-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/us/politics/amazon-union-... * Improved safety and a system for reporting safety issues without fear of retaliation * Improved working conditions in general: many amazon warehouses are not airconditioned and get so hot in the summers they park an ambulance outside for when someone collapses from heat stroke. * Job security. currently you can be fired without cause, or with causes like falling behind on the absurd production quotas. With a union you have due process to protect your job. * More breaks (imagine only getting ONE break, 4 hours into the work day). I'm a healthy, able bodied person, but what if I need to pee more than once in 4 hours? * Contractual pay and benefits. Sure they pay $15/hr now and offer benefits. What's stopping them from cutting that wage or cutting those benefits if costs from another sector cut into profits? Nothing
  - Rule35 6y ago
    > Why don't you ask the union organizers in the Alabama union drive what they are hoping for. I've read many lists, like the one you posted (thanks), and mostly I do not find them believable and where I do, I don't find them compelling. > but what if I need to pee more than once in 4 hours? OSHA specifically forbids limiting bathroom breaks for any employee. Sure, they'd like you to pee on your break, but they can't enforce it - they cannot fire you for this, despite that it is at-will employment. Ditto all the health/safety claims made. All this is covered by existing law and the courts are very worker friendly. > Job security - currently you can be fired without cause Which are the conditions under which I hire a babysitter. > or with causes like falling behind on the absurd production quotas. Quotas are the exact opposite of unstated rules, and are generally good. If you can't pack n widgets in an hour, don't take the job. Also, if someone can perform at quota it's not absurd. > What's stopping them from cutting that wage or cutting those benefits if costs from another sector cut into profits? Nothing If your job stopped being productive or profitable they'd stop paying you to do it. And you think they should be prevented from doing this?
Karunamon 6y ago
Aren't those first and third things strictly true? If your goal is to dispassionately whether unionizing is a good idea or not, it seems patently dishonest to pretend that there are absolutely zero downsides. It's a gamble. You're hoping that what the union brings will have fewer downsides than your current situation. In the case of these warehouse jobs, it seems like things suck enough where those tradeoffs would be acceptable. Where I draw the line is this idea that all unions are beneficial or warranted. No. They should be looked upon with a critical eye like everything else.

eplanit 6y ago

It's a great time to be a roboticist.

whatshisface 6y ago
Hypothetically the union could negotiate for $0.01/hour less than what a robot would cost., which would be an improvement over $0.01/hour more than the bare minimum an individual worker of a certain skillset would accept.
- ed312 6y ago
  This is already happening - there is an absolute glut of warehouse robotics companies at this point. Mostly in adding robotics to legacy warehouses. New warehouses will almost exclusively be built with automation in mind.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Then it sounds like the workers are on the way out even if they don't unionize, so there's not much to lose.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Very easy position to take if you’re not a warehouse work worker that thinks a union is a difference between you losing your job
    - toast0 6y ago
      Automation is a cost optimization thing. If the union raises Amazon's costs, it pushes up the automation time frame. And if the union doesn't raise Amazon's costs, it probably didn't provide the workers any benefits. Then the question for workers becomes would you like to have this job for longer with current conditions or for less time with better conditions. I don't think an Amazon warehouse worker union is going to be able to get any sort of long term job availability promises from Amazon (but I could be wrong, of course).
sandworm101 6y ago
Unless the first step by the union is to forbid the use of robots. A union's first mandate is to protect jobs. Any technology that replaces union members with machinery is open to direct attack. I have seen this in the entertainment industry. Newsrooms wanted to replace camera people with what were effectively industrial robots that moved the cameras around the studio as needed. Unions put up all sort of barriers, as is their mandate. Similar fights happened when projectionists were replaced by digital tech.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  Then the warehouse will get built right across state lines or actually be owned and operated by a subsidiary.
- bumby 6y ago
  Keep in mind the Union and Company enter a contract. The Union can’t just enact any policy they want. With that said, I imagine a “no robot” policy would be a non-starter for Amazon to enter into such a contract
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    "Never robots" would indeed be totally unworkable, but a union could easily argue for a specific number of human workers per square foot of warehouse space. Local governments would likely want to support such a scheme as it keeps money local. I imagine insurance companies have an opinion too on minimum manning levels for automated facilities.
    - bumby 6y ago
      They could but I would be skeptical if it would work. I’m speaking from previous robotics experience in auto assembly plants with heavy and established unions. Even then, line employment was decimated by robots.
- solsane 6y ago
  IMO, this would be a bad outcome for all parties involved. The jobs being replaced are highly tedious, ie, fold the box, put the thing in the box, repeat for next 8 hrs. Those displaced would likely find better jobs.

random5634 6y ago

Oddly, one complaint workers have about unions is they keep on workers who don't work or are lazy. Interestingly OTHER WORKERS are annoyed by this.

pydry 6y ago
People complain about lazy workers and favoritism in every workplace. The boss is only interested when they don't have unilateral control over who gets fired and why.
- random5634 6y ago
  Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired by the boss - because there is an overlap of interests. Saying the boss is not interested is totally not true. When I went to school we ALL knew (even the kids) that one teacher simply basically did not teach. It didn't matter they were totally protected. Principle would have fired them in a minute. Old white dude, massive seniority, union officer I think so he also may have gotten time off teaching for that ? Anyways, the rest of the teachers were amazing, but imagine you are a female minority teacher having to deal with extra class sizes because of this dufus. At least when I was growing up the union officers was an old boys club situation.
  - pydry 6y ago
    >Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired by the boss I can recall so many counter examples. Relatives, drinking buddies, snitches, people whom the boss was somewhat in awe of because they saw them as "rock stars", people for whom firing would have reflected badly on the boss, people who were good at pulling the wool over his eyes. Generally the people I've seen fired were for insubordination not laziness - often they worked much harder than other workers.
    - random5634 6y ago
      Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen that happen to, and there is a natural result - good workers leave and the business dies. If you think Amazon is hiring based on this - fantastic, they are doomed by only hiring lazy drinking buddies and relatives. Reality? Amazon has probably a very driven workforce and working culture. But maybe you are right it's all just a bunch of drinking buddies.

MuffinFlavored 6y ago

What do Amazon workers want that they don't already have though? Aren't they already some of the highest compensated "low-level" workers in the industry? Is it higher wages they want? Better benefits? Work less hours? What does "better working conditions" logistically break down to?

toxik 6y ago
Assertion 1: they have enough as it is, and should not seek collective bargaining as a sign of loyalty or something. Ridiculous. If they're well-treated now, it is not by the benevolence of the company, but more likely because they could be paid much more and still turn a handsome profit. Assertion 2: not being the bottom of the barrel means improvement is not to be sought. Clearly a ridiculous position again: others having a shitty situation does not mean that you should count your blessings and stop seeking improvement.
- MuffinFlavored 6y ago
  Put it into numbers. How much would you like to see an Amazon warehouse worker make? Remember, mom + pop warehouses need to be competitive too. They don't have a multi-billion dollar "cloud platform" to move profits from around. I'm guessing Amazon already pays between $15-$17/hr. What would you like to see, $20? $25? Wouldn't that just push Amazon to automate harder/faster, putting these people from $15/hr -> $0/hr when they are out of a job altogether when it vanishes?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
efficax 6y ago
They raised wages to head off worker organization. Just to start: maybe they could get bathroom breaks! https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse-jobs-worker-conditions-bathroom-breaks https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse...

_huayra_ 6y ago

This is what I always tell people who are considering whether to join a union or believe the corporate overlords: why would the company be going so hard in the paint to get you to NOT join the union? Do you think they would be spewing propaganda against people at work joining a disc golf team that required dues? Even if they give you a last-minute raise to dissuade you from joining a union, it's only because they know that a union would mean an even higher raise! Whenever the selfish faux-self-bootstrapping "fascist lite" folks come out against raising the minimum wage by pointing to countries that don't have it (e.g. many Scandinavian countries iirc) saying "see? you can have high wages without a minimum wage". Well sure, we don't need a minimum wage if we had a heavily unionized workforce like pretty much all of those countries!

cperciva 6y ago
Do you think they would be spewing propaganda against people at work joining a disc golf team that required dues? They might if some people voting to join a disc golf team resulted in everyone else being forced to pay dues despite not being interested in disc golf.
- raegis 6y ago
  The supreme court (USA) ruled that you no longer have to pay dues (or the equivalent) if you are not a member of the union.
  - bumby 6y ago
    Are you referring to Janus v AFSCME? I may be wrong but I thought that only applies to public sector unions, so it may not apply to the Amazon case
fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
> why would the company be going so hard in the paint to get you to NOT join the union I don’t think this is a very compelling argument. In general, many things are good for both the employer and employee, or bad for both employer and employee. For example, the employer and employee probably both agree on whether a government subsidy for the industry is good for them. Suppose someone was proposing that 1% of wages at a factory be set on fire in the dumpster out back. You’d expect both the employee and the employer to oppose that. The employee wants that 1% and the employer doesn’t want to have to raise wages 1% to prevent their employees from going to work somewhere else where 1% of wages aren’t being set on fire. If you believe the employer’s argument that unions aren’t useful and basically just exist to fund their own operations through dues, then it’s analogous to the “light 1% of the wages on fire” scenario.

acomjean 6y ago

Grad students voted at my school to unionize. I wasn’t In the thick of it (not grad student) but the anti union messaging was subtle and more effective then I thought it would be. They still voted to unionize but it wasn’t a slam dunk. All staff here benefit because we get some of the union benefits even though we’re not union eligible.

whoisburbansky 6y ago
What was the anti union messaging in question, I’m curious?
- acomjean 6y ago
  I was subtle questions on posters put up, about controlling your own destiny, not paying "dues to Harvard/ autoworkers union". They were kinda amorphous. I forget the exact wording but it played up graduate students tendency to be competitive. One anti group was name "liberals against Unionization of Graduate Level Students". edit: They left the anti-union web page up: https://criticalgsu.wordpress.com/six-arguments/ https://criticalgsu.wordpress.com/six-arguments/ https://s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails.thecrimson.com/photos/2016/11/15/201326_1318810.jpg.2000x1333_q95_crop-smart_upscale.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails.thecrimson.com/photos/20... You can see a couple of the unit-untion posters in the slide show. There were lots of others.https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2018/04/union-election https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2018/04/union-election
bumby 6y ago
Do you have to pay agency fees ? (lower dues for non-union members who benefit from the Union policies)
- acomjean 6y ago
  No. Some of the unions negotiated some inexpensive tuitions and the university gave that to everyone (so I was told)..

Rule35 6y ago

Unions are a tool from when jobs could kill you, or were in exploitative company towns. They're a very big hammer to use for things you can do on your own, and when there are many other jobs to take. But they come with a lot of drawbacks that are more obvious the less useful their main mission is. Pretty much every union becomes a job protection scheme where bad workers are protected from being fired, and they feel the need to speak politically for the workers in broader issues than simple worker safety, etc. In today's climate it seems like they'd feel the need to act like school administrators, policing nonsense and being a bigger threat to your job than the management. The union would probably be refusing to box Dr Seuss books, etc. Considering that Amazon workers are paid fairly well, and treated well (pee stories notwithstanding), it's not an open and shut decision as it would be for other jobs.

efficax 6y ago
Why don't you ask the union organizers in the Alabama union drive what they are hoping for. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/23/amazon-bessemer-alabama-union https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/23/amazon-be... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/us/politics/amazon-union-alabama-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/us/politics/amazon-union-... * Improved safety and a system for reporting safety issues without fear of retaliation * Improved working conditions in general: many amazon warehouses are not airconditioned and get so hot in the summers they park an ambulance outside for when someone collapses from heat stroke. * Job security. currently you can be fired without cause, or with causes like falling behind on the absurd production quotas. With a union you have due process to protect your job. * More breaks (imagine only getting ONE break, 4 hours into the work day). I'm a healthy, able bodied person, but what if I need to pee more than once in 4 hours? * Contractual pay and benefits. Sure they pay $15/hr now and offer benefits. What's stopping them from cutting that wage or cutting those benefits if costs from another sector cut into profits? Nothing
- Rule35 6y ago
  > Why don't you ask the union organizers in the Alabama union drive what they are hoping for. I've read many lists, like the one you posted (thanks), and mostly I do not find them believable and where I do, I don't find them compelling. > but what if I need to pee more than once in 4 hours? OSHA specifically forbids limiting bathroom breaks for any employee. Sure, they'd like you to pee on your break, but they can't enforce it - they cannot fire you for this, despite that it is at-will employment. Ditto all the health/safety claims made. All this is covered by existing law and the courts are very worker friendly. > Job security - currently you can be fired without cause Which are the conditions under which I hire a babysitter. > or with causes like falling behind on the absurd production quotas. Quotas are the exact opposite of unstated rules, and are generally good. If you can't pack n widgets in an hour, don't take the job. Also, if someone can perform at quota it's not absurd. > What's stopping them from cutting that wage or cutting those benefits if costs from another sector cut into profits? Nothing If your job stopped being productive or profitable they'd stop paying you to do it. And you think they should be prevented from doing this?

Karunamon 6y ago

Aren't those first and third things strictly true? If your goal is to dispassionately whether unionizing is a good idea or not, it seems patently dishonest to pretend that there are absolutely zero downsides. It's a gamble. You're hoping that what the union brings will have fewer downsides than your current situation. In the case of these warehouse jobs, it seems like things suck enough where those tradeoffs would be acceptable. Where I draw the line is this idea that all unions are beneficial or warranted. No. They should be looked upon with a critical eye like everything else.