5 ms·

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

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.
- _huayra_ 6y ago
  > 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. But why would the company care if all the employees decided to light 1% of wages on fire? I'm sure there are a lot of things employees buy that hurt worker productivity (e.g. alcohol, pot in many states), but beyond jobs that require clean urine tests I don't see big companies like Amazon asking public officials to change traffic light timings around liquor stores to make it less convenient for employees to buy their performance-hindering substances [0]. However, I understand that for someone barely scraping by, in a country that basically went to war with unions and labor, a union can be a very hard sell when they aren't ubiquitous like in many European nations. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287191/amazon-alabama-warehouse-union-traffic-light-change-bessemer https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287191/amazon-alabama-w...
Karunamon 6y ago
>why would the company be going so hard in the paint to get you to NOT join the union? Even if you're running the squeaky-cleanest operation possible and don't treat your workers like crap, any organization would want to oppose unionization on purely rational time & overhead grounds.
- jollofricepeas 6y ago
  This is definitely not true at all. I used to work for a union print shop. It was something that in our case both the owners of the business and employees agreed to do. In our case, unionization lead to an increase in revenue and more sales for the company. Unionization has its benefits primarily for employees but there are benefits for employers. It really depends on the nature of the business.
  - _huayra_ 6y ago
    I think the benefit when a well-run union and a well-run business negotiate is that employee satisfaction is up and turnover is down. A union can be a bulwark against employers treating employees like garbage because relatively high un- and underemployment means they have a steady stream of employees who won't say "no".

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.

_huayra_ 6y ago
> 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. But why would the company care if all the employees decided to light 1% of wages on fire? I'm sure there are a lot of things employees buy that hurt worker productivity (e.g. alcohol, pot in many states), but beyond jobs that require clean urine tests I don't see big companies like Amazon asking public officials to change traffic light timings around liquor stores to make it less convenient for employees to buy their performance-hindering substances [0]. However, I understand that for someone barely scraping by, in a country that basically went to war with unions and labor, a union can be a very hard sell when they aren't ubiquitous like in many European nations. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287191/amazon-alabama-warehouse-union-traffic-light-change-bessemer https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287191/amazon-alabama-w...

Karunamon 6y ago

>why would the company be going so hard in the paint to get you to NOT join the union? Even if you're running the squeaky-cleanest operation possible and don't treat your workers like crap, any organization would want to oppose unionization on purely rational time & overhead grounds.

jollofricepeas 6y ago
This is definitely not true at all. I used to work for a union print shop. It was something that in our case both the owners of the business and employees agreed to do. In our case, unionization lead to an increase in revenue and more sales for the company. Unionization has its benefits primarily for employees but there are benefits for employers. It really depends on the nature of the business.
- _huayra_ 6y ago
  I think the benefit when a well-run union and a well-run business negotiate is that employee satisfaction is up and turnover is down. A union can be a bulwark against employers treating employees like garbage because relatively high un- and underemployment means they have a steady stream of employees who won't say "no".