6 ms·

The entire concept of unionization seems unnecessarily confrontational. It does not need to be this way. Corporations are creations of the state. There is nothi

by clcaev 6y ago

The entire concept of unionization seems unnecessarily confrontational. It does not need to be this way. Corporations are creations of the state. There is nothing preventing the state to require significant representation of employees in every board of directors. This board representation could support management that better reflects employee participation, e.g. Sociocracy. In this way, labour and capital could work together in a more integrated manner, avoiding much of this unnecessary conflict. Or, at least moving the conflict to more granular level of problem solving where views can be grounded in real-world challenges.

MuffinFlavored 6y ago
The biggest confusion I have is everybody seems to approach Amazon and Tesla unionization as "hopefully it happens so workers will get better wages!" I could be wrong but... I'm pretty sure Amazon and Tesla pay great relative to their space. Relatively demanding, sure. I get it. We've all seen the article where some Amazon worker urinated in a bottle because "the job is just so ruthless!". They employ hundreds of thousands of workers worldwide. If it was that bad, I think they'd have a harder time hiring. I could have sworn I read that if you are a hardworking Amazon warehouse worker, they'll train you for a more technical job. That seems like a pretty good benefit. I'm sure most Amazon warehouse jobs start in the $15-20/hr range. How much better can you really get for what is essentially reading a screen, grabbing something off of a shelf, and putting it in a box? Maybe drive a forklift/unload a truck with a pallet jack. I feel like the same people who want Amazon to unionize so workers can get better wages + healthcare, also don't want Amazon to kill mom + pop shops. Ok... How is a mom and pop shop supposed to pay $20/hr with healthcare for a warehouse worker when they don't have AWS money falling from the sky?
- api 6y ago
  I listened to a podcast recently about Amazon union drives and apparently the big gripe isn't wages but working conditions. The almost universal sentiment is that people are treated like robots. Breaks are so rare and short that pissing in bottles or defecating in bags is common. Sometimes people have to choose between relieving themselves and eating since the break is too short for both. Most of the people interviewed wanted more humane working conditions. There are many worse places to work, but that's whataboutism and using that argument leads to a race to the bottom.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    > pissing in bottles or defecating in bags is common I'd be willing to wager this "fact" has been brought up more in this thread alone than has actually happened on the job. Makes for great sensationalism, though. The union cause would be much better served without this silly BS being shared like it's the actual cause of woos.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      "Stop pointing out the worst abuses of the workers, in your effort to reduce the abuse of workers!" https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottles-union/ https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottl...
    - rapnie 6y ago
      I don't know, but read this yesterday: "Leaked memo shows Amazon knows delivery drivers resort to urinating in bottles" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/25/amazon-delivery-workers-bathrooms-memo https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/25/amazon-de... > The email [May 2020] went on to say: “We’ve noticed an uptick recently of all kinds of unsanitary garbage being left inside bags: used masks, gloves, bottles of urine.” > Workers have previously told the Guardian they needed to urinate inside water bottles on a daily basis for fear of missing delivery rates. A forum on Reddit dedicated to Amazon drivers, which, while impossible to vet completely for authenticity, nonetheless shows hundreds of comments from drivers claiming they frequently have to urinate in water bottles for lack of bathroom breaks while on the job
    - blueline 6y ago
      It’s so common that within 16 hours of soliciting anonymous tips about the prevalence of it within Amazon, the intercept was able to fill an entire article with evidence of how common it is
- esprehn 6y ago
  I think the assumption is that mom and pop shops have a better baseline working environment, ex. https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+warehouse+ambulance https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+warehouse+ambulance "How much better" would be things like AC when the weather is too hot (which it seems has improved after all the negative press), and other safety considerations as mentioned in all the articles. I'm not for or against unions here, but I'm certain Amazon could do better.
- ljp_206 6y ago
  "Relatively demanding" is an understatement. It seems as though you're really downplaying how much this job sucks. The awful nature of the conditions are well known: https://www.nelp.org/publication/amazons-disposable-workers-high-injury-turnover-rates-fulfillment-centers-california/ https://www.nelp.org/publication/amazons-disposable-workers-... As for people hired, try upwards of 600,000 in front line roles, with high turnover. They keep hiring because many don't last over a year in the warehouses. People need cash, and the hiring process is incredibly frictionless. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazons-turnover-rate-amid-pandemic-is-at-least-double-the-average-for-retail-and-warehousing-industries/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazons-turnove... Do these people not deserve better working conditions?
- CptFribble 6y ago
  > If it was that bad, I think they'd have a harder time hiring. You're severely underestimating the punishing conditions of an Amazon warehouse job. A picker has a tablet that alerts them of an item to get. A clock starts counting down on the time you have to get to the right bin, find the item, and scan it. The warehouse sorting algorithms created by Amazon engineers optimize for retrieval time - but the warehouses are so huge, this means in practice that you have exactly as much time as you need assuming you never stop moving. For your entire 8-9 hour shift. A typical amazon warehouse worker is essentially powerwalking non-stop for 8 hours straight on hard concrete floors. Breaks begin at a scheduled time, but your break begins when you sign out of your device, then you walk some distance to the break room (typically a 3-5 minute walk), AND you have to be signing back in to your device at the end of your break time. In practice this means your actual resting time on break is typically 5 minutes or less for 15's, 15-20 minutes for lunch. You are not allowed to sit or rest anywhere other than the break room. If you sign back in only a few seconds late from your break, a manager will speak with you about it. If you sign back in 30 seconds late a few times in a row, you can be fired. It's true that Amazon pays well in the warehouse space and is constantly hiring people with no experience. However, this isn't because Amazon is a great place to work - it's because there is an incredible amount of churn. People burn out of Amazon warehouse work constantly. If you search on google for Amazon warehouse stories, you'll find a lot of people talking about how physically punishing the job is, about the constant stress from 22-year-old "managers" doing their rotation through a warehouse and enforcing Amazon's draconian rulebook without a thought in their head about the people they're taking to task for coming back from lunch 30 seconds late. There's a blog out there from a guy who worked in Amazon warehouses in the Midwest, who documented everything while looking into trying to organize. The stories he tells about the work environment are hair-raising. Amazon has figured out how to optimize the physical output of a human being, squeezing every last ounce of productivity from them every second of a shift until they either quit from burnout or get fired for not "making rate" (total % of lateness picking or packing assigned items). The fact that Amazon has an endless supply of people signing up to work in this environment says less about Amazon and more about the state of the American economy and how many desperate people are out there who need to sell their physical and mental health to Bezos pay their bills.
  - 6y ago
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > I'm pretty sure Amazon and Tesla pay great relative to their space. > I'm sure most Amazon warehouse jobs start in the $15-20/hr range. How much better can you really get for what is essentially reading a screen, grabbing something off of a shelf, and putting it in a box? Amazon is also one of the richest companies in the world, largely dependant on the work of each and every one of those warehouse workers. Why is it ok for the company to try to squeeze every penny of profit, but not for employees to try to squeeze every possible penny of wage out of the company? Amazon could probably make a great profit even if it paid its warehouse workers 30 or even 100 USD per hour. Why is it a priori wrong for employees to try to move the needle in that direction? If that's unrealistic, still: Amazon's profit went up by 84% in 2020. Why shouldn't workers seek for their wages to go up 84% instead? Not saying that they should, but there is a strange double standard in these sorts of discussions, where it is taken for granted that the company should seek to extract the maximum amount of profit from its workers, but the other way around is seen as abnormal.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > If that's unrealistic, still: Amazon's profit went up by 84% in 2020. Why shouldn't workers seek for their wages to go up 84% instead? So, say Amazon's net income in 2019 was $11.5B, and that they paid employees about $25B. Even if Amazon's scale in 2020 required no additional workers, increasing wages for those existing workers by 84% would have wiped out Amazon's entire profit and more despite a banner year.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      You're right, I made a classic mistake in comparing percentages...
  - __turbobrew__ 6y ago
    > Amazon's profit went up by 84% in 2020. Why shouldn't workers seek for their wages to go up 84% instead? Amazon’s moneymaker is AWS, not the warehouse. At least in my city, AWS salaries have went up a fair amount in the last year or two, which makes sense given that AWS generates lots of profit. The warehouse on the other hand has much thinner margins and if they largely increased warehouse worker salaries they might not be profitable. Amazon is made into separate business units, so increasing salaries in one business unit which isn’t very profitable because the other business unit is profitable is just bad business.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > The biggest confusion I have is everybody seems to approach Amazon and Tesla unionization as "hopefully it happens so workers will get better wages!" That might be the thing you're wrong about. It sounds like most of the Amazon unionization efforts _aren't_ necessarily about better pay. It seems like more of the focus is about better, more humane working conditions. If Amazon pays its workers slightly above average that's great, but if they treat those same workers like absolute shit with inhumane working conditions, then that's a problem that a union can help resolve.
  - rufus_foreman 6y ago
    >> they treat those same workers like absolute shit with inhumane working conditions I think this debate is going to be like all the others on the topic, if you have never done manual labor, warehouse work, or factory work you are going to talk about the "inhumane working conditions", and if you have done that type of work you consider an Amazon warehouse job to be a great job for an unskilled laborer. I did 10 years in that world, the factory workers I worked with would have considered an Amazon warehouse job to be a dream job. I feel dirty now for having defended Amazon, but the truth is the truth.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      Any job that doesn't give workers time to use the bathroom when they need to is inhumane. Any job that is too warm, and doesn't provide workers adequate water, breaks, or AC such that workers are feinting or suffer health consequences is inhumane. If the working conditions elsewhere are worse than that, then it's not a positive mark for Amazon. It's a black mark for those workplaces. > I feel dirty now for having defended Amazon, but the truth is the truth. I don't know if you have condemned Amazon, so much as tarred other workplaces if they also fail to meet these standards.
- hedora 6y ago
  I don’t see why people expect existing US unions to improve the situation. They have entrenched political interests and represent many different industries. Once they’ve managed to get into an company, they’re repeatedly demonstrated they have no interest in listening to or advocating for the workers they represent. I’m actually for having unions, but they should be limited in size, and it should be easy for workers at a given site, or with a particular job role to quit the union and form their own. As it is, with an Amazon union, employees will have two abusive monopolies to fight instead of just one.
- astura 6y ago
  It's probably (mostly) not about pay. Unions can (and do!) negotiate working conditions. Dunno about Tesla but based on everything I've read, Amazon's "blue collar" workforce appears to have productivity requirements that are mostly unobtainable without taking shortcuts (like skipping lunch and bathroom breaks) and these jobs appear to have an extremely high turnover rate, which speaks to the crap nature of the job. A lot of people would not mind taking a small cut in pay for more humanitarian working conditions. People, generally, like being treated like people and not machines. But I don't actually think this is needed, I think Amazon can both improve working conditions and make a strong profit. For a quick example, my cousin has a union job where a paid lunch break (half hour) was negotiated every day. Union leaders routinely make their rounds around the office to make sure everyone is actually taking their lunch break and not feeling forced to work through lunch.
- marricks 6y ago
  Counties with Amazon warehouses have a lower pay rate for warehouse work than counties without them. Amazon makes bank because they can get away with exploiting workers more than a mom and pop shop can, or small businesses. --- edit --- Amazon also has an extremely high turn over rate revealing the cruelty of their workplaces: https://labor411.org/411-blog/warehouse-worker-turnover-rate-is-100-in-counties-that-have-amazon-warehouses/ https://labor411.org/411-blog/warehouse-worker-turnover-rate... Cite from economist for counties with lower pay: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amazon-does-to-wages https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amaz... and chart without a paywall: https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1375127251004571649/photo/1 https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1375127251004571649/pho... Let's stop with the feel good "Amazon must pay better than alternatives because they're wealthy" and look at the facts.
  - MuffinFlavored 6y ago
    > Counties with Amazon warehouses have a lower pay rate for warehouse work than counties without them. Mom and pop warehouses pay $12-$13/hr in my county and Amazon pays $15-$20/hr with health care I believe. https://www.amazondelivers.jobs/about/benefits/ https://www.amazondelivers.jobs/about/benefits/
    - marricks 6y ago
      That's a nice local statistic but it's probable at this point amazon is depressing warehouse work wages that used to be quite a bit above minimum wage. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amazon-does-to-wages https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amaz...
- marricks 6y ago
  Warehouse work used to pay more than $15/hr, and if you look at the stats workers in counties without Amazon warehouses get paid more[1]. Pay is closer to 20 an hour. [1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amazon-does-to-wages https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amaz... - sorry for the second comment but I wanted to cut to the chase
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Amazon is the company that knows its drivers are peeing in bottles to meet their quotas[1], but then tweets things like this in response[2]: > You don’t really believe the peeing in bottles thing, do you? If that were true, nobody would work for us. The truth is that we have over a million incredible employees around the world who are proud of what they do, and have great wages and health care from day one. [1] https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottles-union/ https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottl... [2] https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359 https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359
dbspin 6y ago
This exists in Germany, it's called codetermination - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany#:~:text=Codetermination%20in%20Germany%20is%20a,the%20companies%20they%20work%20for.&text=It%20applies%20to%20public%20and,supervisory%20board%20must%20be%20elected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany#:~:.... It's not an alternative to a union, but an additional right. Workers can also form councils at shop floor level - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council
hnarn 6y ago
I admire that you keep an open mind in a subject that is normally extremely infected, but I think your perspective shows a slight lack of understanding for the history of labor conflict around the world. I don't know if you'll find it helpful, but I'll just chime in on some of your points: > The entire concept of unionization seems unnecessarily confrontational. Unionization is confrontational by definition because it's the materialization of completely opposing interests. A unified workforce that can make collective demands on their employer is economically never in the interest of the employer. > There is nothing preventing the state to require significant representation of employees in every board of directors. There is not a single doubt in my mind that this would be seen by almost anyone as an extremely left-wing policy. When you say "there is nothing preventing the state" I'm not sure what you mean, unless you have a country with a very left leaning populace there is no way this would fly. For an example from my country, have a look at "employee funds".[1] The purpose was essentially to tax companies, use the money to buy stock in the companies, and give ownership to a part of the companies to trade unions. So, in a way, exactly what you mention. Remember that this was attempted in a country that had a post-war social democratic majority for decades, and even then it didn't work. > In this way, labour and capital could work together in a more integrated manner, avoiding much of this unnecessary conflict. Again, the conflict between labor and capital is not "unnecessary", it's built into the power relation. While everybody benefits from the company doing well in the long run during an equilibrium where everybody's happy, in the short term, changes to the benefit of the employer are often negative to the employees, and vice versa. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds
- clcaev 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you are currently downvoted; it seems like a contribution to this discourse. Even so, perhaps the reasoning frame you promote is one of our challenges. I see labour and capital as being in conflict when they are out of balance with regard to one another. In particular, I do not think labour (or capital) must always be in the driver's seat. I think that every situation probably has a healthy balance of power, dependent upon the circumstances, where both capital and labour are respected for the contributions they make to the enterprise.
marricks 6y ago
I agree, if one wants to avoid the conflict of a union a work place should be at least 51% employee owned. Short of having mandatory employee ownership unions are the next best thing, and one is far easier in the US. Otherwise we have what we have now, rampant unfairness and tension but no conflict because the board can get away with whatever conditions PR allows them to get away with.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- whatinthewhy 6y ago
  Why 51%? Why not split labor ownership equally with capital?
  - sascha_sl 6y ago
    Because it is an unequal relationship to begin with. Finding consensus in a 100% worker controlled organization is already a lot of work. We know capital is pretty okay with propagandizing if you look at current unionbusting practices, and they likely have more capital (haa) to do it.
- nickik 6y ago
  There are so many issues with simply saying 'workers should own 51% of the company'. That statement and causes so many issues in every aspect of how companies are now run an financed, its hard to even imagine what such a regulation would mean or how it would work in practice. > Short of having mandatory employee ownership unions are the next best thing, and one is far easier in the US. Again, just saying this is easy but what is the meaning of union in this context? What a union is and what it does has been wildly different thought history, form country to country and form industry to industry. What are the exact powers of that union mandatory union? These discussions are always so abstract, union are almost an article of faith for some people.
lolthishuman 6y ago
It automatically creates an adversarial relationship. Terrible way to live life on either side of that construct. No one should be forced to work anywhere. Which also means working isn’t a right. Work somewhere that works with you and establish a healthy relationship. Set expectations and be clear on what is desired. One spends much of their time working, to do it in such a way where a cordial relationship is not there; it might as well be no different than hell. Find somewhere else to work if a company doesn’t work with your ethos. Unionizing to coerce and compel is so disgusting. It’s plainly a form of bullying. That’s no way to live life.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  In many companies, you don't need a union to make it adversarial: it's already an adversarial relationship. It's a war with only one side shooting. The union just attempts to arm the other side. It would be great if leadership and employees were actually on the same side (rather than just in words), with things like employee representation on the board, and fair bargaining for wages with equal power on either side, but that's just not a reality at most jobs.
  - lolthishuman 6y ago
    That’s a terrible default. That will make a country collapse. I guess you don’t have to look around too hard then to see that coming into fruition.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  That’s easy to say, but which other auto plant in the Bay Area should workers go to work at? There aren’t any others.
  - lolthishuman 6y ago
    No one said a profession was guaranteed labor. Who made that a right?
junippor 6y ago
Isn't the relationship between unions and corporations NECESSARILY confrontational? A corporation would like to pay its employees as little as possible. The employees would like the opposite. What am I missing? - genuine question.
- SyzygistSix 6y ago
  In Germany, for instance, companies are required to have union members on the board. From what I understand about the structure of unions there, it allows unions to advocate on behalf of employees while being less confrontational. It's ostensibly a more effective way for the two parties to collaborate effectively to everyone's benefit.
sascha_sl 6y ago
This sounds like "we don't need unions if we mandate unions". Many countries do this, and with success. The actual only way that capital and workers can have a non-adversarial relationship is if the workers are in control of the capital. Otherwise capital will always be leverage used to extract surplus value from workers. That, on a large scale, is socialism by the way.

by clcaev 6y ago

MuffinFlavored 6y ago

The biggest confusion I have is everybody seems to approach Amazon and Tesla unionization as "hopefully it happens so workers will get better wages!" I could be wrong but... I'm pretty sure Amazon and Tesla pay great relative to their space. Relatively demanding, sure. I get it. We've all seen the article where some Amazon worker urinated in a bottle because "the job is just so ruthless!". They employ hundreds of thousands of workers worldwide. If it was that bad, I think they'd have a harder time hiring. I could have sworn I read that if you are a hardworking Amazon warehouse worker, they'll train you for a more technical job. That seems like a pretty good benefit. I'm sure most Amazon warehouse jobs start in the $15-20/hr range. How much better can you really get for what is essentially reading a screen, grabbing something off of a shelf, and putting it in a box? Maybe drive a forklift/unload a truck with a pallet jack. I feel like the same people who want Amazon to unionize so workers can get better wages + healthcare, also don't want Amazon to kill mom + pop shops. Ok... How is a mom and pop shop supposed to pay $20/hr with healthcare for a warehouse worker when they don't have AWS money falling from the sky?

api 6y ago
I listened to a podcast recently about Amazon union drives and apparently the big gripe isn't wages but working conditions. The almost universal sentiment is that people are treated like robots. Breaks are so rare and short that pissing in bottles or defecating in bags is common. Sometimes people have to choose between relieving themselves and eating since the break is too short for both. Most of the people interviewed wanted more humane working conditions. There are many worse places to work, but that's whataboutism and using that argument leads to a race to the bottom.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > pissing in bottles or defecating in bags is common I'd be willing to wager this "fact" has been brought up more in this thread alone than has actually happened on the job. Makes for great sensationalism, though. The union cause would be much better served without this silly BS being shared like it's the actual cause of woos.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    "Stop pointing out the worst abuses of the workers, in your effort to reduce the abuse of workers!" https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottles-union/ https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottl...
  - rapnie 6y ago
    I don't know, but read this yesterday: "Leaked memo shows Amazon knows delivery drivers resort to urinating in bottles" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/25/amazon-delivery-workers-bathrooms-memo https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/25/amazon-de... > The email [May 2020] went on to say: “We’ve noticed an uptick recently of all kinds of unsanitary garbage being left inside bags: used masks, gloves, bottles of urine.” > Workers have previously told the Guardian they needed to urinate inside water bottles on a daily basis for fear of missing delivery rates. A forum on Reddit dedicated to Amazon drivers, which, while impossible to vet completely for authenticity, nonetheless shows hundreds of comments from drivers claiming they frequently have to urinate in water bottles for lack of bathroom breaks while on the job
  - blueline 6y ago
    It’s so common that within 16 hours of soliciting anonymous tips about the prevalence of it within Amazon, the intercept was able to fill an entire article with evidence of how common it is
esprehn 6y ago
I think the assumption is that mom and pop shops have a better baseline working environment, ex. https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+warehouse+ambulance https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+warehouse+ambulance "How much better" would be things like AC when the weather is too hot (which it seems has improved after all the negative press), and other safety considerations as mentioned in all the articles. I'm not for or against unions here, but I'm certain Amazon could do better.
ljp_206 6y ago
"Relatively demanding" is an understatement. It seems as though you're really downplaying how much this job sucks. The awful nature of the conditions are well known: https://www.nelp.org/publication/amazons-disposable-workers-high-injury-turnover-rates-fulfillment-centers-california/ https://www.nelp.org/publication/amazons-disposable-workers-... As for people hired, try upwards of 600,000 in front line roles, with high turnover. They keep hiring because many don't last over a year in the warehouses. People need cash, and the hiring process is incredibly frictionless. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazons-turnover-rate-amid-pandemic-is-at-least-double-the-average-for-retail-and-warehousing-industries/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazons-turnove... Do these people not deserve better working conditions?
CptFribble 6y ago
> If it was that bad, I think they'd have a harder time hiring. You're severely underestimating the punishing conditions of an Amazon warehouse job. A picker has a tablet that alerts them of an item to get. A clock starts counting down on the time you have to get to the right bin, find the item, and scan it. The warehouse sorting algorithms created by Amazon engineers optimize for retrieval time - but the warehouses are so huge, this means in practice that you have exactly as much time as you need assuming you never stop moving. For your entire 8-9 hour shift. A typical amazon warehouse worker is essentially powerwalking non-stop for 8 hours straight on hard concrete floors. Breaks begin at a scheduled time, but your break begins when you sign out of your device, then you walk some distance to the break room (typically a 3-5 minute walk), AND you have to be signing back in to your device at the end of your break time. In practice this means your actual resting time on break is typically 5 minutes or less for 15's, 15-20 minutes for lunch. You are not allowed to sit or rest anywhere other than the break room. If you sign back in only a few seconds late from your break, a manager will speak with you about it. If you sign back in 30 seconds late a few times in a row, you can be fired. It's true that Amazon pays well in the warehouse space and is constantly hiring people with no experience. However, this isn't because Amazon is a great place to work - it's because there is an incredible amount of churn. People burn out of Amazon warehouse work constantly. If you search on google for Amazon warehouse stories, you'll find a lot of people talking about how physically punishing the job is, about the constant stress from 22-year-old "managers" doing their rotation through a warehouse and enforcing Amazon's draconian rulebook without a thought in their head about the people they're taking to task for coming back from lunch 30 seconds late. There's a blog out there from a guy who worked in Amazon warehouses in the Midwest, who documented everything while looking into trying to organize. The stories he tells about the work environment are hair-raising. Amazon has figured out how to optimize the physical output of a human being, squeezing every last ounce of productivity from them every second of a shift until they either quit from burnout or get fired for not "making rate" (total % of lateness picking or packing assigned items). The fact that Amazon has an endless supply of people signing up to work in this environment says less about Amazon and more about the state of the American economy and how many desperate people are out there who need to sell their physical and mental health to Bezos pay their bills.
- 6y ago
tsimionescu 6y ago
> I'm pretty sure Amazon and Tesla pay great relative to their space. > I'm sure most Amazon warehouse jobs start in the $15-20/hr range. How much better can you really get for what is essentially reading a screen, grabbing something off of a shelf, and putting it in a box? Amazon is also one of the richest companies in the world, largely dependant on the work of each and every one of those warehouse workers. Why is it ok for the company to try to squeeze every penny of profit, but not for employees to try to squeeze every possible penny of wage out of the company? Amazon could probably make a great profit even if it paid its warehouse workers 30 or even 100 USD per hour. Why is it a priori wrong for employees to try to move the needle in that direction? If that's unrealistic, still: Amazon's profit went up by 84% in 2020. Why shouldn't workers seek for their wages to go up 84% instead? Not saying that they should, but there is a strange double standard in these sorts of discussions, where it is taken for granted that the company should seek to extract the maximum amount of profit from its workers, but the other way around is seen as abnormal.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > If that's unrealistic, still: Amazon's profit went up by 84% in 2020. Why shouldn't workers seek for their wages to go up 84% instead? So, say Amazon's net income in 2019 was $11.5B, and that they paid employees about $25B. Even if Amazon's scale in 2020 required no additional workers, increasing wages for those existing workers by 84% would have wiped out Amazon's entire profit and more despite a banner year.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    You're right, I made a classic mistake in comparing percentages...
- __turbobrew__ 6y ago
  > Amazon's profit went up by 84% in 2020. Why shouldn't workers seek for their wages to go up 84% instead? Amazon’s moneymaker is AWS, not the warehouse. At least in my city, AWS salaries have went up a fair amount in the last year or two, which makes sense given that AWS generates lots of profit. The warehouse on the other hand has much thinner margins and if they largely increased warehouse worker salaries they might not be profitable. Amazon is made into separate business units, so increasing salaries in one business unit which isn’t very profitable because the other business unit is profitable is just bad business.
ncallaway 6y ago
> The biggest confusion I have is everybody seems to approach Amazon and Tesla unionization as "hopefully it happens so workers will get better wages!" That might be the thing you're wrong about. It sounds like most of the Amazon unionization efforts _aren't_ necessarily about better pay. It seems like more of the focus is about better, more humane working conditions. If Amazon pays its workers slightly above average that's great, but if they treat those same workers like absolute shit with inhumane working conditions, then that's a problem that a union can help resolve.
- rufus_foreman 6y ago
  >> they treat those same workers like absolute shit with inhumane working conditions I think this debate is going to be like all the others on the topic, if you have never done manual labor, warehouse work, or factory work you are going to talk about the "inhumane working conditions", and if you have done that type of work you consider an Amazon warehouse job to be a great job for an unskilled laborer. I did 10 years in that world, the factory workers I worked with would have considered an Amazon warehouse job to be a dream job. I feel dirty now for having defended Amazon, but the truth is the truth.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    Any job that doesn't give workers time to use the bathroom when they need to is inhumane. Any job that is too warm, and doesn't provide workers adequate water, breaks, or AC such that workers are feinting or suffer health consequences is inhumane. If the working conditions elsewhere are worse than that, then it's not a positive mark for Amazon. It's a black mark for those workplaces. > I feel dirty now for having defended Amazon, but the truth is the truth. I don't know if you have condemned Amazon, so much as tarred other workplaces if they also fail to meet these standards.
hedora 6y ago
I don’t see why people expect existing US unions to improve the situation. They have entrenched political interests and represent many different industries. Once they’ve managed to get into an company, they’re repeatedly demonstrated they have no interest in listening to or advocating for the workers they represent. I’m actually for having unions, but they should be limited in size, and it should be easy for workers at a given site, or with a particular job role to quit the union and form their own. As it is, with an Amazon union, employees will have two abusive monopolies to fight instead of just one.
astura 6y ago
It's probably (mostly) not about pay. Unions can (and do!) negotiate working conditions. Dunno about Tesla but based on everything I've read, Amazon's "blue collar" workforce appears to have productivity requirements that are mostly unobtainable without taking shortcuts (like skipping lunch and bathroom breaks) and these jobs appear to have an extremely high turnover rate, which speaks to the crap nature of the job. A lot of people would not mind taking a small cut in pay for more humanitarian working conditions. People, generally, like being treated like people and not machines. But I don't actually think this is needed, I think Amazon can both improve working conditions and make a strong profit. For a quick example, my cousin has a union job where a paid lunch break (half hour) was negotiated every day. Union leaders routinely make their rounds around the office to make sure everyone is actually taking their lunch break and not feeling forced to work through lunch.
marricks 6y ago
Counties with Amazon warehouses have a lower pay rate for warehouse work than counties without them. Amazon makes bank because they can get away with exploiting workers more than a mom and pop shop can, or small businesses. --- edit --- Amazon also has an extremely high turn over rate revealing the cruelty of their workplaces: https://labor411.org/411-blog/warehouse-worker-turnover-rate-is-100-in-counties-that-have-amazon-warehouses/ https://labor411.org/411-blog/warehouse-worker-turnover-rate... Cite from economist for counties with lower pay: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amazon-does-to-wages https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amaz... and chart without a paywall: https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1375127251004571649/photo/1 https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1375127251004571649/pho... Let's stop with the feel good "Amazon must pay better than alternatives because they're wealthy" and look at the facts.
- MuffinFlavored 6y ago
  > Counties with Amazon warehouses have a lower pay rate for warehouse work than counties without them. Mom and pop warehouses pay $12-$13/hr in my county and Amazon pays $15-$20/hr with health care I believe. https://www.amazondelivers.jobs/about/benefits/ https://www.amazondelivers.jobs/about/benefits/
  - marricks 6y ago
    That's a nice local statistic but it's probable at this point amazon is depressing warehouse work wages that used to be quite a bit above minimum wage. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amazon-does-to-wages https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amaz...
marricks 6y ago
Warehouse work used to pay more than $15/hr, and if you look at the stats workers in counties without Amazon warehouses get paid more[1]. Pay is closer to 20 an hour. [1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amazon-does-to-wages https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/20/what-amaz... - sorry for the second comment but I wanted to cut to the chase
heavyset_go 6y ago
Amazon is the company that knows its drivers are peeing in bottles to meet their quotas[1], but then tweets things like this in response[2]: > You don’t really believe the peeing in bottles thing, do you? If that were true, nobody would work for us. The truth is that we have over a million incredible employees around the world who are proud of what they do, and have great wages and health care from day one. [1] https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottles-union/ https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottl... [2] https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359 https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359

dbspin 6y ago

This exists in Germany, it's called codetermination - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany#:~:text=Codetermination%20in%20Germany%20is%20a,the%20companies%20they%20work%20for.&text=It%20applies%20to%20public%20and,supervisory%20board%20must%20be%20elected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany#:~:.... It's not an alternative to a union, but an additional right. Workers can also form councils at shop floor level - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council

hnarn 6y ago

I admire that you keep an open mind in a subject that is normally extremely infected, but I think your perspective shows a slight lack of understanding for the history of labor conflict around the world. I don't know if you'll find it helpful, but I'll just chime in on some of your points: > The entire concept of unionization seems unnecessarily confrontational. Unionization is confrontational by definition because it's the materialization of completely opposing interests. A unified workforce that can make collective demands on their employer is economically never in the interest of the employer. > There is nothing preventing the state to require significant representation of employees in every board of directors. There is not a single doubt in my mind that this would be seen by almost anyone as an extremely left-wing policy. When you say "there is nothing preventing the state" I'm not sure what you mean, unless you have a country with a very left leaning populace there is no way this would fly. For an example from my country, have a look at "employee funds".[1] The purpose was essentially to tax companies, use the money to buy stock in the companies, and give ownership to a part of the companies to trade unions. So, in a way, exactly what you mention. Remember that this was attempted in a country that had a post-war social democratic majority for decades, and even then it didn't work. > In this way, labour and capital could work together in a more integrated manner, avoiding much of this unnecessary conflict. Again, the conflict between labor and capital is not "unnecessary", it's built into the power relation. While everybody benefits from the company doing well in the long run during an equilibrium where everybody's happy, in the short term, changes to the benefit of the employer are often negative to the employees, and vice versa. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds

clcaev 6y ago
I'm not sure why you are currently downvoted; it seems like a contribution to this discourse. Even so, perhaps the reasoning frame you promote is one of our challenges. I see labour and capital as being in conflict when they are out of balance with regard to one another. In particular, I do not think labour (or capital) must always be in the driver's seat. I think that every situation probably has a healthy balance of power, dependent upon the circumstances, where both capital and labour are respected for the contributions they make to the enterprise.

marricks 6y ago

I agree, if one wants to avoid the conflict of a union a work place should be at least 51% employee owned. Short of having mandatory employee ownership unions are the next best thing, and one is far easier in the US. Otherwise we have what we have now, rampant unfairness and tension but no conflict because the board can get away with whatever conditions PR allows them to get away with.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whatinthewhy 6y ago
Why 51%? Why not split labor ownership equally with capital?
- sascha_sl 6y ago
  Because it is an unequal relationship to begin with. Finding consensus in a 100% worker controlled organization is already a lot of work. We know capital is pretty okay with propagandizing if you look at current unionbusting practices, and they likely have more capital (haa) to do it.
nickik 6y ago
There are so many issues with simply saying 'workers should own 51% of the company'. That statement and causes so many issues in every aspect of how companies are now run an financed, its hard to even imagine what such a regulation would mean or how it would work in practice. > Short of having mandatory employee ownership unions are the next best thing, and one is far easier in the US. Again, just saying this is easy but what is the meaning of union in this context? What a union is and what it does has been wildly different thought history, form country to country and form industry to industry. What are the exact powers of that union mandatory union? These discussions are always so abstract, union are almost an article of faith for some people.

lolthishuman 6y ago

It automatically creates an adversarial relationship. Terrible way to live life on either side of that construct. No one should be forced to work anywhere. Which also means working isn’t a right. Work somewhere that works with you and establish a healthy relationship. Set expectations and be clear on what is desired. One spends much of their time working, to do it in such a way where a cordial relationship is not there; it might as well be no different than hell. Find somewhere else to work if a company doesn’t work with your ethos. Unionizing to coerce and compel is so disgusting. It’s plainly a form of bullying. That’s no way to live life.

ryandrake 6y ago
In many companies, you don't need a union to make it adversarial: it's already an adversarial relationship. It's a war with only one side shooting. The union just attempts to arm the other side. It would be great if leadership and employees were actually on the same side (rather than just in words), with things like employee representation on the board, and fair bargaining for wages with equal power on either side, but that's just not a reality at most jobs.
- lolthishuman 6y ago
  That’s a terrible default. That will make a country collapse. I guess you don’t have to look around too hard then to see that coming into fruition.
URSpider94 6y ago
That’s easy to say, but which other auto plant in the Bay Area should workers go to work at? There aren’t any others.
- lolthishuman 6y ago
  No one said a profession was guaranteed labor. Who made that a right?

junippor 6y ago

Isn't the relationship between unions and corporations NECESSARILY confrontational? A corporation would like to pay its employees as little as possible. The employees would like the opposite. What am I missing? - genuine question.

SyzygistSix 6y ago
In Germany, for instance, companies are required to have union members on the board. From what I understand about the structure of unions there, it allows unions to advocate on behalf of employees while being less confrontational. It's ostensibly a more effective way for the two parties to collaborate effectively to everyone's benefit.

sascha_sl 6y ago

This sounds like "we don't need unions if we mandate unions". Many countries do this, and with success. The actual only way that capital and workers can have a non-adversarial relationship is if the workers are in control of the capital. Otherwise capital will always be leverage used to extract surplus value from workers. That, on a large scale, is socialism by the way.