10 ms·

Amazon union vote count begins this week for Alabama warehouse

74 points by nimbius 6y ago

pmiller2 6y ago
Fingers crossed for "yes!" > ...lengthy mandatory "information sessions"... This practice really should be banned, IMO. The employer is taking advantage of the fact that the employee typically needs the job to survive. Recall the statistic where many Americans would have to borrow to cover an unexpected $400 expense. Do you think someone in that position is going to do anything to jeopardize their job? The employer is literally coercing the employee into attending these "information" sessions by threatening their survival, and it needs to stop. This is not a free association any more than you "choosing" to drive on the correct side of the road, when the alternative is to starve, or miss rent / mortgage.
- gruez 6y ago
  > The employer is literally coercing the employee into attending these "information" sessions by threatening their survival, and it needs to stop. I don't get it. The employer is paying you for your time. Why does it matter whether it's stacking boxes or sitting in front of a TV? > This is not a free association any more than you "choosing" to drive on the correct side of the road, when the alternative is to starve, or miss rent / mortgage. Are they threatening to fire the employees if they form a union?
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Boxes don't spew propaganda at you while you stack them. At least not yet. Edit: Yep, predictable. Y'all want to upvote "fingers crossed for yes," but then downvote for suggesting employers shouldn't be able to propagandize against unions. Let's just make it go away rather than have a discussion, yeah? Edit in response to your edit: no, but they're literally threatening to fire anyone who doesn't sit and listen to their propaganda. Amazon doesn't give a relative shit if they fire you, but you sure do if you don't have $400 to your name.
    - artful-hacker 6y ago
      I was about to reply "At least not yet", but your edit beat me to the punch!
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        I'm sorry. I wish I didn't need to add that.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    "Are they threatening to fire the employees if they form a union?" Not in an overt way that you could take to the NLRB...they aren't dumb. But the message is often clear enough. For example: "At a mandatory meeting Thursday for workers, where the warehouse’s leadership pressed its case to vote against the union, the 51-year-old rebutted the company’s suggestions that the RWDSU’s goal was to raise money to pay for union leaders’ cars and meals. One Amazon manager took a picture of his employee badge, a tactic Richardson believed was intended to intimidate him." https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/09/amazon-union-bessemer-history/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/09/amazon-...
  - elmomle 6y ago
    To be clear, Amazon REQUIRES workers to attend its "information sessions" while at work. Union organizers have no comparable power. To say that it's fair because the time is paid for is just whistling Dixie--Amazon is using its power to feed employees their propaganda with great efficiency. This is a brazen psychological asymmetry, and parity of information (in all forms--including time spent considering valid arguments pro or con, etc.) means everything when it comes to fairness in group decision-making processes.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    > Why does it matter whether it's stacking boxes or sitting in front of a TV? Should it be OK if the company shows an anti-LGBTQ video or religious propaganda? There should obviously be limits to what an employer can coerce their employees into watching, and I think the vast majority of employees would agree that they shouldn't have to watch anti-union or other politically-charged propaganda.
    - keypusher 6y ago
      Diversity training? The former president banned it and people have been fired for not attending. Seems quite "politically-charged".
      - standardUser 6y ago
        Treating people with respect is politically charged, but it shouldn't be. The side of that argument that thinks racial slurs, sexual advances, hurtful stereotypes and treating employees differently because of race, religion or sexuality should be OK in a workplace is wrong. It's no more propaganda than telling people not to punch each other or spit in each others faces.
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    > I don't get it. The employer is paying you for your time. Why does it matter whether it's stacking boxes or sitting in front of a TV? Just because I signed a contract that I'm willing to stack boxes for X amount of money doesn't mean they can tell me to clean toilets or manage a team.
- ma2rten 6y ago
  Maybe those information sessions should be allowed, but require the company to give equal speaking to union representatives.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    That would be fair. When I said "this practice should be banned," I meant the way it is now, where the employer gets to abuse their position to shove their opinion down peoples' throats. Make them invite in a union rep and give them equal time, and I'd be good with it.
    - SllX 6y ago
      Well about that. There is presently a case before SCOTUS regarding a law in California that allows union organizers to go onto private farm property and sell their message to the workers there if the workers quarters are not accessible to organizers otherwise up to some defined amount of time for up to some defined amount of days out of the year. Google tells me 3 hours a day, 120 days a year. It is being argued by the property owner’s that this is a taking. Not even a regulatory taking, just a straight up taking. Here we go: Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid ( https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nurs... ) Oral arguments were heard last Monday. Advisory Opinions (a podcast) had a pretty good take on the oral arguments, but SCOTUS hasn’t put out an opinion yet.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        If that's the way it falls, then ban all "information sessions" during work hours altogether. I'm fine either way.
        SllX 6y ago
        Arguably that would infringe on Amazon’s own First Amendment interest. Their house after all. That said I have no idea how this case is going to turn out. I’m not sure if they would have been better off arguing it was a regulatory taking because there was some indication they could have narrowly won that. SCOTUS may not issue an opinion, but punt this back down. Arguing that it was a taking was a bold move. I can see it, but that is a tough argument to make and win on.
- meddlepal 6y ago
  > This practice really should be banned, IMO. The employer is taking advantage of the fact that the employee typically needs the job to survive. I assume Amazon is paying for the time these employees have to spend in the mandatory information sessions? I don't see the problem. Amazon MUST get the opportunity to present its case even if anti-union is not a popular stance. If the deal offered by Amazon is so bad then what is the harm? We should not be shielding people from information because we don't believe they're smart enough to see through it... that reeks of elitist paternalistic thinking.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Why MUST they, if the union doesn't?
    - newacct583 6y ago
      The union does. The right to bargain collectively is protected by law, as is unfettered communication with your labor representatives. But no, Amazon isn't required to pay you for the time you spend talking to your union rep, no.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        I know they're not. I am literally arguing that if they're going to sit there and say "nice job you've got there... wouldn't it be too bad if you lost it," and then "invite" you to a "mandatory information session," which you can "freely" choose not to attend, then the union should get equal time at this session.
        gruez 6y ago
        >then the union should get equal time at this session. Why? They're not footing the bill. I'd agree with giving the union the option to do this, if they can compensate amazon equal to the hourly wage that the workers are paid, but I doubt labor unions have enough of a bankroll to make this viable.
- Tenoke 6y ago
  Just for nuance - I mostly hope they don't. The track record of modern unions is spotty as far as I can tell and I'd rather that big gamble isn't taken with Amazon. Still, I hope it ends up being a push in the right direction.
  - ldoughty 6y ago
    I would agree.... modern unions are almost a joke (rug color doesn't match what we agreed on, so back to negotiations!)... or police unions, where officers with significantly questionable backgrounds are re-hired... But against amazon, how do you fight? They probably are paying 50 people right now to do cost calculations on if it's more profitable to shut down the warehouse and move a few miles down the road, vs. accept the union.... and they have the capital to seriously consider it... If the government wont do anything to protect workers, unions are basically like class action lawsuits... a terrible option, but the only one remaining (except for the groups that are legally forbidden from unionizing)
    - notJim 6y ago
      Oddly, in countries with strong sectoral bargaining, there is less government intervention, because the unions work things out directly with the employers. IMO that solution is better in the end, as the unions and employers are better positioned to understand the issues than the government is. Of course for any of this to work, you need strong institutions, and ours in the US are very weak IMO. But that just means we need to keep building, not give up.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        That's a good point. A perfect example here is that Denmark has no minimum wage.
- psychiatrist24 6y ago
  It's not the employers fault if an employee needs a job to survive. And the 400$ story really needs to be analysed some more. I don't think it means most of those people are broke, just that they don't keep that much cash around for immediate use. It might all go into saving accounts or other investments (including mortgage). I just googled it, apparently the story is 40% of Americans don't have 400$ in cash for an emergency. On the other hand, the median income in the US is 65000$ - that is 50% of all Americans earn more than 65000$. I don't think any of those are in the situation to not be able to come up with 400$. And below the 50% there won't be such a steep fall of income. However, it is such a nice story, so none of the leftist media seems to want to question it.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Don't believe this so called "leftist media," then. Here's the data: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2020-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2019-dealing-with-unexpected-expenses.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2020-economic-we... Read. Regardless of it being the employer's "fault" that the employee depends on the job, they are still exploiting the fact that they can literally disrupt that employee's chance at survival.
    - psychiatrist24 6y ago
      That is just the same story, which is based on a survey. At least it mentions that many people would decide to pay for such an expense with credit, even though they would have the cash. And just because some person has financial issues, they are not being exploited. It is still not the employers fault if a person is in that situation. While I sympathize with that problem, the solution in my opinion is not unions, but the creation of more jobs. Then workers who would be fired could simply find another job.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Well, if it's the same story, I guess the liberal media isn't responsible, right? How exactly do you figure exploiting someone's precarious financial position isn't exploitation, anyway?
- undefined1 6y ago
  that stat is missing the context that Americans are terrible at saving and tend to live beyond their means, overconsuming. also, you are trying to solve a 21st century problem with a 19th century tool. that's not going to work.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    > that stat is missing the context that Americans are terrible at saving and tend to live beyond their means. Which is entirely irrelevant to the fact that these people depend on their jobs. > also, you are trying to solve a 21st century problem with a 19th century tool. that's not going to work. The modern version of the flush toilet was invented over 400 years ago. I'd say it still works in the 21st century, yeah? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet#Pre-modern_flush_toilet_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet#Pre-modern_flush_...
- Aunche 6y ago
  > The employer is literally coercing the employee into attending these "information" sessions by threatening their survival I used to be mildly in favor of unions, but the use of this kind of loaded language is why I'm starting to oppose them. It just give me the impression that the pro-labor side are a bunch of entitled whiners, even though I logically know that vast majority of the people voting pro-union are perfectly reasonable. At the end of the day, you're being paid to sit in a room. Nothing is stopping you from daydreaming or planning your next dinner.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Does the union get the same deal?
    - Aunche 6y ago
      If the union pays people $15 to watch pro-labor documentary, I'm sure many people would sign up.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        That's not the same deal. Amazon's deal is "here, watch this anti-union propaganda. We won't pay you any more than we usually do, and you're fired if you don't." Would you be in favor of the union having the same power? Why or why not?
        Aunche 6y ago
        In that case, there's no equivalent comparison because one's an employer and the other is not. That doesn't change my original point that the description was loaded.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Sure there's an equivalent. It's > Hey, guys, we're going to have 2 mandatory information sessions, one put on by the company and one put on by the union. They'll be during work hours and you'll get paid your normal rate. Or > Hey, we're holding some optional information sessions outside of work. Here's the info. The union is holding their own session, too. Feel free to come to both, or neither. It won't affect your job at all. Would you be in favor of either one of these?
asjldkfin 6y ago
Every robotics VC holds their breath in anticipation...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- muglug 6y ago
  There's a tremendous political value to Amazon employing 800,000 people across the country. That doesn't diminish much if a few thousand of them unionise.
  - DiggyJohnson 6y ago
    Truly genuine answer: It depends and is too early to tell. Specifically, it depends on whether this is a random ad hoc labor curfuffle (sp?) or a catalyst for increasing union sympathy and adoption.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > random ad hoc labor curfuffle It's definitely not that, this is a big push from the national unions trying to try out new models.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      "Kerfuffle," FYI, and only because you asked. :-)
  - Semiapies 6y ago
    800k around the country isn't anything to a few K employed in a key district.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Or a handful that are bought and paid for in an even more key district.
- 6y ago
idownvoted 6y ago
Maybe these unions can achieve what no government nor VC funded competitor could: Bring down this behemoth. On the other hand: The growth trajectory for AMZ (ie. being the sole "shop" in, say, 20 yrs) will make the accumulated expenses for GM-UAW-style shenanigans look like peanuts.
- tyingq 6y ago
  You can find examples of powerful unions benefiting workers without taking the company down, but rather, keeping the company in check. Pilots and Flight Attendants do pretty well with airlines.
  - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
    I feel like there has to be a better example than one of the least-healthy industries lol
    - tyingq 6y ago
      Actually, that makes it a great example right now. Air travel is down drastically. I would expect most of them would be out of work if they weren't unionized. That's not the case. Many of them are being paid quite a lot to sit at home right now. And no major airline is declaring bankruptcy, despite the prolonged decline.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        To be fair, airlines did get billions of dollars in direct grants from the federal government to pay workers.
        tyingq 6y ago
        They did, with quite a lot of pressure from their unions to push for that. The unionized workers got more favorable pay/leave programs than the non-unionized ones.
calylex 6y ago
Practically most of the world is socialist can we keep the last non-socialist place on earth the same ffs
- cafeoh 6y ago
  What now?
  - calylex 6y ago
    Please see [0] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/unions-workers.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/unions-wo... [1] https://www.howmoneywalks.com/understanding-unions-factors-and-criticisms-to-consider/ https://www.howmoneywalks.com/understanding-unions-factors-a... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs4cdbnNKdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs4cdbnNKdg
- lucian1900 6y ago
  The only socialist countries are China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and arguably Venezuela and Bolivia. Don’t confuse social democracy in Europe with socialism. Or unions, for that matter.
  - psychiatrist24 6y ago
    Europe is becoming more and more socialist. Socialist parties can be elected in democracies.
    - standardUser 6y ago
      Having a party in power that calls itself socialist in no way means a country is operating with a socialist system. At least not by any remotely accurate definition.
      - psychiatrist24 6y ago
        I am not referring to parties with "socialist" in the name, I refer to actual reforms they want to introduce. In my country we still have the party that was the socialist party of socialist Germany. We also have the "social democrats" who have now decided to officially demand "democratic socialism", which is just socialism (they formerly were not socialist, but they are becoming so). We have the Green party, which thinks that we will all die soon from various environmental issues, and planning economies are the only remedy. The EU itself is regulating more and more things and gravitating towards a planning economy. One example that was discussed here recently is the introduction of rent controls in the German capital (Berlin). That is literally planning economy - they set a maximum price for housing. And they announced they want to do that in all of Germany if they win the next election.
us0r 6y ago
So if they don't want the union why didn't they a pull a Walmart and close the warehouse as not profitable?
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  They probably will if the vote passes.
- SixDouble5321 6y ago
  There is still time. In my humble opinion, Amazon has eclipsed Wal-Mart in terms of being evil in regard to their treatment of employees and suppliers.
- hypersoar 6y ago
  It would be a lot more expensive than it is for Walmart to close a store. This is a large distribution center. Besides, this vote has gotten so much attention that closing it after they unionize would surely attract the attention of the NLRB.
partiallypro 6y ago
Knowing the area, I would doubt it is voted on favorably. Many people in the South are very leery of unions, and that's without people running PR for/against it.
- wahern 6y ago
  Case in point: workers at a VW plant rejected unionization in 2014 despite the company all but supporting it: > Volkswagen did not oppose the U.A.W. partly because its officials were eager to create a German-style works council, a committee of managers and blue-collar and white-collar workers who develop factory policies, on issues like work schedules and vacations. Volkswagen, which has unions and works councils at virtually all of its 105 other plants worldwide, views such councils as crucial for improving morale and cooperation and increasing productivity. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/business/volkswagen-workers-reject-forming-a-union.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/business/volkswagen-worke... The campaign against unionization was largely driven by local politicians spreading F.U.D., which was relatively easy given widespread anti-union sentiments in the South and general union skepticism among the general U.S. population.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    Imagine working at a US auto plant and being offered what German auto workers have. And turning it down.
- jkestner 6y ago
  The specific area has a history of organizing going back 100 years. http://encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-2314 http://encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-2314 https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/02/11/amazon-union-warehouse-alabama https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/02/11/amazon-union-ware...
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
This is going to backfire so hard if it passes. Amazon will not accept becoming a Union shop they will fire everyone, automate what they can, and hire new people for what they can't and start firing people every year if they need to. 100% unskilled labor can't successfully unionize anymore. In the old days they had the mob and strategic use of violence to force the Union into a position of power but that is no longer possible.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  They mention in the article that Amazon in Europe is largely unionized, and they don't have the mob. What makes you say we can't do the same here?
  - strgcmc 6y ago
    Seriously! For all the folks crying foul about how unions are awful and won't work and folks will get automated out of a job, I feel like they simply have zero clue about unions in Europe. Is Amazon pulling out of the European market? Are the unions so onerous that it's unprofitable to do business there? Have there been massive waves of layoffs and replacing union workers in Europe with robots? Yes, automation is coming, and yes society as a whole has to reckon with what it means to have an automated society with a drastically different labor market. But the fact that Amazon is energetically growing and pursuing business in Europe, proves what a strawman this whole idea is, that unions are somehow inherently ridiculous or could never possibly work. Guess what, they're working, in production today, and have been for decades. The fact that entrenched powers don't want it to work in the US, doesn't mean it can't work.
    - undefined1 6y ago
      tradeoffs. maybe that's part of the reason why Europe doesn't spawn companies like Amazon in the first place? and why Silicon Valley exists in the US.
rantwasp 6y ago
heartbroken by the way Amazon is treating its own employees, but realistically this will not end way either way.
RicoElectrico 6y ago
Imagine being one of the richest people in the world and still fussing over what is chump change for you. Trading a marginal increment in wealth over his reputation. Practically it doesn't matter whether you have 100, 90 or even 50 billion USD, you can afford anything. I guess money corrupts.
- RhysU 6y ago
  It isn't chump change if Bezos' empire becomes non-competitive vs copycats that avoid unionization.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    If you're competitive just because a union, maybe we should question why you're only competitive when abusing your employees? And close that loophole for other companies while we're at it.
    - RhysU 6y ago
      Ha on pulling the rhetorical trick of "when did you stop hitting your spouse?" There are many things employers do that employees dislike. Not all all of them are abuse. A union will attempt to remove the dislikes, abusive or not. The removal of non-abusive dislikes will limit the employer's competitiveness. In the absence of genuine abuses, say after an effective union is instated and when all abuses have been removed, a non-union shop is therefore at a competitive advantage in the market place over a union shop. The union overhead becomes purely frictional and it never goes away.
      - capableweb 6y ago
        Sure, but the mere presence of a vote to start a union in a workplace is signs that something fucked up is happening, even though it might not affect everyone there. Or you think they are trying to create/join an union because they are just mad at Amazon?
gwbas1c 6y ago
I hope it's an optional union. I'd be significantly more pro-union if employees could choose to leave the union whenever without having to leave the job. IMO, part of the reason why unions are so controversial is that, once formed, they're hard to dismantle when run poorly. Fixing union problems requires that employees engage in a form of politics that no one should be forced to do just to have a good blue-collar job. The advantages of unionized labor should be so good that enough employees will opt-in to keep the union powerful.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Free-ridership problems exist and are very big with unions, even those with indisputably good effects. This is why unions can't always be voluntary. > employees engage in a form of politics that no one should be forced to do just to have a good blue-collar job. I agree that nobody should have to do politics to have a good blue-collar job. Unions arise out of the necessity to play politics with management in order to keep such jobs in existence.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gwbas1c 6y ago
    > Free-ridership problems exist and are very big with unions, even those with indisputably good effects. This is why unions can't always be voluntary. That statement is illogical. It reeks of treating labor as a captive market to prop up an organization that no longer provides value. That's why the union has to be voluntary. Either it provides value and employees continue to participate, or fades away like a bad restaurant.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      I think it's a bit of a stretch to say a statement you disagree with is "illogical." Why shouldn't businesses be able to freely & voluntarily enter into any contract they want to? If the contract with the union stipulates that they will only hire union workers, workers are free to voluntarily pick a different job where the employer has freely not entered into such a contract. No captive markets here, unless an employer has a captive labor market over its employees.
ur-whale 6y ago
I wonder if these have a 'union rep.' model: https://www.wired.com/story/boston-dynamics-new-robot-has-a-warehouse-job/ https://www.wired.com/story/boston-dynamics-new-robot-has-a-...

74 points by nimbius 6y ago

Fingers crossed for "yes!" > ...lengthy mandatory "information sessions"... This practice really should be banned, IMO. The employer is taking advantage of the fact that the employee typically needs the job to survive. Recall the statistic where many Americans would have to borrow to cover an unexpected $400 expense. Do you think someone in that position is going to do anything to jeopardize their job? The employer is literally coercing the employee into attending these "information" sessions by threatening their survival, and it needs to stop. This is not a free association any more than you "choosing" to drive on the correct side of the road, when the alternative is to starve, or miss rent / mortgage.

gruez 6y ago
> The employer is literally coercing the employee into attending these "information" sessions by threatening their survival, and it needs to stop. I don't get it. The employer is paying you for your time. Why does it matter whether it's stacking boxes or sitting in front of a TV? > This is not a free association any more than you "choosing" to drive on the correct side of the road, when the alternative is to starve, or miss rent / mortgage. Are they threatening to fire the employees if they form a union?
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Boxes don't spew propaganda at you while you stack them. At least not yet. Edit: Yep, predictable. Y'all want to upvote "fingers crossed for yes," but then downvote for suggesting employers shouldn't be able to propagandize against unions. Let's just make it go away rather than have a discussion, yeah? Edit in response to your edit: no, but they're literally threatening to fire anyone who doesn't sit and listen to their propaganda. Amazon doesn't give a relative shit if they fire you, but you sure do if you don't have $400 to your name.
  - artful-hacker 6y ago
    I was about to reply "At least not yet", but your edit beat me to the punch!
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      I'm sorry. I wish I didn't need to add that.
- tyingq 6y ago
  "Are they threatening to fire the employees if they form a union?" Not in an overt way that you could take to the NLRB...they aren't dumb. But the message is often clear enough. For example: "At a mandatory meeting Thursday for workers, where the warehouse’s leadership pressed its case to vote against the union, the 51-year-old rebutted the company’s suggestions that the RWDSU’s goal was to raise money to pay for union leaders’ cars and meals. One Amazon manager took a picture of his employee badge, a tactic Richardson believed was intended to intimidate him." https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/09/amazon-union-bessemer-history/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/09/amazon-...
- elmomle 6y ago
  To be clear, Amazon REQUIRES workers to attend its "information sessions" while at work. Union organizers have no comparable power. To say that it's fair because the time is paid for is just whistling Dixie--Amazon is using its power to feed employees their propaganda with great efficiency. This is a brazen psychological asymmetry, and parity of information (in all forms--including time spent considering valid arguments pro or con, etc.) means everything when it comes to fairness in group decision-making processes.
- standardUser 6y ago
  > Why does it matter whether it's stacking boxes or sitting in front of a TV? Should it be OK if the company shows an anti-LGBTQ video or religious propaganda? There should obviously be limits to what an employer can coerce their employees into watching, and I think the vast majority of employees would agree that they shouldn't have to watch anti-union or other politically-charged propaganda.
  - keypusher 6y ago
    Diversity training? The former president banned it and people have been fired for not attending. Seems quite "politically-charged".
    - standardUser 6y ago
      Treating people with respect is politically charged, but it shouldn't be. The side of that argument that thinks racial slurs, sexual advances, hurtful stereotypes and treating employees differently because of race, religion or sexuality should be OK in a workplace is wrong. It's no more propaganda than telling people not to punch each other or spit in each others faces.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  > I don't get it. The employer is paying you for your time. Why does it matter whether it's stacking boxes or sitting in front of a TV? Just because I signed a contract that I'm willing to stack boxes for X amount of money doesn't mean they can tell me to clean toilets or manage a team.
ma2rten 6y ago
Maybe those information sessions should be allowed, but require the company to give equal speaking to union representatives.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  That would be fair. When I said "this practice should be banned," I meant the way it is now, where the employer gets to abuse their position to shove their opinion down peoples' throats. Make them invite in a union rep and give them equal time, and I'd be good with it.
  - SllX 6y ago
    Well about that. There is presently a case before SCOTUS regarding a law in California that allows union organizers to go onto private farm property and sell their message to the workers there if the workers quarters are not accessible to organizers otherwise up to some defined amount of time for up to some defined amount of days out of the year. Google tells me 3 hours a day, 120 days a year. It is being argued by the property owner’s that this is a taking. Not even a regulatory taking, just a straight up taking. Here we go: Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid ( https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nurs... ) Oral arguments were heard last Monday. Advisory Opinions (a podcast) had a pretty good take on the oral arguments, but SCOTUS hasn’t put out an opinion yet.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      If that's the way it falls, then ban all "information sessions" during work hours altogether. I'm fine either way.
      - SllX 6y ago
        Arguably that would infringe on Amazon’s own First Amendment interest. Their house after all. That said I have no idea how this case is going to turn out. I’m not sure if they would have been better off arguing it was a regulatory taking because there was some indication they could have narrowly won that. SCOTUS may not issue an opinion, but punt this back down. Arguing that it was a taking was a bold move. I can see it, but that is a tough argument to make and win on.
meddlepal 6y ago
> This practice really should be banned, IMO. The employer is taking advantage of the fact that the employee typically needs the job to survive. I assume Amazon is paying for the time these employees have to spend in the mandatory information sessions? I don't see the problem. Amazon MUST get the opportunity to present its case even if anti-union is not a popular stance. If the deal offered by Amazon is so bad then what is the harm? We should not be shielding people from information because we don't believe they're smart enough to see through it... that reeks of elitist paternalistic thinking.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Why MUST they, if the union doesn't?
  - newacct583 6y ago
    The union does. The right to bargain collectively is protected by law, as is unfettered communication with your labor representatives. But no, Amazon isn't required to pay you for the time you spend talking to your union rep, no.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      I know they're not. I am literally arguing that if they're going to sit there and say "nice job you've got there... wouldn't it be too bad if you lost it," and then "invite" you to a "mandatory information session," which you can "freely" choose not to attend, then the union should get equal time at this session.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >then the union should get equal time at this session. Why? They're not footing the bill. I'd agree with giving the union the option to do this, if they can compensate amazon equal to the hourly wage that the workers are paid, but I doubt labor unions have enough of a bankroll to make this viable.
Tenoke 6y ago
Just for nuance - I mostly hope they don't. The track record of modern unions is spotty as far as I can tell and I'd rather that big gamble isn't taken with Amazon. Still, I hope it ends up being a push in the right direction.
- ldoughty 6y ago
  I would agree.... modern unions are almost a joke (rug color doesn't match what we agreed on, so back to negotiations!)... or police unions, where officers with significantly questionable backgrounds are re-hired... But against amazon, how do you fight? They probably are paying 50 people right now to do cost calculations on if it's more profitable to shut down the warehouse and move a few miles down the road, vs. accept the union.... and they have the capital to seriously consider it... If the government wont do anything to protect workers, unions are basically like class action lawsuits... a terrible option, but the only one remaining (except for the groups that are legally forbidden from unionizing)
  - notJim 6y ago
    Oddly, in countries with strong sectoral bargaining, there is less government intervention, because the unions work things out directly with the employers. IMO that solution is better in the end, as the unions and employers are better positioned to understand the issues than the government is. Of course for any of this to work, you need strong institutions, and ours in the US are very weak IMO. But that just means we need to keep building, not give up.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      That's a good point. A perfect example here is that Denmark has no minimum wage.
psychiatrist24 6y ago
It's not the employers fault if an employee needs a job to survive. And the 400$ story really needs to be analysed some more. I don't think it means most of those people are broke, just that they don't keep that much cash around for immediate use. It might all go into saving accounts or other investments (including mortgage). I just googled it, apparently the story is 40% of Americans don't have 400$ in cash for an emergency. On the other hand, the median income in the US is 65000$ - that is 50% of all Americans earn more than 65000$. I don't think any of those are in the situation to not be able to come up with 400$. And below the 50% there won't be such a steep fall of income. However, it is such a nice story, so none of the leftist media seems to want to question it.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Don't believe this so called "leftist media," then. Here's the data: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2020-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2019-dealing-with-unexpected-expenses.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2020-economic-we... Read. Regardless of it being the employer's "fault" that the employee depends on the job, they are still exploiting the fact that they can literally disrupt that employee's chance at survival.
  - psychiatrist24 6y ago
    That is just the same story, which is based on a survey. At least it mentions that many people would decide to pay for such an expense with credit, even though they would have the cash. And just because some person has financial issues, they are not being exploited. It is still not the employers fault if a person is in that situation. While I sympathize with that problem, the solution in my opinion is not unions, but the creation of more jobs. Then workers who would be fired could simply find another job.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Well, if it's the same story, I guess the liberal media isn't responsible, right? How exactly do you figure exploiting someone's precarious financial position isn't exploitation, anyway?
undefined1 6y ago
that stat is missing the context that Americans are terrible at saving and tend to live beyond their means, overconsuming. also, you are trying to solve a 21st century problem with a 19th century tool. that's not going to work.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  > that stat is missing the context that Americans are terrible at saving and tend to live beyond their means. Which is entirely irrelevant to the fact that these people depend on their jobs. > also, you are trying to solve a 21st century problem with a 19th century tool. that's not going to work. The modern version of the flush toilet was invented over 400 years ago. I'd say it still works in the 21st century, yeah? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet#Pre-modern_flush_toilet_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet#Pre-modern_flush_...
Aunche 6y ago
> The employer is literally coercing the employee into attending these "information" sessions by threatening their survival I used to be mildly in favor of unions, but the use of this kind of loaded language is why I'm starting to oppose them. It just give me the impression that the pro-labor side are a bunch of entitled whiners, even though I logically know that vast majority of the people voting pro-union are perfectly reasonable. At the end of the day, you're being paid to sit in a room. Nothing is stopping you from daydreaming or planning your next dinner.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Does the union get the same deal?
  - Aunche 6y ago
    If the union pays people $15 to watch pro-labor documentary, I'm sure many people would sign up.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      That's not the same deal. Amazon's deal is "here, watch this anti-union propaganda. We won't pay you any more than we usually do, and you're fired if you don't." Would you be in favor of the union having the same power? Why or why not?
      - Aunche 6y ago
        In that case, there's no equivalent comparison because one's an employer and the other is not. That doesn't change my original point that the description was loaded.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Sure there's an equivalent. It's > Hey, guys, we're going to have 2 mandatory information sessions, one put on by the company and one put on by the union. They'll be during work hours and you'll get paid your normal rate. Or > Hey, we're holding some optional information sessions outside of work. Here's the info. The union is holding their own session, too. Feel free to come to both, or neither. It won't affect your job at all. Would you be in favor of either one of these?

asjldkfin 6y ago

Every robotics VC holds their breath in anticipation...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
muglug 6y ago
There's a tremendous political value to Amazon employing 800,000 people across the country. That doesn't diminish much if a few thousand of them unionise.
- DiggyJohnson 6y ago
  Truly genuine answer: It depends and is too early to tell. Specifically, it depends on whether this is a random ad hoc labor curfuffle (sp?) or a catalyst for increasing union sympathy and adoption.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > random ad hoc labor curfuffle It's definitely not that, this is a big push from the national unions trying to try out new models.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    "Kerfuffle," FYI, and only because you asked. :-)
- Semiapies 6y ago
  800k around the country isn't anything to a few K employed in a key district.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Or a handful that are bought and paid for in an even more key district.
6y ago

idownvoted 6y ago

Maybe these unions can achieve what no government nor VC funded competitor could: Bring down this behemoth. On the other hand: The growth trajectory for AMZ (ie. being the sole "shop" in, say, 20 yrs) will make the accumulated expenses for GM-UAW-style shenanigans look like peanuts.

tyingq 6y ago
You can find examples of powerful unions benefiting workers without taking the company down, but rather, keeping the company in check. Pilots and Flight Attendants do pretty well with airlines.
- Matticus_Rex 6y ago
  I feel like there has to be a better example than one of the least-healthy industries lol
  - tyingq 6y ago
    Actually, that makes it a great example right now. Air travel is down drastically. I would expect most of them would be out of work if they weren't unionized. That's not the case. Many of them are being paid quite a lot to sit at home right now. And no major airline is declaring bankruptcy, despite the prolonged decline.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      To be fair, airlines did get billions of dollars in direct grants from the federal government to pay workers.
      - tyingq 6y ago
        They did, with quite a lot of pressure from their unions to push for that. The unionized workers got more favorable pay/leave programs than the non-unionized ones.

calylex 6y ago

Practically most of the world is socialist can we keep the last non-socialist place on earth the same ffs

cafeoh 6y ago
What now?
- calylex 6y ago
  Please see [0] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/unions-workers.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/unions-wo... [1] https://www.howmoneywalks.com/understanding-unions-factors-and-criticisms-to-consider/ https://www.howmoneywalks.com/understanding-unions-factors-a... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs4cdbnNKdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs4cdbnNKdg
lucian1900 6y ago
The only socialist countries are China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and arguably Venezuela and Bolivia. Don’t confuse social democracy in Europe with socialism. Or unions, for that matter.
- psychiatrist24 6y ago
  Europe is becoming more and more socialist. Socialist parties can be elected in democracies.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    Having a party in power that calls itself socialist in no way means a country is operating with a socialist system. At least not by any remotely accurate definition.
    - psychiatrist24 6y ago
      I am not referring to parties with "socialist" in the name, I refer to actual reforms they want to introduce. In my country we still have the party that was the socialist party of socialist Germany. We also have the "social democrats" who have now decided to officially demand "democratic socialism", which is just socialism (they formerly were not socialist, but they are becoming so). We have the Green party, which thinks that we will all die soon from various environmental issues, and planning economies are the only remedy. The EU itself is regulating more and more things and gravitating towards a planning economy. One example that was discussed here recently is the introduction of rent controls in the German capital (Berlin). That is literally planning economy - they set a maximum price for housing. And they announced they want to do that in all of Germany if they win the next election.

us0r 6y ago

So if they don't want the union why didn't they a pull a Walmart and close the warehouse as not profitable?

bradleyjg 6y ago
They probably will if the vote passes.
SixDouble5321 6y ago
There is still time. In my humble opinion, Amazon has eclipsed Wal-Mart in terms of being evil in regard to their treatment of employees and suppliers.
hypersoar 6y ago
It would be a lot more expensive than it is for Walmart to close a store. This is a large distribution center. Besides, this vote has gotten so much attention that closing it after they unionize would surely attract the attention of the NLRB.

partiallypro 6y ago

Knowing the area, I would doubt it is voted on favorably. Many people in the South are very leery of unions, and that's without people running PR for/against it.

wahern 6y ago
Case in point: workers at a VW plant rejected unionization in 2014 despite the company all but supporting it: > Volkswagen did not oppose the U.A.W. partly because its officials were eager to create a German-style works council, a committee of managers and blue-collar and white-collar workers who develop factory policies, on issues like work schedules and vacations. Volkswagen, which has unions and works councils at virtually all of its 105 other plants worldwide, views such councils as crucial for improving morale and cooperation and increasing productivity. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/business/volkswagen-workers-reject-forming-a-union.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/business/volkswagen-worke... The campaign against unionization was largely driven by local politicians spreading F.U.D., which was relatively easy given widespread anti-union sentiments in the South and general union skepticism among the general U.S. population.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Imagine working at a US auto plant and being offered what German auto workers have. And turning it down.
jkestner 6y ago
The specific area has a history of organizing going back 100 years. http://encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-2314 http://encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-2314 https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/02/11/amazon-union-warehouse-alabama https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/02/11/amazon-union-ware...

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

This is going to backfire so hard if it passes. Amazon will not accept becoming a Union shop they will fire everyone, automate what they can, and hire new people for what they can't and start firing people every year if they need to. 100% unskilled labor can't successfully unionize anymore. In the old days they had the mob and strategic use of violence to force the Union into a position of power but that is no longer possible.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
They mention in the article that Amazon in Europe is largely unionized, and they don't have the mob. What makes you say we can't do the same here?
- strgcmc 6y ago
  Seriously! For all the folks crying foul about how unions are awful and won't work and folks will get automated out of a job, I feel like they simply have zero clue about unions in Europe. Is Amazon pulling out of the European market? Are the unions so onerous that it's unprofitable to do business there? Have there been massive waves of layoffs and replacing union workers in Europe with robots? Yes, automation is coming, and yes society as a whole has to reckon with what it means to have an automated society with a drastically different labor market. But the fact that Amazon is energetically growing and pursuing business in Europe, proves what a strawman this whole idea is, that unions are somehow inherently ridiculous or could never possibly work. Guess what, they're working, in production today, and have been for decades. The fact that entrenched powers don't want it to work in the US, doesn't mean it can't work.
  - undefined1 6y ago
    tradeoffs. maybe that's part of the reason why Europe doesn't spawn companies like Amazon in the first place? and why Silicon Valley exists in the US.

rantwasp 6y ago

heartbroken by the way Amazon is treating its own employees, but realistically this will not end way either way.

RicoElectrico 6y ago

Imagine being one of the richest people in the world and still fussing over what is chump change for you. Trading a marginal increment in wealth over his reputation. Practically it doesn't matter whether you have 100, 90 or even 50 billion USD, you can afford anything. I guess money corrupts.

RhysU 6y ago
It isn't chump change if Bezos' empire becomes non-competitive vs copycats that avoid unionization.
- capableweb 6y ago
  If you're competitive just because a union, maybe we should question why you're only competitive when abusing your employees? And close that loophole for other companies while we're at it.
  - RhysU 6y ago
    Ha on pulling the rhetorical trick of "when did you stop hitting your spouse?" There are many things employers do that employees dislike. Not all all of them are abuse. A union will attempt to remove the dislikes, abusive or not. The removal of non-abusive dislikes will limit the employer's competitiveness. In the absence of genuine abuses, say after an effective union is instated and when all abuses have been removed, a non-union shop is therefore at a competitive advantage in the market place over a union shop. The union overhead becomes purely frictional and it never goes away.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      Sure, but the mere presence of a vote to start a union in a workplace is signs that something fucked up is happening, even though it might not affect everyone there. Or you think they are trying to create/join an union because they are just mad at Amazon?

gwbas1c 6y ago

I hope it's an optional union. I'd be significantly more pro-union if employees could choose to leave the union whenever without having to leave the job. IMO, part of the reason why unions are so controversial is that, once formed, they're hard to dismantle when run poorly. Fixing union problems requires that employees engage in a form of politics that no one should be forced to do just to have a good blue-collar job. The advantages of unionized labor should be so good that enough employees will opt-in to keep the union powerful.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Free-ridership problems exist and are very big with unions, even those with indisputably good effects. This is why unions can't always be voluntary. > employees engage in a form of politics that no one should be forced to do just to have a good blue-collar job. I agree that nobody should have to do politics to have a good blue-collar job. Unions arise out of the necessity to play politics with management in order to keep such jobs in existence.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  > Free-ridership problems exist and are very big with unions, even those with indisputably good effects. This is why unions can't always be voluntary. That statement is illogical. It reeks of treating labor as a captive market to prop up an organization that no longer provides value. That's why the union has to be voluntary. Either it provides value and employees continue to participate, or fades away like a bad restaurant.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    I think it's a bit of a stretch to say a statement you disagree with is "illogical." Why shouldn't businesses be able to freely & voluntarily enter into any contract they want to? If the contract with the union stipulates that they will only hire union workers, workers are free to voluntarily pick a different job where the employer has freely not entered into such a contract. No captive markets here, unless an employer has a captive labor market over its employees.

ur-whale 6y ago

I wonder if these have a 'union rep.' model: https://www.wired.com/story/boston-dynamics-new-robot-has-a-warehouse-job/ https://www.wired.com/story/boston-dynamics-new-robot-has-a-...