8 ms·

Fingers crossed for "yes!" > ...lengthy mandatory "information sessions"... This practice really should be banned, IMO. The employer is taking advantage of t

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?

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?