6 ms·

Partial count shows Amazon workers rejecting union by a 2-to-1 margin

13 points by ckastner 6y ago

midnitewarrior 6y ago
If we cared about partial counts, Trump would still be President.
- aetherane 6y ago
  Not sure it is a recent trend, but I've noticed the prevalence of news articles just before something happens. Like "covid cases soon to hit 1 million" a day or two before it happens but nothing on the actual day the threshold is passed.
  - Tdiddy21 6y ago
    Wonder why that is?
    - detaro 6y ago
      Get in early in the news cycle, fill the news feed, get more clicks.
  - joosters 6y ago
    Plus all the news articles along the lines of "In a speech today, so-and-so will announce some thing" published long before the speech is made.
- gruez 6y ago
  You might not be able to officially call an election on partial counts, but based on the current vote % and the % remaining, you can be reasonably certain what the outcome will be. For instance, if it's 2-1 against (ie. 66% against, 33% for), and 75% of votes have been counted, then it's almost impossible for remaining votes to change the result. It's the basis on how the AP can call elections before all the votes have been counted, and still be mostly correct.
goonogle 6y ago
Does anyone blame them? There are 3 types of workers. Temp style who are planning on making money and leaving Amazon as soon as they get a better paying job. These people get limited to negative benefits from the union. Ambitious workers who want to climb up Amazon, this takes 2 paths. You can go up the union ranks, but this is nearly entirely seniority dependent. Going from union position to non union(management) means you cut all ties with your former life and union friends, sorry but it's the truth. Finally you have the lifers, they benefit from the union because this is their career. Doing unskilled labor for slightly above market rates. They want union protection to make their job easier at the expense of everything else. Maybe the job is hard and these lifers deserve it. But this is still a minority population.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  This is classic, low effort, anti union rhetoric that might as well have pulled from the pinkertond themselves. From a brand new account too. Now I'm not saying you're a shill, but Amazon has been spending so much fuck you money against this union drive that I wouldn't be surprised if they're also paying some poor guy in Mumbai to post stuff like this, just like they're doing on Twitter. Why not own your opinions and post from your main account? Edit to add why a union at Amazon is important, copied from another comment of mine: If not for the relentless quotas drivers and warehouse workers would be able to effectively use their breaks and lunch time to care for their biological needs. Amazon knowingly continues with their quota system as-is because they know that their employees have nowhere else to go.[0,1] Amazon doesn't care that their employees have no alternatives to defacating in bags and urinating in bottles[2]; only that their staff take their biological waste with them. This tweet was an attempt to reframe the criticism away from the image of a human, crouched down, in the back of an Amazon truck, clutching a bag beneath their butt as they desperately relieve themselves; all so they can meet their delivery quota.[3] The solution is rather simple and should be easily palatable for all but those whose livelihoods are dependent on the perverted form of socialised-for-the-capitalists capitalism under corpocracy as opposed to social market economies. That solution is industrial democracy in businesses.[4] ID is not perfect, nothing is. However, it would be give the majority of Amazon's employees the freedom to choose whether they want to continue to work themselves at a pace that requires them to use their [trucks, customers lawn, diapers, alleyway] as a rest room or if they should be given the latitude to locate a bathroom along their route. 0. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/80935 https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/80935 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/business/economy/amazon-wages-alabama-union.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/business/economy/amazon-w... 2. https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359?s=19 https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359?s=... 3. https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7j7mb/amazon-delivery-drivers-are-overwhelmed-and-overworked-by-covid-19-surge https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7j7mb/amazon-delivery-drive... 4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_democracy
detaro 6y ago
earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745214
ufmace 6y ago
It's rather funny how this article is framed. The unionization side lost the vote, which tends to imply that they are less popular. Despite that, all of the quotes are from people who supported the unionization. They have "a worker... who helped organize the union drive" and "the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union that led the organizing effort". The article picture is of a pro-union protestor. They don't seem to have made any effort at all to find or quote people who were against it. They instead framed all opposition as obviously due to Amazon's "propaganda". So what could be the reason for this - are their reporters just lazy, or are they hopelessly biased in favor of unionization? Well let's be honest, it's obviously both. I'd also be interested to know here, what is the nature of the proposed unionization? Is this just Amazon workers, or would they become a small part of some massive national union organization? It quotes the "president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union", and their picture has some rather nicely printed signs by them, so I know which way I'd bet. If this unionization actually went through, would the individual workers have any say in what their contract would be, or would they just have to take whatever this massive national union thought is good for them? That might be a pretty solid reason to vote against it. Funny how it doesn't say anything about that.
- mimikatz 6y ago
  I tend to always go lazy over biased. More and more it is show reports follow narrative in many cases I am convinced it is because they can copy and paste about 2/3rds of the words in their stories that define the narrative. Also why Twitter gets cited so much you can easily find XXXX says XXXX on it.
- hackeraccount 6y ago
  There's a third possibility. They know their audience. If the comments are anything to judge by I would say most of the readers would view the article as a fair representation of the event in question. I think the "problem" - and I can take the point that maybe it's no problem at all - is that the readers of arstechnica are people who are interested in technical issues and have very clear political views. The first is important but the second is critical.

13 points by ckastner 6y ago

midnitewarrior 6y ago

If we cared about partial counts, Trump would still be President.

aetherane 6y ago
Not sure it is a recent trend, but I've noticed the prevalence of news articles just before something happens. Like "covid cases soon to hit 1 million" a day or two before it happens but nothing on the actual day the threshold is passed.
- Tdiddy21 6y ago
  Wonder why that is?
  - detaro 6y ago
    Get in early in the news cycle, fill the news feed, get more clicks.
- joosters 6y ago
  Plus all the news articles along the lines of "In a speech today, so-and-so will announce some thing" published long before the speech is made.
gruez 6y ago
You might not be able to officially call an election on partial counts, but based on the current vote % and the % remaining, you can be reasonably certain what the outcome will be. For instance, if it's 2-1 against (ie. 66% against, 33% for), and 75% of votes have been counted, then it's almost impossible for remaining votes to change the result. It's the basis on how the AP can call elections before all the votes have been counted, and still be mostly correct.

goonogle 6y ago

Does anyone blame them? There are 3 types of workers. Temp style who are planning on making money and leaving Amazon as soon as they get a better paying job. These people get limited to negative benefits from the union. Ambitious workers who want to climb up Amazon, this takes 2 paths. You can go up the union ranks, but this is nearly entirely seniority dependent. Going from union position to non union(management) means you cut all ties with your former life and union friends, sorry but it's the truth. Finally you have the lifers, they benefit from the union because this is their career. Doing unskilled labor for slightly above market rates. They want union protection to make their job easier at the expense of everything else. Maybe the job is hard and these lifers deserve it. But this is still a minority population.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
This is classic, low effort, anti union rhetoric that might as well have pulled from the pinkertond themselves. From a brand new account too. Now I'm not saying you're a shill, but Amazon has been spending so much fuck you money against this union drive that I wouldn't be surprised if they're also paying some poor guy in Mumbai to post stuff like this, just like they're doing on Twitter. Why not own your opinions and post from your main account? Edit to add why a union at Amazon is important, copied from another comment of mine: If not for the relentless quotas drivers and warehouse workers would be able to effectively use their breaks and lunch time to care for their biological needs. Amazon knowingly continues with their quota system as-is because they know that their employees have nowhere else to go.[0,1] Amazon doesn't care that their employees have no alternatives to defacating in bags and urinating in bottles[2]; only that their staff take their biological waste with them. This tweet was an attempt to reframe the criticism away from the image of a human, crouched down, in the back of an Amazon truck, clutching a bag beneath their butt as they desperately relieve themselves; all so they can meet their delivery quota.[3] The solution is rather simple and should be easily palatable for all but those whose livelihoods are dependent on the perverted form of socialised-for-the-capitalists capitalism under corpocracy as opposed to social market economies. That solution is industrial democracy in businesses.[4] ID is not perfect, nothing is. However, it would be give the majority of Amazon's employees the freedom to choose whether they want to continue to work themselves at a pace that requires them to use their [trucks, customers lawn, diapers, alleyway] as a rest room or if they should be given the latitude to locate a bathroom along their route. 0. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/80935 https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/80935 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/business/economy/amazon-wages-alabama-union.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/business/economy/amazon-w... 2. https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359?s=19 https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359?s=... 3. https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7j7mb/amazon-delivery-drivers-are-overwhelmed-and-overworked-by-covid-19-surge https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7j7mb/amazon-delivery-drive... 4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_democracy

detaro 6y ago

earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745214

ufmace 6y ago

It's rather funny how this article is framed. The unionization side lost the vote, which tends to imply that they are less popular. Despite that, all of the quotes are from people who supported the unionization. They have "a worker... who helped organize the union drive" and "the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union that led the organizing effort". The article picture is of a pro-union protestor. They don't seem to have made any effort at all to find or quote people who were against it. They instead framed all opposition as obviously due to Amazon's "propaganda". So what could be the reason for this - are their reporters just lazy, or are they hopelessly biased in favor of unionization? Well let's be honest, it's obviously both. I'd also be interested to know here, what is the nature of the proposed unionization? Is this just Amazon workers, or would they become a small part of some massive national union organization? It quotes the "president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union", and their picture has some rather nicely printed signs by them, so I know which way I'd bet. If this unionization actually went through, would the individual workers have any say in what their contract would be, or would they just have to take whatever this massive national union thought is good for them? That might be a pretty solid reason to vote against it. Funny how it doesn't say anything about that.

mimikatz 6y ago
I tend to always go lazy over biased. More and more it is show reports follow narrative in many cases I am convinced it is because they can copy and paste about 2/3rds of the words in their stories that define the narrative. Also why Twitter gets cited so much you can easily find XXXX says XXXX on it.
hackeraccount 6y ago
There's a third possibility. They know their audience. If the comments are anything to judge by I would say most of the readers would view the article as a fair representation of the event in question. I think the "problem" - and I can take the point that maybe it's no problem at all - is that the readers of arstechnica are people who are interested in technical issues and have very clear political views. The first is important but the second is critical.