5 ms·

That's pretty overwhelming too, 71% No. It would be interesting to hear from them why. I think we all have opinions (I certainly do). But I've never worked at

That's pretty overwhelming too, 71% No. It would be interesting to hear from them why. I think we all have opinions (I certainly do). But I've never worked at amazon so my opinion is low value...

Waterluvian 6y ago
I'm curious if it's the same reason I put up with !@#$ earlier in my career: I don't have the luxury of taking risks and I'm just really not interested in upsetting my employer. You tell me there's a better world on the other side of the hill, but I'm just trying to keep my children from starving this month. I can't even begin to think about the uncertainty and risk of trying to get there. Some commentary: I think this is one reason why social safety nets are tremendously valuable. The reason I eventually took the risk was because being without a job was not a potential death sentence. I would have unemployment insurance for a while and universal healthcare would take care of my kids if they had sudden needs.
- nanna 6y ago
  In other countries not hiring someone because of their union affiliation is flat out illegal. (Thanks to union and political struggles to protect collective bargaining as a right)
  - EarlKing 6y ago
    A lot of things are illegal in life ... but lawsuits take time and money most people don't have.
  - danielrpa 6y ago
    In the US many would argue that it's not collective bargaining if you are making the employer accept an union; it's putting a gun to the employer's head in the negotiations. Employers are people too! And an employer could be a small to medium company that is barely surviving against overseas competition. I understand others would say that the employer is more powerful to begin with and thus it's just a way to balance things. And without that, workers would be exploited and society would be worse off. The reason I'm writing this is that there are two sides of this discussion with pretty good arguments. So just because other countries think differently, it doesn't mean that they are doing the right thing.
    - friedman23 6y ago
      Modern morality is very simple Majority is more important than the minority. Poor is better than rich. Dumb is better than smart.
  - raisedbyninjas 6y ago
    Alabama is an at will employment state. Amazon doesn't need to provide any reason for employment termination. If this warehouse unionizes, Amazon may choose to relocate their warehouse. This is in a suburb of Birmingham, population over a million. So the workers probably aren't unusually desperate for work.
- josefresco 6y ago
  > I'm just really not interested in upsetting my employer. This is the purpose of a union! Because you band together, the employer can't punish you individually. Sure they might be able to fire/replace everyone, but without a union they could target you specifically and there would be no leverage or help.
tyingq 6y ago
My guess is the messaging about dues. Lots of people focused on the short term hit to their paychecks. Most of the stories reference $500/month. That does seem high. Data I can find for other unions shows somewhere between 1 to 4 percent of gross pay as typical for union dues. Assuming $15/hour, 4 percent of gross pay would be $144/month. But, if $500/month is accurate, it's 13.8% of gross pay for $15/hour workers, and 10.4% of gross for $20/hour workers. That's very high. Edit: $500/year. There were many news stories with the inaccurate $500/month quote.
- bena 6y ago
  That short term hit can have long term consequences. If I'm scraping by already, I'm not looking forward to taking another hit to an already stretched paycheck.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    It does seem like the union missed an opportunity here. They should have offered some ramp up, or reconsidered the $500/month. If that's indeed accurate, it's 13.8% of gross pay for $15/hour workers, and 10.4% of gross for $20/hour workers. That seems really high. Edit: It's apparently $500/year, see other posts though, many news stories did post $500/month.
  - sitkack 6y ago
    If that is indeed the primary motivator, that folks are literally getting paid so little that they can't afford the union dues then two things should happen The union should wave union dues until wages rise and ??? This seems not unlike Walmart informing employees that it is paying them so little that they qualify for Food Stamps. Looking forward to the Amazon paper, "Pareto Optimal Employee Compensation for Maintaining Fluid Labor Markets"
    - shagie 6y ago
      Alabama is a right to work state. No one has to pay dues. https://www.justia.com/employment/unions/right-to-work-and-union-dues/ https://www.justia.com/employment/unions/right-to-work-and-u... > A union is an exclusive collective bargaining agent, which means that it must fairly represent all of the workers in the bargaining unit, including those who have decided not to be members or pay dues.
rshm 6y ago
I would guess, fear of retribution from amazon. If the voting was nationwide it could have lowered the fear that amazon could treat one location better in things like expansion.
oramit 6y ago
Yeah I can think of lots of reasons for this loss. 1. It's always harder to get people to vote to change the status quo. Even if people think the change is going to be good, people are usually risk averse so you need to work harder to change things vs stay the same. 2. Their general opinion about unions is poor. 3. Their specific opinion about this union and the unionization effort is poor. 4. Dues were too high vs benefits. 5. Worry about retaliation from Amazon. 6. I imagine a lot of people don't really think of their Amazon warehouse job as a career. Most people working there probably only plan to do it for a few years, in which case the value of union membership falls dramatically. Just some ideas.

That's pretty overwhelming too, 71% No. It would be interesting to hear from them why. I think we all have opinions (I certainly do). But I've never worked at amazon so my opinion is low value...

Waterluvian 6y ago

I'm curious if it's the same reason I put up with !@#$ earlier in my career: I don't have the luxury of taking risks and I'm just really not interested in upsetting my employer. You tell me there's a better world on the other side of the hill, but I'm just trying to keep my children from starving this month. I can't even begin to think about the uncertainty and risk of trying to get there. Some commentary: I think this is one reason why social safety nets are tremendously valuable. The reason I eventually took the risk was because being without a job was not a potential death sentence. I would have unemployment insurance for a while and universal healthcare would take care of my kids if they had sudden needs.

nanna 6y ago
In other countries not hiring someone because of their union affiliation is flat out illegal. (Thanks to union and political struggles to protect collective bargaining as a right)
- EarlKing 6y ago
  A lot of things are illegal in life ... but lawsuits take time and money most people don't have.
- danielrpa 6y ago
  In the US many would argue that it's not collective bargaining if you are making the employer accept an union; it's putting a gun to the employer's head in the negotiations. Employers are people too! And an employer could be a small to medium company that is barely surviving against overseas competition. I understand others would say that the employer is more powerful to begin with and thus it's just a way to balance things. And without that, workers would be exploited and society would be worse off. The reason I'm writing this is that there are two sides of this discussion with pretty good arguments. So just because other countries think differently, it doesn't mean that they are doing the right thing.
  - friedman23 6y ago
    Modern morality is very simple Majority is more important than the minority. Poor is better than rich. Dumb is better than smart.
- raisedbyninjas 6y ago
  Alabama is an at will employment state. Amazon doesn't need to provide any reason for employment termination. If this warehouse unionizes, Amazon may choose to relocate their warehouse. This is in a suburb of Birmingham, population over a million. So the workers probably aren't unusually desperate for work.
josefresco 6y ago
> I'm just really not interested in upsetting my employer. This is the purpose of a union! Because you band together, the employer can't punish you individually. Sure they might be able to fire/replace everyone, but without a union they could target you specifically and there would be no leverage or help.

tyingq 6y ago

My guess is the messaging about dues. Lots of people focused on the short term hit to their paychecks. Most of the stories reference $500/month. That does seem high. Data I can find for other unions shows somewhere between 1 to 4 percent of gross pay as typical for union dues. Assuming $15/hour, 4 percent of gross pay would be $144/month. But, if $500/month is accurate, it's 13.8% of gross pay for $15/hour workers, and 10.4% of gross for $20/hour workers. That's very high. Edit: $500/year. There were many news stories with the inaccurate $500/month quote.

bena 6y ago
That short term hit can have long term consequences. If I'm scraping by already, I'm not looking forward to taking another hit to an already stretched paycheck.
- tyingq 6y ago
  It does seem like the union missed an opportunity here. They should have offered some ramp up, or reconsidered the $500/month. If that's indeed accurate, it's 13.8% of gross pay for $15/hour workers, and 10.4% of gross for $20/hour workers. That seems really high. Edit: It's apparently $500/year, see other posts though, many news stories did post $500/month.
- sitkack 6y ago
  If that is indeed the primary motivator, that folks are literally getting paid so little that they can't afford the union dues then two things should happen The union should wave union dues until wages rise and ??? This seems not unlike Walmart informing employees that it is paying them so little that they qualify for Food Stamps. Looking forward to the Amazon paper, "Pareto Optimal Employee Compensation for Maintaining Fluid Labor Markets"
  - shagie 6y ago
    Alabama is a right to work state. No one has to pay dues. https://www.justia.com/employment/unions/right-to-work-and-union-dues/ https://www.justia.com/employment/unions/right-to-work-and-u... > A union is an exclusive collective bargaining agent, which means that it must fairly represent all of the workers in the bargaining unit, including those who have decided not to be members or pay dues.

rshm 6y ago

I would guess, fear of retribution from amazon. If the voting was nationwide it could have lowered the fear that amazon could treat one location better in things like expansion.

oramit 6y ago

Yeah I can think of lots of reasons for this loss. 1. It's always harder to get people to vote to change the status quo. Even if people think the change is going to be good, people are usually risk averse so you need to work harder to change things vs stay the same. 2. Their general opinion about unions is poor. 3. Their specific opinion about this union and the unionization effort is poor. 4. Dues were too high vs benefits. 5. Worry about retaliation from Amazon. 6. I imagine a lot of people don't really think of their Amazon warehouse job as a career. Most people working there probably only plan to do it for a few years, in which case the value of union membership falls dramatically. Just some ideas.