5 ms·

I think reasons will vary, and I didn’t vote in this event. But in previous situations I’ve not supported unionization due to how it favored existing workers in

I think reasons will vary, and I didn’t vote in this event. But in previous situations I’ve not supported unionization due to how it favored existing workers in ways I thought were unfair in that all layoffs were due to seniority not performance so older workers would be kept and younger workers laid off, no matter what. It also established more rigid pay levels that were better on average but not as good for high performers, and I always got much higher than average raises and bonuses. To a lesser extent, I didn’t like the idea of union leadership who were paid for things I didn’t think added value. So my overall take was that it was good if you were in the union and employed, but was much harder to get work and join the union.

baron816 6y ago
> it was good if you were in the union and employed, but was much harder to get work and join the union. This is my fundamental problem with unions—it helps the insiders and hurts everyone else. Amazon’s working condition are rough (and I really hope that changes), but there are plenty of jobs out there that are much worse and don’t pay nearly as well. They just get all the attention because of their size and impact.
- tehWeeb 6y ago
  That’s the fundamental problem with our culture generally. The closer (figuratively speaking) to the big money and political power someone is the more comfortable they are. And we all want to believe it’s a meritocracy. We’re just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
  - prepend 6y ago
    I think that’s a feature, not a bug. In that I don’t think it’s a problem. Labor is subject to markets like many things, and shouldn’t be exploited. But there’s some work that’s hard and doesn’t require specialized training (eg, hauling stuff around warehouses all day). Some people are willing to do this and they do, if they don’t want to they can do other things. This is an oversimplification, of course, but having the ability to provide more jobs with more options is the solution I think. I grew up in a small town and it sucks for work. If you think working for Amazon sucks, you should try working in the warehouse of the only grocery store in town. The one run by a racist jerk who knows you have no options.
    - brundolf 6y ago
      "It could always be worse" isn't a very good argument for "we shouldn't have an expectation of things being better", imo
      - prepend 6y ago
        To clarify, I think this is an optimal state for low/no-skill labor. So not so much “it could be worse” as “this is the best of a shitty situation.”
        brundolf 6y ago
        There's nothing optimal about the level of pressure being applied to these human beings. The same job could exist for the same pay, with the same overall tasks, with 10% less robotically-enforced (literally) pressure, and Amazon would take a tiny hit to productivity in exchange for a workforce that gets to live relatively sustainable and healthy lives instead of burning out after 6 months. The current state is optimal for Amazon only. It's far from optimal for society.
        prepend 6y ago
        I think it’s optimal for society in that society benefits from efficient warehouses. It’s easy for you to theorize what Amazon can do and what they can’t. Amazon has competitors with warehouses. People can work there. As consumers we can also demand more. But Amazon is probably the best for workers when compared to their competitors.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        firstly, why is being abused and peeing in a bottle inevitable? Your post basically reads like how someone in 1500 would look at serfs and peasants in mud huts and say "that's as good as life of a common man is gonna be". Same goes for Victorian workhouses and children in coalmines. Secondly, what is low skill exactly? Can these people not read, write, use Excel and email, could they not do secretarial and other jobs? I bet quite a few of them have degrees. Some countries have free education / upskilling specifically to avoid people getting trapped in this situation, and to improve overall productivity of the economy.
- theptip 6y ago
  I think it's important to consider the state of the whole system, not just the direction of the change. "helps insiders and hurts everyone else" sounds bad, but if the insiders are being exploited by everyone else, it could be a good thing. In general I'm sympathetic to your point. However I think Amazon is perhaps a special case, or at least occupies a different point on the than most companies. Amazon is an Aggregator[1], which spins up its flywheel by providing a great experience for consumers, and commoditizing its suppliers. This naturally drives towards a monopoly. Aggregator monopolies have an interesting property in that unlike historical non-Aggregator monopolies, they are great for consumers, rather than resulting in consumer harm through higher prices (like Comcast, say). US antitrust law is focused on preventing consumer harm, not just preserving competition for its own sake (as the EU laws are). So US antitrust is somewhat less well-equipped to deal with Aggregator monopolies. If the corporation, consumers, and legal system are all pointing towards exploiting a group of workers, it's hard to see how anyone is going to vote to make things better. So unions could be more appropriate specifically in the case of Aggregators. (Worth mentioning that you could perhaps just mandate higher minimum wages, and avoid the need for unions; I'd prefer to make the minimum viable change that prevents exploitation, and leave the market free to optimize everything else. But if not unions, who drives the political fight for minimum wages?) [1]: https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    I don't think you can definitively state that they are great for consumers. When I buy something from debenhams, I know there is going to be a certain level of quality. Amazon is like a dump of products, most reviews are fake, the description of a monitor has different resolution in heading and it's body, a friend of mine bought an electric kettle with a thermometer and temperature control that, when set to 100, boils forever and never turns off. It's full of counterfeit products too. All this mess devalues the manufacturers willing to produce quality items, they are lost in the noise and never make money.
    - theptip 6y ago
      And yet, consumers love Amazon, e.g. https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/amazon-favorable-tech-brand-survey https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/amazon-favorable-tech.... The meme "Amazon is a dumpster fire of counterfeit goods and fake reviews" is popular around here, but I don't think it has much impact/traction with John/Jane MainStreet. Maybe it would if it was better-known? But I think if folks found counterfeit goods or fake reviews to be a huge problem they would go back to Debenhams/Walmart. But by revealed preferences, we can tell they prefer the value prop of Amazon.
- splintercell 6y ago
  > This is my fundamental problem with unions—it helps the insiders and hurts everyone else. Misesean analysis showed that unions cannot benefit everyone, they always benefit the sr workers at the expense of the jr workers.
Causality1 6y ago
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but your comment reads like you were operating in a much nicer career than these workers. If your job was good enough they gave you the opportunity to negotiate your pay, you're in a totally different social class than the subjects of this vote.
- judge2020 6y ago
  Maybe so, but this was indeed just their experience on voting not to unionize in their job. Maybe some of the workers in this particular case will share why they voted 'no'.
- prepend 6y ago
  It was manual labor. I’m not sure it was nicer than these workers but I was able to negotiate my pay by “working harder” and producing more than other workers. I wouldn’t say it was a good job and I certainly don’t do it any more. But I just tried to explain my thinking.
- syshum 6y ago
  I negotiated individual raises at first hourly job when I was in high school with a major national retailer... I was one of the few High School employees they had that was reliable and always did what I was asked, this enabled me to get not only higher wages but ever increasing job titles
buran77 6y ago
> I think reasons will vary A good one seems to be that they are afraid unionizing will push Amazon to close the delivery center. This has happened before when other companies (see Walmart [0]) just closed the location once the workers voted to unionize. And unfortunately it's less likely US law will protect the workers to the same degree as Canadian law [1]. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wal-mart-to-close-unionized-quebec-store-1.554398 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wal-mart-to-close-unionized... [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-unionized-wal-mart-workers-win-supreme-court-victory-1.2689646 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-unionized-wal...
christiansakai 6y ago
Wow, so companies managed to "Prisoner's Dilemma"ed workers? Amazing, brilliant idea.
Loughla 6y ago
Thank you for the explanation. Those are viewpoints that I have not encountered or considered. That makes sense. >To a lesser extent, I didn’t like the idea of union leadership who were paid for things I didn’t think added value. Can you expand on this point, please? >So my overall take was that it was good if you were in the union and employed, but was much harder to get work and join the union. That makes a ton of sense.
- prepend 6y ago
  Regarding union leadership, there are union employees who are paid out of dues. My experience with them was similar to a pointy-haired boss in that they were not very helpful and it was frustrating to know that my dues would pay for these individuals to just exist and not produce value. It may not be rational as maybe they did great stuff and I couldn’t see their value, but I would see them get high salaries compared to workers and serve in positions for very long terms.

baron816 6y ago

> it was good if you were in the union and employed, but was much harder to get work and join the union. This is my fundamental problem with unions—it helps the insiders and hurts everyone else. Amazon’s working condition are rough (and I really hope that changes), but there are plenty of jobs out there that are much worse and don’t pay nearly as well. They just get all the attention because of their size and impact.

tehWeeb 6y ago
That’s the fundamental problem with our culture generally. The closer (figuratively speaking) to the big money and political power someone is the more comfortable they are. And we all want to believe it’s a meritocracy. We’re just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
- prepend 6y ago
  I think that’s a feature, not a bug. In that I don’t think it’s a problem. Labor is subject to markets like many things, and shouldn’t be exploited. But there’s some work that’s hard and doesn’t require specialized training (eg, hauling stuff around warehouses all day). Some people are willing to do this and they do, if they don’t want to they can do other things. This is an oversimplification, of course, but having the ability to provide more jobs with more options is the solution I think. I grew up in a small town and it sucks for work. If you think working for Amazon sucks, you should try working in the warehouse of the only grocery store in town. The one run by a racist jerk who knows you have no options.
  - brundolf 6y ago
    "It could always be worse" isn't a very good argument for "we shouldn't have an expectation of things being better", imo
    - prepend 6y ago
      To clarify, I think this is an optimal state for low/no-skill labor. So not so much “it could be worse” as “this is the best of a shitty situation.”
      - brundolf 6y ago
        There's nothing optimal about the level of pressure being applied to these human beings. The same job could exist for the same pay, with the same overall tasks, with 10% less robotically-enforced (literally) pressure, and Amazon would take a tiny hit to productivity in exchange for a workforce that gets to live relatively sustainable and healthy lives instead of burning out after 6 months. The current state is optimal for Amazon only. It's far from optimal for society.
        prepend 6y ago
        I think it’s optimal for society in that society benefits from efficient warehouses. It’s easy for you to theorize what Amazon can do and what they can’t. Amazon has competitors with warehouses. People can work there. As consumers we can also demand more. But Amazon is probably the best for workers when compared to their competitors.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        firstly, why is being abused and peeing in a bottle inevitable? Your post basically reads like how someone in 1500 would look at serfs and peasants in mud huts and say "that's as good as life of a common man is gonna be". Same goes for Victorian workhouses and children in coalmines. Secondly, what is low skill exactly? Can these people not read, write, use Excel and email, could they not do secretarial and other jobs? I bet quite a few of them have degrees. Some countries have free education / upskilling specifically to avoid people getting trapped in this situation, and to improve overall productivity of the economy.
theptip 6y ago
I think it's important to consider the state of the whole system, not just the direction of the change. "helps insiders and hurts everyone else" sounds bad, but if the insiders are being exploited by everyone else, it could be a good thing. In general I'm sympathetic to your point. However I think Amazon is perhaps a special case, or at least occupies a different point on the than most companies. Amazon is an Aggregator[1], which spins up its flywheel by providing a great experience for consumers, and commoditizing its suppliers. This naturally drives towards a monopoly. Aggregator monopolies have an interesting property in that unlike historical non-Aggregator monopolies, they are great for consumers, rather than resulting in consumer harm through higher prices (like Comcast, say). US antitrust law is focused on preventing consumer harm, not just preserving competition for its own sake (as the EU laws are). So US antitrust is somewhat less well-equipped to deal with Aggregator monopolies. If the corporation, consumers, and legal system are all pointing towards exploiting a group of workers, it's hard to see how anyone is going to vote to make things better. So unions could be more appropriate specifically in the case of Aggregators. (Worth mentioning that you could perhaps just mandate higher minimum wages, and avoid the need for unions; I'd prefer to make the minimum viable change that prevents exploitation, and leave the market free to optimize everything else. But if not unions, who drives the political fight for minimum wages?) [1]: https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/concept/aggregation-theory/
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  I don't think you can definitively state that they are great for consumers. When I buy something from debenhams, I know there is going to be a certain level of quality. Amazon is like a dump of products, most reviews are fake, the description of a monitor has different resolution in heading and it's body, a friend of mine bought an electric kettle with a thermometer and temperature control that, when set to 100, boils forever and never turns off. It's full of counterfeit products too. All this mess devalues the manufacturers willing to produce quality items, they are lost in the noise and never make money.
  - theptip 6y ago
    And yet, consumers love Amazon, e.g. https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/amazon-favorable-tech-brand-survey https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/amazon-favorable-tech.... The meme "Amazon is a dumpster fire of counterfeit goods and fake reviews" is popular around here, but I don't think it has much impact/traction with John/Jane MainStreet. Maybe it would if it was better-known? But I think if folks found counterfeit goods or fake reviews to be a huge problem they would go back to Debenhams/Walmart. But by revealed preferences, we can tell they prefer the value prop of Amazon.
splintercell 6y ago
> This is my fundamental problem with unions—it helps the insiders and hurts everyone else. Misesean analysis showed that unions cannot benefit everyone, they always benefit the sr workers at the expense of the jr workers.

Causality1 6y ago

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but your comment reads like you were operating in a much nicer career than these workers. If your job was good enough they gave you the opportunity to negotiate your pay, you're in a totally different social class than the subjects of this vote.

judge2020 6y ago
Maybe so, but this was indeed just their experience on voting not to unionize in their job. Maybe some of the workers in this particular case will share why they voted 'no'.
prepend 6y ago
It was manual labor. I’m not sure it was nicer than these workers but I was able to negotiate my pay by “working harder” and producing more than other workers. I wouldn’t say it was a good job and I certainly don’t do it any more. But I just tried to explain my thinking.
syshum 6y ago
I negotiated individual raises at first hourly job when I was in high school with a major national retailer... I was one of the few High School employees they had that was reliable and always did what I was asked, this enabled me to get not only higher wages but ever increasing job titles

buran77 6y ago

> I think reasons will vary A good one seems to be that they are afraid unionizing will push Amazon to close the delivery center. This has happened before when other companies (see Walmart [0]) just closed the location once the workers voted to unionize. And unfortunately it's less likely US law will protect the workers to the same degree as Canadian law [1]. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wal-mart-to-close-unionized-quebec-store-1.554398 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wal-mart-to-close-unionized... [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-unionized-wal-mart-workers-win-supreme-court-victory-1.2689646 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-unionized-wal...

christiansakai 6y ago

Wow, so companies managed to "Prisoner's Dilemma"ed workers? Amazing, brilliant idea.

Loughla 6y ago

Thank you for the explanation. Those are viewpoints that I have not encountered or considered. That makes sense. >To a lesser extent, I didn’t like the idea of union leadership who were paid for things I didn’t think added value. Can you expand on this point, please? >So my overall take was that it was good if you were in the union and employed, but was much harder to get work and join the union. That makes a ton of sense.

prepend 6y ago
Regarding union leadership, there are union employees who are paid out of dues. My experience with them was similar to a pointy-haired boss in that they were not very helpful and it was frustrating to know that my dues would pay for these individuals to just exist and not produce value. It may not be rational as maybe they did great stuff and I couldn’t see their value, but I would see them get high salaries compared to workers and serve in positions for very long terms.