8 ms·

> I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest The answer is in the article > Some workers who voted not to unionize

by trimbo 6y ago

> I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest The answer is in the article > Some workers who voted not to unionize said they ultimately didn’t see how a union would improve their pay or working conditions. They looked at the issue and felt it would not be better. We don't know what the union was promising them, and what they had seen through the process. I came here to find this comment because the "vote against their interest" argument is very predictable. It assumes that people should have no agency. That they're supposed to be robots that only vote one way on issues because of their demographic, and if they don't, then they must have been hoodwinked. It's condescending.

kethinov 6y ago
They looked at the issue and felt incorrectly that it would not be better. Look, I get the good intentions on all the discourse about not judging what's in another person's interests because you can't possibly know what they value, but it sure seems indisputable to me that a union would've delivered better pay and working conditions. I'm not sure in what warped universe voting against that isn't a vote against your interests and I don't think it's at all disrespectful to say they were victims of propaganda to get them to vote against their interests because when I look at the facts, that's what I see.
- camjohnson26 6y ago
  They probably just examined the same facts as you and came to a different conclusion. They are closer to their own situation, which doesn’t always mean they will make the right decision, but I would be very careful about telling someone how to live their own life.
  - kethinov 6y ago
    What set of facts could possibly have made unionization a bad idea? I genuinely can't imagine a single hypothetical which would make voting against this a good idea and would love to hear one.
    - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
      For example if they thought it likely Amazon would just close up shop as a result.
      - kethinov 6y ago
        Closing it would almost certainly be a lot more expensive than meeting union demands, so I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that is likely. Regardless, it's a decent argument for a nationwide union to avoid race to the bottom effects.
        carmen_sandiego 6y ago
        > Closing it would almost certainly be a lot more expensive than meeting union demands, so I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that is likely. Not if Amazon thought swift action would act as a deterrent in other locations. This specific thing has happened with other companies, so I don't think it's unlikely at all. > Regardless, it's a decent argument for a nationwide union to avoid race to the bottom effects. OK, but the question is whether these specific workers could possibly have any reason to vote against unionization. Maybe they don't find it plausible that a nationwide union will form, or maybe they don't want to deal with the interim turmoil that will befall them personally, even if they would support a nationwide effort. All seem like perfectly fine reasons to me.
        kethinov 6y ago
        "We can't win, they'll just crush us" is 1. wrong on the facts more often than people think and 2. even when true, a good argument for organizing more effectively, not giving up and accepting the shitty status quo forever.
        carmen_sandiego 6y ago
        Yeah, how is this relevant to the thread? It's not about why you think we should have unions. It's about the claim that there's no possible rational reason for these workers to vote against the union.
- lovecg 6y ago
  Really, it seems indisputable to you that someone who’s job is on the line and who probably spent quite a bit of time looking into what was being proposed ultimately decided to vote no must be wrong? I’m curious what better information you have (especially to compensate for the lack of skin in the game so to speak) to come to that conclusion.
  - kethinov 6y ago
    Aside from the common sense that collective bargaining obviously puts you in a stronger negotiating position than individual bargaining for the same class of job, there is also plenty of data out there showing that unions deliver results. Anti-union people counter that by flooding the discourse with FUD propaganda that is often very persuasive but just because it's persuasive doesn't mean it is true.
    - lovecg 6y ago
      That might be true on average, doesn’t mean that specific cases could have vastly different outcomes. I don’t see how a propaganda campaign can push the vote to 70%, this is not Soviet Russia. Money does help but not on this order of magnitude (see Mike Bloomberg or many failed ballot propositions with tons of money behind them).
      - kethinov 6y ago
        They had anti-union propaganda everywhere, even in the fucking bathroom stalls. Plus it's a very conservative part of the country that has been drowning in anti-union propaganda for decades on top of the fact that the average moderate American swing voter is also pretty hostile to unions and even a good chunk of the center-left side of the Democratic coalition is too. Pro-union people have a lot of work to do to restore the reputation of unions more generally. We need to up our propaganda game a lot because we got crushed in the Reagan era and never recovered.
        chrisseaton 6y ago

by trimbo 6y ago

kethinov 6y ago

They looked at the issue and felt incorrectly that it would not be better. Look, I get the good intentions on all the discourse about not judging what's in another person's interests because you can't possibly know what they value, but it sure seems indisputable to me that a union would've delivered better pay and working conditions. I'm not sure in what warped universe voting against that isn't a vote against your interests and I don't think it's at all disrespectful to say they were victims of propaganda to get them to vote against their interests because when I look at the facts, that's what I see.

camjohnson26 6y ago
They probably just examined the same facts as you and came to a different conclusion. They are closer to their own situation, which doesn’t always mean they will make the right decision, but I would be very careful about telling someone how to live their own life.
- kethinov 6y ago
  What set of facts could possibly have made unionization a bad idea? I genuinely can't imagine a single hypothetical which would make voting against this a good idea and would love to hear one.
  - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    For example if they thought it likely Amazon would just close up shop as a result.
    - kethinov 6y ago
      Closing it would almost certainly be a lot more expensive than meeting union demands, so I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that is likely. Regardless, it's a decent argument for a nationwide union to avoid race to the bottom effects.
      - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
        > Closing it would almost certainly be a lot more expensive than meeting union demands, so I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that is likely. Not if Amazon thought swift action would act as a deterrent in other locations. This specific thing has happened with other companies, so I don't think it's unlikely at all. > Regardless, it's a decent argument for a nationwide union to avoid race to the bottom effects. OK, but the question is whether these specific workers could possibly have any reason to vote against unionization. Maybe they don't find it plausible that a nationwide union will form, or maybe they don't want to deal with the interim turmoil that will befall them personally, even if they would support a nationwide effort. All seem like perfectly fine reasons to me.
        kethinov 6y ago
        "We can't win, they'll just crush us" is 1. wrong on the facts more often than people think and 2. even when true, a good argument for organizing more effectively, not giving up and accepting the shitty status quo forever.
        carmen_sandiego 6y ago
        Yeah, how is this relevant to the thread? It's not about why you think we should have unions. It's about the claim that there's no possible rational reason for these workers to vote against the union.
lovecg 6y ago
Really, it seems indisputable to you that someone who’s job is on the line and who probably spent quite a bit of time looking into what was being proposed ultimately decided to vote no must be wrong? I’m curious what better information you have (especially to compensate for the lack of skin in the game so to speak) to come to that conclusion.
- kethinov 6y ago
  Aside from the common sense that collective bargaining obviously puts you in a stronger negotiating position than individual bargaining for the same class of job, there is also plenty of data out there showing that unions deliver results. Anti-union people counter that by flooding the discourse with FUD propaganda that is often very persuasive but just because it's persuasive doesn't mean it is true.
  - lovecg 6y ago
    That might be true on average, doesn’t mean that specific cases could have vastly different outcomes. I don’t see how a propaganda campaign can push the vote to 70%, this is not Soviet Russia. Money does help but not on this order of magnitude (see Mike Bloomberg or many failed ballot propositions with tons of money behind them).
    - kethinov 6y ago
      They had anti-union propaganda everywhere, even in the fucking bathroom stalls. Plus it's a very conservative part of the country that has been drowning in anti-union propaganda for decades on top of the fact that the average moderate American swing voter is also pretty hostile to unions and even a good chunk of the center-left side of the Democratic coalition is too. Pro-union people have a lot of work to do to restore the reputation of unions more generally. We need to up our propaganda game a lot because we got crushed in the Reagan era and never recovered.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago