7 ms·

It was clear getting these workers to unionize was good for the union... it was much less clear why it would be good for the workers. People can say what they

by JCM9 6y ago

It was clear getting these workers to unionize was good for the union... it was much less clear why it would be good for the workers. People can say what they want about Amazon but the reality is they provide a far better job, wage, and benefits than most. Apart from the broad sweeping messaging around corporations = bad, unions = the answer, it wasn’t really clear at all why a union would benefit workers here. As such the result isn’t terribly surprising. The result isn’t even close.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
Collective bargaining lets the employees push back against issues that would otherwise risk their career. For example, an individual speaking up against horrible working conditions, metric-focused managers, and ignorance of unsafe practices would risk getting fired, so the issues would persist. A union would have the leverage required to push back against such issues.
- zndr 6y ago
  While you're correct, Amazon is so large that this single center being nuked from their org chart would have been an inconvenience. I think it's very easy for us to say "this would help you" but the reality is, it might have drawn a line in the sand, at the cost of every single employee's job.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    They're already facing anticompetitive scrutiny. Retaliation would have tipped the political scales.
    - hbosch 6y ago
      When is the last time busting a union brought any additional scrutiny from the US government, in a material sense? While there are some stories lately about how much tax Amazon pays, the government is very much in the business of keeping Amazon (and all major US-based corporations and firms) happy... by contrast, the US government almost certainly cares very little for a warehouse worker in Alabama.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    This is exactly why the vote was probably the most pragmatic decision. A vote for unionization would have been brave and symbolic. But why should blue collar people in Alabama have to sabotage their livelihoods to make a point?
- prostoalex 6y ago
  What's the cost, though? At $1/month a union membership would be a no-brainer, at $100/month people would probably think twice. Unions are in the business of recurring subscriptions, and the pitch had to reflect that. Sounds like in case of this specific workplace, the cost-benefit analysis was either high on costs or low on benefits.
brightball 6y ago
This was similar to the Boeing situation in Charleston, SC. Boeing came in and brought great jobs with them. Then the union reps came in and started acting like everybody was being wronged somehow.
- hrktb 6y ago
  Why can't it be both ?
  - wernercd 6y ago
    Because crying victimhood over every perceived slight becomes the boy who cried wolf - sooner or later everyone realizes that the only way a union can justify itself is by creating problems where none existed. Otherwise, why waste money on union dues for something that isn't needed? It CAN be both... but generally it isn't.
    - hrktb 6y ago
      I have no knowledge of Boeing's internal state, so tried to get a proxy of their general attitude [0]. Every company big enough will have its share of shitty issues, but even taking it with a grain of salt it doesn't look to me like a company that needs no employee representation to counter-balance the management. [0] https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=boeing&sort=asc https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=b...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
    Once the workers organize as a union, the company is forced to treat everything as a negotiation with the union instead of the employees. The union views their job as to always ask for more and push back on the employer, so the employer is incentivized to hold back raises, benefits, and concessions until it's time for negotiations. Giving away all of your bargaining chips before negotiations start is not a good strategy. When you see headlines about unions negotiating certain benefits or raises from employers, it's often framed as a victory that wouldn't have happened without the union. The reality is more nuanced, as the union's existence forces the company to play hardball during negotiations so they have something to negotiate when it comes time to do the negotiations.
grecy 6y ago
> provide a far better job, wage, and benefits than most And now we're seeing the results of the race to the bottom play out.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Lowest level of global poverty ever? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute?stackMode=relative&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...
regextegrity 6y ago
Come on.. the workers don't even get bathroom breaks.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But I think this is a clear example of an issue where pro-union rhetoric has diverged from the reality of the situation. Are there any workers who actually prefer formal, timed bathroom breaks over the "go whenever you want as long as you're meeting your productivity goals" model?
  - regextegrity 6y ago
    What?? I don't mean "formal, timed bathroom breaks". I don't even think that exists in the real world. I mean they don't have enough leeway in their incentive system, to the point where workers have to pee in bottles out of fear of missing quotas and losing their job
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      You're universalizing something that's by all accounts a very rare occurrence, which I think is again part of the disconnect. If union organizers go around saying "we have to pee in bottles because they don't give us restroom breaks!", that's not going to be very persuasive to the vast majority of Amazon workers who take breaks to use the provided restrooms.
      - regextegrity 6y ago
        The peeing in bottles is just one of many symptoms of their terrible working conditions https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-workers-protest-unsafe-grueling-conditions-warehouse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-wo...
- yibg 6y ago
  Isn't that a bit misleading? I don't have official bathroom breaks either, and I do just fine.

by JCM9 6y ago

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

Collective bargaining lets the employees push back against issues that would otherwise risk their career. For example, an individual speaking up against horrible working conditions, metric-focused managers, and ignorance of unsafe practices would risk getting fired, so the issues would persist. A union would have the leverage required to push back against such issues.

zndr 6y ago
While you're correct, Amazon is so large that this single center being nuked from their org chart would have been an inconvenience. I think it's very easy for us to say "this would help you" but the reality is, it might have drawn a line in the sand, at the cost of every single employee's job.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  They're already facing anticompetitive scrutiny. Retaliation would have tipped the political scales.
  - hbosch 6y ago
    When is the last time busting a union brought any additional scrutiny from the US government, in a material sense? While there are some stories lately about how much tax Amazon pays, the government is very much in the business of keeping Amazon (and all major US-based corporations and firms) happy... by contrast, the US government almost certainly cares very little for a warehouse worker in Alabama.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  This is exactly why the vote was probably the most pragmatic decision. A vote for unionization would have been brave and symbolic. But why should blue collar people in Alabama have to sabotage their livelihoods to make a point?
prostoalex 6y ago
What's the cost, though? At $1/month a union membership would be a no-brainer, at $100/month people would probably think twice. Unions are in the business of recurring subscriptions, and the pitch had to reflect that. Sounds like in case of this specific workplace, the cost-benefit analysis was either high on costs or low on benefits.

brightball 6y ago

This was similar to the Boeing situation in Charleston, SC. Boeing came in and brought great jobs with them. Then the union reps came in and started acting like everybody was being wronged somehow.

hrktb 6y ago
Why can't it be both ?
- wernercd 6y ago
  Because crying victimhood over every perceived slight becomes the boy who cried wolf - sooner or later everyone realizes that the only way a union can justify itself is by creating problems where none existed. Otherwise, why waste money on union dues for something that isn't needed? It CAN be both... but generally it isn't.
  - hrktb 6y ago
    I have no knowledge of Boeing's internal state, so tried to get a proxy of their general attitude [0]. Every company big enough will have its share of shitty issues, but even taking it with a grain of salt it doesn't look to me like a company that needs no employee representation to counter-balance the management. [0] https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=boeing&sort=asc https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=b...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Once the workers organize as a union, the company is forced to treat everything as a negotiation with the union instead of the employees. The union views their job as to always ask for more and push back on the employer, so the employer is incentivized to hold back raises, benefits, and concessions until it's time for negotiations. Giving away all of your bargaining chips before negotiations start is not a good strategy. When you see headlines about unions negotiating certain benefits or raises from employers, it's often framed as a victory that wouldn't have happened without the union. The reality is more nuanced, as the union's existence forces the company to play hardball during negotiations so they have something to negotiate when it comes time to do the negotiations.

grecy 6y ago

> provide a far better job, wage, and benefits than most And now we're seeing the results of the race to the bottom play out.

colinmhayes 6y ago
Lowest level of global poverty ever? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute?stackMode=relative&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...

regextegrity 6y ago

Come on.. the workers don't even get bathroom breaks.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
But I think this is a clear example of an issue where pro-union rhetoric has diverged from the reality of the situation. Are there any workers who actually prefer formal, timed bathroom breaks over the "go whenever you want as long as you're meeting your productivity goals" model?
- regextegrity 6y ago
  What?? I don't mean "formal, timed bathroom breaks". I don't even think that exists in the real world. I mean they don't have enough leeway in their incentive system, to the point where workers have to pee in bottles out of fear of missing quotas and losing their job
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    You're universalizing something that's by all accounts a very rare occurrence, which I think is again part of the disconnect. If union organizers go around saying "we have to pee in bottles because they don't give us restroom breaks!", that's not going to be very persuasive to the vast majority of Amazon workers who take breaks to use the provided restrooms.
    - regextegrity 6y ago
      The peeing in bottles is just one of many symptoms of their terrible working conditions https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-workers-protest-unsafe-grueling-conditions-warehouse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-wo...
yibg 6y ago
Isn't that a bit misleading? I don't have official bathroom breaks either, and I do just fine.