3 ms·
Collective bargaining lets the employees push back against issues that would otherwise risk their career. For example, an individual speaking up against horribl
by 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 agoWhile 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 agoThey're already facing anticompetitive scrutiny. Retaliation would have tipped the political scales.
- hbosch 6y agoWhen 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 agoThis 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 agoWhat'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.