19 ms·

> With the Amazon Project, the Teamsters are taking a different approach that doesn't rely on the traditional National Labor Relations Board election process th

> With the Amazon Project, the Teamsters are taking a different approach that doesn't rely on the traditional National Labor Relations Board election process that allows employers to run sophisticated anti-union campaigns and involves the task of running elections warehouse by warehouse. > Instead the Teamsters plan to focus on a series of pressure campaigns involving work stoppages, petitions, and other collective action to push Amazon to recognize a union and bargain over working conditions. This is good. Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals. It makes the decline of union power same rather inevitable. This "going back to the roots", along with the tightening of the labor market we've seen lately, has the promise to attack that problem head-on rather than wishing it away.

ramesh31 5y ago
I know there's a lot of hate for the Teamsters union in particular. Corruption exists in every human institution. But in the modern oligarchy that is the US, where politicians are completely bought and paid for with corporate money, organized labor is literally the only tool we have left against a capitalist dystopia. It's easy to forget that we had to fight literal wars in this country to gain things like the 8 hour work day. This stuff doesn't come without a fight. And you can nitpick about the quality of an organization, but you go to war with the army you have.
- hedora 5y ago
  The unions also buy off politicians to disastrous effect. In California, you can’t win an election unless the teachers union or the police union backs you, which has led to all sorts of insane policies. Even with that, teachers and police officers are terribly underpaid and also mistreated by the California government. Unions might be the answer. However, the US has a closed shop system where a few unions have a monopoly on labor relations. As a result, the existing national unions have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re not interested in improving working conditions for their members.
  - ramesh31 5y ago
    >As a result, the existing national unions have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re not interested in improving working conditions for their members. It always comes down to this. And you can argue endlessly about the various failings of modern organized labor. But ultimately it's all we've got. The capitalists have demonstrated for centuries over and over again that left unchecked they will always take capitalism to a level of borderline subsistence for the working class to maximize profits. Your boss is not looking out for you; ever. To have an organization with funding and influence that has at least professed to defend your rights gives a more realistic chance of having your voice heard, no matter how slight.
    - esyir 5y ago
      So if they say they'll help and then make things worse, you'd gladly support them? Because that's the impression I get from the other comments that you're responding here; That they have negligible impact on member welfare, but introduce a pile of corruption and bureaucracy into the mix.
      - virtue3 5y ago
        > That they have negligible impact on member welfare That is some -really- strong hyperbole, especially against teacher and police unions as the parent is referring to. I would argue that the benefits teachers get and the relative job security of police offices is a good indicator of a strong labor union for both roles. Sure, pay sucks, but teachers would probably be treated worse than amazon workers at this point if they didn't have them. Source: worked for ed tech startup that supported teachers. Also dated a few.
        esyir 5y ago
        I'm not American, so I've little personal interaction with these. This is just the impression I get from here, as well as other American core communities I frequent. That I frequently hear how public school teachers are unable to do anything about literal abuse and such does give them credence though.
- ticviking 5y ago
  The teamsters earned every bit of that distrust. Successfully representing their members would go a long way to helping earn it back. Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war"
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war I assume they were mentioning the regular use of the National Guard against strikers, like in the Ludlow Massacre.
    - ticviking 5y ago
      Good point.
  - ramesh31 5y ago
    >Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war" That's the quaint history book narrative we like to think about in relation to the labor struggles of the 19th/20th century in the US. But the reality is that men, women and children were mowed down with machine guns and sniper fire. It was a struggle for life and death between two classes.
    - mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
      What should I read to learn more about this?
      - mannerheim 5y ago
        https://www.amazon.com/Herrin-Massacre-Scott-Doody/dp/1300897929 https://www.amazon.com/Herrin-Massacre-Scott-Doody/dp/130089...
      - ramesh31 5y ago
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  The unions didn't stop a capitalist distopia, they carved out a portion for themselves and their cronies. Doubly so in large cities.
  - teclordphrack2 5y ago
    Nice lie.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Well, it's more complicated than that. Anti-capitalist unions were cracked down upon, often violently. The unions that agree with you tried what they could and it took violence to stop them.
- inopinatus 5y ago
  Sorry to disappoint you, but there's hardly a more capitalism-friendly organisation than a union. Their whole existence depends upon capital-based enterprises requiring labour. By seeking to standardise the units and price of work, they fall right in line with classical Adam Smith. This is hardly surprising; the first priority of any institution is to perpetuate its own existence, so far from being at war with capitalism, unions are locked in a symbiotic embrace with it. They may sing along to the Internationale but the lyrics are the Wealth of Nations.
- boringg 5y ago
  Teamsters has a lot of baggage to bring to the table. Brand power for sure. Not sure Brand Power > Baggage though in this case.
esyir 5y ago
From what I saw here though, the workers don't want a union and the teamsters seem to be trying to force one in regardless? There was a vote, and from what I remember it wasn't even close. Does this coercion not impact its legitimacy in your eyes?
- function_seven 5y ago
  One vote cast in one warehouse doesn't necessarily represent the workforce as a whole. 1. That particular workforce is making above-market wages for their area. They looked at what a union might be able to deliver and decided they didn't want to rock the boat. 2. Any single location voting for union representation knows that there's a good chance management will just shutdown the whole operation. Like Wal-Mart did. Amazon could easily jettison a "troublesome" warehouse and continue doing business. Game-theoretically, it would benefit them as a message to other locations that might be flirting with organizing. I'm not sure what coercion you're seeing in their new strategy.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    It's also worth noting that the NLSB is currently investigating Amazon for illegally pressuring workers to vote against unionizing.
    - function_seven 5y ago
      True. I took the Bessemer results at face value in my comment, but of course there's also that possibility. Which kind of dovetails into #2 above. ("Boss says if this place unionizes, we're all out of a job")
      - esyir 5y ago
        I'm definitely all for punitive measures on amazon if they're found guilty there. That also works invalidate the results in my book. That's an if, though.
topspin 5y ago
> Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals. One factor in the fate of on organizing is that much of the agenda was codified into law. The 40 hour week, overtime, workers comp, etc. Not that these haven't been substantially eroded... If they pull this off it will be remarkable. The president of the Teamsters is an accomplishment free 80 year old product of institutional nepotism that's been warming the chair for almost a quarter century. I'm not holding my breath.
- 6f8986c3 5y ago
  You know, I'd call myself a hard-core capitalist... and I hope that the Teamsters succeed. It is my dream, my hope beyond hope, that full unionization lands at FAANG, and lands hard. Shit, I might even donate to the effort. Amazon works people to death for a pittance. Apple will fire you for being Jewish. Google fired a dude for the thinnest possible "misogyny", but "kill all the jews" merely resulted in their Head of Diversity getting reassigned, right along with his fat compensation package. Unions, strong ones, unions that will stop work when the coffee isn't quite good enough, unions that will prevent even the lowest performer in the company from ever being fired, are absolutely fitting punishment for the Lords of Silicon Valley.
  - Sekhmet 5y ago
    > but "kill all the jews" merely resulted in their Head of Diversity getting reassigned I think I’ve heard different story involving Head of Diversity, nowhere close to “kill all Jews”. Do you have source on that?
    - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
      "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defence of myself," https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57342967 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57342967
      - 5y ago
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals. It makes the decline of union power same rather inevitable. The union movement completely captured US industry and extracted exorbitant benefits that crippled the golden geese of the US economy. The only reason private sector unions declined in membership is that the industries they exploited saw their US-based operations contract, or disappear altogether. Meanwhile, the public sector unions have steadily grown in power, and steadily increased their control over public policy, by successfully pushing for successively more left-wing governments: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... And the result has been detrimental to the efficiency of public spending, whether you look at education: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839935 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... Or policing: https://academic.oup.com/jleo/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jleo/ewaa025/6054285 https://academic.oup.com/jleo/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jl... Or any other public sector.
- blowski 5y ago
  These comments highlight the need for balance between the two extremes. We are currently at one extreme, and need to find a way back to the middle.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I appreciate you keeping an open mind. But I would also nitpick, and make the argument that the middle-ground between two widely divergent positions is not always right. I would argue we should never undermine the freedom to contract, which labor unions urge us to do when they advocate laws preventing employers from choosing to not associate with them. Their premise, that corporate power can sometimes be abusive, can have some validity, without their solution, which is limitations on the right to freely contract, being correct.
    - blowski 5y ago
      Do these people genuinely have freedom to contract? If there's only one employer in town (or a range of employers offering the same conditions), then that freedom is moot. This is the balance we need. There needs to be equal forces pushing up and down on workers' rights. At the moment, for many industries, there is too much down and not enough up. Could you make collective bargaining work without restricting freedom to contract in some way?
habibur 5y ago
Without the legal backing of a recognized union, what prevents the company from firing anyone that declines to work like this?
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Before unions were ever legal or recognized, they worked because of the force of solidarity, collective action and bargaining. You just simply couldn't fire and replace everyone at once. It created a bargaining entity that the owner was forced to deal with because the alternative was closure. EDIT: Frankly, if a union is relying on its legal recognition and backing for survival, it's already a zombie, dead-man-walking structure that is just going to fall apart in the long run. Unions must maintain solidarity and collective action and a healthy internal democracy and vibrant participation, or they'll just become a bureaucratic husk. Like most of the North American labour movement.
  - ByteJockey 5y ago
    Don't forget good relations with the local community to deter scabbing.

ramesh31 5y ago

I know there's a lot of hate for the Teamsters union in particular. Corruption exists in every human institution. But in the modern oligarchy that is the US, where politicians are completely bought and paid for with corporate money, organized labor is literally the only tool we have left against a capitalist dystopia. It's easy to forget that we had to fight literal wars in this country to gain things like the 8 hour work day. This stuff doesn't come without a fight. And you can nitpick about the quality of an organization, but you go to war with the army you have.

hedora 5y ago
The unions also buy off politicians to disastrous effect. In California, you can’t win an election unless the teachers union or the police union backs you, which has led to all sorts of insane policies. Even with that, teachers and police officers are terribly underpaid and also mistreated by the California government. Unions might be the answer. However, the US has a closed shop system where a few unions have a monopoly on labor relations. As a result, the existing national unions have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re not interested in improving working conditions for their members.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >As a result, the existing national unions have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re not interested in improving working conditions for their members. It always comes down to this. And you can argue endlessly about the various failings of modern organized labor. But ultimately it's all we've got. The capitalists have demonstrated for centuries over and over again that left unchecked they will always take capitalism to a level of borderline subsistence for the working class to maximize profits. Your boss is not looking out for you; ever. To have an organization with funding and influence that has at least professed to defend your rights gives a more realistic chance of having your voice heard, no matter how slight.
  - esyir 5y ago
    So if they say they'll help and then make things worse, you'd gladly support them? Because that's the impression I get from the other comments that you're responding here; That they have negligible impact on member welfare, but introduce a pile of corruption and bureaucracy into the mix.
    - virtue3 5y ago
      > That they have negligible impact on member welfare That is some -really- strong hyperbole, especially against teacher and police unions as the parent is referring to. I would argue that the benefits teachers get and the relative job security of police offices is a good indicator of a strong labor union for both roles. Sure, pay sucks, but teachers would probably be treated worse than amazon workers at this point if they didn't have them. Source: worked for ed tech startup that supported teachers. Also dated a few.
      - esyir 5y ago
        I'm not American, so I've little personal interaction with these. This is just the impression I get from here, as well as other American core communities I frequent. That I frequently hear how public school teachers are unable to do anything about literal abuse and such does give them credence though.
ticviking 5y ago
The teamsters earned every bit of that distrust. Successfully representing their members would go a long way to helping earn it back. Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war"
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war I assume they were mentioning the regular use of the National Guard against strikers, like in the Ludlow Massacre.
  - ticviking 5y ago
    Good point.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war" That's the quaint history book narrative we like to think about in relation to the labor struggles of the 19th/20th century in the US. But the reality is that men, women and children were mowed down with machine guns and sniper fire. It was a struggle for life and death between two classes.
  - mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
    What should I read to learn more about this?
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      https://www.amazon.com/Herrin-Massacre-Scott-Doody/dp/1300897929 https://www.amazon.com/Herrin-Massacre-Scott-Doody/dp/130089...
    - ramesh31 5y ago
calvinmorrison 5y ago
The unions didn't stop a capitalist distopia, they carved out a portion for themselves and their cronies. Doubly so in large cities.
- teclordphrack2 5y ago
  Nice lie.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Well, it's more complicated than that. Anti-capitalist unions were cracked down upon, often violently. The unions that agree with you tried what they could and it took violence to stop them.
inopinatus 5y ago
Sorry to disappoint you, but there's hardly a more capitalism-friendly organisation than a union. Their whole existence depends upon capital-based enterprises requiring labour. By seeking to standardise the units and price of work, they fall right in line with classical Adam Smith. This is hardly surprising; the first priority of any institution is to perpetuate its own existence, so far from being at war with capitalism, unions are locked in a symbiotic embrace with it. They may sing along to the Internationale but the lyrics are the Wealth of Nations.
boringg 5y ago
Teamsters has a lot of baggage to bring to the table. Brand power for sure. Not sure Brand Power > Baggage though in this case.

esyir 5y ago

From what I saw here though, the workers don't want a union and the teamsters seem to be trying to force one in regardless? There was a vote, and from what I remember it wasn't even close. Does this coercion not impact its legitimacy in your eyes?

function_seven 5y ago
One vote cast in one warehouse doesn't necessarily represent the workforce as a whole. 1. That particular workforce is making above-market wages for their area. They looked at what a union might be able to deliver and decided they didn't want to rock the boat. 2. Any single location voting for union representation knows that there's a good chance management will just shutdown the whole operation. Like Wal-Mart did. Amazon could easily jettison a "troublesome" warehouse and continue doing business. Game-theoretically, it would benefit them as a message to other locations that might be flirting with organizing. I'm not sure what coercion you're seeing in their new strategy.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  It's also worth noting that the NLSB is currently investigating Amazon for illegally pressuring workers to vote against unionizing.
  - function_seven 5y ago
    True. I took the Bessemer results at face value in my comment, but of course there's also that possibility. Which kind of dovetails into #2 above. ("Boss says if this place unionizes, we're all out of a job")
    - esyir 5y ago
      I'm definitely all for punitive measures on amazon if they're found guilty there. That also works invalidate the results in my book. That's an if, though.

topspin 5y ago

> Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals. One factor in the fate of on organizing is that much of the agenda was codified into law. The 40 hour week, overtime, workers comp, etc. Not that these haven't been substantially eroded... If they pull this off it will be remarkable. The president of the Teamsters is an accomplishment free 80 year old product of institutional nepotism that's been warming the chair for almost a quarter century. I'm not holding my breath.

6f8986c3 5y ago
You know, I'd call myself a hard-core capitalist... and I hope that the Teamsters succeed. It is my dream, my hope beyond hope, that full unionization lands at FAANG, and lands hard. Shit, I might even donate to the effort. Amazon works people to death for a pittance. Apple will fire you for being Jewish. Google fired a dude for the thinnest possible "misogyny", but "kill all the jews" merely resulted in their Head of Diversity getting reassigned, right along with his fat compensation package. Unions, strong ones, unions that will stop work when the coffee isn't quite good enough, unions that will prevent even the lowest performer in the company from ever being fired, are absolutely fitting punishment for the Lords of Silicon Valley.
- Sekhmet 5y ago
  > but "kill all the jews" merely resulted in their Head of Diversity getting reassigned I think I’ve heard different story involving Head of Diversity, nowhere close to “kill all Jews”. Do you have source on that?
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defence of myself," https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57342967 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57342967
    - 5y ago

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals. It makes the decline of union power same rather inevitable. The union movement completely captured US industry and extracted exorbitant benefits that crippled the golden geese of the US economy. The only reason private sector unions declined in membership is that the industries they exploited saw their US-based operations contract, or disappear altogether. Meanwhile, the public sector unions have steadily grown in power, and steadily increased their control over public policy, by successfully pushing for successively more left-wing governments: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... And the result has been detrimental to the efficiency of public spending, whether you look at education: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839935 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... Or policing: https://academic.oup.com/jleo/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jleo/ewaa025/6054285 https://academic.oup.com/jleo/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jl... Or any other public sector.

blowski 5y ago
These comments highlight the need for balance between the two extremes. We are currently at one extreme, and need to find a way back to the middle.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  I appreciate you keeping an open mind. But I would also nitpick, and make the argument that the middle-ground between two widely divergent positions is not always right. I would argue we should never undermine the freedom to contract, which labor unions urge us to do when they advocate laws preventing employers from choosing to not associate with them. Their premise, that corporate power can sometimes be abusive, can have some validity, without their solution, which is limitations on the right to freely contract, being correct.
  - blowski 5y ago
    Do these people genuinely have freedom to contract? If there's only one employer in town (or a range of employers offering the same conditions), then that freedom is moot. This is the balance we need. There needs to be equal forces pushing up and down on workers' rights. At the moment, for many industries, there is too much down and not enough up. Could you make collective bargaining work without restricting freedom to contract in some way?

habibur 5y ago

Without the legal backing of a recognized union, what prevents the company from firing anyone that declines to work like this?

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Before unions were ever legal or recognized, they worked because of the force of solidarity, collective action and bargaining. You just simply couldn't fire and replace everyone at once. It created a bargaining entity that the owner was forced to deal with because the alternative was closure. EDIT: Frankly, if a union is relying on its legal recognition and backing for survival, it's already a zombie, dead-man-walking structure that is just going to fall apart in the long run. Unions must maintain solidarity and collective action and a healthy internal democracy and vibrant participation, or they'll just become a bureaucratic husk. Like most of the North American labour movement.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  Don't forget good relations with the local community to deter scabbing.