9 ms·
not necessarily. a large enough (100 warehouse) union presence would have the same effect that coal unions had in great britain in the sixties. Just the threa
by nimbius 5y ago
not necessarily. a large enough (100 warehouse) union presence would have the same effect that coal unions had in great britain in the sixties.
Just the threat of a strike would be enough to send your stock to the barbers chair for the week. Suppliers would be reluctant to extend long lines of credit to you during a threat, and your contract network of logistics would likely concentrate efforts to diversify from you in the nearterm.
the very real (and scary) outcome from the unionization of Amazon is that it will spill into other sectors that have spent the last four decades crushed under boot, namely trucking and logistics.
EDIT: the reason i believe unionization of the trucking industry is scary is that most logistics companies have operated for so long as bath-faith actors with impunity, they no longer have any experience or knowledge of how to properly negotiate a union contact in the face of a strike. In that they have become so divorced from the reality of fair labor practices, a strike is almost certain to occur and while labor demands may be reasonable, the response from entrenched corporate interest is likely to be petulant and childish.
- Cerium 5y agoWhy is it scary that people get out from under the boot?
- giraffe_lady 5y agoYou gotta check downthread a bit where someone else straight admits it, but also just remember that overall the group on HN is much wealthier than average, some truly so. Plenty of people here are legitimately not part of the working class even in a technical sense. eg they do not sell their labor, but are supported by exploiting surplus labor of workers. It's entirely possible the person you're responding to is an asset owner, and is correct and sincere. If you depend on exploiting workers then worker power must be scary as hell!
- erik_seaberg 5y agoCompetitive markets are our best tool against corruption and entropy.
- fknorangesite 5y agoI assume you mean that this is scary for Amazon? Because it sure doesn't sound scary for the workers.
- throwaway09223 5y agoScary for consumers
- kennywinker 5y agoThere has never been a better time for consumers to show solidarity with the workers that provide them with goods and services than now. The threat of widespread streaming subscription cancellations seems to have been a great help to IATSE during their recent negotiations - I hope to see more of that type of action / threatened action
- throwaway09223 5y agoMy answer was in regards to practicalities, not political aspirations. Your answer is projecting a political struggle unrelated to my comment. Strikes impact businesses that supply goods and services to consumers. They have impact, and it's this impact that gives them power. If there wasn't an impact on businesses and consumers then they wouldn't be scary. If your political leanings are pro-worker then you probably agree and are happy that a strike is a scary prospect for consumers. Otherwise the strikes could be ignored.
- kennywinker 5y agoI think the thing I'm saying is that consumers and workers are effectively the same group. Trying to separate "consumer" concerns from "worker" concerns is at least as political an idea as suggesting they should welcome a chance to show solidarity.
- kcplate 5y agoAs a consumer my concern is the products I order are delivered when I expect them to be delivered. I am not sure how that crosses with Amazon worker unionization concerns. If Amazon can satisfy my consumer concerns with or without unions, I’m satisfied. They are obviously doing that now. Showing solidarity…what benefit does that give the consumer? It just means sacrifice for me.
- whatshisface 5y agoThe presence of a union does not threaten anything unless everyone believes they could strike if they wanted to. That remains to be seen especially when the union is not integrated with a giant national network that can ameliorate financial hardships in one place with dues in another, and the union is new.
- kcplate 5y agoThat they can strike, and scab labor is not a viable option. My daughter did a stint at an Amazon warehouse. She was basically productive “enough” on day 1. If you have a large enough willing labor pool, and a job that can be trained in one day…strikes basically are just bad PR. Amazon can weather bad PR.
- whatshisface 5y agoDifferent areas have some interesting laws about not being able to fire unionized workers who are carrying out a codified labor dispute with no contract and other laws about not crossing the picket line.
- kcplate 5y agoYou generally may not be able to fire unionized workers on strike (depending on what it’s regarding) but at least in the US it’s not against the law to hire temp workers during a strike. The only power a strike has is shutting down operations, if the strike doesn’t do that because of scabs, it’s essentially ineffective. In my opinion any labor union that calls a strike that doesn’t result in work stoppage is not helping its workers.