3 ms·

As a worker, what sets your wage? If you're unionized, collective bargaining. Unions that are stronger are able to better support each other. The better deal a

As a worker, what sets your wage? If you're unionized, collective bargaining. Unions that are stronger are able to better support each other. The better deal amazon's workers get, the better deal you can get. If you're non-unionized, your wage is still impacted by the wages of other employers. Case in point, when amazon raised their minimum wage - other companies were forced to follow suit: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/business/economy/amazon-wage-effect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/business/economy/amazon-w... Sure, if you're a high-payed tech worker, your own wage is pretty disconnected from the warehouse worker market - but not completely. And I bet you have friends and family who's wages are MUCH closer linked.

throwaway09223 5y ago
The impact on tech worker wages is probably negative because unionization is associated with lower profits. Especially for tech workers who derive the majority of their income from equity. Highly unionized countries do not tend to have a higher per-capita income across all socioeconomic demographics when compared to the US. It's not clear that unionization is an overall net positive for higher income individuals.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Indeed. Granting a one group small ownership stake swings some of their allegiances towards ownership and away from labour. I would ask myself what cost that small slice of ownership you’ve been granted (play on words intended) comes at to the people around you. To me it doesn’t seem very different from buying off union leaders. Are you that easily bought? I.e. maybe supporting unions leads to a smaller gap between your tech salary, and a warehouse worker. That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate, and have more energy to put into their communities, etc.
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable, but worst of all it's simply inaccurate. I support the right to unionize regardless of whether it benefits me personally. It seems the area where you and I differ is that my commitment to telling the truth regarding the various economic ramifications is more important than my political ideology.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      I do have a political ideology, but so do you. My overarching point as been to insist that socio-economic class, consumer and worker separation, and stock granting are as political ideas as worker solidarity and class consciousness. But you’re calling that untruthful, and ideologically motivated, and disgusting rhetoric, so I guess we’re probably done
      - throwaway09223 5y ago
        I'm calling out your projections. Your posts are riddled with inaccurate blind guesses about me. None of what you're saying is correct, as a simple matter of fact. I encourage you to take a break and think about your perspective. If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. Nothing about me is relevant when it comes to objective facts such as the way unions impact economies.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        ABCLAW 5y ago
        >If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. >Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable This you? Feels like a bit of 'projection'. The poster you're replying to is making general commentary about class consciousness between the consumer/worker dichotomy. You view yourself as separate from this. Okay great. His points really aren't specific to you, even in statements like "That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate" Replace <you> with <higher income worker> if that helps engage with the content. I have a feeling, though, if you view his argument (a very basic 'a rising tide lifts all boats' one) as disgusting, you're probably not very interested in trying to understand his point of view in the first place.
        throwaway09223 5y ago
        No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person, rather than commenting on the subject at hand. They've made a series of guesses. They guessed that I work and appealed to my identity rather than form a meaningful argument. After discovering that I don't work, they made a series of other inaccurate guesses about my economic background. This is objectively regrettable. It's fallacious argumentation and in fact is against the rules of this forum. My response is addressing these disgusting tactics. In contrast, I've said nothing about who this person is as an individual -- because it's irrelevant.
kcplate 5y ago
That’s still arguing worker benefits. I am asking as a consumer, what is in it for me to cancel services I use and are happy with to be in solidarity? I don’t see any benefit, only sacrifice. So the only reason I see for acting in solidarity is if you are specifically politically inclined toward them.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Again you’re separating your worker identity and your consumer identity. You can’t consume if you don’t work. They are intrinsically linked, but you’re choosing to see them as separated. Yes, Maybe you give up your prime for a few months, but next year when you’re negotiating your salary, you have a stronger collective bargain position (unionized or non)
  - kcplate 5y ago
    Your argument relies on an assumption. You make the assumption that my employer exploits me. They don’t. Perhaps Amazon exploits some of their workers (local drivers, warehouse workers, but tech…hardly). I’d argue that in 2022 with US labor laws…most workers aren’t exploited. Some think they are—some perhaps politically think this soft Marxism you are alluding to is a good thing. So what we have again is a situation where a consumer like me is not in the position of a unionizing Amazon worker so we can’t identify with their labor situation. I don’t have a dogmatic political stance on them unionizing. In their current non-unionized work situation, I’m content to be a customer. In a unionized situation, I’m content to be a customer as long as the product they provide meets my needs. I don’t have a dog in their fight, so there is zero need to me to stop using a product I want to be in solidarity with them.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      I don’t want to make assumptions about your specific work, so let’s talk about tech workers in general. As an example, Facebook made over $9 billion in profit in 2021. If you work for facebook, you were exploited to the tune of around 9bil/63k employees, so an average of 142k and change. If you distributed that according to current salaries, most tech workers at fb would probably be due a few 100k more per year. Without the labour of their workers, facebook does not exist. From the people who serve lunch to the accountants to the coders. Yet that 9bil did not go to them, it went to the shareholders. That’s exploitation, pure and simple. You can support it, if you think it’s a good system, but it is exploitation. Tech companies know that their workers are underpaid for their value - they wouldn’t have had to collude to fix wages if it wasn’t the case. Just because you think you’re very well paid, doesn’t mean you’re not being exploited. All that is setting aside the very obvious reason you should have solidarity with amazon warehouse workers: they are human beings and they provide a service you enjoy, you should not want them to suffer.

throwaway09223 5y ago

The impact on tech worker wages is probably negative because unionization is associated with lower profits. Especially for tech workers who derive the majority of their income from equity. Highly unionized countries do not tend to have a higher per-capita income across all socioeconomic demographics when compared to the US. It's not clear that unionization is an overall net positive for higher income individuals.

kennywinker 5y ago
Indeed. Granting a one group small ownership stake swings some of their allegiances towards ownership and away from labour. I would ask myself what cost that small slice of ownership you’ve been granted (play on words intended) comes at to the people around you. To me it doesn’t seem very different from buying off union leaders. Are you that easily bought? I.e. maybe supporting unions leads to a smaller gap between your tech salary, and a warehouse worker. That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate, and have more energy to put into their communities, etc.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable, but worst of all it's simply inaccurate. I support the right to unionize regardless of whether it benefits me personally. It seems the area where you and I differ is that my commitment to telling the truth regarding the various economic ramifications is more important than my political ideology.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    I do have a political ideology, but so do you. My overarching point as been to insist that socio-economic class, consumer and worker separation, and stock granting are as political ideas as worker solidarity and class consciousness. But you’re calling that untruthful, and ideologically motivated, and disgusting rhetoric, so I guess we’re probably done
    - throwaway09223 5y ago
      I'm calling out your projections. Your posts are riddled with inaccurate blind guesses about me. None of what you're saying is correct, as a simple matter of fact. I encourage you to take a break and think about your perspective. If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. Nothing about me is relevant when it comes to objective facts such as the way unions impact economies.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ABCLAW 5y ago
        >If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. >Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable This you? Feels like a bit of 'projection'. The poster you're replying to is making general commentary about class consciousness between the consumer/worker dichotomy. You view yourself as separate from this. Okay great. His points really aren't specific to you, even in statements like "That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate" Replace <you> with <higher income worker> if that helps engage with the content. I have a feeling, though, if you view his argument (a very basic 'a rising tide lifts all boats' one) as disgusting, you're probably not very interested in trying to understand his point of view in the first place.
        throwaway09223 5y ago
        No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person, rather than commenting on the subject at hand. They've made a series of guesses. They guessed that I work and appealed to my identity rather than form a meaningful argument. After discovering that I don't work, they made a series of other inaccurate guesses about my economic background. This is objectively regrettable. It's fallacious argumentation and in fact is against the rules of this forum. My response is addressing these disgusting tactics. In contrast, I've said nothing about who this person is as an individual -- because it's irrelevant.

kcplate 5y ago

That’s still arguing worker benefits. I am asking as a consumer, what is in it for me to cancel services I use and are happy with to be in solidarity? I don’t see any benefit, only sacrifice. So the only reason I see for acting in solidarity is if you are specifically politically inclined toward them.

kennywinker 5y ago
Again you’re separating your worker identity and your consumer identity. You can’t consume if you don’t work. They are intrinsically linked, but you’re choosing to see them as separated. Yes, Maybe you give up your prime for a few months, but next year when you’re negotiating your salary, you have a stronger collective bargain position (unionized or non)
- kcplate 5y ago
  Your argument relies on an assumption. You make the assumption that my employer exploits me. They don’t. Perhaps Amazon exploits some of their workers (local drivers, warehouse workers, but tech…hardly). I’d argue that in 2022 with US labor laws…most workers aren’t exploited. Some think they are—some perhaps politically think this soft Marxism you are alluding to is a good thing. So what we have again is a situation where a consumer like me is not in the position of a unionizing Amazon worker so we can’t identify with their labor situation. I don’t have a dogmatic political stance on them unionizing. In their current non-unionized work situation, I’m content to be a customer. In a unionized situation, I’m content to be a customer as long as the product they provide meets my needs. I don’t have a dog in their fight, so there is zero need to me to stop using a product I want to be in solidarity with them.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    I don’t want to make assumptions about your specific work, so let’s talk about tech workers in general. As an example, Facebook made over $9 billion in profit in 2021. If you work for facebook, you were exploited to the tune of around 9bil/63k employees, so an average of 142k and change. If you distributed that according to current salaries, most tech workers at fb would probably be due a few 100k more per year. Without the labour of their workers, facebook does not exist. From the people who serve lunch to the accountants to the coders. Yet that 9bil did not go to them, it went to the shareholders. That’s exploitation, pure and simple. You can support it, if you think it’s a good system, but it is exploitation. Tech companies know that their workers are underpaid for their value - they wouldn’t have had to collude to fix wages if it wasn’t the case. Just because you think you’re very well paid, doesn’t mean you’re not being exploited. All that is setting aside the very obvious reason you should have solidarity with amazon warehouse workers: they are human beings and they provide a service you enjoy, you should not want them to suffer.