44 ms·

Or maybe as an example for other managers? Basically it's "no union" or your head... Disgusting anyway.

by mola 4y ago

tyingq 4y ago
I'm skeptical, because it seems like most of the anti-union activities are either dictated or run from HDQ. It doesn't feel like something where the local leadership was free to make their own plays.
- bostonsre 4y ago
  The fact that a unionization vote was happening would have been more than enough to start an investigation into management and firing management before the vote due to bad practices could have prevented the unionization vote from being passed. I'm not sure it matters much how much leeway the managers actually had in preventing unionization from happening. Amazon has been extremely cold hearted and calculating with the management of their logistics infrastructure. They are managing (ruling) by fear, not love. They could easily have prevented unionization by treating their employees like human beings and not robots, but they chose to go the dystopian route of extreme monitoring and pushing their employees to work as hard as possible. It almost feels like a move that Putin and other dictators would pull. They shift blame to those that are relatively powerless in middle management and make an example of them even though the fault lies with those at the top.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It doesn't feel like something where the local leadership was free to make their own plays. Firing managers where unionization happens encourages managers where unionization efforts are under way to make their own plays, whether this is formally allowed or not, whether by company policy or the law. Obviously, getting caught on independent, policy/law-forbidden, efforts would also have adverse consequences, so the incentive also is to not get caught.
  - wombatpm 4y ago
    All managers/supervisors and above have to participate in yearly training on Positive Employee Relations. At the Fortune 300 company I was at, this was a 4 hour session taught by legal counsel. It covered what you could and could not say to employees about unions, what to do if you suspected union organization activities, and how to communicate the company line about how unions were bad without running afoul of the NLRB
rossjudson 4y ago
I read somewhere that these particular managers were somewhat well-like by the employees. Now that may or may not be true...but if true, then it's a kind of "start a union, and the bunny gets it" situation.

Or maybe as an example for other managers? Basically it's "no union" or your head... Disgusting anyway.

by mola 4y ago

Or maybe as an example for other managers? Basically it's "no union" or your head... Disgusting anyway.

I'm skeptical, because it seems like most of the anti-union activities are either dictated or run from HDQ. It doesn't feel like something where the local leadership was free to make their own plays.

bostonsre 4y ago
The fact that a unionization vote was happening would have been more than enough to start an investigation into management and firing management before the vote due to bad practices could have prevented the unionization vote from being passed. I'm not sure it matters much how much leeway the managers actually had in preventing unionization from happening. Amazon has been extremely cold hearted and calculating with the management of their logistics infrastructure. They are managing (ruling) by fear, not love. They could easily have prevented unionization by treating their employees like human beings and not robots, but they chose to go the dystopian route of extreme monitoring and pushing their employees to work as hard as possible. It almost feels like a move that Putin and other dictators would pull. They shift blame to those that are relatively powerless in middle management and make an example of them even though the fault lies with those at the top.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> It doesn't feel like something where the local leadership was free to make their own plays. Firing managers where unionization happens encourages managers where unionization efforts are under way to make their own plays, whether this is formally allowed or not, whether by company policy or the law. Obviously, getting caught on independent, policy/law-forbidden, efforts would also have adverse consequences, so the incentive also is to not get caught.
- wombatpm 4y ago
  All managers/supervisors and above have to participate in yearly training on Positive Employee Relations. At the Fortune 300 company I was at, this was a 4 hour session taught by legal counsel. It covered what you could and could not say to employees about unions, what to do if you suspected union organization activities, and how to communicate the company line about how unions were bad without running afoul of the NLRB

rossjudson 4y ago

I read somewhere that these particular managers were somewhat well-like by the employees. Now that may or may not be true...but if true, then it's a kind of "start a union, and the bunny gets it" situation.