4 ms·

If GP is correct, then that signal would be, "Treat everyone who works here more-fairly and address their concerns in a timely manner. It is in everyone's best

• avgcorrection 4y ago
  In that case then the concerns of the workers could have been addressed by going over the heads of the senior managers to the higher-ups. Which provokes two questions: - Why did it get to the point of a strike if this was just a case of bad internal communication? - Does this theory really gel with how aggressive Amazon has been against unionization activity? Apparently they could have just met the concerns of the workers immediately. EDIT: > If GP is correct, then that signal would be, On second thought: I am talking about the likely signal that they want to send to other managers, i.e. how they will interpret it. And to just spell it out: I think they will be more wary of associating with unions.
• xmprt 4y ago
  > If GP is correct Only the Amazon higher ups will know this. Managers will see the correlation between unionizing and getting fired and connect the dots.
  • darkerside 4y ago
    This seems like one of those optical illusions that can look either way. Duck or rabbit? What color is the dress? Young lady or old hag? Managers are obviously fired because the union was formed. They shouldn't let another form. Are they expected to respond by creating a trustful and inclusive environment, or by ruling through fear?
    • avgcorrection 4y ago
      Their mandate would be to avoid unionization. So obviously the “ruling through fear” option. I don’t see how optical illusions have anything to do with it except muddying the waters.
      • darkerside 4y ago
        At some point in your life, you'll find that something you always thought was true and couldn't understand how anybody could see was false actually could be understood to be false by a totally reasonable person. At that time, I think you'll understand what I mean. Unions are created because of unacceptable conditions. Fix those conditions in time, and no unions. No fear required.
        • runarberg 4y ago
          > Unions are created because of unacceptable conditions No. Unions are created because it gives workers several tools to counter the power imbalance inherent in the boss-worker relationship, the most immediate tool being collective bargaining. Even in places where working conditions are acceptable—by some threshold of acceptable—unions still have a place. In Europe, for example it is not uncommon for the union to engage in outreach and mutual aid to education on labor rights and intervene when rights are violated. In places where working conditions are not acceptable, the union does empower workers to rise up against their bosses for better conditions, this is enabled through solidarity between workers. After the conditions are fixed, that solidarity is still required to maintain them.
          • badwolf 4y ago
            I would just say, if rights are being violated, then that is not acceptable working conditions.
            • runarberg 4y ago
              Very true. However labor violations are seldomly this clear cut mustache twirling villain you would see in the movies which affects all workers equally. Most often it is some mundane error done by a clerk in the HR department that never gets corrected until—by luck—a well meaning lower manager spots it, and goes to the union to demand a correction including back-pay. This is the reason why outreach is an important part of the union’s job. These errors exists sporadically and will persist uncorrected while the workforce is uneducated on our rights.
    • kqr 4y ago
      I see your point except a "truthful and inclusive environment" would be positive (or at least neutral) to unionization. So, clearly the latter.
      • darkerside 4y ago
        Unions arise for a reason. In an inclusive and trustful environment, those reasons can be addressed without adding another authority into the mix.
        • kqr 4y ago
          Although I have to admit many industrial unions today have become "another authority", fundamentally, unionisation is about workers talking to each other and finding alignment in what they want out of work. Not another authority.
          • darkerside 4y ago
            They can already do that. Unions are about united bargaining power, which means an authority figure.
        • avgcorrection 4y ago
          Your comments sound like those Walmart training videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6bFEs4ZoXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6bFEs4ZoXw Got that message of: we’re all just one big family where everyone loves each other. Now, don’t you call Child Services on us when we discipline y’all a little, ya hear?
          • darkerside 4y ago
            And, what you said can be totally legitimate parenting. I'm not making a call here, just calling people out for jumping to conclusions when there are other valid interpretations.
    • skrtskrt 4y ago
      You should try reading the news about Amazon’s blatantly illegal union busting efforts instead of pretending like we can’t tell what this is.
    • runarberg 4y ago
      I mean if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If the union busters then tell you it’s a rabbit, they are probably lying. The only illusion is the lie.
• vkou 4y ago
  Management culture flows from the top. If the managers are pressured by corporate to be utter assholes, and then they get fired because that resulted in unionization, the fault's not just with them, but also further up the tree. This seems like CYA from someone further up. Bad thing happened, someone must pay for it, we found someone, they are paying for it.
• Angostura 4y ago
  Or ... "you better join a union quick"