4 ms·

> The managers were told they were being fired as part of an “organizational change,” Nit: That language implies that they were laid off, not fired. The timing

> The managers were told they were being fired as part of an “organizational change,” Nit: That language implies that they were laid off, not fired. The timing is a stupid move from Amazon, and these employees will likely be able to make a good case in court. Being from Europe I have mixed feelings about unions here in the US... On the one hand I think they are essential to tilt the uneven power dynamic between employer and employee towards the employee, and are thus dearly needed! On the other hand, unions seem to often go overboard with impractical demands and are more political than in Europe, which damaged their reputation - I think - and contributed to their demise over the past few decades. Which is truly a shame! (I'm reminded of alleged cases where only a union worker is allow to plug a power plug into an outlet at exorbitant prices. But this might a rumor too.) Any opinions here?

bontaq 4y ago
...What case in court?
- Kab1r 4y ago
  Unlawful Termination?
  - lalaland1125 4y ago
    Unlawful termination for what?
    - Kab1r 4y ago
      The National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from firing employees for participating in union activities.
      - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
        I don’t believe they were a part of forming or attempting to form the union, but we’re the management of the facility. Maybe I misread it. Maybe they have a claim because it’s highly likely they were let go because they did squash the attempts at forming a union?
      - Jensson 4y ago
        Is it really illegal to fire managers who failed to prevent unionization of the employees? Because that is what seems to have happened here.
        bontaq 4y ago
        It's not, supervisors are excluded from union organizing protections.
      - dghlsakjg 4y ago
        These employees were management. They are explicitly excluded from union activities because they represent the company. Bezos can fire management whenever they like.
yardie 4y ago
> only a union worker is allow to plug a power plug into an outlet at exorbitant prices. So I have first experience in this working around and with IATSE members. So in the world of events and movie productions there are union and non-union productions. But it is 100% one or the other. For example you wouldn't be able to hire a union head electrician and a group of non-union journeymen. And there are quite a lot of places that will try to do just that. The power outlet seems innocuous on the surface, but it can escalate quickly. And that event will have your name on the credits so you are responsible for what happens. I wouldn't anyone to plug just anything into my personal network either.
dehrmann 4y ago
> The timing is a stupid move from Amazon I'm starting to think these Amazon's timing is intentional, they'll go to court, _and they don't care_; the cost is worth it to send the message. There's also a good-faith possibility that the management of this warehouse was legitimately bad and promoted poor working conditions that lead to interest in the union.
SahAssar 4y ago
> unions seem to often go overboard with impractical demands and are more political than in Europe Isn't that partially because the US such an insufficient level of social benefits from the state (healthcare, pensions, paid time off, etc.)? The unions wouldn't need to "go overboard" if an acceptable minimum level was guaranteed.
- kibwen 4y ago
  Right. The problem with companies is that internally they act like monopolies: unopposed and and anti-competitive. Some force must act upon them to keep them honest, which is to say to keep them from racing to the bottom at ruthlessly exploiting their employees while lining the owners' pockets with their stolen wages. If the government were competent at enforcing the rights of laborers, then unions would not be necessary. Sadly the government is owned by those same companies and thus has little incentive to do so, thus unions (as flawed as they are) have a necessary role to fill. TL;DR: it is possible to believe the unions are less than ideal while also acknowledging why they exist and why we'd be even worse off without them.
  - SahAssar 4y ago
    > If the government were competent at enforcing the rights of laborers, then unions would not be necessary. I wouldn't say that, but unions should fill the same role that local government should fill. They should respond and resolve local issues specific to their area, so I wouldn't expect my union to negotiate my healthcare just like I wouldn't expect my town to negotiate trade deals with foreign countries. I do however want the unions there to deal with issues specific to my workplace, just like I do want my town to have a local government to deal with issues specific to my town.
WalterBright 4y ago
When I worked at Boeing on the 757 gearbox design, at one point the box was put into a test rig to see how it would behave under load. I went out to the shop to in case any questions needed answering. At one point, a bolt needed turning (don't recall why) and I stepped forward to do it. The shop union steward literally lunged in front of me, arms outstretched, to block me. He informed me that only a union mechanic can turn a bolt, and my job was to tell the mechanic (not the steward) to turn the bolt. It was ludicrous. Evidently every job required 3 people - an engineer to tell the mechanic what to do, and a union steward to ensure the engineer didn't touch anything. Somehow this crazy system evolved.
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  It sounds like this is an example of things going too far, but I can totally understand a leader not wanting someone from a different department wrenching. This bolt was probably inconsequential, but I'm guessing that he had to fill out paperwork enough times where some cowboy from the office fouled up a day's work. I'm an engineer now, but I used to work on commercial boats. I came up with all sorts of semi-valid reasons to politely tell customers and superiors why they weren't allowed to do things (you can't drive the boat for "insurance reasons"). The real answer was: "I don't know how competent you are. The worst case scenario is that you injure a person or destroy valuable equipment. That probably won't happen, but a 1% chance of losing my job or having to deal with the aftermath is worth stopping you with a technicality."
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Um, I worked on the design of that gearbox for two years. I knew it intimately. That's why I was sent to the test. The test was to see if the box would crack, deform, or snap under the ultimate load. It didn't. But the test rig bent :-) hahahahahahahaha. Math works.
- steelframe 4y ago
  After seeing enough questionable crypto scattered around in code bases written by people who I can only imagine were trying to "demonstrate complexity" for their perf review, I now have half a mind to suggest software engineering have a system whereby only the crypto dev is allowed to write anything relating to crypto.
csomar 4y ago
See here > tilt the uneven power dynamic between employer and employee towards the employee With here > unions seem to often go overboard with impractical demands and are more political than in Europe Gives you Union Employee who grab the power from the actual owners of the company. The relation is now even worse: The Union leader have both power, and no skin in the game. At least the employers cared about the longevity of the company. Unions don't solve the power dynamics. They just tilt it to a new side. Worse: They encourage the idea that force (strikes) can yield power/money; which is why countries with Unions degenerate. Of course, someone here is going to get angry because of the "poor" employees and their work conditions.
- linuxhansl 4y ago
  Interesting. Didn't think about it this way. Why is it (typically) not a problem is Europe? Unions seems negotiate reasonable contracts, raises, and safety measures there. And why is a union leader who abuses the power not removed from that position? It's not benefiting the union members. In the end, looking at this in black or white (including your statement) is part of the problem. Unions are neither universally good, nor are they universally bad.
  - csomar 4y ago
    > Why is it (typically) not a problem is Europe? Unions are bad in France. There is a strike every other day + they are far from being fair rather than being greedy. So Europe is not an exception here. Here is a recent strike in Germany: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-security-workers-go-on-strike-at-major-airports/a-61116047 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-security-workers-go-on-strike-... Unions can be good if you have two rational parties negotiating reasonably. A greedy employer, and an unreasonable/powerful union and you suddenly unleash hell. > And why is a union leader who abuses the power not removed from that position? It's not benefiting the union members. He is benefiting the members in the short-term. And many of your employees can't see past that or read an accounting statement. > In the end, looking at this in black or white (including your statement) is part of the problem. Unions are neither universally good, nor are they universally bad. I'm not looking at it in either color. What I am saying is that Unions do not solve the power dynamic problem; and thus can't be the answer for either employees or employers.
t-3 4y ago
I don't have any experience with sklled trades unions, but labor unions are almost universally despisedby anyone with first-hand knowledge. They are largely organizations of professional-class parasites subverting the class struggle and sabotaging worker morale for corporate benefit.
runarberg 4y ago
I’m also a European migrant to America and the way I see it is that while we kept our unions in Europe, America haphazardly abandoned theirs. The only remaining unions are the ones with the strongest power structures and the chances of someone misusing their power in such a power structure is quite high. In my opinion workers in America (my self included) desperately need to re-unionize. While I do admit that my working conditions are personally no worse then back home (I certainly get paid a lot more here; though I wouldn’t mind some health care) that is not the case most for American workers, including close friends and family. Most Americans are lacking basic labor rights that we in Europe take for granted, such as paid sick leave, parental leave, paid holidays, higher overtime pay, guaranteed rest period, heck they don’t even get mandatory breaks and refreshments doing hard manual labor. This is something that collective bargaining, cross industry worker’s solidarity, picket lines, and strategic voting got them in the early last century but they have since lost. In Europe we don’t need it as much because we have maintained our unions (and most—but not all—of these rights). In Europe the unions don’t need to be as political because the political victories from the prior years still stand. In America, not so much. With that said, this doesn’t mean America should just take any union. If the union isn’t working—or worse it is actively harmful—it’s leadership needs to be replaced. If you don’t have a union you should try to get one, and you should try as you can to elect a good and competent leadership that will work improve labor conditions for all workers.

bontaq 4y ago

...What case in court?

Kab1r 4y ago
Unlawful Termination?
- lalaland1125 4y ago
  Unlawful termination for what?
  - Kab1r 4y ago
    The National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from firing employees for participating in union activities.
    - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
      I don’t believe they were a part of forming or attempting to form the union, but we’re the management of the facility. Maybe I misread it. Maybe they have a claim because it’s highly likely they were let go because they did squash the attempts at forming a union?
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Is it really illegal to fire managers who failed to prevent unionization of the employees? Because that is what seems to have happened here.
      - bontaq 4y ago
        It's not, supervisors are excluded from union organizing protections.
    - dghlsakjg 4y ago
      These employees were management. They are explicitly excluded from union activities because they represent the company. Bezos can fire management whenever they like.

yardie 4y ago

> only a union worker is allow to plug a power plug into an outlet at exorbitant prices. So I have first experience in this working around and with IATSE members. So in the world of events and movie productions there are union and non-union productions. But it is 100% one or the other. For example you wouldn't be able to hire a union head electrician and a group of non-union journeymen. And there are quite a lot of places that will try to do just that. The power outlet seems innocuous on the surface, but it can escalate quickly. And that event will have your name on the credits so you are responsible for what happens. I wouldn't anyone to plug just anything into my personal network either.

dehrmann 4y ago

> The timing is a stupid move from Amazon I'm starting to think these Amazon's timing is intentional, they'll go to court, _and they don't care_; the cost is worth it to send the message. There's also a good-faith possibility that the management of this warehouse was legitimately bad and promoted poor working conditions that lead to interest in the union.

SahAssar 4y ago

> unions seem to often go overboard with impractical demands and are more political than in Europe Isn't that partially because the US such an insufficient level of social benefits from the state (healthcare, pensions, paid time off, etc.)? The unions wouldn't need to "go overboard" if an acceptable minimum level was guaranteed.

kibwen 4y ago
Right. The problem with companies is that internally they act like monopolies: unopposed and and anti-competitive. Some force must act upon them to keep them honest, which is to say to keep them from racing to the bottom at ruthlessly exploiting their employees while lining the owners' pockets with their stolen wages. If the government were competent at enforcing the rights of laborers, then unions would not be necessary. Sadly the government is owned by those same companies and thus has little incentive to do so, thus unions (as flawed as they are) have a necessary role to fill. TL;DR: it is possible to believe the unions are less than ideal while also acknowledging why they exist and why we'd be even worse off without them.
- SahAssar 4y ago
  > If the government were competent at enforcing the rights of laborers, then unions would not be necessary. I wouldn't say that, but unions should fill the same role that local government should fill. They should respond and resolve local issues specific to their area, so I wouldn't expect my union to negotiate my healthcare just like I wouldn't expect my town to negotiate trade deals with foreign countries. I do however want the unions there to deal with issues specific to my workplace, just like I do want my town to have a local government to deal with issues specific to my town.

WalterBright 4y ago

When I worked at Boeing on the 757 gearbox design, at one point the box was put into a test rig to see how it would behave under load. I went out to the shop to in case any questions needed answering. At one point, a bolt needed turning (don't recall why) and I stepped forward to do it. The shop union steward literally lunged in front of me, arms outstretched, to block me. He informed me that only a union mechanic can turn a bolt, and my job was to tell the mechanic (not the steward) to turn the bolt. It was ludicrous. Evidently every job required 3 people - an engineer to tell the mechanic what to do, and a union steward to ensure the engineer didn't touch anything. Somehow this crazy system evolved.

dghlsakjg 4y ago
It sounds like this is an example of things going too far, but I can totally understand a leader not wanting someone from a different department wrenching. This bolt was probably inconsequential, but I'm guessing that he had to fill out paperwork enough times where some cowboy from the office fouled up a day's work. I'm an engineer now, but I used to work on commercial boats. I came up with all sorts of semi-valid reasons to politely tell customers and superiors why they weren't allowed to do things (you can't drive the boat for "insurance reasons"). The real answer was: "I don't know how competent you are. The worst case scenario is that you injure a person or destroy valuable equipment. That probably won't happen, but a 1% chance of losing my job or having to deal with the aftermath is worth stopping you with a technicality."
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Um, I worked on the design of that gearbox for two years. I knew it intimately. That's why I was sent to the test. The test was to see if the box would crack, deform, or snap under the ultimate load. It didn't. But the test rig bent :-) hahahahahahahaha. Math works.
steelframe 4y ago
After seeing enough questionable crypto scattered around in code bases written by people who I can only imagine were trying to "demonstrate complexity" for their perf review, I now have half a mind to suggest software engineering have a system whereby only the crypto dev is allowed to write anything relating to crypto.

csomar 4y ago

See here > tilt the uneven power dynamic between employer and employee towards the employee With here > unions seem to often go overboard with impractical demands and are more political than in Europe Gives you Union Employee who grab the power from the actual owners of the company. The relation is now even worse: The Union leader have both power, and no skin in the game. At least the employers cared about the longevity of the company. Unions don't solve the power dynamics. They just tilt it to a new side. Worse: They encourage the idea that force (strikes) can yield power/money; which is why countries with Unions degenerate. Of course, someone here is going to get angry because of the "poor" employees and their work conditions.

linuxhansl 4y ago
Interesting. Didn't think about it this way. Why is it (typically) not a problem is Europe? Unions seems negotiate reasonable contracts, raises, and safety measures there. And why is a union leader who abuses the power not removed from that position? It's not benefiting the union members. In the end, looking at this in black or white (including your statement) is part of the problem. Unions are neither universally good, nor are they universally bad.
- csomar 4y ago
  > Why is it (typically) not a problem is Europe? Unions are bad in France. There is a strike every other day + they are far from being fair rather than being greedy. So Europe is not an exception here. Here is a recent strike in Germany: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-security-workers-go-on-strike-at-major-airports/a-61116047 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-security-workers-go-on-strike-... Unions can be good if you have two rational parties negotiating reasonably. A greedy employer, and an unreasonable/powerful union and you suddenly unleash hell. > And why is a union leader who abuses the power not removed from that position? It's not benefiting the union members. He is benefiting the members in the short-term. And many of your employees can't see past that or read an accounting statement. > In the end, looking at this in black or white (including your statement) is part of the problem. Unions are neither universally good, nor are they universally bad. I'm not looking at it in either color. What I am saying is that Unions do not solve the power dynamic problem; and thus can't be the answer for either employees or employers.

t-3 4y ago

I don't have any experience with sklled trades unions, but labor unions are almost universally despisedby anyone with first-hand knowledge. They are largely organizations of professional-class parasites subverting the class struggle and sabotaging worker morale for corporate benefit.

runarberg 4y ago

I’m also a European migrant to America and the way I see it is that while we kept our unions in Europe, America haphazardly abandoned theirs. The only remaining unions are the ones with the strongest power structures and the chances of someone misusing their power in such a power structure is quite high. In my opinion workers in America (my self included) desperately need to re-unionize. While I do admit that my working conditions are personally no worse then back home (I certainly get paid a lot more here; though I wouldn’t mind some health care) that is not the case most for American workers, including close friends and family. Most Americans are lacking basic labor rights that we in Europe take for granted, such as paid sick leave, parental leave, paid holidays, higher overtime pay, guaranteed rest period, heck they don’t even get mandatory breaks and refreshments doing hard manual labor. This is something that collective bargaining, cross industry worker’s solidarity, picket lines, and strategic voting got them in the early last century but they have since lost. In Europe we don’t need it as much because we have maintained our unions (and most—but not all—of these rights). In Europe the unions don’t need to be as political because the political victories from the prior years still stand. In America, not so much. With that said, this doesn’t mean America should just take any union. If the union isn’t working—or worse it is actively harmful—it’s leadership needs to be replaced. If you don’t have a union you should try to get one, and you should try as you can to elect a good and competent leadership that will work improve labor conditions for all workers.