7 ms·

It's a testament to how effective propaganda can be when you see how easily you can get people to vote against their own interests. It's crazy to me that anyon

by jmyeet 4y ago

It's a testament to how effective propaganda can be when you see how easily you can get people to vote against their own interests. It's crazy to me that anyone who works in these Amazon warehouses votes agains tunionization but they do [1]. Even in the successful vote, there were still a lot of "no" votes. Unionization in the US is the lowest of all OECD nations (~10%) [2]. Is it any wonder US workers don't get paid maternity leave, often don't get health insurance and get 2 weeks vacation? This is why wedge issues matter. They sow discord to prevent class solidarity. You know who actually does have class solidarity? Billionaires. And the politicans they own. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/02/amazon-union-vote/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/02/amazon-... [2]: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TUD https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TUD

fallingknife 4y ago
Or maybe it's you who has fallen for propaganda. I think it's most likely that they know their own interests better than you do.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. Not organizing only makes your interests irrelevant. That can hardly be in anyones own interests.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. For example, say you're a talented younger worker and the majority of the union votes for pay by seniority, that's going against your interests.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      Being in the union means you have a chance to influence those kinds of decisions.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        Join a union so that you can fail to stop a change you never wanted in the first place? Why would you want to do that?
      - shuckles 4y ago
        Is it actually true that most people feel efficacy over their union’s policies? The only unions I’ve been involved with or heard of where fairly indifferent to most of their members’ preferences.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        Being in a democracy means you have a chance to influence the decisions, yet you end up with decisions not only you as a minority don't like, but even you as a majority don't like.
  - meatsauce 4y ago
    - red_trumpet 4y ago
      He did not really define the interests of other people. What kind of interests could one have, that are contrary to forming a union?
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        Very concrete example - in the UK most unions support one particular political party. If you don't like some of the positions of that party - for example you support the Greens or you’re a Liberal, or don't like what Labour did during the wars, or hated Corbyn, or hate Starmer - then you might find it offensive to join a union that campaigns for Labour.
        martimarkov 4y ago
        A more concrete example - in the UK the unions support Labour on the basis of workers rights, that is to say a part of their program. If Labour tomorrow say - we don't care about worker rights and want to remove the minimal wage - they will get 0 support from the unions. Just because you have alignment with someone does not mean it's all or nothing and you agree with everything. By that logic we need 60mil ppl in the House as everyone will have their own views. + being in a union is not the same as supporting a political party. The unions didn't go around and say: "This war... Best thing ever! Everyone - support it pls" at least AFAIK - happy to be proven wrong
  - indigochill 4y ago
    I realize mine is not necessarily a majority experience, but as a young single no-debt high-performing worker, I can negotiate a lot more effectively by myself than I could in a union because I can argue purely on my own merits and if the employer is unreasonable (and not all are) it's fairly easy for me to switch employers. I even moved to a different country early in my career for a better career opportunity. So no, unions are not in my personal interest. Though as I said, I can appreciate there are others who are less mobile or less inclined to negotiate as aggressively for whatever reason for whom they are useful. As long as unions don't get in my way (e.g. by mafia-style locking down an industry I want to work in) then I have no problem with them.
    - stefan_ 4y ago
      You think there are Amazon warehouse workers negotiating? You know this isn't really a full-day interview process, get to know the team kinda job right.
    - martimarkov 4y ago
      You can still negotiate and be in a union. Nobody takes that away from you. The union negotiates minimal conditions for all like minimal wage. You are a top performer - go the exact route you've described - nobody will stop you. It can work or not as you've said and the solution would be to find a new job.
      - junofan 4y ago
        In the US I believe there is no direct dealing, though I may be mistaken. Not sure about Canada. Presumably unions work differently (and likely better) in your country.
      - NikolaNovak 4y ago
        This is 100%, extremely, dangerously, completely, utterly not the case in any North American union I've witnessed in North America. (it probably explains why it is difficult to have meaningful conversations and everybody attacks each other, if we have such radically different experiences and knowledge of union laws and procedures) FWIW, from my experience, In North America, it is the whole point of a union that "everybody gets the same" --> pay scale in particular. To make it explicit - if I'm in a union, I know EXACTLY how much anybody in any particular position makes. I can look it up in the pay scale table. I know how much my teacher cousin makes, I know how much my government friend makes, I know how much anybody at my brother-in-law's factory makes, by looking at the pay scale table. I would be eager to hear about other countries. Maybe unions are different in Europe or Asia or Africa etc. As I indicated above in a more detailed post, I am 100% supportive of unions in general, and have had 100% negative experience in North American unions in particular.
  - chronofar 4y ago
    That is clearly too broad a brush. Collective bargaining is useful if your needs are aligned with the collective, if not they may be at best unhelpful and at worst actively counter productive (for instance if you have some personal circumstance you wanted to negotiate beyond the terms of the agreement, rather than negotiating with a boss or two you now have to negotiate with your representative organization). Not to mention various forms of corruption that can take hold in such arrangements. I wonder if the rather abhorrent means of union busting has led to an extreme reaction of causing passer bys to take a cartoonish slant, as though unions can only do good in the world and only if they can overcome evil corporate interest. Unions have some clear advantages, but are far from a panacea of aligning interests for all parties. This seems to me to be yet another fault line on which propagandists at the dials have managed to convince people to coalesce into tribes strong enough to use absolutist language where nuance is required.
    - Aissen 4y ago
      > for instance if you have some personal circumstance you wanted to negotiate beyond the terms of the agreement, rather than negotiating with a boss or two you now have to negotiate with your representative organization Why ? I don't think unions forbid any direct negotiation. Or this is a US-thing ?
      - chronofar 4y ago
        I would imagine it's dependent on the specifics of the agreement, but as I understand it yes it would not be at all uncommon for the union to have incentive to stipulate members cannot negotiate outside of the union terms.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      Sure, I agree with you, there are nuances. But it's also quite clear individual workers benefit from unionizing almost always. Corporations are large and have an enormous advantage in negotiation with a single, replaceable worker.
      - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
djbebs 4y ago
I would never join a union.
- Closi 4y ago
  What's your job if you don't mind me asking? "I would never join a union" is a pretty easy thing to say if you are in a job with decent pay, a labour market that wants your skills, and have reasonably good working conditions.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    Maybe he's "Burt at OK4" ;) (for context https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56581266 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56581266 Amazon was/is? hiring people to pretend they're happy employees on social media)
  - 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
    >What's your job if you don't mind me asking? Amazon warehouse manager.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  Isn't that irrational? If the union provides you with benefits, why would you not join?
  - DannyBee 4y ago
    Because there are plenty of times they make things worse? Let's assume the absolute best of intent, no corruption, etc. There is some good, of course. I won't deny this. I'm not going to talk about the upside, but please don't whataboutism me simply because i'm going to talk about the downsides - you asked whether it is irrational. It is no more irrational than any other moral/ethical/etc viewpoint that someone chooses over a financial one. I am plenty aware of the history and good they have done, and the horrible labor practices they helped put an end to. I just do not happen to be an ends justify means kind of person. their are a few countries where union equivalents have an explicit goal/requirements/etc around societal good - i have no issues there, the rest of this is about the ones that don't. For unions, overall, their goal is not to help society, it is to protect and help their members. They have no duty to society whatsoever. In the extreme, that ends up bad for anyone not their members. That is, they do everything they can only to get their members more money, more benefits, protect their jobs, etc. This sort of thing comes at a cost too. So they make it harder to fire bad cops, bad teachers, etc. When a municipality or state would be bankrupted by paying pensions, the unions will force them into bankruptcy at a cost to everyone else. The unions will first force them to raise pensions, too, to unpayable levels. The state/municipality has essentially no practical power against its workforce in that situation, so it agrees, again, at a cost to everyone else. The unions of course, do not care about the consequences for anyone else. They want it paid anyway. I have no issue with pushing for a living wage, etc. But again, it's for their members, not for everyone, except where they believe it will generate more union membership. So sum total, they do not care about anyone else. Literally. It's not their job. This is awesome for their members. Horrible for everyone else. So no, it's not irrational. Not everyone wants to group themselves with organizations designed to literally not care about anyone else. Follow the US-style unions to their logical extreme - everyone in society in is a union, divided by job. Yay!? I think that ends very badly for society - you really think the unions won't paint other jobs/unions/etc as the enemy? They do in plenty of cases already! So - i think it will end up the same sort of strong polarization/hate that exists across political affiliation, but across jobs instead. Great.
dementiapatie 4y ago
- viraptor 4y ago
  Both the highest and lowest performing co-worker have some shared needs and goals. The article mentions a few of them (for example toilet break time and respecting safety protocols). Keep in mind that the highest performing person is one minor injury away from being below average for a very long time.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Could you please elaborate in what way exactly the union "binds you to lowest performing co-worker"? As it stands your accusation is both vague and a classic anti-union scaremongering buzzword.
  - hourago 4y ago
    Propaganda seems to work, then.
  - Jhjjjjjjjj 4y ago
    The lowest performing worker gets paid the same as a high performing one. Not very difficult to understand his point
    - andrepd 4y ago
      How does collective bargaining imply uniformisation of pay? I still don't see the connection.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    No the op, but as I've mentioned before: 1. I 100% support unions in general and in principle; and 100% support their causes 2. All (every.single.one) unions I've actually personally seen or experienced, in North America, in real life, absolutely were about lowest common denominator. All unions I've witnessed were solely about seniority. Merit, hard work, initiative, skills, etc were simply not in the contract / not relevant / not a consideration in any sense. Best performing / hardest working, and worst performing person are paid exactly the same, if they are at the same seniority level. So in the most obvious sense you tie yourself to the lowest performing worker. I have literally, literally seen a person competent to operate a machine, replaced by union with a person not trained to operate machine, because of seniority. It was something out of Kafkian Monty Python but it happens frequently. All unions I've witnessed spent majority of their time, energy and credit fighting for the lowest performing worker. And not in the emotional movie starring Will Smith poor downtrodden worker. No, I mean poop on the factory floor, come to work drunk, then not come to work, then lather rinse repeat, for months. And I mean every one of those words literally, and no it was not a "friend of a cousin of a brother of a guy". It is extremely damaging for the morale of any good worker, and for the relationship with management/business, when union behaves like that. You don't feel like they're a partner, you don't feel they have your best interests in mind. The slightly more office oriented unions I've witnessed were still suicidal, in the sense that they never ever ever looked at business and the market; they'll strike for a month to get them something that'll close the business in a year. So, I fully understand that I am lucky, privileged, and have the absolute luxury to not need a union right now. I fully understand that may change and I may be having short sighted perspectives. I firmly believe unions can be a necessary force for good. I fully agree that if you're in a Amazon warehouse today, you probably darn tootin' well want to be unionized. But I also fully understand how somebody might not be 100% ready to sign "Yes" even without fear mongering and propaganda and bullying, i.e. for legitimate personal and general reasons. In my mind it's still a different kind of propaganda / blindness to believe that every vote for No is because of intimidation (and let's not forget unions can and do intimidate in their own way. Try to cross a striking line or fight for meritocracy or against seniority or not toe the union line and see how long the smiles last. It's ultimately just another kind of bureaucracy / social institution with its own life and rules). Not everybody who wants to have a meaningful discussion and present/is aware of multiple sides to an issue, is "classic anti-union scaremongering".
meatsauce 4y ago
Why do leftists believe they have the right to tell others what their interests are?
- ok123456 4y ago
  The have an interest in not being given demerits for using the bathroom (aka: "time off task")
  - meatsauce 4y ago
    That still doesn't answer the question. Nor does it address the issue of people who abuse policies, such as those who hide in the bathroom for 1/8th of the shift. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Unions had served a good purpose, but in no way do they serve the interests of everybody, especially in modern society given labor laws. My experience in several unions only demonstrated how corrupt, inept, and self-serving they are.
    - ok123456 4y ago
      Yes it does. They have specific material concerns and concerns about their working conditions that aren't being addressed. We're returning to the 19th century it seems with worker protections being eroded. It makes sense that Unionization would make a comeback.
- jahnu 4y ago
  We all have the right to discuss our opinion of what is best for each other. The OP there isn't arguing for taking away the right of someone to decide.
- andrepd 4y ago
  As the other other poster says: whatever those interests are, you cannot fight for them alone vs a trillion dollar corp like Amazon, so that point is moot. Collective action is the only way you stand a chance.
  - 4y ago
user3939382 4y ago
Some vote no because they fear retaliation if the vote fails.
- Jhjjjjjjjj 4y ago
  Or they fear Amazon leaving
  - nomel 4y ago
    Which isn't unprecidented (albeit, different context): https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amazon-reveals-the-truth-on-why-it-nixed-ny-and-chose-virginia-for-hq2.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amazon-reveals-the-truth-on-...
kilotaras 4y ago
> Even in the successful vote, there were still a lot of "no" votes. I'm gonna steelman those no votes. BigCos don't like unions to the point they can and sometimes do close the place/warehouse alltogether. This is worse than working in non-union shop, especially in economically depressed area.
- verve_rat 4y ago
  Or, you know, you could have sane laws that make that kind of behaviour illegal.
  - Xylakant 4y ago
    Germany in theory has laws against that. But this still happens - the problem is that you can’t just make “close warehouse” illegal and then things come down to what you can and cannot prove about the motivations of the company. And that’s often hard.
    - verve_rat 4y ago
      Sure, nothing is perfect. But it is about raising the cost and uncertainty of the bad action.
      - Xylakant 4y ago
        Definitely, I agree with you. Some protection is better than none, but this is a very hard goal to achieve. Fundamentally, I believe that the goal can only be achieved by normalizing unions - if you know that there‘s a high chance the next warehouse you open will unionize as well, the gamble becomes unattractive fast.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  Every Amazon warehouse that unionizes make it less possible to close a given warehouse to snuff out a budding union. Amazon is spending millions on union-busting lawyers. From the article, workers had to go to mandatory anti-union classes, which is pretty funny coming from a company where you could get written up for "time off task" by taking a bathroom break. The propaganda the company is pushing is that the company and the workers are working together. They are not. Those workers are being exploited. Bezos considered turnover desirable.
Jhjjjjjjjj 4y ago
How is it in their interest when Amazon shuts that factory?
5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
Yes, but you could buy an Xbox for the same cost as your union fees :) https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/2019/05/11/join-a-union-or-buy-an-xbox-deltas-ant-union-campaign-inspires-a-twitter-backlash/ https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/2019/05/11/join-a-union-or-bu...
LatteLazy 4y ago
That really depends what the unions demands are and whether a worker thinks they are achievable or desirable. That's going to vary from location to location and from worker to worker. AFAIK, Amazon pays better than competitors assuming you can meet the work rates. If you can, you may well think that even higher pay is unlikely. And if the union is directly seeking things you are NOT willing to risk your job for (political campaigns for instance do nothing for me) then again, why vote yes?
ETH_start 4y ago
[flagged]
stewx 4y ago
Reminder that this article is about Canada, where these workers already have maternity leave and health insurance paid for by the public.
- fundad 4y ago
  What’s they do, strike oil?
sha256sum 4y ago
>get 2 weeks vacation? I had to laugh at this one. When I worked construction plumbing (non-union, "free-to-work" state), I received 0 days vacation and 2 days of sick pay per year. You're saying this is a testament to the effectiveness of the propaganda and I'll back that up, anecdotally, having worked around those very people that vote against their own interests. I was even rejected from taking two weeks off when my son was born. Needless to say I was there for his birth and his first few months, but some that I worked with were not there for their children's first days.
- spacechild1 4y ago
  > When I worked construction plumbing (non-union, "free-to-work" state), I received 0 days vacation and 2 days of sick pay per year. That's just crazy! Meanwhile here in Austria employees have a legal right to 5 weeks of paid vacation...
jcims 4y ago
>get people to vote against their own interests. This is one of the most obnoxious terms I see in contemporary political dialogue. It's presumptuous, it's elitist, it's a thinly veiled way to say 'these people are too stupid to know what's good for them'.
- mojzu 4y ago
  I think that's an unfair characterisation, I doubt most people making the statement are arguing that people are stupid, but more often that they have been lied to/duped by people seeking to use their support for policies they might otherwise disagree with or vice versa. E.g. people who rail against Obamacare in one sentence and praise the affordable care act in the next are not inherently stupid, they have more likely just been repeatedly lied to/misled
spacechild1 4y ago
Why the hell is this flagged?

by jmyeet 4y ago

fallingknife 4y ago

Or maybe it's you who has fallen for propaganda. I think it's most likely that they know their own interests better than you do.

geysersam 4y ago
Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. Not organizing only makes your interests irrelevant. That can hardly be in anyones own interests.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. For example, say you're a talented younger worker and the majority of the union votes for pay by seniority, that's going against your interests.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    Being in the union means you have a chance to influence those kinds of decisions.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Join a union so that you can fail to stop a change you never wanted in the first place? Why would you want to do that?
    - shuckles 4y ago
      Is it actually true that most people feel efficacy over their union’s policies? The only unions I’ve been involved with or heard of where fairly indifferent to most of their members’ preferences.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      Being in a democracy means you have a chance to influence the decisions, yet you end up with decisions not only you as a minority don't like, but even you as a majority don't like.
- meatsauce 4y ago
  - red_trumpet 4y ago
    He did not really define the interests of other people. What kind of interests could one have, that are contrary to forming a union?
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Very concrete example - in the UK most unions support one particular political party. If you don't like some of the positions of that party - for example you support the Greens or you’re a Liberal, or don't like what Labour did during the wars, or hated Corbyn, or hate Starmer - then you might find it offensive to join a union that campaigns for Labour.
      - martimarkov 4y ago
        A more concrete example - in the UK the unions support Labour on the basis of workers rights, that is to say a part of their program. If Labour tomorrow say - we don't care about worker rights and want to remove the minimal wage - they will get 0 support from the unions. Just because you have alignment with someone does not mean it's all or nothing and you agree with everything. By that logic we need 60mil ppl in the House as everyone will have their own views. + being in a union is not the same as supporting a political party. The unions didn't go around and say: "This war... Best thing ever! Everyone - support it pls" at least AFAIK - happy to be proven wrong
- indigochill 4y ago
  I realize mine is not necessarily a majority experience, but as a young single no-debt high-performing worker, I can negotiate a lot more effectively by myself than I could in a union because I can argue purely on my own merits and if the employer is unreasonable (and not all are) it's fairly easy for me to switch employers. I even moved to a different country early in my career for a better career opportunity. So no, unions are not in my personal interest. Though as I said, I can appreciate there are others who are less mobile or less inclined to negotiate as aggressively for whatever reason for whom they are useful. As long as unions don't get in my way (e.g. by mafia-style locking down an industry I want to work in) then I have no problem with them.
  - stefan_ 4y ago
    You think there are Amazon warehouse workers negotiating? You know this isn't really a full-day interview process, get to know the team kinda job right.
  - martimarkov 4y ago
    You can still negotiate and be in a union. Nobody takes that away from you. The union negotiates minimal conditions for all like minimal wage. You are a top performer - go the exact route you've described - nobody will stop you. It can work or not as you've said and the solution would be to find a new job.
    - junofan 4y ago
      In the US I believe there is no direct dealing, though I may be mistaken. Not sure about Canada. Presumably unions work differently (and likely better) in your country.
    - NikolaNovak 4y ago
      This is 100%, extremely, dangerously, completely, utterly not the case in any North American union I've witnessed in North America. (it probably explains why it is difficult to have meaningful conversations and everybody attacks each other, if we have such radically different experiences and knowledge of union laws and procedures) FWIW, from my experience, In North America, it is the whole point of a union that "everybody gets the same" --> pay scale in particular. To make it explicit - if I'm in a union, I know EXACTLY how much anybody in any particular position makes. I can look it up in the pay scale table. I know how much my teacher cousin makes, I know how much my government friend makes, I know how much anybody at my brother-in-law's factory makes, by looking at the pay scale table. I would be eager to hear about other countries. Maybe unions are different in Europe or Asia or Africa etc. As I indicated above in a more detailed post, I am 100% supportive of unions in general, and have had 100% negative experience in North American unions in particular.
- chronofar 4y ago
  That is clearly too broad a brush. Collective bargaining is useful if your needs are aligned with the collective, if not they may be at best unhelpful and at worst actively counter productive (for instance if you have some personal circumstance you wanted to negotiate beyond the terms of the agreement, rather than negotiating with a boss or two you now have to negotiate with your representative organization). Not to mention various forms of corruption that can take hold in such arrangements. I wonder if the rather abhorrent means of union busting has led to an extreme reaction of causing passer bys to take a cartoonish slant, as though unions can only do good in the world and only if they can overcome evil corporate interest. Unions have some clear advantages, but are far from a panacea of aligning interests for all parties. This seems to me to be yet another fault line on which propagandists at the dials have managed to convince people to coalesce into tribes strong enough to use absolutist language where nuance is required.
  - Aissen 4y ago
    > for instance if you have some personal circumstance you wanted to negotiate beyond the terms of the agreement, rather than negotiating with a boss or two you now have to negotiate with your representative organization Why ? I don't think unions forbid any direct negotiation. Or this is a US-thing ?
    - chronofar 4y ago
      I would imagine it's dependent on the specifics of the agreement, but as I understand it yes it would not be at all uncommon for the union to have incentive to stipulate members cannot negotiate outside of the union terms.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    Sure, I agree with you, there are nuances. But it's also quite clear individual workers benefit from unionizing almost always. Corporations are large and have an enormous advantage in negotiation with a single, replaceable worker.
    - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

djbebs 4y ago

I would never join a union.

Closi 4y ago
What's your job if you don't mind me asking? "I would never join a union" is a pretty easy thing to say if you are in a job with decent pay, a labour market that wants your skills, and have reasonably good working conditions.
- viraptor 4y ago
  Maybe he's "Burt at OK4" ;) (for context https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56581266 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56581266 Amazon was/is? hiring people to pretend they're happy employees on social media)
- 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
  >What's your job if you don't mind me asking? Amazon warehouse manager.
red_trumpet 4y ago
Isn't that irrational? If the union provides you with benefits, why would you not join?
- DannyBee 4y ago
  Because there are plenty of times they make things worse? Let's assume the absolute best of intent, no corruption, etc. There is some good, of course. I won't deny this. I'm not going to talk about the upside, but please don't whataboutism me simply because i'm going to talk about the downsides - you asked whether it is irrational. It is no more irrational than any other moral/ethical/etc viewpoint that someone chooses over a financial one. I am plenty aware of the history and good they have done, and the horrible labor practices they helped put an end to. I just do not happen to be an ends justify means kind of person. their are a few countries where union equivalents have an explicit goal/requirements/etc around societal good - i have no issues there, the rest of this is about the ones that don't. For unions, overall, their goal is not to help society, it is to protect and help their members. They have no duty to society whatsoever. In the extreme, that ends up bad for anyone not their members. That is, they do everything they can only to get their members more money, more benefits, protect their jobs, etc. This sort of thing comes at a cost too. So they make it harder to fire bad cops, bad teachers, etc. When a municipality or state would be bankrupted by paying pensions, the unions will force them into bankruptcy at a cost to everyone else. The unions will first force them to raise pensions, too, to unpayable levels. The state/municipality has essentially no practical power against its workforce in that situation, so it agrees, again, at a cost to everyone else. The unions of course, do not care about the consequences for anyone else. They want it paid anyway. I have no issue with pushing for a living wage, etc. But again, it's for their members, not for everyone, except where they believe it will generate more union membership. So sum total, they do not care about anyone else. Literally. It's not their job. This is awesome for their members. Horrible for everyone else. So no, it's not irrational. Not everyone wants to group themselves with organizations designed to literally not care about anyone else. Follow the US-style unions to their logical extreme - everyone in society in is a union, divided by job. Yay!? I think that ends very badly for society - you really think the unions won't paint other jobs/unions/etc as the enemy? They do in plenty of cases already! So - i think it will end up the same sort of strong polarization/hate that exists across political affiliation, but across jobs instead. Great.

dementiapatie 4y ago

viraptor 4y ago
Both the highest and lowest performing co-worker have some shared needs and goals. The article mentions a few of them (for example toilet break time and respecting safety protocols). Keep in mind that the highest performing person is one minor injury away from being below average for a very long time.
andrepd 4y ago
Could you please elaborate in what way exactly the union "binds you to lowest performing co-worker"? As it stands your accusation is both vague and a classic anti-union scaremongering buzzword.
- hourago 4y ago
  Propaganda seems to work, then.
- Jhjjjjjjjj 4y ago
  The lowest performing worker gets paid the same as a high performing one. Not very difficult to understand his point
  - andrepd 4y ago
    How does collective bargaining imply uniformisation of pay? I still don't see the connection.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  No the op, but as I've mentioned before: 1. I 100% support unions in general and in principle; and 100% support their causes 2. All (every.single.one) unions I've actually personally seen or experienced, in North America, in real life, absolutely were about lowest common denominator. All unions I've witnessed were solely about seniority. Merit, hard work, initiative, skills, etc were simply not in the contract / not relevant / not a consideration in any sense. Best performing / hardest working, and worst performing person are paid exactly the same, if they are at the same seniority level. So in the most obvious sense you tie yourself to the lowest performing worker. I have literally, literally seen a person competent to operate a machine, replaced by union with a person not trained to operate machine, because of seniority. It was something out of Kafkian Monty Python but it happens frequently. All unions I've witnessed spent majority of their time, energy and credit fighting for the lowest performing worker. And not in the emotional movie starring Will Smith poor downtrodden worker. No, I mean poop on the factory floor, come to work drunk, then not come to work, then lather rinse repeat, for months. And I mean every one of those words literally, and no it was not a "friend of a cousin of a brother of a guy". It is extremely damaging for the morale of any good worker, and for the relationship with management/business, when union behaves like that. You don't feel like they're a partner, you don't feel they have your best interests in mind. The slightly more office oriented unions I've witnessed were still suicidal, in the sense that they never ever ever looked at business and the market; they'll strike for a month to get them something that'll close the business in a year. So, I fully understand that I am lucky, privileged, and have the absolute luxury to not need a union right now. I fully understand that may change and I may be having short sighted perspectives. I firmly believe unions can be a necessary force for good. I fully agree that if you're in a Amazon warehouse today, you probably darn tootin' well want to be unionized. But I also fully understand how somebody might not be 100% ready to sign "Yes" even without fear mongering and propaganda and bullying, i.e. for legitimate personal and general reasons. In my mind it's still a different kind of propaganda / blindness to believe that every vote for No is because of intimidation (and let's not forget unions can and do intimidate in their own way. Try to cross a striking line or fight for meritocracy or against seniority or not toe the union line and see how long the smiles last. It's ultimately just another kind of bureaucracy / social institution with its own life and rules). Not everybody who wants to have a meaningful discussion and present/is aware of multiple sides to an issue, is "classic anti-union scaremongering".

meatsauce 4y ago

Why do leftists believe they have the right to tell others what their interests are?

ok123456 4y ago
The have an interest in not being given demerits for using the bathroom (aka: "time off task")
- meatsauce 4y ago
  That still doesn't answer the question. Nor does it address the issue of people who abuse policies, such as those who hide in the bathroom for 1/8th of the shift. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Unions had served a good purpose, but in no way do they serve the interests of everybody, especially in modern society given labor laws. My experience in several unions only demonstrated how corrupt, inept, and self-serving they are.
  - ok123456 4y ago
    Yes it does. They have specific material concerns and concerns about their working conditions that aren't being addressed. We're returning to the 19th century it seems with worker protections being eroded. It makes sense that Unionization would make a comeback.
jahnu 4y ago
We all have the right to discuss our opinion of what is best for each other. The OP there isn't arguing for taking away the right of someone to decide.
andrepd 4y ago
As the other other poster says: whatever those interests are, you cannot fight for them alone vs a trillion dollar corp like Amazon, so that point is moot. Collective action is the only way you stand a chance.
- 4y ago

user3939382 4y ago

Some vote no because they fear retaliation if the vote fails.

Jhjjjjjjjj 4y ago
Or they fear Amazon leaving
- nomel 4y ago
  Which isn't unprecidented (albeit, different context): https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amazon-reveals-the-truth-on-why-it-nixed-ny-and-chose-virginia-for-hq2.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amazon-reveals-the-truth-on-...

kilotaras 4y ago

> Even in the successful vote, there were still a lot of "no" votes. I'm gonna steelman those no votes. BigCos don't like unions to the point they can and sometimes do close the place/warehouse alltogether. This is worse than working in non-union shop, especially in economically depressed area.

verve_rat 4y ago
Or, you know, you could have sane laws that make that kind of behaviour illegal.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  Germany in theory has laws against that. But this still happens - the problem is that you can’t just make “close warehouse” illegal and then things come down to what you can and cannot prove about the motivations of the company. And that’s often hard.
  - verve_rat 4y ago
    Sure, nothing is perfect. But it is about raising the cost and uncertainty of the bad action.
    - Xylakant 4y ago
      Definitely, I agree with you. Some protection is better than none, but this is a very hard goal to achieve. Fundamentally, I believe that the goal can only be achieved by normalizing unions - if you know that there‘s a high chance the next warehouse you open will unionize as well, the gamble becomes unattractive fast.
jmyeet 4y ago
Every Amazon warehouse that unionizes make it less possible to close a given warehouse to snuff out a budding union. Amazon is spending millions on union-busting lawyers. From the article, workers had to go to mandatory anti-union classes, which is pretty funny coming from a company where you could get written up for "time off task" by taking a bathroom break. The propaganda the company is pushing is that the company and the workers are working together. They are not. Those workers are being exploited. Bezos considered turnover desirable.

Jhjjjjjjjj 4y ago

How is it in their interest when Amazon shuts that factory?

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago

Yes, but you could buy an Xbox for the same cost as your union fees :) https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/2019/05/11/join-a-union-or-buy-an-xbox-deltas-ant-union-campaign-inspires-a-twitter-backlash/ https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/2019/05/11/join-a-union-or-bu...

LatteLazy 4y ago

That really depends what the unions demands are and whether a worker thinks they are achievable or desirable. That's going to vary from location to location and from worker to worker. AFAIK, Amazon pays better than competitors assuming you can meet the work rates. If you can, you may well think that even higher pay is unlikely. And if the union is directly seeking things you are NOT willing to risk your job for (political campaigns for instance do nothing for me) then again, why vote yes?

ETH_start 4y ago

[flagged]

stewx 4y ago

Reminder that this article is about Canada, where these workers already have maternity leave and health insurance paid for by the public.

fundad 4y ago
What’s they do, strike oil?

sha256sum 4y ago

>get 2 weeks vacation? I had to laugh at this one. When I worked construction plumbing (non-union, "free-to-work" state), I received 0 days vacation and 2 days of sick pay per year. You're saying this is a testament to the effectiveness of the propaganda and I'll back that up, anecdotally, having worked around those very people that vote against their own interests. I was even rejected from taking two weeks off when my son was born. Needless to say I was there for his birth and his first few months, but some that I worked with were not there for their children's first days.

spacechild1 4y ago
> When I worked construction plumbing (non-union, "free-to-work" state), I received 0 days vacation and 2 days of sick pay per year. That's just crazy! Meanwhile here in Austria employees have a legal right to 5 weeks of paid vacation...

jcims 4y ago

>get people to vote against their own interests. This is one of the most obnoxious terms I see in contemporary political dialogue. It's presumptuous, it's elitist, it's a thinly veiled way to say 'these people are too stupid to know what's good for them'.

mojzu 4y ago
I think that's an unfair characterisation, I doubt most people making the statement are arguing that people are stupid, but more often that they have been lied to/duped by people seeking to use their support for policies they might otherwise disagree with or vice versa. E.g. people who rail against Obamacare in one sentence and praise the affordable care act in the next are not inherently stupid, they have more likely just been repeatedly lied to/misled

spacechild1 4y ago

Why the hell is this flagged?