25 ms·
Leaked memo reveals Amazon’s plans to combat the Teamsters in California
- JamesBarney 4y agoThis article is both too cynical and yet not cynical enough. Of course Amazon is doing good not out of the goodness of it's heart but for good PR. This is true of literally every large corporation. But that doesn't mean the good they do isn't good. The way they are "neutralizing" them with ex inmates and vulnerable students is they're making a special effort to hire ex-inmates and underprivileged students.
- Cyberdog 4y agoOn a parallel Earth, Vox has published an article praising Amazon to the high heavens for hiring felons and troubled youth. Nobody wants to hire ex-convicts, yet when they have nothing to lose (like a decent job) they're at far greater risk for recidivism. It's a bummer for the union people, I suppose, but as someone greatly concerned with how our society shows no shame in blatant classism with regards to ex-cons, I really wish Amazon the best with this program and hope it quickly spreads to other companies as well. That their reasons for doing so are not entirely altruistic just doesn't worry me in this particular case.
- huetius 4y agoI totally agree with you about our society’s mistreatment of people who have paid their debts, but I’m not sure I like what Amazon is doing here. It smacks of using people: treating them like props in order to secure private gain.
- civilized 4y ago> It smacks of using people Work is fundamentally transactional. Those for whom it is more than that are lucky. > treating them like props in order to secure private gain I worry about moralizing on behalf of the marginalized. They should be asked whether they'd prefer the option to have the work.
- huetius 4y agoRespectfully, I disagree with the postulate that there is no possibility of solidarity with “the marginalized”, and think this is a good example of why. When you say ask “them,” who do you mean? Ex-convicts, Amazon workers, teamsters, some combination of these, or what? And who are you going to listen to when people (inevitably, even within the same faction) disagree? I think that what this approach does is renders ethical discussions impossible. By denying the possibility of a common rationality in which moral questions can be weighed, ethics is reduced into a collision of interests, and the unsurprising result is that nothing can happen without the approval of the strongest party in the conflict. See Occupy Wall Street for another example of this principle in action.
- civilized 4y agoI see what you're saying. I think the moral thing here is to beat them at their own game. Presumably any ex-cons hired by Amazon can be brought on board as union members just as well as anyone else.
- slt2021 4y ago>> I worry about moralizing on behalf of the marginalized. They should be asked whether they'd prefer the option to have the work. perfect quote! Nothing else really needs to be said. People who oppose Amazon - I want to see you guys giving thousands jobs to convicts, before criticizing Amazon. Thank you. Talk is cheap
- Cyberdog 4y agoYes, well, such is the case with the Dave Thomas Foundation, Ronald McDonald House, Product RED… Any good they do is all with the bottom line in mind. Meanwhile, the felon who gets a $15+/hour gig in an Amazon warehouse during the hardest time in their life, when no other employer in town will give them the time of day and the urges to fall back into those bad habits are creeping in, is probably not going to care much about being "used."
- huetius 4y agoWe’re talking about plan to subvert unions. It is one thing to do something that is both good for me and also good for others. It is quite another to do something ostensibly good, but with the ulterior intention of preventing the good of another.
- JamesBarney 4y agoWhy is hiring felons and underprivileged youth ostensibly good and not just good?
- t-3 4y agoThe felons and underprivileged youths don't pay the salaries of union bureaucrats or provide leverage for those bureaucrats to get kickbacks from management. Obviously, that's just not right!
- Cyberdog 4y agoGiving a job to an ex-con is both good for the ex-con and good for others, as giving the ex-con something to live for greatly reduces the chance that they will return to antisocial behavior. As a non-Teamster, I'm not really sure what good is done for me if a Teamster gets a job, or what harm is done to me if they don't. Frankly, the more this idea is being discussed here, the more I'm hoping Amazon hires as many ex-cons as possible and if that means completely busting any union activity in their company in perpetuity, so be it.
- 4y ago
- ipaddr 4y agoHave you ever worked for a large corporation? Everyone is a prop and replaceable.
- huetius 4y agoSo one should stay quiet? And yes. Both at the very bottom and close to the top.
- stuaxo 4y agoIndeed, if this much union activity causes some good, then more union activity can do more.
- danielscrubs 4y agoIf we say that four percent has to be unemployed, who would you choose to be unemployed in the rat race that is life? Just to turn the discussion into something productive.
- whatshisface 4y agoThat is not how fixed unemployment works, the cause of fixed unemployment is people who are in the process of switching between jobs. Permanently unemployed people would reduce labor force participation, not employment as it is measured.
- danielscrubs 4y agoOnly if they are not actively searching for a job. OECDs definition: “ The unemployed are people of working age who are _without work_ , are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work.” This number for the year was around 4.7. Labor force participation would decrease when people retire or never needed to work in the first place. But I understand your point, it includes some people that will easily get a job but don’t have a job currently.
- whatshisface 4y agoSince people who have given up looking for work do not count towards the measured unemployment rate (and more to the point are not part of the concept of minimum unemployment), ex-cons are not a part of that notional 4%.
- danielscrubs 4y agoBut the ones in the article did search :)
- Cyberdog 4y agoThose who have enough wealth that they don't need employment to live comfortably. Not sure what this has to do with my post unless you were trying to argue that it's fine for ex-cons to be perpetually among the unemployed; in that case, the idea of our "corrections systems" helping people who do anti-social behavior become productive members of society again is even more of a sham that it already is, so why don't we just go ahead and give all felons the chair? Is the discussion not productive already?
- guipsp 4y ago(because they can pay them less)
- philjohn 4y agoAnd they are less likely to kick up a fuss about poor working conditions when the alternative is no job at all as nobody else wants to hire them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- CSMastermind 4y agoI really dislike sensationalized headlines like this. A more accurate one might say: > Amazon's plan to counter pressure from the Teamsters Union focuses on investing in non-profits. For those who didn't read the article: A leaked Amazon memo shows that the Teamsters Union is effectively putting pressure on Amazon by convincing its members to pressure politicians into not granting Amazon tax breaks, land grants, etc. Amazon is worried that this represents a real threat to expansion as having local politicians turn against them will almost certainly mean their competitors like UPS (who is friendly with the Teamsters) will outcompete them. So, Amazon is going to invest in local charities like those for ex-convicts and low-income students. This has two purposes: 1. Give politicians an excuse to give Amazon tax breaks (look at what they invest in the community). 2. Build positive sentiment with local members who will talk to politicians on Amazon's behalf. They'll be especially motivated to if Amazon threatens to pull funding from their non-profits.
- c3534l 4y agoSensationalized? This is disinformation.
- stonogo 4y ago"Disinformation" that uses the exact phrasing from the Amazon document?
- marginalia_nu 4y agoYou can absolutely misrepresent what someone is saying by using quotes out of context.
- mechanical_bear 4y agoExcept it is not.
- dave_sullivan 4y agoThey will spend money on literally anything else except wage increases.
- dahdum 4y agoAnyone hiring ex-inmates in large numbers is doing society a great benefit, whether it’s altruism, PR, or both hardly matters to me. It’s not easy managing that cohort and few businesses are even willing to try. Many of those that are have worse work conditions. I’m 100% on board for tax cuts or subsidies for businesses who keep the formerly incarcerated employed.
- vintermann 4y agoAltruism and PR aren't the only options. If the explanation is "they'll be less likely to dare to ask for better treatment" then I think that's a problem.
- parineum 4y agoAnd that's everyone but Amazon's fault, in this case.
- jtode 4y agoThe people who contribute daily to making our society that way are all indeed culpable. However, the people who opportunistically turn a profit from society being that way are the worst of that collection of people.
- stale2002 4y ago
- deadbolt 4y agoSource on jtode wanting to "take away these people's jobs"?
- stale2002 4y agoIf the other person wants to say "Yes, I am totally glad that Amazon gave these people jobs, and Amazon is good for doing that, and I take back my statement where I attack amazon, for profiting, by giving people these jobs", then that would be great. But if they are unwilling to explicitly say that amazon giving these people these jobs is a good thing, then I think that says a lot. Specifically, they should say, it is a good thing for amazon to "opportunistically". give these people those jobs, instead of saying that this "opportunistic" behavior of giving people those jobs is bad.
- kcplate 4y agoSo apparently “neutralize” is the big bad trigger word here despite this quote? > Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien told Recode in July that his union is intent on “disrupting [Amazon’s] network until they get to a point where they surrender
- zugi 4y ago
- hospadar 4y agoDo you honestly believe that Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest people on the planet, who just shot himself into space on a private rocket, is worried about his personal safety because of the president of the teamsters?
- zugi 4y agoUh, no I do not, it just seemed like a relevant movie reference...
- educaysean 4y agoI think it's more subtle than that. I personally interpreted the tone of the headline to be hinting at something much more nefarious than "Amazon plans to hire ex-inmates to fight off union influence", and it looks like I wasn't alone. It's a terrible headline that doesn't do a good job of summarizing the key point of the article. A more cynical person than myself might even throw around the term clickbait.
- kcplate 4y agoHeadline was definitely clickbait, but practically every headline is nowadays. It was written specifically to throw shade at Amazon. Although in my reading Amazon came off a whole lot better than than the union, but I’m a pragmatist and always feel like the effects are always more important than intent. If Amazon is hiring ex-inmates, no matter the intent, that is a positive thing from perspective.
- stevenjgarner 4y agoNext time you're at a union meeting, ask them about any boxes they own at sports stadiums. Ask if you as a paid union member can use the box that you are paying for with your dues.
- jjeaff 4y agoWhile I don't like things like luxury boxes for the big wigs, a union exec would have the same justification as any business exec would. In fact, a union exec might have even more justification as I can imagine nearly their entire job is schmoozing executives and politicians.
- stevenjgarner 4y agoAn even better opportunity for the executives and politicians being schmoozed to meet a real dues-paying union worker.
- bpodgursky 4y agoYou could make the same argument about bags of coke and keeping hookers on retainer. At a point you need to draw the line admit what is simply corruption.
- hospadar 4y agoWhile you're at it ask your corporate boss if you can use his private jet since it is your labor making him wealthy after all. I'm sure he'll be very generous. I agree that powerful people aren't great but it seems ridiculous to imagine that union bosses are the worst offenders.
- mechanical_bear 4y agoI think what makes it uniquely terrible is that it comes from someone who claims to be for the little guy, and reeks of hypocrisy. The capitalist is pretty naked about their intent, etc
- 4y ago
- zugi 4y agoI read the article expecting to see terrible actions by Amazon fighting the union. Instead the article was about the Teamsters union convincing local governments to block Amazon from opening buildings, and Amazon "fighting back" by increasing their hiring of needy ex-cons and minorities from local colleges, ending their marijuana drug tests, and otherwise working to ingratiate themselves with their comminities. The Teamsters don't come out looking like the good guys...
- dotopotoro 4y agoThey seem to be very positive influence on amzn
- zugi 4y agoNice, that's a good way to look at it!
- mechanical_bear 4y ago> The Teamsters don't come out looking like the good guys... This is often the case.
- mjthrowaway1 4y agoNo need to downvote this. Long history of documented corruption.
- garyfirestorm 4y agoAdd UAW to that list.
- panny 4y ago>I read the article expecting to see terrible actions by Amazon fighting the union. >Instead the article was about Yeah, it's a bait and switch designed to attract Amazon haters with the headline and then convince them Amazon is the good guy in the content. Seems like it worked really well based on comments here. I'm sure vox will be duely rewarded by their Amazon overlords.
- mrxd 4y agoI’m a huge supporters of unions, but Amazon has been very open about their opposition to unions. The fundamental argument for unions is that companies serve shareholders at the expense of workers. Opposing unions is some kind of shocking corporate malfeasance, it’s just the nature of capitalism.
- baskethead 4y agoPurposefully manipulative headlines like this are why I don't trust most articles from sources like vox. The headline is used in a way to make it seem like Amazon is targeting students that are vulnerable to them, meanwhile Amazon is targeting those that would benefit the most in society, because they are most vulnerable to economic issues, like ex-inmates and students. Vox is doing its best to manipulate their words to make things look as bad as possible. I wish there were a feature where I could automatically not see articles from certain content providers because they are so skewed and biased.
- 300bps 4y agoAn ad that locked the browser on my iPhone telling me I won various prizes lowered my trust of Vox as well.
- themitigating 4y agoThis headlines made me think (thought unlikely) that Amazon is hiring ex-cons and dropouts to beat the shit out of union organizers.
- imgabe 4y ago> higher than average injury rates We really need some kind of standard for how to present statistics in the news so that it’s not misleading. If you take a bunch of numbers and average them together some will be higher than the average and some will be lower (unless they’re all the same number), because that’s how averages work. What is the injury rate? How high is it? Is it an order of magnitude more? Is it one more than the average? Just making vague scary sounding statements like “higher than average“ is nothing but manipulation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Grim-444 4y agoHas Vox ever once published a single article that was positive or at least neutral about Amazon? Why do we allow such insanely biased media? Do people read Vox and think they're receiving an accurate depiction of reality? It's just hit piece after hit piece after hit piece. I guess you could try to argue that across hundreds of thousands / millions of employees and thousands of products the company never ever does anything worth praising or even worth neutral reporting, and every single thing the company does is evil, but I think we know that isn't remotely true.
- eropple 4y agoSo, setting aside that this article is actually low-key pretty positive for Amazon, let's assume you were correct in your read. You're asking why we allow "insanely biased" media? There's a whole amendment--the first one--about that. Heck, we don't take off the air people spouting replacement theory and backdoor-cheering the attempted overthrow of the duly elected government, and we're supposed to not allow media that throws a few bricks at one of the richest companies in the world?
- sha256sum 4y ago>Has Vox ever once published a single article that was positive or at least neutral about Amazon? Why does this matter. >Why do we allow such insanely biased media? Great question. You might want to start with all American media and their biases towards, for example, the military industrial complex over the last 70+ years. Why do we allow such insanely biased media? >Do people read Vox and think they're receiving an accurate depiction of reality? No, my guess is people read articles on Vox they find of interest, and don't base their depictions of reality on one outlet of news media, which sounds unhealthy. Do you do that?
- lobocinza 4y agoAre they using ex-inmates to harass unions and infiltrating students on unions? Nope. They are just hiring ex-inmates and students more which is a positive thing regardless of the motive. Being employed makes students and ex-inmates less vulnerable. Just skip the article.
- brahweh 4y agoThe article claims "around 80 percent of families with children in the LAUSD live at or below the poverty threshold". Click the source to find the actual quote, "about 80% of Los Angeles Unified students come from families living in poverty". These statements are clearly not interchangeable - a good reminder to take all statistics from pop journalism sites like this with a grain of salt.
- pfdietz 4y agoAmazon also burns through employees so quickly that they may be forced to resort to these sources. But they will burn through them as well.