3 ms·

There are things I don't want, and things I prioritise to get rid of. The fact that for amazon getting rid of unions is a priority, suggests that unions are eff

There are things I don't want, and things I prioritise to get rid of. The fact that for amazon getting rid of unions is a priority, suggests that unions are effective

roenxi 4y ago
Amazon sees the unions as a direct threat to their profits, but that doesn't mean that unions are effective. Amazon's profits going down doesn't guarantee that workers pay & conditions would go up. I think nearly everyone agrees that unions are going to have a negative impact on profits, that hasn't a point of contention in the debate.
- epups 4y ago
  And where do those profits go, when a union shows up, if not to better pay and work conditions?
  - randomdata 4y ago
    To downtime. The one and only lever a union brings is a withdrawal of services – i.e. strike. An employer won't take a union seriously until it has demonstrated that it will strike, so if it is more than a bluff among workers a strike is inevitable. This is also why unions have largely fallen out of fashion except in industries where the workers are well off. Unless you are wealthy enough to burden several months, if not years, without work striking isn't an option and thus the union becomes toothless.
    - epups 4y ago
      That's a bad take. Strikes are temporary, and have clear goals of increasing pay and work conditions. You talk as if a union is formed, then strikes indefinitely and hurts profits, then the business fails. Unions have "fallen out of fashion" in the US because there are not enough labor protections in place. Even now you hear of Starbucks and Amazon even going so far as hiring firms to do hit jobs on union leaders. If you think this is because they are afraid of downtime, rather than having to actually share more of their profits with workers, suit yourself.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        > You talk as if a union is formed, then strikes indefinitely and hurts profits, then the business fails. The original claim replied to was that profit would decline, not disappear... Talk about a bad take. > enough labor protections in place. That's the remainder of the story. Because labour laws have appeared over the decades and centuries, one doesn't have to forego financial stability to save their life like people once had to. Workers now become de facto members of the government union which has already negotiated minimum standards for all. That wasn't always the case. Those who are in a position to be able to walk away from an income for months at a time may hold on to eek out an ounce more, but it's simply not worth it to low paid workers who rely on a regular paycheque. The cost of losing a home and going hungry greatly outweighs any potential returns.
pyinstallwoes 4y ago
Damn right it's effective when you want to blackmail someone because you have extra time. If you were prioritizing your life then I came and tried to rob you, what would be the chance that you prioritize my angle of attack? Unions are literally built to prey on that cost that a company IS prioritized and by distracting it with legal hell it becomes slower and risks losing its position in the marketplace and thus potentially vulnerable to negoitations that are unfaorable because of exploiting what would otherwise be prioritization. Your example is just that the vampire sucked too much blood, and has a clear boundary of policy.
kennend3 4y ago
How much of the major auto bailouts years ago was the result of union rules? For decades they met union demands to avoid costly legal fights.. and in the end? this is rather old, but telling: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/09/2 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/09/2 Instead of restructure, the uion opted for bankruptcy? Way to "protect jobs"? "The company's attempt to buy more time failed after union leaders rejected a new restructuring plan that would have cut a fifth of the 19,000-strong workforce. The union said its members would have to be paid £70m in wages arrears before it would consider the proposals."
RHSeeger 4y ago
> The fact that for amazon getting rid of unions is a priority, suggests that unions are effective Well, it suggests that unions are effective at creating negative consequences for the company. Those consequences could be "more costly to do business because the employees are paid more"; in theory, a good outcome. They could also be "more costly to do business because it's not against the rules for someone to plug in the monitor in their office because all electronics must be handled by a certified union member" (which actually happens); in theory, a bad outcome. Not all "bad for the company" things are "good for the employees".

There are things I don't want, and things I prioritise to get rid of. The fact that for amazon getting rid of unions is a priority, suggests that unions are effective

roenxi 4y ago

Amazon sees the unions as a direct threat to their profits, but that doesn't mean that unions are effective. Amazon's profits going down doesn't guarantee that workers pay & conditions would go up. I think nearly everyone agrees that unions are going to have a negative impact on profits, that hasn't a point of contention in the debate.

epups 4y ago
And where do those profits go, when a union shows up, if not to better pay and work conditions?
- randomdata 4y ago
  To downtime. The one and only lever a union brings is a withdrawal of services – i.e. strike. An employer won't take a union seriously until it has demonstrated that it will strike, so if it is more than a bluff among workers a strike is inevitable. This is also why unions have largely fallen out of fashion except in industries where the workers are well off. Unless you are wealthy enough to burden several months, if not years, without work striking isn't an option and thus the union becomes toothless.
  - epups 4y ago
    That's a bad take. Strikes are temporary, and have clear goals of increasing pay and work conditions. You talk as if a union is formed, then strikes indefinitely and hurts profits, then the business fails. Unions have "fallen out of fashion" in the US because there are not enough labor protections in place. Even now you hear of Starbucks and Amazon even going so far as hiring firms to do hit jobs on union leaders. If you think this is because they are afraid of downtime, rather than having to actually share more of their profits with workers, suit yourself.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > You talk as if a union is formed, then strikes indefinitely and hurts profits, then the business fails. The original claim replied to was that profit would decline, not disappear... Talk about a bad take. > enough labor protections in place. That's the remainder of the story. Because labour laws have appeared over the decades and centuries, one doesn't have to forego financial stability to save their life like people once had to. Workers now become de facto members of the government union which has already negotiated minimum standards for all. That wasn't always the case. Those who are in a position to be able to walk away from an income for months at a time may hold on to eek out an ounce more, but it's simply not worth it to low paid workers who rely on a regular paycheque. The cost of losing a home and going hungry greatly outweighs any potential returns.

pyinstallwoes 4y ago

Damn right it's effective when you want to blackmail someone because you have extra time. If you were prioritizing your life then I came and tried to rob you, what would be the chance that you prioritize my angle of attack? Unions are literally built to prey on that cost that a company IS prioritized and by distracting it with legal hell it becomes slower and risks losing its position in the marketplace and thus potentially vulnerable to negoitations that are unfaorable because of exploiting what would otherwise be prioritization. Your example is just that the vampire sucked too much blood, and has a clear boundary of policy.

kennend3 4y ago

How much of the major auto bailouts years ago was the result of union rules? For decades they met union demands to avoid costly legal fights.. and in the end? this is rather old, but telling: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/09/2 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/09/2 Instead of restructure, the uion opted for bankruptcy? Way to "protect jobs"? "The company's attempt to buy more time failed after union leaders rejected a new restructuring plan that would have cut a fifth of the 19,000-strong workforce. The union said its members would have to be paid £70m in wages arrears before it would consider the proposals."

RHSeeger 4y ago

> The fact that for amazon getting rid of unions is a priority, suggests that unions are effective Well, it suggests that unions are effective at creating negative consequences for the company. Those consequences could be "more costly to do business because the employees are paid more"; in theory, a good outcome. They could also be "more costly to do business because it's not against the rules for someone to plug in the monitor in their office because all electronics must be handled by a certified union member" (which actually happens); in theory, a bad outcome. Not all "bad for the company" things are "good for the employees".