5 ms·

I don’t understand why all these comments are about who buys or doesn’t buy at Amazon. The article is about unionization and strikes. I expect a conversation ab

by ITB 2y ago

I don’t understand why all these comments are about who buys or doesn’t buy at Amazon. The article is about unionization and strikes. I expect a conversation about the merits of unions and their negotiation tactics. In my opinion, events like these will just accelerate job elimination. The goal of a logistics company is to be reliable. Humans are unreliable and more so when they are purposely and collectively unreliable. I’ve lived in a country with very powerful unions and it sucks— miss every 5th flight because the union decides to strike.

benterix 2y ago
> I don’t understand why all these comments are about who buys or doesn’t buy at Amazon. The logical connection is as follows: Bezos decided to optimize everything to its limits, including human behavior, to the very limits of law. To literally track every movement of employees and abusing the power the company holds over them. This is an ongoing process that we are all painfully aware of. Because of that, there is a growing negative feeling towards them that causes people not to give them their money. That's why instead of unions we are talking about boycotting Amazon.
ternnoburn 2y ago
Because people want to feel connected, and recognize that Amazon is an unethical entity. If you read about Amazon mistreating workers to the point that they strike, you can feel good by saying, "I won't support that company!" The general term is "solidarity", and it's a mix of empathy and action and encouragement for others to do the same.
yoyohello13 2y ago
> I’ve lived in a country with very powerful unions and it sucks— miss every 5th flight because the union decides to strike. I'm willing to accept inconvenience if it means strong workers' rights.
- Fin_Code 2y ago
  Keep saying that when a vacation get ruined because your connections got messed up and your out thousands of dollars.
  - maccard 2y ago
    Where are you based? > Keep saying that when a vacation get ruined because your connections got messed up and your out thousands of dollars. Travel Insurance?
    - ITB 2y ago
      No longer there, but Argentina. The current government is squashing that fortunately.
  - willismichael 2y ago
    Many of the folks in the unions can't even dream of spending thousands of dollars on a vacation.
  - yoyohello13 2y ago
    Poor guy. I'll be sure to let them know their selfish need for fair wages is affecting rich peoples vacations.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hirako2000 2y ago
unions and strikes are not illegal. The merits of unions, not always but their goals are, multiple. a/ compensation and working conditions leverage in negotiations b/ structure that can directly address all sort of issues the employer don't care about and isn't obliged to deal with. That it makes your service experience particularly painful is exactly the goal, bad (or better, no) customers experience hurts the employer, guaranteed. Disclosure: raised in France.
- ITB 2y ago
  But it’s also not illegal to get fed up and go above and beyond to automate everyone.
  - hirako2000 2y ago
    Was responding to the sufferings of travelers who disliked the strikes. Unions are at war using any effective and legal weapons they can find. The same stands for "the capital".
vel0city 2y ago
> In my opinion, events like these will just accelerate job elimination Sure, probably. The jobs that can be automated will eventually be automated. But while they're still needed, I'd hope they have some basic protections and decent wages. If my online shopping costs go up 0.5% but now a thousand workers don't have to have the mental stress of "I really need a pee break, can my metrics take the few minute hit this week or will I lose my job and go homeless?", I'll take that trade in a heartbeat.
- nickff 2y ago
  Most companies’ largest expense is labor/wages (usually somewhere on the order of 25-50%), and profit margins are usually on the order of 0-5%. Increasing pay or benefits substantially would increase costs by a lot more than 0.5%.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Sure, 0.5% is hyperbole on my part. Sorry. It's not like a 20% bump in costs for these workers would result in a 20% bump in prices or anything like that. Their margin on that retail item is probably 30-40% of the cost of that product though. Let's assume the workers' benefits and wages in question here are 35% of Amazon's costs. If there was a 20% increase of that labor cost, that's going from 35% to 42% of the total share of costs, or an increase of 7% of the total costs. But that's 7% of the 30-40% of their markup. For a product with a 40% markup and they were to just pass that entire cost along to the consumer, it's a 1.6% increase in price. So like in this hypothetical, which is not anywhere near real numbers for Amazon, we could give these workers a 20% benefit bump for increasing prices 1.6%.
    - nickff 2y ago
      I don't understand how you got down from 7% down to 1.6%. I think you are not counting COGS as an expense, and that's where the error comes from. If your assumptions are otherwise correct, I think you'd get roughly a 7% increase in prices to sustain the 20% bump in wage expense.

by ITB 2y ago

benterix 2y ago

> I don’t understand why all these comments are about who buys or doesn’t buy at Amazon. The logical connection is as follows: Bezos decided to optimize everything to its limits, including human behavior, to the very limits of law. To literally track every movement of employees and abusing the power the company holds over them. This is an ongoing process that we are all painfully aware of. Because of that, there is a growing negative feeling towards them that causes people not to give them their money. That's why instead of unions we are talking about boycotting Amazon.

ternnoburn 2y ago

Because people want to feel connected, and recognize that Amazon is an unethical entity. If you read about Amazon mistreating workers to the point that they strike, you can feel good by saying, "I won't support that company!" The general term is "solidarity", and it's a mix of empathy and action and encouragement for others to do the same.

yoyohello13 2y ago

> I’ve lived in a country with very powerful unions and it sucks— miss every 5th flight because the union decides to strike. I'm willing to accept inconvenience if it means strong workers' rights.

Fin_Code 2y ago
Keep saying that when a vacation get ruined because your connections got messed up and your out thousands of dollars.
- maccard 2y ago
  Where are you based? > Keep saying that when a vacation get ruined because your connections got messed up and your out thousands of dollars. Travel Insurance?
  - ITB 2y ago
    No longer there, but Argentina. The current government is squashing that fortunately.
- willismichael 2y ago
  Many of the folks in the unions can't even dream of spending thousands of dollars on a vacation.
- yoyohello13 2y ago
  Poor guy. I'll be sure to let them know their selfish need for fair wages is affecting rich peoples vacations.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hirako2000 2y ago

unions and strikes are not illegal. The merits of unions, not always but their goals are, multiple. a/ compensation and working conditions leverage in negotiations b/ structure that can directly address all sort of issues the employer don't care about and isn't obliged to deal with. That it makes your service experience particularly painful is exactly the goal, bad (or better, no) customers experience hurts the employer, guaranteed. Disclosure: raised in France.

ITB 2y ago
But it’s also not illegal to get fed up and go above and beyond to automate everyone.
- hirako2000 2y ago
  Was responding to the sufferings of travelers who disliked the strikes. Unions are at war using any effective and legal weapons they can find. The same stands for "the capital".

vel0city 2y ago

> In my opinion, events like these will just accelerate job elimination Sure, probably. The jobs that can be automated will eventually be automated. But while they're still needed, I'd hope they have some basic protections and decent wages. If my online shopping costs go up 0.5% but now a thousand workers don't have to have the mental stress of "I really need a pee break, can my metrics take the few minute hit this week or will I lose my job and go homeless?", I'll take that trade in a heartbeat.

nickff 2y ago
Most companies’ largest expense is labor/wages (usually somewhere on the order of 25-50%), and profit margins are usually on the order of 0-5%. Increasing pay or benefits substantially would increase costs by a lot more than 0.5%.
- vel0city 2y ago
  Sure, 0.5% is hyperbole on my part. Sorry. It's not like a 20% bump in costs for these workers would result in a 20% bump in prices or anything like that. Their margin on that retail item is probably 30-40% of the cost of that product though. Let's assume the workers' benefits and wages in question here are 35% of Amazon's costs. If there was a 20% increase of that labor cost, that's going from 35% to 42% of the total share of costs, or an increase of 7% of the total costs. But that's 7% of the 30-40% of their markup. For a product with a 40% markup and they were to just pass that entire cost along to the consumer, it's a 1.6% increase in price. So like in this hypothetical, which is not anywhere near real numbers for Amazon, we could give these workers a 20% benefit bump for increasing prices 1.6%.
  - nickff 2y ago
    I don't understand how you got down from 7% down to 1.6%. I think you are not counting COGS as an expense, and that's where the error comes from. If your assumptions are otherwise correct, I think you'd get roughly a 7% increase in prices to sustain the 20% bump in wage expense.