10 ms·

> Because taking advantage of desperate people isn't an honorable thing to do. They're not. They're offering them a decent job for a decent wage knowing that t

> Because taking advantage of desperate people isn't an honorable thing to do. They're not. They're offering them a decent job for a decent wage knowing that these people are totally unskilled. The alternative would be living on welfare. The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. Plus, nobody forced them to accept those jobs. And again, what would be the alternative for people with no skills? Unemployment, no opportunity to learn skills etc. No thanks.

jon-wood 13y ago
> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. Or alternatively, that most of the workers on a wage low enough that missing a day of work isn't a viable option for them.
- cmarschner 13y ago
  The unions have war chests that compensate salary during strikes.
  - cdcarter 13y ago
    It depends on how recently organized the union is, and how secure those members feel and how much of that was afforded by the union. Many members of weaker industrial (not craft) unions are afraid to strike with their brothers.
  - jtbigwoo 13y ago
    I don't know about Germany, but in the U.S. it's common that only the union leaders and negotiators get paid their normal salaries during strikes and lockouts. The rank-and-file members get a reduced amount or nothing from the union. (Or sometimes just health benefits.) For example, the recently locked-out American Crystal Sugar workers got a stipend of $100/week and no other benefits. Their normal salaries averaged about $750/week.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
You're arguing that any work is better than welfare or a basic income. I disagree. You are welcome to your opinion as well though.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  I wouldn't say "any work" is better. However, there is a well documented effect called "contra-freeloading", in which individuals will prefer pay for work over pay for no work - within reason. This effect has been found in humans and numerous other species. Except cats ...
  - sanitydc 13y ago
    This explains why I meet so many deadbeat hippies obsessed with cats and acting like cats.
phaer 13y ago
> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. One could use that argument, and the rest of the argumentation, to praise slavery. I mean it provided food, shelter and hardly anyone went on strike, right? EDIT: I don't mean to downplay slavery. Capitalism with all it's faults is far better than slavery or even just feudalism in most or all aspects. I just think that the argument I responded to is severely flawed: Not going on strike might be a sign of satisfaction but it might as well be a sign of fear and/or a lack of alternatives.
- soperj 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure that the US was a capitalist country when slavery was legal, it's only government regulation that stopped it.
  - phaer 13y ago
    I am not too sure about that. A market economy? Yes. But what I know as Capitalism depends on a completely different organization of labor, namely "free" workers to create a market for labor itself. That was true for non-enslaved/white workers at that time but I don't think it makes sense to say it about a whole society when its not true for such a big percentage of the economy.
- serge2k 13y ago
  You realize that this is the labour dispute version of "literally hitler" right?
  - phaer 13y ago
    You realize that you are using a meta version of a meme instead of an actual argument? The bad thing about "[literally] Hitler!" is that, most of the time, trivializes the Holocaust. In my "labour dispute version" of it that would have meant a trivialization of slavery which I tried to avoid in the sentence prefixed with "EDIT:". If you think I still did it please write it and add some argumentation.
- 13y ago
rollo_tommasi 13y ago
What skills does one typically acquire as a temp packing worker in a highly automated warehouse?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  It's not a "skill" per se, but demonstrating you will reliably show up on time and do your job has a definite value in the labor market, and could lead to other opportunities.
- jes 13y ago
  How about learning how to get along effectively with others? Or given an individual that was interested in operations, how to run a warehouse, principles of Lean, etc? A job can be a stepping stone to a better future. Perhaps that is true here?
rndgermandude 13y ago
> They're offering them a decent job Actually Verdi (the union) is also complaining about some of the working conditions as well, which they consider inhumane. It is mainly, but not exclusively about the wages. > for a decent wage Amazon is not paying according to the Branchentarifvertrag (industry sector collective agreement) and refuses to even sit down with the union and talk about collective bargaining. They are also actively trying to keep their employees from unionizing. If you consider the current wages "decent" is up to your point of view, but the union and I'd guess most of the affected workers disagree. > The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs This proves nothing, in particular not job satisfaction, and is actually also not how things work in Germany and therefore just wrong. First a union will usually selectively shut down just a few facilities instead of all at once. This is called "Warnstreiks" (warning strikes), and this is what is happening right now. Only later and and only in accordance with German strike/bargaining law - e.g. you have to be unionized and are prohibited to violate the "Friedenspflicht", which regulates when and under what circumstances a unionized strike may happen - it is possible to enter the actual "Streik" where all (unionized) employees stop working. Plus, amazon employees where often not unionized before this started, so it might take some time and convincing for the union to get employees to join before they enter the "Warnstreiks". > Plus, nobody forced them to accept those jobs Well, the "Arbeitsagentur" (job center) can cut either your unemployment pay or later social welfare (Hartz 4) if you refuse to accept the jobs that are offered to you. If you also happen to have a family, and IIRC amazon employs quite a few single mothers for example, then you're "forced" to take the job in a way. Some people, in particular union folks of course, even accuse amazon of predatory behavior, especially seeking out the weakest members of society for their work force because they are the least likely to fight against inhumane conditions and low wages. I used to think this predatory characterization was sensationalist and unfair, but by now, from what I read about amazon so far in the press and even in their own press statements, I think there might be something to it. But then again, I'm also just one of these Euro-socialists who thinks that everybody should have health insurance and should earn a living wage if working full time. Amazon more or less takes the same stance as you seem to take: They claim that they are just helping the weakest people. Treating your low-paid work force as if they were industrial robots (one of the complaints by workers and the union, and more or less admitted by amazon to happen as a result of their workplace rules and "processes") and keeping them from effectively complaining about it by keeping them from organizing suggests otherwise.
isleyaardvark 13y ago
>Plus, nobody forced them to accept those jobs. And again, what would be the alternative for people with no skills? Unemployment, no opportunity to learn skills etc. No thanks. So nobody forced them to accept those jobs, yet their only other option is unemployment, no opportunity to learn skills, and other reasons that you yourself find unacceptable? How would you define "force"? It seems to me that victims of sexual harassment suffer the same choices. I'm assuming you think sexual harassment should be illegal. Is that not "force"?
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  Libertarians typically neglect the forces imposed by the lower tiers of Maslow's hierarchy (and by those controlling access to whatever is necessary to meet such needs) because once you start paying attention to those forces the claim that free-market capitalism maximizes individual freedom becomes significantly harder to prove. EDIT: changed "laughable" to "significantly harder to prove" because I'm not in the mood for a fight today.
  - VMG 13y ago
    By that logic, not only Amazon, but everybody who refuses to hire those workers or pay them more than their work is worth is exerting force. It's absurd.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Only if you adopt a libertarian's view of the word and concept of "force". On the other hand, if you're willing to accept that life has nuance, it makes a great deal of sense.
    - jjoonathan 13y ago
      It might be disappointing that the concept of force/consent doesn't simplify the "which system is best" problem, but I don't see how it's absurd. If a moral dilemma vanishes when you look at it from a different viewpoint, the most likely scenario is that the new viewpoint is obscuring the crux of the problem rather than miraculously simplifying it.
Angostura 13y ago
> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. Or desperate not to get sacked just before Christmas.
bluecalm 13y ago
> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. What about: they are scared of being fired and their families losing roof over their head and food to eat ? Most people aren't willing to go on strike or take any risks if already bad situation. I mean, the slaves weren't on constant strike either.
- onedognight 13y ago
  > the slaves weren't on constant strike either. Nor were they free to leave. The situations are not comparable.
  - bluecalm 13y ago
    Consequences of leaving as a slave: being chased, beaten, maybe killed. Consequences of leaving for Amazon workers (well at least many of them probably most of the ones not on strike): losing roof over your head, family starving, children being denied things. Slaves had it worse, the argument about it not being voluntarily decision still applies.
coldtea 13y ago
>*They're not. They're offering them a decent job for a decent wage knowing that these people are totally unskilled. That was neither a decent job, nor a decent wage. It was just a job and a wage they were forced to do in order to feed themselves, and under very bad conditions. If a "totally unskilled" jobless person comes to me for money, I can offer him the chance dance, call me "master" and crawl at my feet and then give him $10. Something which he might be forced to accept (hunger trumps pride). That doesn't make my offer "decent" -- even if nobody else was willing to give him $10 anyway.
- lmz 13y ago
  It's Wales. They have welfare for the unemployed to "feed themselves".
  - coldtea 13y ago
    No, it's Germany -- RTFA.
    - thestranger 13y ago
      I agree with you, but the article is about Wales
pdeuchler 13y ago
Are you defending the Robber Barons of the Industrial Revolution or Amazon? I really can't tell. In all seriousness, this line of reasoning can be used to rationalize the actions of anyone who takes advantage of the destitute and marginalized to make a profit: pimps, crime lords, sweatshop managers, etc. etc. Forgive me for not patting Amazon on the back for giving THE WORKERS THEY BASE THEIR ENTIRE ENTERPRISE ON a tiny percentage of the profits. After all, nobody applauds the trash who taunt the homeless with crumbs, even though they are technically feeding them. Edit: I'm a terrible multi-tasker, edited to clarify some points
Fede_V 13y ago
I think you make a very principled distinction between 'de-jure' compulsion, and 'de-facto' compulsion, but in practice, things aren't always so clear cut. If I were to offer a single mother a large lump sum for one of her kidneys so she could feed her children, without any kind of threat, implied or otherwise, that would still be at the very least ethically problematic, don't you think?

jon-wood 13y ago

> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. Or alternatively, that most of the workers on a wage low enough that missing a day of work isn't a viable option for them.

cmarschner 13y ago
The unions have war chests that compensate salary during strikes.
- cdcarter 13y ago
  It depends on how recently organized the union is, and how secure those members feel and how much of that was afforded by the union. Many members of weaker industrial (not craft) unions are afraid to strike with their brothers.
- jtbigwoo 13y ago
  I don't know about Germany, but in the U.S. it's common that only the union leaders and negotiators get paid their normal salaries during strikes and lockouts. The rank-and-file members get a reduced amount or nothing from the union. (Or sometimes just health benefits.) For example, the recently locked-out American Crystal Sugar workers got a stipend of $100/week and no other benefits. Their normal salaries averaged about $750/week.

toomuchtodo 13y ago

You're arguing that any work is better than welfare or a basic income. I disagree. You are welcome to your opinion as well though.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
I wouldn't say "any work" is better. However, there is a well documented effect called "contra-freeloading", in which individuals will prefer pay for work over pay for no work - within reason. This effect has been found in humans and numerous other species. Except cats ...
- sanitydc 13y ago
  This explains why I meet so many deadbeat hippies obsessed with cats and acting like cats.

phaer 13y ago

> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. One could use that argument, and the rest of the argumentation, to praise slavery. I mean it provided food, shelter and hardly anyone went on strike, right? EDIT: I don't mean to downplay slavery. Capitalism with all it's faults is far better than slavery or even just feudalism in most or all aspects. I just think that the argument I responded to is severely flawed: Not going on strike might be a sign of satisfaction but it might as well be a sign of fear and/or a lack of alternatives.

soperj 13y ago
I'm pretty sure that the US was a capitalist country when slavery was legal, it's only government regulation that stopped it.
- phaer 13y ago
  I am not too sure about that. A market economy? Yes. But what I know as Capitalism depends on a completely different organization of labor, namely "free" workers to create a market for labor itself. That was true for non-enslaved/white workers at that time but I don't think it makes sense to say it about a whole society when its not true for such a big percentage of the economy.
serge2k 13y ago
You realize that this is the labour dispute version of "literally hitler" right?
- phaer 13y ago
  You realize that you are using a meta version of a meme instead of an actual argument? The bad thing about "[literally] Hitler!" is that, most of the time, trivializes the Holocaust. In my "labour dispute version" of it that would have meant a trivialization of slavery which I tried to avoid in the sentence prefixed with "EDIT:". If you think I still did it please write it and add some argumentation.
13y ago

rollo_tommasi 13y ago

What skills does one typically acquire as a temp packing worker in a highly automated warehouse?

twoodfin 13y ago
It's not a "skill" per se, but demonstrating you will reliably show up on time and do your job has a definite value in the labor market, and could lead to other opportunities.
jes 13y ago
How about learning how to get along effectively with others? Or given an individual that was interested in operations, how to run a warehouse, principles of Lean, etc? A job can be a stepping stone to a better future. Perhaps that is true here?

rndgermandude 13y ago

> They're offering them a decent job Actually Verdi (the union) is also complaining about some of the working conditions as well, which they consider inhumane. It is mainly, but not exclusively about the wages. > for a decent wage Amazon is not paying according to the Branchentarifvertrag (industry sector collective agreement) and refuses to even sit down with the union and talk about collective bargaining. They are also actively trying to keep their employees from unionizing. If you consider the current wages "decent" is up to your point of view, but the union and I'd guess most of the affected workers disagree. > The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs This proves nothing, in particular not job satisfaction, and is actually also not how things work in Germany and therefore just wrong. First a union will usually selectively shut down just a few facilities instead of all at once. This is called "Warnstreiks" (warning strikes), and this is what is happening right now. Only later and and only in accordance with German strike/bargaining law - e.g. you have to be unionized and are prohibited to violate the "Friedenspflicht", which regulates when and under what circumstances a unionized strike may happen - it is possible to enter the actual "Streik" where all (unionized) employees stop working. Plus, amazon employees where often not unionized before this started, so it might take some time and convincing for the union to get employees to join before they enter the "Warnstreiks". > Plus, nobody forced them to accept those jobs Well, the "Arbeitsagentur" (job center) can cut either your unemployment pay or later social welfare (Hartz 4) if you refuse to accept the jobs that are offered to you. If you also happen to have a family, and IIRC amazon employs quite a few single mothers for example, then you're "forced" to take the job in a way. Some people, in particular union folks of course, even accuse amazon of predatory behavior, especially seeking out the weakest members of society for their work force because they are the least likely to fight against inhumane conditions and low wages. I used to think this predatory characterization was sensationalist and unfair, but by now, from what I read about amazon so far in the press and even in their own press statements, I think there might be something to it. But then again, I'm also just one of these Euro-socialists who thinks that everybody should have health insurance and should earn a living wage if working full time. Amazon more or less takes the same stance as you seem to take: They claim that they are just helping the weakest people. Treating your low-paid work force as if they were industrial robots (one of the complaints by workers and the union, and more or less admitted by amazon to happen as a result of their workplace rules and "processes") and keeping them from effectively complaining about it by keeping them from organizing suggests otherwise.

isleyaardvark 13y ago

>Plus, nobody forced them to accept those jobs. And again, what would be the alternative for people with no skills? Unemployment, no opportunity to learn skills etc. No thanks. So nobody forced them to accept those jobs, yet their only other option is unemployment, no opportunity to learn skills, and other reasons that you yourself find unacceptable? How would you define "force"? It seems to me that victims of sexual harassment suffer the same choices. I'm assuming you think sexual harassment should be illegal. Is that not "force"?

jjoonathan 13y ago
Libertarians typically neglect the forces imposed by the lower tiers of Maslow's hierarchy (and by those controlling access to whatever is necessary to meet such needs) because once you start paying attention to those forces the claim that free-market capitalism maximizes individual freedom becomes significantly harder to prove. EDIT: changed "laughable" to "significantly harder to prove" because I'm not in the mood for a fight today.
- VMG 13y ago
  By that logic, not only Amazon, but everybody who refuses to hire those workers or pay them more than their work is worth is exerting force. It's absurd.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Only if you adopt a libertarian's view of the word and concept of "force". On the other hand, if you're willing to accept that life has nuance, it makes a great deal of sense.
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    It might be disappointing that the concept of force/consent doesn't simplify the "which system is best" problem, but I don't see how it's absurd. If a moral dilemma vanishes when you look at it from a different viewpoint, the most likely scenario is that the new viewpoint is obscuring the crux of the problem rather than miraculously simplifying it.

Angostura 13y ago

> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. Or desperate not to get sacked just before Christmas.

bluecalm 13y ago

> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. What about: they are scared of being fired and their families losing roof over their head and food to eat ? Most people aren't willing to go on strike or take any risks if already bad situation. I mean, the slaves weren't on constant strike either.

onedognight 13y ago
> the slaves weren't on constant strike either. Nor were they free to leave. The situations are not comparable.
- bluecalm 13y ago
  Consequences of leaving as a slave: being chased, beaten, maybe killed. Consequences of leaving for Amazon workers (well at least many of them probably most of the ones not on strike): losing roof over your head, family starving, children being denied things. Slaves had it worse, the argument about it not being voluntarily decision still applies.

coldtea 13y ago

>*They're not. They're offering them a decent job for a decent wage knowing that these people are totally unskilled. That was neither a decent job, nor a decent wage. It was just a job and a wage they were forced to do in order to feed themselves, and under very bad conditions. If a "totally unskilled" jobless person comes to me for money, I can offer him the chance dance, call me "master" and crawl at my feet and then give him $10. Something which he might be forced to accept (hunger trumps pride). That doesn't make my offer "decent" -- even if nobody else was willing to give him $10 anyway.

lmz 13y ago
It's Wales. They have welfare for the unemployed to "feed themselves".
- coldtea 13y ago
  No, it's Germany -- RTFA.
  - thestranger 13y ago
    I agree with you, but the article is about Wales

pdeuchler 13y ago

Are you defending the Robber Barons of the Industrial Revolution or Amazon? I really can't tell. In all seriousness, this line of reasoning can be used to rationalize the actions of anyone who takes advantage of the destitute and marginalized to make a profit: pimps, crime lords, sweatshop managers, etc. etc. Forgive me for not patting Amazon on the back for giving THE WORKERS THEY BASE THEIR ENTIRE ENTERPRISE ON a tiny percentage of the profits. After all, nobody applauds the trash who taunt the homeless with crumbs, even though they are technically feeding them. Edit: I'm a terrible multi-tasker, edited to clarify some points

Fede_V 13y ago

I think you make a very principled distinction between 'de-jure' compulsion, and 'de-facto' compulsion, but in practice, things aren't always so clear cut. If I were to offer a single mother a large lump sum for one of her kidneys so she could feed her children, without any kind of threat, implied or otherwise, that would still be at the very least ethically problematic, don't you think?