How Amazon Will Fight That First Successful Unionization Vote (msn.com) 113
Leaders of the successful unionization drive at Amazon's warehouse in Staten Island have heard from workers at 100 other Amazon facilities in all 50 states, the union's president told AFP. "We are witnessing a revolution," he added Friday.
But meanwhile, "Amazon tipped its hand" this week on how it plans to try to defeat that vote, reports the Washington Post. Specifically, yesterday Amazon filed a list of 25 objections to the election with America's National Labor Relations Board — objecting mostly to the actions of the National Labor Relations Board: The company alleged that the regional office of the agency, based in Brooklyn, "created the impression" it was supporting the union by filing a lawsuit against Amazon before the vote. Amazon also alleged the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) delayed investigating "unmeritorious" unfair labor practice charges and understaffed the election. Amazon also alleges the independent Amazon Labor Union harassed employees who did not support the union, trespassed on Amazon's property and "misled employees by telling them that they would lose their benefits if they did not support the ALU," among other issues....
Labor lawyers say the company, which strongly opposed unionization, could try to delay the process of workers forming a union for years. "Amazon probably figures it has nothing to lose by exhausting every possible appeals process because time is on its side," said John Logan, chair of the labor and employment studies department at San Francisco State University.... A representative for the Amazon Labor Union said none of Amazon's objections had merit and called them a tactic to delay the union. "It's a blatant attempt by Amazon to interfere with and go around the democratic choice of their workforce," Amazon worker and labor organizer Connor Spence said....
The NLRB will need to certify the vote before the union can try to bargain a contract with Amazon. The objections could delay or even cancel that process, depending on what the NLRB decides. Amazon has many avenues to fight the vote results, including by refusing to bargain and forcing regulators to get involved.
The president of the Amazon warehouse's reminded AFP what happened after two Starbucks cafes in upstate New York voted to union in December.
More than 180 more Starbucks cafes launched unionization campaigns, and "On Friday, three more Starbucks cafes in upstate New York voted to unionize, taking the national total to 16."
But meanwhile, "Amazon tipped its hand" this week on how it plans to try to defeat that vote, reports the Washington Post. Specifically, yesterday Amazon filed a list of 25 objections to the election with America's National Labor Relations Board — objecting mostly to the actions of the National Labor Relations Board: The company alleged that the regional office of the agency, based in Brooklyn, "created the impression" it was supporting the union by filing a lawsuit against Amazon before the vote. Amazon also alleged the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) delayed investigating "unmeritorious" unfair labor practice charges and understaffed the election. Amazon also alleges the independent Amazon Labor Union harassed employees who did not support the union, trespassed on Amazon's property and "misled employees by telling them that they would lose their benefits if they did not support the ALU," among other issues....
Labor lawyers say the company, which strongly opposed unionization, could try to delay the process of workers forming a union for years. "Amazon probably figures it has nothing to lose by exhausting every possible appeals process because time is on its side," said John Logan, chair of the labor and employment studies department at San Francisco State University.... A representative for the Amazon Labor Union said none of Amazon's objections had merit and called them a tactic to delay the union. "It's a blatant attempt by Amazon to interfere with and go around the democratic choice of their workforce," Amazon worker and labor organizer Connor Spence said....
The NLRB will need to certify the vote before the union can try to bargain a contract with Amazon. The objections could delay or even cancel that process, depending on what the NLRB decides. Amazon has many avenues to fight the vote results, including by refusing to bargain and forcing regulators to get involved.
The president of the Amazon warehouse's reminded AFP what happened after two Starbucks cafes in upstate New York voted to union in December.
More than 180 more Starbucks cafes launched unionization campaigns, and "On Friday, three more Starbucks cafes in upstate New York voted to unionize, taking the national total to 16."
The Elite hate Unions (Score:2)
realistically. the only opposition in town.
Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazon isn't fighting this hard to protect their employees from themselves, out of love. Amazon is trying to protect its option to be cheap, and it knows the unions will increase its expenses, and that's it. If Amazon truly wanted to do right by its employees, it would allow them to choose this without trying to resist AND their employees wouldn't choose this because they would already know how well they are treated. The situation here is clear as crystal.
In my opinion, it is unfortunate that unionization is such a mixed blessing, though. It is inevitable: once the union exists, and wins some benefits for its employees, then it needs to justify its continued existence. The mere presence of the union creates jobs for union administration, and they don't want to lose their jobs, so they must continue to convince the employees that they are still needed. Also, there is nothing about being union administration that protects one's soul from corruption, so people who are just as greedy and evil as Amazon leadership wind up administering the union, who then apply their influence for their own gain.
But even so, so long as the employees feel that their union dues are justified, then they are better off with the union than without.
Re:Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're telling me with a straight face that this would make the slightest dent in Amazon's bottom line?
People order from Amazon because they sell everything, not because it's cheap. Half the shit they sell is from third parties who buy items locally and jack up prices,
Let me rephrase this. The world's richest man is throwing a tantrum over his business costs increasing by 0.0004%.
Re:Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
The world's richest man is throwing a tantrum over his business costs increasing by 0.0004%.
One warehouse may cost Jeff 0.0004%. But if this spreads to 100 warehouses, it will be 0.04%. So he wants to nip it in the bud.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's pretty clear what he wants, it's just not reasonable. Even if it costs him 40%. There's still plenty left.
Re: (Score:2)
0.04% How will they ever recovery financially!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're telling me with a straight face that this would make the slightest dent in Amazon's bottom line?
People order from Amazon because they sell everything, not because it's cheap. Half the shit they sell is from third parties who buy items locally and jack up prices,
Let me rephrase this. The world's richest man is throwing a tantrum over his business costs increasing by 0.0004%.
But that's why these psychopaths become rich. If Bezos was sane he would have retired after getting his first billion. But these guys are all literally sick in the head. They are addicted to getting a higher and higher score, where the points are the dollars they have on their balance sheets. If they were poor they would be bumming change off people in the street to play on the slots and social workers would be recommending they get treatment, but because they're rich they get to do whatever the fuck they like and treat everyone around them like shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If Bezos was sane he would have retired after getting his first billion. But these guys are all literally sick in the head.
Having worked for a serial money-maker, they know that they have more than enough money, but keep on making more money, because that is what makes their life work. One Easter holiday, the factory had just skeleton staff, and the boss was at home on holiday too. I needed him to answer some questions for a project I was working on. The receptionist said it was no problem for me to call the boss on his mobile, because he was more than likely sitting in his garden with his mobile next to him, waiting for calls,
Re: (Score:2)
Tantrum?
Exploring all legal avenues to ensure the vote was properly run isn't a "tantrum".
A representative for the Amazon Labor Union said none of Amazon's objections had merit and called them a tactic to delay the union. "It's a blatant attempt by Amazon to interfere with and go around the democratic choice of their workforce," Amazon worker and labor organizer Connor Spence said....
Because, as we all know, had the election gone the other way and the union organizers lost the vote,they would simply accept the results without challenge, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Tantrum?
Exploring all legal avenues to ensure the vote was properly run isn't a "tantrum".
The problem is - and this applies to both sides in any disagreement - that the law is so complicated that if you spend enough time and money you will find a problem somewhere. Amazon has all the money so now all they have to do is find a judge that will agree that whatever problems they find are substantial.
The broader problem this relates to is that justice is biased towards the rich, because the poor can't afford the cost of untangling centuries of legal argument, rulings, or even in many cases the writte
Re:Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon is trying to protect its option to be cheap, and it knows the unions will increase its expenses, and that's it.
You're bringing two things together that don't belong together -- at least not with Amazon (emphasis mine).
They can stay as cheap as they are for the end customer and pay out of their revenue. They have enough of it. Nowhere does it say that they need to make that much money.
Re: (Score:2)
How much money should they make? Really how much should any of us be making?
Re: Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:2)
If you want a no-bullshit straight-number answers: it obviously depends on a number of circumstances, but somewhere between $100k minimum and $1mio maximum per year, per nose. For every nose worldwide, starting with the janitor and up to the megacorp CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that sounds practical. /smh
Re: Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:2)
Yeah, that sounds practical.
Is that sarcasm?
If yes: refraining from walking around with a 9mm and shooting people just because they happen to piss me offat various times of day is also pretty impractical, but somehow, somewhere along the way, society decided that it's the Right Thing To Do. Practical or not.
So now it's illegal, FWIW.
Re: (Score:2)
Reread the comment I was responding to, they are arguing for/defending a $50/hr minimum wage.
Do you think that's practical? Please explain...
Re: Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:3)
Reread the comment I was responding to, they are arguing for/defending a $50/hr minimum wage.
I don't need to reread, I wrote it. And I actually didn't argue for a $50/hr wage, I argued for a $100k/year. That should be something like $85-100/hr, because I believe it's fundamentally cynical to have someone work for 2000 hours a year just for their living. (A point could be made for 1200 hours, about the work volume of a middle-ages peasant, but that's another discussion.)
Do you think that's practical? Please explain...
Do you prefer the long version, the short, or the mini?
The mini being: this is what it takes to live comfortably, but devoid of unn
Re: (Score:2)
To recap: you have argued that the minimum income should be about $100,000/yr, and the maximum work week should be about 24 hours.
Think about the people you know who earn about $100,000/yr, and consider all the labor inputs that are needed for the lifestyle they maintain. They'll typically rely on others to do a lot of their cooking (if they're busy and/or uninterested in cooking, they'll rely on others for nearly all of it). They will often have people to help with housekeeping. If they have a garden, t
Re: Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:2)
You're going into a lot of detail that I'd like to dispute but don't have the time or energy to do so now (e.g. the value of $100k today - there's no way in hell how you're paying a cleaner, a cook, a gardener, and have your driveway paved for that amount of money anywhere in the so-called 1st world; you need to add a 0 to that, as it stands it's just a leisurely living wage with maybe one 4 hr/week cleaning service if you're cheeky and lucky).
But the essence is: you're describing the situation whrere a pro
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I could have written this more clearly. I wasn't suggesting that you would have a cook, a gardener, and a housecleaner "on staff", like Bruce Wayne or something-- as you say, that would be impossible on 100k/year. What I said was that typically, a lot of the cooking and food prep is "done for you". Meaning that you buy a $10-$20 lunch from the Chinese takeout during your workweek, and order takeout/delivery several nights a week, and can go out for brunch without worrying too much about the cost
Re: Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:2)
I wasn't suggesting that...
I thought I made it clear that I understand what you mean. But you're tackling this from the wrong side.
There are two extreme data points (marginal conditions, if you will). Whatever we come up with must pass between these two.
One is living 10,000-40,000 years ago: it was esily possible to live - eat, shit, fuck, sleep - within a 24 hours a day without working ourselves to death. In fact most of our time was free then. We've had several productivity improvements since then (agriculture, mechanization, compu
Re: (Score:2)
I actually meant "be cheap" in the sense of "cheapskates." They want to underpay their employees, skimp on benefits, skimp on the costs of good working conditions, and of course overwork everyone. That is the sense in which they want to be cheap. I didn't actually mean "offer cheap products," though I imagine they want to do that to, wherever price competition is an issue (and of course, "cheap" in the sense of "low quality at high margin" is right up their alley).
So I could have worded that better.
Re: Yeah, it's obvious. (Score:2)
I indeed took it for the other "cheap". I think we're pretty much on the same page here.
Re: (Score:2)
You asked who pays better or offers better benefits?
Well, that question misdirects the issue. Employees as a class unionize when they cannot find employers who offer them a better deal for the same work. If employees can find such employers, they just hop jobs. Unions come in to play when all the employers in an industry abstain from poaching talent (legally or otherwise) in order to keep labor costs down, leaving employees with no options.
So the purpose of the union is to give the whole group of employe
Re: (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see if that's how it plays out.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is trying to protect its option to be cheap, and it knows the unions will increase its expenses, and that's it.
You're bringing two things together that don't belong together -- at least not with Amazon (emphasis mine).
Unless "cheap" means "niggardly" when talking about Amazon?
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the point that cheaper is not necessarily better, for the consumer. I use Amazon mainly for books, and the quality varies wildly. My recent purchases are mostly on the subjects of philosophy and economics. These books are amazingly cheap, considering they are not best-seller material. I might get a nice hardback, with proper typesetting, or a crummy paperback, which appears to cheapskate on the paper by using a smaller typeface, and excessive line lengths. There is no way of knowing, until you
Re: (Score:2)
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." -- Oscar Wilde
s/bureaucracy/union :-/
It is a problem of most "institutions". Once they have served their purpose people get addicted to the power and eventually power corrupts where anyone who doesn't "tow the line" is ostracized, or worse, has violence thrust upon them.
Re: The Elite hate Unions (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
bezos.
shit rolls down hill.
second.
maybe dumb ass should start thinking of building a warehouse on the moon.
just throwing it out there.
third.
this management crap will last about 5 years.
then management will treat its rank and file like a business and move on
Re: The Elite hate Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Working for Amazon is a rich source of horror stories, so a union is probably necessary. Whether this union sucks or not, we don't know yet. However they won the vote so they should have the right to show us.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether this union sucks or not, we don't know yet.
That is the problem. Unions are still an informal part of the economic structure. It is unfortunate that they are often used as tools to promote dodgy political ideologies, rather than support their members in negotiations, which is I think their primary social function. Unions are valuable in a free market, so that workers get fair representation in negotiating wages and conditions. A basic problem is that employers of the size of Amazon are far more powerful than any of their workers, so Amazon gets to di
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The only opposition are "The Elite"?
Last I saw, over 40% of the workers that voted (maybe 45%, don't remember the final tally) voted against the union -that's a whole lot of "elite" warehouse workers...
Bring back slavery (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, that's the logical end point of Amazon's actions, isn't it? Might makes right and the weak must suffer to support the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Today's billionaires require the masses to be the product, make the product, or pay every month for the product. Good luck to the do-nothing elite wanting to maintain that lazy lifestyle as they impoverish the hands that feed them.
And when the end goal also decimates the concept of expendable income, Greed finds out the hard way what else is expendable.
Re: (Score:2)
Might makes right and the weak must suffer to support the rich.
Don't worry, we'll tip the scales by downloading all their content. That'll show them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might makes right and the weak must suffer to support the rich.
While what you say is often true in practice does not mean it is some kind of immutable law of nature. An economy is a social construct, and can be modified by changes in human moral decisions. The fact that institutions such as trade unions came about is an example of this evolving social structure that we call the economy.
I am something of an optimist, where I believe in win-win situations will prevail over any kind of exploitation and power struggle. It is not actually necessary for the weak to suffer to
Two ways you know Unions work (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, Amazon wouldn't bother fighting them if they didn't work. They'd just wait for them to die a natural death.
So we know Unions work. The only questions are, why aren't you in one, and how much better would your pay and benefits be if you were?
Re: Two ways you know Unions work (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, lucky you.
A lot of people are not capable of negotiating with their bosses, don't have good pay, benefits and ongoing training. People unionise because their bosses treat them like shit and, in a lot of lines of work e.g. picking parcels off the shelves of Amazon warehouses, you can't just leave and find another job.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people are not capable of negotiating with their bosses, don't have good pay, benefits and ongoing training.
The inconvenient truth is that "a lot of people" lack marketable skills, because in part, the public education system failed them -states are dropping academic requirements to graduate high school, colleges are dropping standardized testing as a requirement for admissions, and more and more colleges and universities find themselves offering remedial math, reading, writing classes to high school graduates.
in a lot of lines of work e.g. picking parcels off the shelves of Amazon warehouses, you can't just leave and find another job.
Exactly - these workers lack the skill set to secure employment beyond picking items off a shelf.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be fine in yourplace but you have to know not every workplace does the same for everyone? And while the retort of "go sompleace else, negotioate more" that's a bit of a canard we have been fed for decades now. Seems like you don't need a union but there is a philosophical argument to be made.
Work is coersive, we are born into a capitalist society and the capital class has a huge power disparity in that scenario. If you want to live a life up to the standards of dignity of the time we are born in
that's not the economics of unionization (Score:2)
>but a healthy amount of it has an overall "rising tide" effect on labor markets as a whole.
Actually, no, that's not the economic effect at all.
A union is a monopoly in the labor to the employer, not an exception to supply and demand.
It may well provide things like better working conditions, not dying as often on the job, and the like, even higher wages to the workers, but ultimately those are part of the price of labor.
A consequence of increasing this price is *lower* employment at that employer.
The sec
Re: (Score:2)
Which is precisely why unions are inherently bad for human beings.
And when the capitalists stop the economy dead as they do* on a regular basis, is that because they are inherently bad for humans too?
*I mean, we're not even out of the last fuck up in 2008 yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is precisely why unions are inherently bad for human beings.
Try again [imgur.com].
Are you really? (Score:2)
If you're in manufacturing you might have a point and your boss knows that. He's got a team of people working on automating as much
Re: (Score:2)
One of the main things unions do is make sure that new hires are brought in at the same wages as the old guard. Because if you don't do that it's only a matter of time before your boss replaces you.
The auto workers unions failed that, they negotiated lower wages and lesser benefits for new workers, google is your friend.
NYT from 2011: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/0... [nytimes.com]
Detroit Free Press from 2022: https://www.detroitnews.com/st... [detroitnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
IT is one of those fields that hasn't unionized yet. But they just may need one for their right to work from home.
Re: (Score:2)
The only questions are, why aren't you in one
Because I don't live in a country where unions are required. Unions are an attempt to level a playing field, done on an office by office basis, each with different goals and different levels of success. The only reason they are *needed* in the USA is because the country has no worker protections, no suitable minimum wage, workers are not represented in government, and frankly given the two main parties you have no reason of ever changing that.
I still can't believe "at will employment" is a thing which exist
Re: (Score:2)
It's 30 years of screaming "Socialism BAD!" that led to this situation.
And I guess the younger generation looks at the rest of the world through their fancy interwebz, and decide they've had enough of the bullshit.
Anyone under 30 has been hurt a lot by what's basically unbridled capitalism, seen no one's held responsible, and they're all picking up the bill.
So a lot of them think 'the other side' might be a lot better.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not screaming "Socialism is bad"; it's calling everything the Republican establishment doesn't like "socialism". This has backfired by detoxifying the word "Socialism". If Norway is "socialist", it can't be inherently bad, can it?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not screaming "Socialism is bad"; it's calling everything the Republican establishment doesn't like "socialism". This has backfired by detoxifying the word "Socialism". If Norway is "socialist", it can't be inherently bad, can it?
LOL. Bringing up Norway as an example.
Norway has enough oil that they created a govt fund from that money, a fund which now 1.35$ trillion in assets, and owns 1.4% of entire world's listed companies. All of that for a 5M country. So yeah, I guess socialism *can* work if you get quarter of a million dollars per person from your natural resources to support it.
But please don't try it otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and having oil always works out for the average person in a country.
Re: (Score:2)
Works for the Saudis and Norway, not so much in Venezuela, I wonder why?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so the Saudi regime is your idea of an acceptable government?
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption, once the initial exploration and infrastructure was installed, which did employ a lot of people creating a boom, the profits were siphoned off by the elite class. It's why they voted in the socialists, who unluckily were more corrupt.
The people who do the work in Saudi Arabia also have it pretty shitty, as well as any citizens who don't agree with the monarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
The Unites States and Norway are on pretty equal terms as a matter of GDP per capita. It's only political will that stops the USA from having a similarly large social wealth fund and social wealth funds are a good thing that aren't even necessarily "socialist" since they partake in the capitalist global economy.
$1.35 Trillion sounds like a lot but the US has a GDP of $21T and pulls in arond $3.5T in taxes a year. It's not like Norwayd just went and did it yesterday, they built that over 32 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point of the Norwegian economic model is that the economy serves the needs of the people, which is one form of socialism. The alternative, which could be called fascism, is that the people serve the needs of the economy. Though I am an admirer of some aspects of Scandi politics, it needs to be pointed out that Norway is particularly fortunate regarding natural resources. As far as I know, they have access to large oil and gas reserves, but don't actually need them, because the geography of Norwa
Re: (Score:2)
It's good at the moment that Norway doesn't really need its oil and gas reserves for itself. It makes Russia's threats to let Europe freeze ring like the bluff it is. The Baltic Pipe is ready to go and reaches as far south as Poland.
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of availability of gas, Norway might well be a friend to replace gas supplies from Russia. I think the current problem is lack of infrastructure. There are fairly extensive pipelines delivering gas from Russia to Europe. Before this Ukraine nastiness, that was a reasonable arrangement. I am not sure it is possible to turn that supply off, and buy more gas from elsewhere, because I don't think there is the means to deliver it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is, at least between Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Poland was already planning to let its 2022 contract with Russia simply expire and move to 100% Norwegian gas for 2023 even before the war.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pleased to hear that alternative supplies of gas are available in eastern Europe. I still think it is a shame that the current Russian regime seeks to subjugate its neighbours, rather than trade with them.
You can't have worker protections without unions (Score:3)
Unions of The fifth estate of our political system. Right after real journalists, about to be confused with the corporate journalists who lie to us for a living. There are necessary component of democracy and without them sooner or later your boss decides democracy isn't cut out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
A union is just another concentration of power. Just like with politics, you give your power over to the union and when enough people do so, enough power is concentrated and used with a single will.
If the people wielding the power do so to the best of their capabilities and according to ethical guidelines, all is well...
If not... well, you've created yet another organization living the sweet life on your back.
People don't have much reason to trust these days and to many it must seem like asking Beelzebub fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not all they bring, or at least, not always. My Dad spent most of his working life in a union, and I grew up in a union family. (Retail Clerks 770 in Los Angeles) He told me once that back in the mid-50s the union had a choice between going for a raise or accepting medical benefits instead of cash. He'd voted for the medical plan and considered it one of the best decisions he ever made.
Re: (Score:2)
I can second that, with my dad being a longtime union worker our family always had healthcare, even when he was between jobs and both my parents will have healthcare for the rest of their lives. There were even certain union provided centers, like we always got our glasses and contacts from a union ran optometrist office.
It' also not all negatives for the employer. All the union shops could pull labor form the union pool of workers and in my dads union (electrical work) the union membership required certa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Teachers union-best educational system in the world. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
The Teachers Unions are not created to improve the education of your children, they are created to improve the working conditions and compensation for their members, the teachers.
The teachers union protects failing teachers (see NYC "rubber rooms"), fights merit pay for better teachers, and fights any meaningful attempts to measure student performance. When was the last time teachers went on strike for longer school days, longer school years, higher academic standards, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Well only 2nd best (4 way tie) here, BC, with Shanghai-China number one at least in reading. https://www.cbc.ca/news/scienc... [www.cbc.ca] with a broken link to the OECD paper.
Searching, I did find for 2016, https://www.oecd.org/education... [oecd.org] which lists Singapore as #1 followed by Japan, Estonia, Finland and Canada. I know Canada has teachers unions and I assume at least Estonia and Finland do too.
Here (BC) the teachers union has things like going to the Supreme Court to force class room size limits as contracted.
Re: (Score:2)
Unions work for large corporations, for small mom and pops, not so much.
Amazon controls its market, as does Starbucks. They can raise prices and reduce profits a bit, the competition can't.
100% unionization=100% monopolies.
The best way... (Score:2)
If Amazon was really interested in countering unions, then they wouldn't treat their employees like shiat.
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly less than half of the Amazon workers that voted were opposed to the union,why don't they realize how badly they are treated?
Re: (Score:2)
With the amount of propaganda fed them, the fact that over 50% still voted for the union says a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This needs to be emphasised. The only reason unions exist is because of the bad behaviour of some employers. I don't think that there is any law of nature that says employers screw their employees, but exploitation does occur, and there needs to be some fair mechanism to prevent that.
Careful Amazon, Don't Make AWS De-Platform You! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Parler's de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers like Amazon [cnbc.com]: "Over the course of several weeks, AWS alerted Parler to instances of user content that encouraged violence, Amazon said in a court filing. More of that content surfaced after protesters stormed the Capitol building in Washington on Jan. 6, interrupting Congress' confirmation of the Electoral College results from the 2020 presidential election. AWS conveyed that Parler wasn't doing enough to speedily remove that sort of info
A little history is in order (Score:2)
Unionization in the US has always been little guys vs. big guys. The big guys have used dirty and in some cases illegal tricks to prevent unionization and to break strikes. We have a new battleground now in the supply chain, truckers, warehouse workers and delivery drivers are all now being pushed to work more for less all in a desire to feed the supply chains from ports to your doorstep.
Henry Ford via his lieutenant Harry Bennet hired thugs, ex-convicts, and gang members to break unionizing efforts. They w
Re: (Score:2)
Unionization in the US has always been little guys vs. big guys.
Not just in the US. The basic idea of a trade union is collective action on behalf of the little guys, to create a force to match the big guys. It makes negotiation of wages and conditions more fair.
I have to say that I don't consider trade unions a particularly good way to ensure fairness in the labour market. In the UK, the coverage is pretty patchy. Some unions have considerable clout, as their members work in industries that directly affect economic life. I am thinking of people such as train drivers on
Re: (Score:2)
THEDONALD ( a Kennedy Democrat ) would have stopped it
What the fuck? Take a look at *any* product that has the misfortune of being labeled "Trump": It's made by the cheapest foreign labor. He has no compunction to put Americans to work if he can make more money having it done elsewhere, even if it results in a shoddy product. And how many Republicans actually voted *for* impeachment? Exactly. You're delusional, gramps.
Do it like the Germans do it (Score:2)
Lots of them on the board and in management and instead of Christmas banquet they went to the whorehouse.
They flew even the Union boss' favorite hooker in from Brazil.
We're about to find out... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting point about exploitation of workers is to compare that to slavery. A shallow analysis of the business economics would indicate that slavery is profitable, so there has to be some reason why we don't have slaves any more. In the UK, we somehow eliminated slavery, without fighting a civil war about it. The interesting point is that removing free slave labour did not demolish the economy. In fact, we prospered.
I think the point is that employing humans as mere beasts of burden is a waste of a va
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is fairly sound analysis, I think. Short of slavery, the idea of workers being interchangeable components is convenient for employers in some ways, but represents an under-use of a valuable resource. The theory is that fair and humane treatment of employees is not just charitable. It contributes to the prosperity of the business, by encouraging people to contribute more to the enterprise, rather than being mere drudges following orders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Daniel Kahnemann win the Nobel Prize for economics for showing that investors, bankers, executives, etc. aren't rational?
I will need to look that up. From what I have read, there are powerful people who act in their own interests within an organisation, and that then distorts how the organisation behaves. The assumption in mainstream economics is that corporations act in such a way as to maximise their profits, but if there are fiefdoms within the big organisation, corporate actions might not be entirely rational.
As you imply, much of this conflict at high levels of management is about power, not just money. Presumably people
Starbucks examples means what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because any sane person realizes it means that Starbucks employees wanted to unionize but were afraid of doing it until a few brave stores stood up to the bully.
Is Amazon admitting that most of it's employees want to unionize are just too afraid to do it? Yes, I can see how a company that mistreats it's employees would be afraid if they started to unionize.
But by pointing out that an intitial union can lead to more tells us that the vote to unionize was valid and should be upheld.
Do they think this is some kind of game where they are allowed to do anything they want to stop a union, rather than obeying the law?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they think this is some kind of game where they are allowed to do anything they want to stop a union, rather than obeying the law?
Why must Amazon simply accept the results of the union vote? Do you imagine the union leaders would simply accept a no vote without challenge?
The company alleged that the regional office of the agency, based in Brooklyn, "created the impression" it was supporting the union by filing a lawsuit against Amazon before the vote. Amazon also alleged the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) delayed investigating "unmeritorious" unfair labor practice charges and understaffed the election. Amazon also alleges the independent Amazon Labor Union harassed employees who did not support the union, trespassed on Amazon's property and "misled employees by telling them that they would lose their benefits if they did not support the ALU," among other issues....
Those seem like reasonable challenges, let the courts figure them out.
Labor lawyers say the company, which strongly opposed unionization, could try to delay the process of workers forming a union for years. "Amazon probably figures it has nothing to lose by exhausting every possible appeals process because time is on its side," said John Logan, chair of the labor and employment studies department at San Francisco State University.... A representative for the Amazon Labor Union said none of Amazon's objections had merit and called them a tactic to delay the union. "It's a blatant attempt by Amazon to interfere with and go around the democratic choice of their workforce," Amazon worker and labor organizer Connor Spence said....
In other words, "we, the union, appears to have won the as yet uncertified union vote, Amazon needs to just accept the uncertified results and give us what we want."
Amazon has to agree to any contracts going forward, the union can't dictate terms, and I suspect Amazon has a better bargaining positi
Re: (Score:2)
Are you paid to do this crap? You ignored every single thing I said.
I was not commenting on whether the Union vote was won, legal or not. I was commenting ONLY on the starbucks example that you totally ignored.
You might be right, Amazon could be entirely justified in their suit. Please not I did not object to them filing suit, I objected to side comments they made.
Thy are still shmucks because of HOW they made that argument. That little aside about Starbucks prove that they DO NOT CARE whether the vot
modern politics (Score:2)
Just let the Union setup shop and then install a YES MAN in leadership who answers to amazon management directly.
Just like modern politics. LET the people believe they have some say in what happens, and then just DO what you actually want.
Repeat the lie enough times until you believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon doesn't get to install union leadership.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Union harassed employees? (Score:2)
The union organization harassed employees to unionize? Sounds about right. Probably told them a bunch of "you could benefit" lines as if those things will ever happen. Union organizations only make money if people unionize. They're salesmen who want a cut of your paycheck for minimal service in return.
I can see where unions can have some benefits, but I would never work in a position that has one. The only thing they had done for me in the past was take my money. I wonder what the Amazon employees are expec
Re: (Score:2)
Probably told them a bunch of "you could benefit" lines as if those things will ever happen.
I suppose if workers did actually benefit from not joining a union, then the union has done its job.
clear message (Score:2)
Amazon: "Workers' rights. We can't have that or we'll go out of business."
Lawyers just wrote out the legalese translation of that.
Re: (Score:2)
So they need a legalese translation for "Then please do so as quickly as possible."