The Teamsters announce coordinated nationwide project to unionize Amazon(vice.com)
vice.com
The Teamsters announce coordinated nationwide project to unionize Amazon
https://www.vice.com/en/article/akg7pp/the-teamsters-announce-coordinated-nationwide-project-to-unionize-amazon
377 comments
> Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals.
One factor in the fate of on organizing is that much of the agenda was codified into law. The 40 hour week, overtime, workers comp, etc. Not that these haven't been substantially eroded...
If they pull this off it will be remarkable. The president of the Teamsters is an accomplishment free 80 year old product of institutional nepotism that's been warming the chair for almost a quarter century.
I'm not holding my breath.
One factor in the fate of on organizing is that much of the agenda was codified into law. The 40 hour week, overtime, workers comp, etc. Not that these haven't been substantially eroded...
If they pull this off it will be remarkable. The president of the Teamsters is an accomplishment free 80 year old product of institutional nepotism that's been warming the chair for almost a quarter century.
I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not saying hold your breath either
> One factor in the fate of on organizing is that much of the agenda was codified into law.
Right so now that workers don't have much real power, it is nice we have the legal remnants of power in the past. But given what I am saying, this should be seen as a Faustian bargain: it's not worth sacrificing power now (via legalization-ossification), to have some remnant influence later. Moreoever, having complex erodable things enshrined in a law doesn't work well as a "rachet".
The most important thing is to sustain power and sustain politicization --- don't let the red scare take all your best organizers in the 1940s-1950s interested in the real goal of workplace democracy! And if you do go for laws, make them really simple things (40 hour workweek is better than NLRB recognition, but still too complex. Maybe UBI would be the best).
> One factor in the fate of on organizing is that much of the agenda was codified into law.
Right so now that workers don't have much real power, it is nice we have the legal remnants of power in the past. But given what I am saying, this should be seen as a Faustian bargain: it's not worth sacrificing power now (via legalization-ossification), to have some remnant influence later. Moreoever, having complex erodable things enshrined in a law doesn't work well as a "rachet".
The most important thing is to sustain power and sustain politicization --- don't let the red scare take all your best organizers in the 1940s-1950s interested in the real goal of workplace democracy! And if you do go for laws, make them really simple things (40 hour workweek is better than NLRB recognition, but still too complex. Maybe UBI would be the best).
> The most important thing is to sustain power and sustain politicization
Union power is a function of the demand for labor. You can rah-rah all day long, but when the demand for labor is low unions have little influence. If you want empowered workers seek to increase demand for labor. If the policies necessary to achieve that are abhorrent to you; impeding offshoring, limiting immigration, reducing regulatory burden, etc. then understand that it is you that defangs unions.
As for the "real goal" workers seek prosperity which includes minimizing hours and maximizing income, benefits, safety and other quality of life factors. If your goal is "workplace democracy" or some other abstraction no one will listen. Perhaps you think they should, and you may be plausibly correct, but they wont.
Union power is a function of the demand for labor. You can rah-rah all day long, but when the demand for labor is low unions have little influence. If you want empowered workers seek to increase demand for labor. If the policies necessary to achieve that are abhorrent to you; impeding offshoring, limiting immigration, reducing regulatory burden, etc. then understand that it is you that defangs unions.
As for the "real goal" workers seek prosperity which includes minimizing hours and maximizing income, benefits, safety and other quality of life factors. If your goal is "workplace democracy" or some other abstraction no one will listen. Perhaps you think they should, and you may be plausibly correct, but they wont.
6f8986c3(5)
From what I saw here though, the workers don't want a union and the teamsters seem to be trying to force one in regardless? There was a vote, and from what I remember it wasn't even close. Does this coercion not impact its legitimacy in your eyes?
One vote cast in one warehouse doesn't necessarily represent the workforce as a whole.
1. That particular workforce is making above-market wages for their area. They looked at what a union might be able to deliver and decided they didn't want to rock the boat.
2. Any single location voting for union representation knows that there's a good chance management will just shutdown the whole operation. Like Wal-Mart did. Amazon could easily jettison a "troublesome" warehouse and continue doing business. Game-theoretically, it would benefit them as a message to other locations that might be flirting with organizing.
I'm not sure what coercion you're seeing in their new strategy.
1. That particular workforce is making above-market wages for their area. They looked at what a union might be able to deliver and decided they didn't want to rock the boat.
2. Any single location voting for union representation knows that there's a good chance management will just shutdown the whole operation. Like Wal-Mart did. Amazon could easily jettison a "troublesome" warehouse and continue doing business. Game-theoretically, it would benefit them as a message to other locations that might be flirting with organizing.
I'm not sure what coercion you're seeing in their new strategy.
It's also worth noting that the NLSB is currently investigating Amazon for illegally pressuring workers to vote against unionizing.
True. I took the Bessemer results at face value in my comment, but of course there's also that possibility. Which kind of dovetails into #2 above. ("Boss says if this place unionizes, we're all out of a job")
I'm definitely all for punitive measures on amazon if they're found guilty there. That also works invalidate the results in my book. That's an if, though.
Amazon managed to play around a lot with the cohort deemed qualified to vote.
A lot of the people the Union convinced ended up being swapped out with newbies who had only been exposed to anti-union propaganda and hadn't seen what the job really had to offer yet.
There's always a contingent of people who are afraid that the center will close if they vote to unionize and will lose their jobs (even though it's technically illegal).
A lot of the people the Union convinced ended up being swapped out with newbies who had only been exposed to anti-union propaganda and hadn't seen what the job really had to offer yet.
There's always a contingent of people who are afraid that the center will close if they vote to unionize and will lose their jobs (even though it's technically illegal).
Bessemer is the type of place where fear of things being worse easily overcomes hope of things being better.
Asking the most precarious to make the first bold move doesn't feel right.
Asking the most precarious to make the first bold move doesn't feel right.
An HM commenter provided some context after the vote in Bessemer [1], equating it to a slum. Another commenter quoted from Wikipedia:
> "Crime increased following the rise in unemployment and social disruption from the decline of manufacturing industries in the area. As of 2019 Bessemer ranks first in terms of violent crimes for US cities with 25,000 or more people."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26752316
> "Crime increased following the rise in unemployment and social disruption from the decline of manufacturing industries in the area. As of 2019 Bessemer ranks first in terms of violent crimes for US cities with 25,000 or more people."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26752316
It is hard to take such a vote seriously in either direction. The employees end up in the middle of two powers pushing and pulling them both ways.
I think you would have to ask employees what they want, union or not, and figure out if a union is the right way to achieve that.
I think you would have to ask employees what they want, union or not, and figure out if a union is the right way to achieve that.
The teamsters just want their dues, they see Amazon as a big fat cash cow waiting to be milked. They’re not even going the vote route and now just flat out threatening Amazon “force your employees to pay our dues or something may start happening to your deliveries”.
Whereas Amazon you think has a grander purpose beyond milking profits out of a monopoly?
Amazon is a for profit company, that makes having no other grander purpose way less hypothetical.
They claim to be customer obsessed but they're seemingly happy to be the conduit for overpriced fake garbage if it gins their next quarter results.
They will use their size and wealth to destroy competition like diapers.com and carve our a monopoly, presumably so they can sell worse quality crap at a higher price.
Why is it scandalous if Teamsters have a "dues motive" that mirrors (probably not even as strongly) Amazon's "profit motive" if this is the stream of wealth they're tapping? Are unions only moral if run by ascetic monks?
They will use their size and wealth to destroy competition like diapers.com and carve our a monopoly, presumably so they can sell worse quality crap at a higher price.
Why is it scandalous if Teamsters have a "dues motive" that mirrors (probably not even as strongly) Amazon's "profit motive" if this is the stream of wealth they're tapping? Are unions only moral if run by ascetic monks?
> overpriced fake garbage if it gins their next quarter results.
It has been quite a number of next quarters and if it is really hot garbage wouldn't people ditch Amazon? Amazon is not exactly a new entrant to the market.
> They will use their size and wealth to destroy competition like diapers.com and carve our a monopoly, presumably so they can sell worse quality crap at a higher price.
You can't have a monopoly on diapers. If diapers.com fold it would be because people don't want to know 300 websites to buy individual goods than it is Amazon. Oh, and maybe they're more expensive, not less.
It has been quite a number of next quarters and if it is really hot garbage wouldn't people ditch Amazon? Amazon is not exactly a new entrant to the market.
> They will use their size and wealth to destroy competition like diapers.com and carve our a monopoly, presumably so they can sell worse quality crap at a higher price.
You can't have a monopoly on diapers. If diapers.com fold it would be because people don't want to know 300 websites to buy individual goods than it is Amazon. Oh, and maybe they're more expensive, not less.
svnpenn(1)
>>Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals. It makes the decline of union power same rather inevitable.
The union movement completely captured US industry and extracted exorbitant benefits that crippled the golden geese of the US economy.
The only reason private sector unions declined in membership is that the industries they exploited saw their US-based operations contract, or disappear altogether.
Meanwhile, the public sector unions have steadily grown in power, and steadily increased their control over public policy, by successfully pushing for successively more left-wing governments:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...
And the result has been detrimental to the efficiency of public spending, whether you look at education:
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839...
Or policing:
https://academic.oup.com/jleo/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jl...
Or any other public sector.
The union movement completely captured US industry and extracted exorbitant benefits that crippled the golden geese of the US economy.
The only reason private sector unions declined in membership is that the industries they exploited saw their US-based operations contract, or disappear altogether.
Meanwhile, the public sector unions have steadily grown in power, and steadily increased their control over public policy, by successfully pushing for successively more left-wing governments:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...
And the result has been detrimental to the efficiency of public spending, whether you look at education:
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839...
Or policing:
https://academic.oup.com/jleo/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jl...
Or any other public sector.
These comments highlight the need for balance between the two extremes. We are currently at one extreme, and need to find a way back to the middle.
CryptoPunk(1)
Without the legal backing of a recognized union, what prevents the company from firing anyone that declines to work like this?
Before unions were ever legal or recognized, they worked because of the force of solidarity, collective action and bargaining. You just simply couldn't fire and replace everyone at once.
It created a bargaining entity that the owner was forced to deal with because the alternative was closure.
EDIT: Frankly, if a union is relying on its legal recognition and backing for survival, it's already a zombie, dead-man-walking structure that is just going to fall apart in the long run. Unions must maintain solidarity and collective action and a healthy internal democracy and vibrant participation, or they'll just become a bureaucratic husk. Like most of the North American labour movement.
It created a bargaining entity that the owner was forced to deal with because the alternative was closure.
EDIT: Frankly, if a union is relying on its legal recognition and backing for survival, it's already a zombie, dead-man-walking structure that is just going to fall apart in the long run. Unions must maintain solidarity and collective action and a healthy internal democracy and vibrant participation, or they'll just become a bureaucratic husk. Like most of the North American labour movement.
Don't forget good relations with the local community to deter scabbing.
I know there's a lot of hate for the Teamsters union in particular. Corruption exists in every human institution. But in the modern oligarchy that is the US, where politicians are completely bought and paid for with corporate money, organized labor is literally the only tool we have left against a capitalist dystopia. It's easy to forget that we had to fight literal wars in this country to gain things like the 8 hour work day. This stuff doesn't come without a fight. And you can nitpick about the quality of an organization, but you go to war with the army you have.
The unions also buy off politicians to disastrous effect. In California, you can’t win an election unless the teachers union or the police union backs you, which has led to all sorts of insane policies.
Even with that, teachers and police officers are terribly underpaid and also mistreated by the California government.
Unions might be the answer. However, the US has a closed shop system where a few unions have a monopoly on labor relations.
As a result, the existing national unions have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re not interested in improving working conditions for their members.
Even with that, teachers and police officers are terribly underpaid and also mistreated by the California government.
Unions might be the answer. However, the US has a closed shop system where a few unions have a monopoly on labor relations.
As a result, the existing national unions have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re not interested in improving working conditions for their members.
I was a union member for many years. I’m in management now in the same org and am no longer represented.
Everyone rags on unions. But you know, I have great healthcare at a fair price, salary is good, protection from management fads like stack ranking, etc. The only real downside IMO is the focus on seniority.
The big argument is usually that unions breed mediocrity and incompetence. My staff and colleagues are good at what they do and deliver. I regularly work with contract and consulting companies… they don’t consistently outperform our folks.
My sister works at a big tech company. Her negative experiences with idiots, bad managers, etc are pretty similar, and consistent with my past Fortune 50 experiences. Big orgs always have that.
Everyone rags on unions. But you know, I have great healthcare at a fair price, salary is good, protection from management fads like stack ranking, etc. The only real downside IMO is the focus on seniority.
The big argument is usually that unions breed mediocrity and incompetence. My staff and colleagues are good at what they do and deliver. I regularly work with contract and consulting companies… they don’t consistently outperform our folks.
My sister works at a big tech company. Her negative experiences with idiots, bad managers, etc are pretty similar, and consistent with my past Fortune 50 experiences. Big orgs always have that.
When you can't fire bad apples, you end up with problems like the police force having violent cops or racist cops that make everyone look bad. Or you have teachers that refuse to go back to work even though there are vaccines available to them.
I think unions make sense in circumstances where a company has a monopoly granted by the government... For example Boeing. Boeing has completed a regulatory capture that makes it nearly impossible to launch competing airline building companies.
Unions do not make sense where they do not have a counterparty to negotiate against... Basically there should be no unions for government employees because politicians generally already are willing to do the will of the workers over that of the best interests of the citizens. Unions also do not make sense in highly competitive spaces where if a company underpays or mistreats its employees, those employees can just switch jobs immediately.
I think unions make sense in circumstances where a company has a monopoly granted by the government... For example Boeing. Boeing has completed a regulatory capture that makes it nearly impossible to launch competing airline building companies.
Unions do not make sense where they do not have a counterparty to negotiate against... Basically there should be no unions for government employees because politicians generally already are willing to do the will of the workers over that of the best interests of the citizens. Unions also do not make sense in highly competitive spaces where if a company underpays or mistreats its employees, those employees can just switch jobs immediately.
The reason why cops don't get fired isn't just unions. Union workers get fired all the time for much less. The reason cops don't get fired is political.
If you fire a cop for a reason that the cops don't like, their political connections will come breathing down your neck.
For some weird reason I "can't quite put my finger on", it's almost as if cop unions are uniquely different from other unions.
Perhaps reading into why Union Federations never take in cop unions will help.
If you fire a cop for a reason that the cops don't like, their political connections will come breathing down your neck.
For some weird reason I "can't quite put my finger on", it's almost as if cop unions are uniquely different from other unions.
Perhaps reading into why Union Federations never take in cop unions will help.
In my home school district, it took years (and many months of formal observers) to fire teachers who habitually came to work drunk or simply didn't do their job, and pre-tenure teachers would all get axed when the economy went downhill. Cop unions aren't that special.
You're just describing tenure?
If your high school has a tenure system, it's not a teacher issue, it's a systemic issues.
Cop unions are incredibly special. The thing about cop unions is that they're the same everywhere, there is no city where cops are fired adequately for cause. There are plenty of cities where teachers can get fired.
There is no profession with the same universal tolerance for abuse anywhere as cops. The reason has to do with their function as cops, not their labour union.
If your high school has a tenure system, it's not a teacher issue, it's a systemic issues.
Cop unions are incredibly special. The thing about cop unions is that they're the same everywhere, there is no city where cops are fired adequately for cause. There are plenty of cities where teachers can get fired.
There is no profession with the same universal tolerance for abuse anywhere as cops. The reason has to do with their function as cops, not their labour union.
Tenure and firing protections and procedures are negotiated with the union. Unreasonable protections can be a concession to union bargainers in lieu of pay, and are common in union shops for that reason.
You keep claiming everything else is an issue where the common denominator is unions themseleves.
No? It isn't?
Cops everywhere in North America have the issue of being unfireable despite literally committing crimes.
Electricians don't have this issue.
Both of them are highly unionized.
So clearly the common denominator isn't unions. Even before their mass unionization cops were able to get away with far too much and they get away with far more than any other profession, unionized or otherwise.
Cops everywhere in North America have the issue of being unfireable despite literally committing crimes.
Electricians don't have this issue.
Both of them are highly unionized.
So clearly the common denominator isn't unions. Even before their mass unionization cops were able to get away with far too much and they get away with far more than any other profession, unionized or otherwise.
Because cops work for the government, which has a monopoly on policing services and the tax revenue that pays for it. The unions can therefore be far more abusive, as their patron and customer, which is the taxpayer and resident, respectively, is captive, absent these two groups being able to successfully organize a strong enough political coalition to counter the Democrats in the electoral process.
There is a causality issue in this thread. Folks that are anti-union overly focus on police unions as a metric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_fixation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_fixation
Public sector unions, particularly those in essential services, are very different from private sector unions. If the cops go on strike, the city falls apart. If Amazon’s workers go on, it creates a competitive opening.
When parents can take their kids out of public schools more easily, the teachers’ unions lose power.
When parents can take their kids out of public schools more easily, the teachers’ unions lose power.
I’m a union public school teacher. I am not protected from being fired, I simply must be given a PIP and I can request a Union lawyer help represent me in disciplinary meetings. This is after several years of at-will employment. If my boss wanted me gone next year, I would be.
The statistics in New York at least are not encouraging:
https://www.the74million.org/article/investigation-nyc-tried...
Going off-tangent: collective bargaining for teachers is also correlated with decreased lifetime earnings for males:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170570
https://www.the74million.org/article/investigation-nyc-tried...
Going off-tangent: collective bargaining for teachers is also correlated with decreased lifetime earnings for males:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170570
I agree those numbers seems low for such a large staff, but the country is big and broad.
Assuming that unions are actually bad for the economy at face value
Is union is doing wonders for the officers and teachers the actual workers ? Making sure their rights and preferences are catered to ? Then the union is doing it's bloody job.
If you are an employee at big co that is abusive or exploitative earning minimum wage then the government has already abandoned you . Should you then see the wider societal implications and scarifice your needs for greater good or actually say fuck that and unionize and try improve your quality of life and not have to pee in a bottle during work,(Amazon) or catch COVID-19 and die cause your company doesnt care (meat packing)?
Even if it is bad for the economy/society unions still have been good for the actual workers as a group. We still have lot of work related deaths, long term issues and basic hygiene requirements missing, you absolutely need unions.
The competition is not with low paying jobs in cheaper areas of US or cheaper countries like mexico or china. It is with automation and robots, you can't compete with that. Without strong worker representation employees of unskilled workforces like Amazon are going to face worsening conditions in the future as they are made to compete with automation
Is union is doing wonders for the officers and teachers the actual workers ? Making sure their rights and preferences are catered to ? Then the union is doing it's bloody job.
If you are an employee at big co that is abusive or exploitative earning minimum wage then the government has already abandoned you . Should you then see the wider societal implications and scarifice your needs for greater good or actually say fuck that and unionize and try improve your quality of life and not have to pee in a bottle during work,(Amazon) or catch COVID-19 and die cause your company doesnt care (meat packing)?
Even if it is bad for the economy/society unions still have been good for the actual workers as a group. We still have lot of work related deaths, long term issues and basic hygiene requirements missing, you absolutely need unions.
The competition is not with low paying jobs in cheaper areas of US or cheaper countries like mexico or china. It is with automation and robots, you can't compete with that. Without strong worker representation employees of unskilled workforces like Amazon are going to face worsening conditions in the future as they are made to compete with automation
[deleted]
> Everyone rags on unions. But you know, I have great healthcare at a fair price, salary is good, protection from management fads like stack ranking, etc. The only real downside IMO is the focus on seniority.
I have those things (well not “protection from stack ranking” but my employer doesn’t do it) without the focus on seniority. A union is not requisite nor sufficient for those things.
I have those things (well not “protection from stack ranking” but my employer doesn’t do it) without the focus on seniority. A union is not requisite nor sufficient for those things.
They are not terribly underpaid. They take home about twice the median income after retiring as early as 50 years old!
https://californiapolicycenter.org/evaluating-public-safety-...
https://californiapolicycenter.org/evaluating-public-safety-...
> Even with that, teachers and police officers are terribly underpaid and also mistreated by the California government.
The average police salary is $104k in California [0], 35% above the national average. In 2018 at least.
And then the pension is 50% after twenty years or service or 90% after 33 years [1], in LA at least.
This is one of the best jobs in the country, pay wise. So it’s unusual to hear someone say that police officers are underpaid.
[0] https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/police-officer/salary... [1] https://www.lafpp.com/post/tier-5-pension-plan-information
The average police salary is $104k in California [0], 35% above the national average. In 2018 at least.
And then the pension is 50% after twenty years or service or 90% after 33 years [1], in LA at least.
This is one of the best jobs in the country, pay wise. So it’s unusual to hear someone say that police officers are underpaid.
[0] https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/police-officer/salary... [1] https://www.lafpp.com/post/tier-5-pension-plan-information
Voters like police unions and teachers unions, but what they don't like is paying more in taxes. As a public employee, I make $74k a year while living in the Bay Area. I'm at the top of my salary band. Sure, I've got pretty good health insurance, but no better than I would get in tech. I've got a pension, but it will not be enough to live on, and CalPERS has huge liabilities because the voters are unwilling to actually fully fund it. I get three weeks of vacation. I guess that's pretty OK.
The one thing I have (besides a job I absolutely enjoy doing), is job security and stability, and that is thanks to my union. It sure would be nice to have a higher salary, but someone has to be willing to pay for it, and nobody wants to do that. Instead, public employees get things that only indirectly cost money, or that don't have to be paid off until sometime in the distant future when the politicians and union bigwigs who agreed to all this stuff are no longer around.
The one thing I have (besides a job I absolutely enjoy doing), is job security and stability, and that is thanks to my union. It sure would be nice to have a higher salary, but someone has to be willing to pay for it, and nobody wants to do that. Instead, public employees get things that only indirectly cost money, or that don't have to be paid off until sometime in the distant future when the politicians and union bigwigs who agreed to all this stuff are no longer around.
> The unions also buy off politicians to disastrous effect.
Any sufficiently entrenched bureaucracy is indistinguishable from corruption.
With apologies ...
Any sufficiently entrenched bureaucracy is indistinguishable from corruption.
With apologies ...
The union I'm in repeatedly demonstrate they ARE interested in improving working conditions for our members in California. Perhaps AFSCME and AFLCIO are different than the unions you are talking about.
Teachers and police officers in California make salaries well above the state median and are entitled to eye-watering pensions as well
The average income for teachers seems to be $67k in California? That doesn't really sound eye-watering.
There's a lot of people who say "teacher and police unions" or even "public sector unions" when they really mean "just, exactly, police unions."
“Pensions” is the eye-watering part. The retirement programs are great.
$48k are eye-watering? https://www.teacherpensions.org/state/california
Yes, when you consider how little relative time has to be put in to earn that.
>As a result, the existing national unions have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re not interested in improving working conditions for their members.
It always comes down to this. And you can argue endlessly about the various failings of modern organized labor. But ultimately it's all we've got. The capitalists have demonstrated for centuries over and over again that left unchecked they will always take capitalism to a level of borderline subsistence for the working class to maximize profits. Your boss is not looking out for you; ever.
To have an organization with funding and influence that has at least professed to defend your rights gives a more realistic chance of having your voice heard, no matter how slight.
It always comes down to this. And you can argue endlessly about the various failings of modern organized labor. But ultimately it's all we've got. The capitalists have demonstrated for centuries over and over again that left unchecked they will always take capitalism to a level of borderline subsistence for the working class to maximize profits. Your boss is not looking out for you; ever.
To have an organization with funding and influence that has at least professed to defend your rights gives a more realistic chance of having your voice heard, no matter how slight.
So if they say they'll help and then make things worse, you'd gladly support them?
Because that's the impression I get from the other comments that you're responding here; That they have negligible impact on member welfare, but introduce a pile of corruption and bureaucracy into the mix.
Because that's the impression I get from the other comments that you're responding here; That they have negligible impact on member welfare, but introduce a pile of corruption and bureaucracy into the mix.
> That they have negligible impact on member welfare
That is some -really- strong hyperbole, especially against teacher and police unions as the parent is referring to.
I would argue that the benefits teachers get and the relative job security of police offices is a good indicator of a strong labor union for both roles.
Sure, pay sucks, but teachers would probably be treated worse than amazon workers at this point if they didn't have them.
Source: worked for ed tech startup that supported teachers. Also dated a few.
That is some -really- strong hyperbole, especially against teacher and police unions as the parent is referring to.
I would argue that the benefits teachers get and the relative job security of police offices is a good indicator of a strong labor union for both roles.
Sure, pay sucks, but teachers would probably be treated worse than amazon workers at this point if they didn't have them.
Source: worked for ed tech startup that supported teachers. Also dated a few.
I'm not American, so I've little personal interaction with these. This is just the impression I get from here, as well as other American core communities I frequent.
That I frequently hear how public school teachers are unable to do anything about literal abuse and such does give them credence though.
That I frequently hear how public school teachers are unable to do anything about literal abuse and such does give them credence though.
> I get from the other comments that you're responding here
You should be better off ignoring comments from people you do not know, with unknown agendas, and without sources.
Amazon is well known for astroturfing and creating "fake" profiles: https://boingboing.net/2021/03/30/twitter-bans-fake-amazon-w...
That does not mean that your fellow commenters are Amazon infiltrates or the like, but they can just be repeating misinformation from Amazon anti-union campaigns.
You should be better off ignoring comments from people you do not know, with unknown agendas, and without sources.
Amazon is well known for astroturfing and creating "fake" profiles: https://boingboing.net/2021/03/30/twitter-bans-fake-amazon-w...
That does not mean that your fellow commenters are Amazon infiltrates or the like, but they can just be repeating misinformation from Amazon anti-union campaigns.
What type of person puts words in someone else's mouth?
Nothing you say seems to have any basis in reality.
I find the idea of closed shops insane, like all employee have to be union members and there can only be one union
Then you'll be glad to hear these were forbidden in the US in 1947.
And so where are coming from the "closed shop" the parent was talking about?
No idea, I can only imagine they redefined the word. Closed shops were made illegal by the Taft-Hartley Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
The teamsters earned every bit of that distrust.
Successfully representing their members would go a long way to helping earn it back.
Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war"
Successfully representing their members would go a long way to helping earn it back.
Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war"
>Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war
I assume they were mentioning the regular use of the National Guard against strikers, like in the Ludlow Massacre.
I assume they were mentioning the regular use of the National Guard against strikers, like in the Ludlow Massacre.
Good point.
>Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war"
That's the quaint history book narrative we like to think about in relation to the labor struggles of the 19th/20th century in the US. But the reality is that men, women and children were mowed down with machine guns and sniper fire. It was a struggle for life and death between two classes.
That's the quaint history book narrative we like to think about in relation to the labor struggles of the 19th/20th century in the US. But the reality is that men, women and children were mowed down with machine guns and sniper fire. It was a struggle for life and death between two classes.
What should I read to learn more about this?
The first aerial bombing on US soil targeted striking coal miners, at the Battle of Blair Mountain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
That seems more like "literal war" than a gang turf war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
That seems more like "literal war" than a gang turf war.
Teamsters has a lot of baggage to bring to the table. Brand power for sure. Not sure Brand Power > Baggage though in this case.
The unions didn't stop a capitalist distopia, they carved out a portion for themselves and their cronies. Doubly so in large cities.
Well, it's more complicated than that. Anti-capitalist unions were cracked down upon, often violently. The unions that agree with you tried what they could and it took violence to stop them.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there's hardly a more capitalism-friendly organisation than a union. Their whole existence depends upon capital-based enterprises requiring labour. By seeking to standardise the units and price of work, they fall right in line with classical Adam Smith.
This is hardly surprising; the first priority of any institution is to perpetuate its own existence, so far from being at war with capitalism, unions are locked in a symbiotic embrace with it.
They may sing along to the Internationale but the lyrics are the Wealth of Nations.
This is hardly surprising; the first priority of any institution is to perpetuate its own existence, so far from being at war with capitalism, unions are locked in a symbiotic embrace with it.
They may sing along to the Internationale but the lyrics are the Wealth of Nations.
Semi-related: "Amazon burns through workers so quickly that executives are worried they'll run out of people to employ, according to a new report"
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-wo...
(HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27524637)
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-wo...
(HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27524637)
I think that's pretty related. Unionization efforts would be unlikely to succeed if there were so many people lining up for work that Amazon could lay off entire warehouses. Tightening of the labour supply should create a much better bargaining position for workers.
With the Amazon Project, the Teamsters are taking a different approach that doesn't rely on the traditional National Labor Relations Board election process that allows employers to run sophisticated anti-union campaigns and involves the task of running elections warehouse by warehouse.
Instead the Teamsters plan to focus on a series of pressure campaigns involving work stoppages, petitions, and other collective action to push Amazon to recognize a union and bargain over working conditions.
Faced with workers who don't want to join a union and laws which protect them, the Teamsters plan a series of coercive measures which will force workers into a union whether they want it or not.
Instead the Teamsters plan to focus on a series of pressure campaigns involving work stoppages, petitions, and other collective action to push Amazon to recognize a union and bargain over working conditions.
Faced with workers who don't want to join a union and laws which protect them, the Teamsters plan a series of coercive measures which will force workers into a union whether they want it or not.
It's not quite that simple. In a push for unionization it isn't rare at all to see management come down hard on those that favored it, so unless there is an overwhelming chance of success there could easily be a large chunk of people who abstain from voting. Otherwise in the next round of lay-offs your number could easily have a higher chance of popping up, and as the organizers it isn't rare at all to be fired on some pretext. The reported outcome is typically only for those who did vote.
Personally I think that unions should be open to membership regardless of whether the company has a majority of the people there that want to be part of a union, and that companies should never be able to deny employees the right to unionize.
Personally I think that unions should be open to membership regardless of whether the company has a majority of the people there that want to be part of a union, and that companies should never be able to deny employees the right to unionize.
A set of workers can always form a union. A recent example of this took place at Google.
The only time there's a vote is when they want to force all the other workers to join the same union.
The only time there's a vote is when they want to force all the other workers to join the same union.
I don't think that's ok, you should never be forced to do business with a particular party, even if that party is a union that ostensibly works to your advantage. Here in NL there are multiple unions and people can join or abstain on an individual basis. I do think people should not be able to join more than one union.
I'm so torn on this.
On the one hand Amazon and its bad labor relations and squeezing the last drop out of everyone and discarding ones who have no juice left. Looking the other way on fraud in their marketplace. Copycatting brands and underselling them with inferior copies (the camera bag[1] for example but many others).
On the other hand, organized labor and its infamous corruption, bullying, and drive to have everyone do as little as possible (sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw, I'll be back Monday morning to do that for you) totally undermining progress, improvement and development.
It's hard to pick sides on this one. Both are quite bad and unlikable.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545421
On the one hand Amazon and its bad labor relations and squeezing the last drop out of everyone and discarding ones who have no juice left. Looking the other way on fraud in their marketplace. Copycatting brands and underselling them with inferior copies (the camera bag[1] for example but many others).
On the other hand, organized labor and its infamous corruption, bullying, and drive to have everyone do as little as possible (sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw, I'll be back Monday morning to do that for you) totally undermining progress, improvement and development.
It's hard to pick sides on this one. Both are quite bad and unlikable.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545421
> undermining progress, improvement, and development
An honest question - whose progress? Whose development? Do workers benefit by turning that screw at 5:01?
There are many companies where laborers do benefit by having the freedom to work outside the box to benefit their careers, learn, take pride and ownership in a long-term project, foster their own creativity, and in aggregate lift the local community. I’d fully understand your point in such circumstances, and agree that certain unions work against those less-tangible benefits for their members, at times in excess.
But Amazon specifically has designed itself to destroy alignment between warehouse workers and company goals. Promotion from the warehouse floor is actively discouraged (this is well documented), turnover is expected and encouraged well beyond industry norms, tasks are rote and automatically fed, no project is long enough to foster ownership, no operating procedure or penny of local profit not controlled by corporate from afar. Does this sound like an a situation where labor and company interests are at all aligned?
Amazon will not change this status quo at the behest of any single individual at any level; it sees no strategic value in empowering any such individual. Organizing is the natural consequence of such a situation.
An honest question - whose progress? Whose development? Do workers benefit by turning that screw at 5:01?
There are many companies where laborers do benefit by having the freedom to work outside the box to benefit their careers, learn, take pride and ownership in a long-term project, foster their own creativity, and in aggregate lift the local community. I’d fully understand your point in such circumstances, and agree that certain unions work against those less-tangible benefits for their members, at times in excess.
But Amazon specifically has designed itself to destroy alignment between warehouse workers and company goals. Promotion from the warehouse floor is actively discouraged (this is well documented), turnover is expected and encouraged well beyond industry norms, tasks are rote and automatically fed, no project is long enough to foster ownership, no operating procedure or penny of local profit not controlled by corporate from afar. Does this sound like an a situation where labor and company interests are at all aligned?
Amazon will not change this status quo at the behest of any single individual at any level; it sees no strategic value in empowering any such individual. Organizing is the natural consequence of such a situation.
>An honest question - whose progress? Whose development? Do workers benefit by turning that screw at 5:01?
Yes these sort of tropes are being brought out repeatedly, is there any evidence they actually exist? Let's talk teachers union who people like to criticise a lot. There's still plenty of excellent teachers around who go above and beyond for their students (and if you are invested in what you're doing teaching is definitely not a 9-5 job). So they are not prevented by their union from doing that?
I think this is all from the expectation of employees to go above and beyond for their employers. Just do this 10min extra unpaid work because it really needs to be done... On the other hand, no company or contractor will do that, they will charge you handsomely.
Yes these sort of tropes are being brought out repeatedly, is there any evidence they actually exist? Let's talk teachers union who people like to criticise a lot. There's still plenty of excellent teachers around who go above and beyond for their students (and if you are invested in what you're doing teaching is definitely not a 9-5 job). So they are not prevented by their union from doing that?
I think this is all from the expectation of employees to go above and beyond for their employers. Just do this 10min extra unpaid work because it really needs to be done... On the other hand, no company or contractor will do that, they will charge you handsomely.
Depends very much on the locations.
I've worked in union shops where I wasn't union, and I was warned to ensure nobody is watching when I plug in my test equipment for the embedded system I was working on. In a different location for the same company the union guys were cool and would pretend not to see me do that (same union, just different workplace culture in different cities).
I've worked in union shops where I wasn't union, and I was warned to ensure nobody is watching when I plug in my test equipment for the embedded system I was working on. In a different location for the same company the union guys were cool and would pretend not to see me do that (same union, just different workplace culture in different cities).
> An honest question - whose progress? Whose development? Do workers benefit by turning that screw at 5:01?
Companies provide service to society. They don't exist in a vacuum. Hence it'd be good if workers are aware of the big picture and don't just stubbornly antagonize their own employers, as if they're in a battle against one another, rather than in cooperation.
In Japan when Fukushima blew out, old employees where there to contain the disaster. Do you think they did it for their personal benefit? How far would we go as a society if we're complete egoists? Not that far.
Companies provide service to society. They don't exist in a vacuum. Hence it'd be good if workers are aware of the big picture and don't just stubbornly antagonize their own employers, as if they're in a battle against one another, rather than in cooperation.
In Japan when Fukushima blew out, old employees where there to contain the disaster. Do you think they did it for their personal benefit? How far would we go as a society if we're complete egoists? Not that far.
>Companies provide service to society.[...] How far would we go as a society if we're complete egoists? Not that far.
And yet publicly traded companies are legally bound to maximize the profit for the stock holders.
And yet publicly traded companies are legally bound to maximize the profit for the stock holders.
They’re not.
There is a difference between operating a nuclear power plant and stuffing random shit into a box. I'm not really sure the latter contributes to any measure of "progress" beyond Amazon's bottom line. It's a weird position to take that unionizing Amazon warehouses would detract from society. I'd say that for the thousands of warehouse floor workers, who are also members of society, it would move things very much forward.
What about 2-day or next day deliveries? Would unions agree to the change in work necessary to achieve these SLAs?
Do we need shoes or screwdrivers delivered next day? Doubt it. But that's only one aspect. These innovations allow for other things to be possible (grocery delivery, time sensitive deliveries, lowered costs, due to efficiencies, innovations in alternative delivery methods, etc.)
Do we need shoes or screwdrivers delivered next day? Doubt it. But that's only one aspect. These innovations allow for other things to be possible (grocery delivery, time sensitive deliveries, lowered costs, due to efficiencies, innovations in alternative delivery methods, etc.)
They’re still possible. Not everything has to be done at the lowest possible poverty wage. It’s not as though those savings are being passed on to you in the first place.
Staff up, and pay staff appropriately.
Staff up, and pay staff appropriately.
> There is a difference between operating a nuclear power plant and stuffing random shit into a box.
Are you under the impression that running a power plant day to day is a glamorous job? Funny.
Are you under the impression that running a power plant day to day is a glamorous job? Funny.
No, the difference I’m alluding to is regarding the criticality of the power plant vs. stuffing shit into a box. Amazon can pay its workers more to fix the shortage without detracting from some notion of “progress.”
Japan has a different corporate culture to the US. Lifetime employment is still attainable, and company loyalty goes both ways. It's not really fair to compare that to the US, where it's primarily about the bottom line. In this culture, you can't fault workers for looking out for their own interests first.
So the argument that it should be all about the bottom line in the US is that in the US it's always all been about the bottom line. Circular argument is circular.
It's really hard to change a culture because of the vicious cycle that you have pointed out.
> sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw, I'll be back Monday morning to do that for you
Alternative view: "I have a life outside work, now I am free to enjoy that life as a normal human being."
It is devastating to me to see people thinking that to go home and take care of yourself and your loved ones is "undermining progress, improvement and development".
Your family and friends are important, your company is going to fire you just to make share price go up before the end of the quarter. Even if firing you is hurting "progress, improvement and development" of the company in the long term.
Alternative view: "I have a life outside work, now I am free to enjoy that life as a normal human being."
It is devastating to me to see people thinking that to go home and take care of yourself and your loved ones is "undermining progress, improvement and development".
Your family and friends are important, your company is going to fire you just to make share price go up before the end of the quarter. Even if firing you is hurting "progress, improvement and development" of the company in the long term.
Which is why I sometimes leave early. The union guys who finish early stand at the door until the 5:00 bell rings because they are not allowed to leave early even if their work for the day is done, while as a non-union employee if I'm done a bit early I get to leave. Sometimes I work until 5:30, sometimes I'm out at 4:30. It all works out.
We are talking about Amazon warehouse and logistics workers here. They wear location tracking smartphones and get fired by text message if their bathroom breaks are too frequent.
You are describing the difference between hourly and non-hourly employees, not union vs. non-union. Many companies won’t let hourly employees work past the end of your shift because of overtime rules regardless of whether or not there’s a union.
If it's an emergency, pay overtime for that screw. If you regularly need a second shift, hire one. Understaffing is a problem caused by management and it's not the worker's fault or their family's fault if you can't make 40 hours of use out of them in 40 hours or pay a little overtime.
> sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw, I'll be back Monday morning to do that for you
Honest question. If you're paid hourly and have job security, what's wrong with saying that? Pros don't work for free, right?
Honest question. If you're paid hourly and have job security, what's wrong with saying that? Pros don't work for free, right?
I’ve worked in a union shop before, and that’s not how it worked. When push came to shove people would work overtime (and actually be paid for it!). I remember one department was under intense pressure for months, and the people there were literally running around to get their jobs done.
That was my point. Union contracts generally have an overtime clause. If they don't then saying "See you Monday" a completely rational thing to do.
I think it's more the fact that there aren't alternative options.
Other comments have already explored how America has a "union monopoly" system for lack of a better term: where unions exist, the labor pool that is non-union is often extinguished.
> what's wrong with saying that?
If the alleged screw is flooding your home and you're on the phone with a contractor who says "it'll be Monday morning", it's safe to assume that the contractor feels safe because there's no competition out there that will come out to finish the job due to the union monopoly or other rules/regulations that the unions have established to make them the only turn screwers.
Unions in the United States gained a bad rap from things like this, and I think that's what the OP's intent was with their comment.
Other comments have already explored how America has a "union monopoly" system for lack of a better term: where unions exist, the labor pool that is non-union is often extinguished.
> what's wrong with saying that?
If the alleged screw is flooding your home and you're on the phone with a contractor who says "it'll be Monday morning", it's safe to assume that the contractor feels safe because there's no competition out there that will come out to finish the job due to the union monopoly or other rules/regulations that the unions have established to make them the only turn screwers.
Unions in the United States gained a bad rap from things like this, and I think that's what the OP's intent was with their comment.
> If the alleged screw is flooding your home and you're on the phone with a contractor who says "it'll be Monday morning",
Free market would dictate you say back: "double pay" or hire another contractor.
Free market would dictate you say back: "double pay" or hire another contractor.
Which you can't do because the rates are established in law and the only people who are allowed to do the job are people with a certificate that is only provided by the union. Regulatory capture happens with unions as well as with bosses.
Who told you that?, sources?
Overtime pay is a thing everywhere including union jobs.
I'm based in Europe and i get overtime pay if I'm forced to work late/weekends. One of the nice things of unions everywhere.
If i dont want to or cant work late, there are colleagues that will jump at 150% pay rate.
Companies can hire contractors at any point but these expect much higher wages to deal with the almost no protections and doing their own taxes.
Otherwise employer could hire a second shift as they do with manufacturing and pay normal wage there.
There is no such thing as union certificate or things of the sort. Union is there just to negotiate basic contract applied company wide and make sure you are not abused.
Working in software.
Overtime pay is a thing everywhere including union jobs.
I'm based in Europe and i get overtime pay if I'm forced to work late/weekends. One of the nice things of unions everywhere.
If i dont want to or cant work late, there are colleagues that will jump at 150% pay rate.
Companies can hire contractors at any point but these expect much higher wages to deal with the almost no protections and doing their own taxes.
Otherwise employer could hire a second shift as they do with manufacturing and pay normal wage there.
There is no such thing as union certificate or things of the sort. Union is there just to negotiate basic contract applied company wide and make sure you are not abused.
Working in software.
You are going to deal with overtime for one screw that takes you 30 seconds? Sure if we are talking about a lot of time, but one screw is a few seconds and you go home.
I thought we were talking reasonable people. No reasonable person would do what you said - leave a 30 second task to put in one screw for another day.
And even if they did, if it only takes 30 seconds and no extra effort... why can't the person asking do it or get someone else?
Also, if you need to leave on the hour to make other commitments why should boss be able to force you to stay without compensation? (bus schedule, pick up children and spend time with them, pick up spouse, go to concerts, meet friends etc)
Taking it to the extreme is what you already see in shops and warehouses, etc, where they need to stay, unpaid, for a couple of hours to secure things and clean up...
And even if they did, if it only takes 30 seconds and no extra effort... why can't the person asking do it or get someone else?
Also, if you need to leave on the hour to make other commitments why should boss be able to force you to stay without compensation? (bus schedule, pick up children and spend time with them, pick up spouse, go to concerts, meet friends etc)
Taking it to the extreme is what you already see in shops and warehouses, etc, where they need to stay, unpaid, for a couple of hours to secure things and clean up...
> No reasonable person would do what you said - leave a 30 second task to put in one screw for another day...why can't the person asking do it or get someone else?
From what I've heard of US unions (never been in one myself) they're quite strict about not allowing this kind of thing. Certain tasks can only be performed by particular union employees. I suppose they consider it a slippery slope. But again, it's also possible that in the story we're discussing the union member just didn't like this person enough to do them a favor.
From what I've heard of US unions (never been in one myself) they're quite strict about not allowing this kind of thing. Certain tasks can only be performed by particular union employees. I suppose they consider it a slippery slope. But again, it's also possible that in the story we're discussing the union member just didn't like this person enough to do them a favor.
[deleted]
[deleted]
So if I'm not in a union (salaried or hourly) I can do someone a favor or someone can do me a favor.
Union members get "ratted out" by others if they go "above and beyond". There is no flexibility.
Union members get "ratted out" by others if they go "above and beyond". There is no flexibility.
Depends on the Union and local work culture. Just like if you aren't part of a union (Amazon workers get "ratted out" by others if they "go on a bathroom break", as a hypothetical).
> There is no flexibility.
That's fair. The "I only sweep floors, if you want mopping it's another department" type of union inflexibility is terrible for productivity. But I think your scenario is an example of inflexibility that's completely warranted.
That's fair. The "I only sweep floors, if you want mopping it's another department" type of union inflexibility is terrible for productivity. But I think your scenario is an example of inflexibility that's completely warranted.
What you describe is a fallacy... it's more like: "I'm a heavy machinery operator, not a welder; if you need a weld, you'll need to requisition a welder."
I've been in places where you can't move your PC to the other side of your desk.
A long time ago in grad school I had a administrative assistantship in the university's physical plant. My boss (basically the head of IT for the department) and I moved a couple of computers between buildings as they had actively used applications on them (this was before the web) and we couldn't wait for someone from building services come and do it.
The next day I was in his office when we got a nice visit from the Teamsters steward flanked literally by two huge guys glaring at us. The steward told us not to do it again. He did back off when we told him we walked the computers between the buildings - if we would have drove them between buildings he said they would have filed a union grievance.
The next day I was in his office when we got a nice visit from the Teamsters steward flanked literally by two huge guys glaring at us. The steward told us not to do it again. He did back off when we told him we walked the computers between the buildings - if we would have drove them between buildings he said they would have filed a union grievance.
[deleted]
Amazon could avoid this by not squeezing so hard.
Over squeezing labor leads to pushback.
Over squeezing labor leads to pushback.
Amazon _has_ avoided this by not squeezing so hard. They have no unionized employees. The latest vote lost by a 75-25 margin, humiliating the union organizing the process.
The Teamsters wants to force this issue in the political arena because they can't win votes.
The Teamsters wants to force this issue in the political arena because they can't win votes.
There are a lot of reasons not to take much away from the Bessemer vote. Well ahead of the vote there were lots of signs that the organizers hadn't, you know, organized.[0] Humiliated, absolutely, but by their own ineptitude.
[0] https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/bessemer-alabama-...
[0] https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/bessemer-alabama-...
If they can't organize a vote campaign, do you really want them negotiating your employment terms against a company like Amazon?
Yes? Organizing is very very hard. There are lots of people bad at organizing who still are capable negotiators and who understand my interests as a worker and how to protect them.
The union in this case isn't some cash-poor startup with people filling multiple roles that they aren't qualified for. They certainly have more than enough resources and experience to do much better... or, as the case may be, to start with a different location that would have been more receptive.
Resources maybe, but not necessarily experience. Very little actual organizing has been done over the past several decades. McAlevey's book No Shortcuts is worth a read on this front.
Also, the RWDSU is not affiliated with the Teamsters. This is a different (and much better-resourced) union looking to step up and do the work better.
Also, the RWDSU is not affiliated with the Teamsters. This is a different (and much better-resourced) union looking to step up and do the work better.
Really? This was national news for weeks. President Biden flew down there and talked to them!
I cannot possibly imagine what more organizing could have accomplished.
I cannot possibly imagine what more organizing could have accomplished.
Organizing involves building close relationships amongst a larger and larger network of people. The President flying somewhere doesn't do that. The article describes this.
The Democratic party often confuses activism and media presence with organizing, and focuses on get-out-the-vote and media strategy without having done the work of organizing strongly-tied networks on the ground. The Obama campaign was the exception, because Obama had worked as an on-the-ground organizer.
The Democratic party often confuses activism and media presence with organizing, and focuses on get-out-the-vote and media strategy without having done the work of organizing strongly-tied networks on the ground. The Obama campaign was the exception, because Obama had worked as an on-the-ground organizer.
i think the public media publicity campaign was well organized but the on the ground campaigning to the actual warehouse workers themselves was not. IE there were more interested in a national story and just assumed they had the workers in the bag.
In this community, I think you can say, "The more you tighten your grip, Bezos, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
The 5:01 is probably exaggerated a bit, most people won't be too anal about doing a little overtime if they're nearly done for the day.
But having those protections in place is important, because an employer may start taking advantage of it - slippery slope argument, but bear with me.
A common example - not just in the US but on my side of the pond as well - is closing time. There's a lot of people that get paid until closing time (e.g. 9PM in the DIY store I worked at as a part-time job during my college days), but, nobody goes home until the last people are out and the day's take is put in the (time locked) safe (and there'll be a security guy waiting outside to make sure it's safe, then he'll drive around back to make sure everybody's out and safe). If all goes smoothly, that's 20 minutes of unpaid overtime - but it can be more.
That's just one example, but I'm sure it's relatable to a lot of people. Think kitchen staff who work until close, but have to clean up and prepare for the next day outside of their normal working hours.
TL;DR: Don't work for free, your employer is not your friend, your time is worth more to you than his and his business is.
But having those protections in place is important, because an employer may start taking advantage of it - slippery slope argument, but bear with me.
A common example - not just in the US but on my side of the pond as well - is closing time. There's a lot of people that get paid until closing time (e.g. 9PM in the DIY store I worked at as a part-time job during my college days), but, nobody goes home until the last people are out and the day's take is put in the (time locked) safe (and there'll be a security guy waiting outside to make sure it's safe, then he'll drive around back to make sure everybody's out and safe). If all goes smoothly, that's 20 minutes of unpaid overtime - but it can be more.
That's just one example, but I'm sure it's relatable to a lot of people. Think kitchen staff who work until close, but have to clean up and prepare for the next day outside of their normal working hours.
TL;DR: Don't work for free, your employer is not your friend, your time is worth more to you than his and his business is.
I'd err on the side of Amazon because the free market is more likely to address their practices.
My hunch is that corruption, bullying, etc don't go away. Organizations don't stop doing those things unless they lose their power.
On the other hand, if a company like Amazon is treating workers poorly, then a competitive environment should fix that in the long run. E.g. if Amazon overworks its people while other companies don't, either Amazon has to pay more and more if its working conditions are worse and worse (relative to peers), or it'll have to improve working conditions to keep its workers.
My hunch is that corruption, bullying, etc don't go away. Organizations don't stop doing those things unless they lose their power.
On the other hand, if a company like Amazon is treating workers poorly, then a competitive environment should fix that in the long run. E.g. if Amazon overworks its people while other companies don't, either Amazon has to pay more and more if its working conditions are worse and worse (relative to peers), or it'll have to improve working conditions to keep its workers.
Except the harm is not theoretical, and such a market correction doesn’t happen overnight. People don’t deserve to be ground to a pulp while your simulation plays out.
> People don’t deserve to be ground to a pulp while your simulation plays out.
IMHO you're making a judgment about what other people want, but those people's actions suggest otherwise. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on its workers, and those workers are free to work at other places: a different company's warehouse, a non-warehouse job, etc. They are choosing to stay at Amazon for some reason, so it seems like the bundle of Amazon's work intensity and its wages & benefits is worth it to a lot of people.
As an analogy, if Google hypothetically paid $200k to engineers for 40-hour weeks while Amazon paid $400k to engineers for 70-hour weeks, then there would be engineers that prefer one and engineers that prefer the other. But these engineers are not forced to work at either of those companies. In this scenario, an engineer at Amazon might complain about 70-hour weeks and poor work-life balance, but if they're working there then they find those negative conditions worth the compensation.
IMHO you're making a judgment about what other people want, but those people's actions suggest otherwise. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on its workers, and those workers are free to work at other places: a different company's warehouse, a non-warehouse job, etc. They are choosing to stay at Amazon for some reason, so it seems like the bundle of Amazon's work intensity and its wages & benefits is worth it to a lot of people.
As an analogy, if Google hypothetically paid $200k to engineers for 40-hour weeks while Amazon paid $400k to engineers for 70-hour weeks, then there would be engineers that prefer one and engineers that prefer the other. But these engineers are not forced to work at either of those companies. In this scenario, an engineer at Amazon might complain about 70-hour weeks and poor work-life balance, but if they're working there then they find those negative conditions worth the compensation.
Your analogy is useful, but the numbers have a lot to do with the conclusion. We're not talking about people choosing a Tesla or a beach house, we're talking about people choosing between living in section 8 + riding the bus, or living in a one bedroom + owning a vehicle.
I grew up (middle-class) in Alabama, in a smaller town than Bessemer; I have known people in these situations. Warehouse workers there are paid $15/hr, double the minimum wage. That warehouse employs thousands of people. Folks stay in these jobs because, if they left, they would drop (far) below the Federal poverty line. There aren't enough $15/hr jobs elsewhere to go around. So, enduring the hard working conditions is a very different choice for these workers vs. someone making $400,000/year in an engineering role.
Everyone has a right to make this call for themselves, but there are limits.
I grew up (middle-class) in Alabama, in a smaller town than Bessemer; I have known people in these situations. Warehouse workers there are paid $15/hr, double the minimum wage. That warehouse employs thousands of people. Folks stay in these jobs because, if they left, they would drop (far) below the Federal poverty line. There aren't enough $15/hr jobs elsewhere to go around. So, enduring the hard working conditions is a very different choice for these workers vs. someone making $400,000/year in an engineering role.
Everyone has a right to make this call for themselves, but there are limits.
Unions are the product of free markets.
So there were no unions in the Soviet Union and no unions in North Korea?
That’s good to know.
That’s good to know.
You're being obtuse. Unions in the USSR and unions in a free market capitalist system serve different purposes.
There is some truth to what you're saying though: unions exist where there is a struggle between labor and private ownership. The existence of them in a "socialist" mode of production (barring some kind of syndicalist setup in which economic governance happens specifically through unions) seems superfluous and suggests that private ownership had not been abolished but was relegated to the state/bureaucracy instead of wealthy holders of capital.
There is some truth to what you're saying though: unions exist where there is a struggle between labor and private ownership. The existence of them in a "socialist" mode of production (barring some kind of syndicalist setup in which economic governance happens specifically through unions) seems superfluous and suggests that private ownership had not been abolished but was relegated to the state/bureaucracy instead of wealthy holders of capital.
Except Amazon is a monopoly, that all but obliterated all major competitors. They need a much bigger workforce, can afford to keep their wages comfortably higher, while extorting whatever conditions for it.
If Amazon has a monopoly on something, then what is it? I can not think of anything.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Amazon has a monopoly on online retail: If prices are low and wages are high, what is the problem?
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Amazon has a monopoly on online retail: If prices are low and wages are high, what is the problem?
> sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw
If you're getting paid for 9-5 with no overtime, why should you put in unpaid effort if you don't want to?, if you want to, all on you.
Rephrasing would be: what would happen if your boss asked you to work a few more hours overtime unpaid?
If you're getting paid for 9-5 with no overtime, why should you put in unpaid effort if you don't want to?, if you want to, all on you.
Rephrasing would be: what would happen if your boss asked you to work a few more hours overtime unpaid?
> sorry, it's 5:01 and
You are entitled to your time. If you're set to work til 5, then your employer should pay you a minute's overtime if they need you to turn that screw.
Why would you volunteer for someone else's money-making venture?
You are entitled to your time. If you're set to work til 5, then your employer should pay you a minute's overtime if they need you to turn that screw.
Why would you volunteer for someone else's money-making venture?
> "corruption, bullying, and drive to have everyone do as little as possible" <-- this exact same verbiage could be used to describe the current state of affairs sans unionization.
[deleted]
The Teamsters understand exactly what they are doing here. The press release was well done and clearly coordinated by savvy people with lots of expertise and good understanding of game theory fundamentals.
I'm not sure if it's good or not, but if the Teamsters can't do it, I don't think anyone can unionize Amazon.
If I were Amazon, I'd be shaking in my boots at the moment.
I'm not sure if it's good or not, but if the Teamsters can't do it, I don't think anyone can unionize Amazon.
If I were Amazon, I'd be shaking in my boots at the moment.
Amazon workers would be immeasurably better off self-unionizing than joining a bloated bureaucracy like the Teamsters. Yikes.
Amazon employs hundreds of thousands of people. I'm sure that a substantial bureaucracy would be needed in order to represent them effectively.
Or are you saying that the Teamsters bureaucracy in particular is bloated relative to what their organization needs? I'm not familiar with them.
Or are you saying that the Teamsters bureaucracy in particular is bloated relative to what their organization needs? I'm not familiar with them.
The Teamsters grew to the behemoth they are today because of Jimmy Hoffa in the 70s, who was heavily connected to the mafia and eventually gunned down.
> Jimmy Hoffa [...] eventually gunned down.
I just want to clarify that we don't know if he was specifically gunned down. He was declared dead years after he went missing. The exact circumstances of his presumed death aren't known, but it's generally believed to be the mob that did it.
I just want to clarify that we don't know if he was specifically gunned down. He was declared dead years after he went missing. The exact circumstances of his presumed death aren't known, but it's generally believed to be the mob that did it.
Thanks for the clarification.
And? That doesn't invalidate anything the Teamsters do or have done IMO.
I feel like the modern Union should basically just be a mobile app where you vote on stuff and elect a couple reps to champion the things you vote on and if management doesn't want those things the app coordinates striking / etc. Is there an app for this? Seems like it would solve a problem.
To be fair I want an app like that for democracy in general.
To be fair I want an app like that for democracy in general.
A couple things:
* Unions could definitely use better software, but I don't think software can replace their core functionality.
* Many companies whose main product is a seemingly simple mobile app require surprisingly large staffs.
* Are unions actually bloated? The Teamsters for example had 616 regular staff and spending of $209 million in 2019, over a membership of 1.3 million workers. That seems reasonable to me. https://www.unionfacts.com/union/Teamsters (anti-union but nonetheless useful site)
* Unions do lots of things besides electing representatives, voting on issues, and coordinating actions, all of which are big jobs in themselves. This may include contract negotiation, job training, research, organizing, and other things I can't think of right now.
* To focus specifically on organizing for a moment, a union is a coordination problem which takes a lot of work to overcome. Quoting myself from another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24079465): > The labor organizer's job is to convince the worker, who likely and often rightly fears for her job if she actively and publicly supports the union, that it's still the right thing to do. Not only convince intellectually, but psychologically prepare the worker to stick with the union effort in the face of a concerted effort from the employer to defeat it. To do that the organizer needs to ask the right questions, listen carefully, build trust, and finally push, and potentially do this repeatedly with the same person. It is psychologically demanding and not everyone can do it; I tried and I couldn't. A chatbot cannot convince a factory worker with kids to feed that he needs to stick up for his coworkers who in turn will stick up for him.
* Unions could definitely use better software, but I don't think software can replace their core functionality.
* Many companies whose main product is a seemingly simple mobile app require surprisingly large staffs.
* Are unions actually bloated? The Teamsters for example had 616 regular staff and spending of $209 million in 2019, over a membership of 1.3 million workers. That seems reasonable to me. https://www.unionfacts.com/union/Teamsters (anti-union but nonetheless useful site)
* Unions do lots of things besides electing representatives, voting on issues, and coordinating actions, all of which are big jobs in themselves. This may include contract negotiation, job training, research, organizing, and other things I can't think of right now.
* To focus specifically on organizing for a moment, a union is a coordination problem which takes a lot of work to overcome. Quoting myself from another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24079465): > The labor organizer's job is to convince the worker, who likely and often rightly fears for her job if she actively and publicly supports the union, that it's still the right thing to do. Not only convince intellectually, but psychologically prepare the worker to stick with the union effort in the face of a concerted effort from the employer to defeat it. To do that the organizer needs to ask the right questions, listen carefully, build trust, and finally push, and potentially do this repeatedly with the same person. It is psychologically demanding and not everyone can do it; I tried and I couldn't. A chatbot cannot convince a factory worker with kids to feed that he needs to stick up for his coworkers who in turn will stick up for him.
Something something the enemy of good/done is perfect.
It's unlikely they would be able to due it on their own.
It's unlikely they would be able to due it on their own.
50 Amazon™ Credits have been deposited to your account.
I dislike unions. They made me lose work in dire moments of my life when I was out of high school. I avoided and continue to avoid secure good paying unionized positions or positions that has to deal with unions. They are responsible for a lot of corruption and high costs in nearly all government funded projects. During our internships I have had my fair share of unions horror stories.
But still, I can see why their presence or the mere possibility of their presence is beneficial even to me. Even after Amazon employees failed to unionized their wage increased and I'm sure that management got the message.
In Québec, Canada, a journal infiltrated an Amazon warehouse by getting hired there. They run the place like that would make any Chinese sweatshop look liberating. They use AI and surveillance to systematically fire a fraction of their workforce every year and watch them constantly. They run the place the like a bad cyberpunk dystopia novel. They even go as far as to penalize employees who go to the bathroom. Work accidents are common. They make workers rights look like an afterthought.
Amazon's effect on society has become too nefarious for what it provides. I'd rather pay 5$ more per item or shipments on average knowing that the people who are responsible for delivering my goods are treated with a minimum of humanity.
But still, I can see why their presence or the mere possibility of their presence is beneficial even to me. Even after Amazon employees failed to unionized their wage increased and I'm sure that management got the message.
In Québec, Canada, a journal infiltrated an Amazon warehouse by getting hired there. They run the place like that would make any Chinese sweatshop look liberating. They use AI and surveillance to systematically fire a fraction of their workforce every year and watch them constantly. They run the place the like a bad cyberpunk dystopia novel. They even go as far as to penalize employees who go to the bathroom. Work accidents are common. They make workers rights look like an afterthought.
Amazon's effect on society has become too nefarious for what it provides. I'd rather pay 5$ more per item or shipments on average knowing that the people who are responsible for delivering my goods are treated with a minimum of humanity.
How much do UPS hub workers make these days? I loaded and unloaded at a hub in 1991 and made $8.50/hr iirc. I was a member of Teamsters then and the position is still unionized by the Teamsters today. From what i see, the pay is pretty commensurate with what Amazon pays, but it’s hard to tell for sure.
If big labor could actually pull off what they are proposing, they would have done it by now. And not only at Amazon. At McDonalds and Walmart too. But they know they cant. They are playing for relevance.
"big labor" what?
They CAN pull off what they're proposing, the problem right now is that the employees are (were?) kept too afraid of losing their job, and kept too replaceable. There's no shortage of employees in the US, people willing to work for a pittance because there's nothing else for them, because they're desperate, they're one paycheck away from bankruptcy. And they're reminded constantly that there's a dozen people waiting in line to take their job if they have the audacity to try and improve their conditions.
They CAN pull off what they're proposing, the problem right now is that the employees are (were?) kept too afraid of losing their job, and kept too replaceable. There's no shortage of employees in the US, people willing to work for a pittance because there's nothing else for them, because they're desperate, they're one paycheck away from bankruptcy. And they're reminded constantly that there's a dozen people waiting in line to take their job if they have the audacity to try and improve their conditions.
> Some states have passed right-to-work or open shop laws that say each worker has the right to hold his job in a company, no matter whether he joins a labor union, or not. If you were asked to vote on such a law, would you vote for it, or against it?
71% for right to work laws
> Those in favor of right-to-work or open shop laws say that no American should be required to join any private organization, like a labor union, against his will. Do you agree or disagree with this?
82% agree
Gallop America poll https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx
71% for right to work laws
> Those in favor of right-to-work or open shop laws say that no American should be required to join any private organization, like a labor union, against his will. Do you agree or disagree with this?
82% agree
Gallop America poll https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx
An open shop implies that employees can form rival unions to oust abusive unions. The poll questions don’t go into that level of detail, so it is hard to interpret the results.
> "We've been working on this for quite some time—well before Bessemer broke out," Randy Korgan, Teamsters National Director for Amazon, told Motherboard, referring to the unionization drive in Bessemer, Alabama that Amazon thwarted earlier this year.
Well the unions lost in Bessemer not because they were "thwarted" but because Amazon was offering really solid employment and benefits relative to the local labor market there and unionization could have led Amazon to divest from that labor market entirely. The employees in Bessemer understood that they had a good thing going that wasn't going to be improved by unionization.
Well the unions lost in Bessemer not because they were "thwarted" but because Amazon was offering really solid employment and benefits relative to the local labor market there and unionization could have led Amazon to divest from that labor market entirely. The employees in Bessemer understood that they had a good thing going that wasn't going to be improved by unionization.
That is why it's important to have a national campaign. Amazon can relocate any one warehouse but it's not going to want to give up on wide-scale coverage.
Repeatedly testing the same statistical outcome looking for a one-time, possibly tail event, is p-value hacking writ large.
"Our side would shade have won if we just had the right voting pool."
But this national thing isn't even a vote, it's just straight intimidation and extortion trying to get Amazon to "voluntarily" give in.
But this national thing isn't even a vote, it's just straight intimidation and extortion trying to get Amazon to "voluntarily" give in.
> it's just straight intimidation and extortion trying to get Amazon to "voluntarily" give in.
Yes? That's what labor organizing is supposed to be. Fighting dirty with monopsony power that should never have arisen in the first place, because that's the only option.
Yes? That's what labor organizing is supposed to be. Fighting dirty with monopsony power that should never have arisen in the first place, because that's the only option.
Well yes, but they usually at least wait until they've organized.
Without existing skin in the game at Amazon, this just seems much closer to actual extortion.
Without existing skin in the game at Amazon, this just seems much closer to actual extortion.
There's no way existing teamsters are going to force strikes, etc. very few employees are not on board with. That is a sure way to make the organizing fail with massive blowback.
I'm sure they have some plan get enough skin in the game to actually inspire and have credibility. Maybe allow their organizers to work at amazon in "tours of duty" despite it being a non-union job.
I'm sure they have some plan get enough skin in the game to actually inspire and have credibility. Maybe allow their organizers to work at amazon in "tours of duty" despite it being a non-union job.
Are you saying going bigger is p-packing, or shopping for other warehouses is p-hacking?
Either way, I don't really care. p-packing implies we are measuring phenomina that is stable / replicated. But that is decidedly not the point of even local campaigns: the goal would be to convince people and change hearts and minds.
Never was the purpose to learn the true opinions of the early 20th century lower class American worker and all the learned helplessness our exploitative system has wrought.
In more mathematical terms, not only does this "measuring" change then nature of the thing being measured, but the state space / phase space is decidedly not ergodic.
Either way, I don't really care. p-packing implies we are measuring phenomina that is stable / replicated. But that is decidedly not the point of even local campaigns: the goal would be to convince people and change hearts and minds.
Never was the purpose to learn the true opinions of the early 20th century lower class American worker and all the learned helplessness our exploitative system has wrought.
In more mathematical terms, not only does this "measuring" change then nature of the thing being measured, but the state space / phase space is decidedly not ergodic.
Shopping warehouses in quick succession is p-hacking.
What's in it for the Teamsters? I assume they stand to gain a lot of income if they can successfully unionize Amazon?
Drivers and warehouse workers are their main membership. Their members are looking both to help Amazon employees and to set a safety line for their own positions. If a big enough share of delivery and logistics jobs go to bargain basement pay, it threatens the market rate for those jobs everywhere.
This seems to scream "teamsters management wants to stay relevant" not "lets help the workers"
I have absolutely no problem with workers unionizing if they want to, but I continue to be confused by these kinds of pressure campaigns. The Teamsters appear to be assuming that all workers will love unions if only enough pressure is applied, despite multiple failed unionization votes at Amazon sites. Shouldn’t there be a component here where they talk to the people who voted no and understand how to be more responsive to their needs? I worry that the real goal here is to increase the power and influence of their own organization.
Let's see how this union competes with Amazon's robot workers.
Everyone should welcome automation and reduced working hours, but our system prioritizes underpaid labor so much, that automation is often significantly more expensive. Low labor wages and poor safety nets hinders progress on automation, and it's wheeled out as a threat and bogeyman to scare the poors back into line.
Let the robots come in and do this labor, but that doesn't excuse society's responsibility to take care of its humans.
Let the robots come in and do this labor, but that doesn't excuse society's responsibility to take care of its humans.
The point here is if unions come in and start having unreasonable demands, this expensive automation you're talking about becomes comparatively affordable.
Society should take care of its humans, but this doesn't mean go into private companies and demand all the box movers get their pay tripled. It doesn't work this way.
Society should take care of its humans, but this doesn't mean go into private companies and demand all the box movers get their pay tripled. It doesn't work this way.
>expensive automation you're talking about becomes comparatively affordable
Perfect! Isn't that the point? Automation to make our lives easier? More automation will lead to commoditization of robots, instead of the current commoditization and dehumanization of humans.
Again your mindset shows you want to use automation as a threat against humanity to keep human cattle in line, and not as a force for good.
>It doesn't work this way.
Why not? Right now society is failing to take care of a large number of humans in order to maintain status quos that greatly enrich the few.
Perfect! Isn't that the point? Automation to make our lives easier? More automation will lead to commoditization of robots, instead of the current commoditization and dehumanization of humans.
Again your mindset shows you want to use automation as a threat against humanity to keep human cattle in line, and not as a force for good.
>It doesn't work this way.
Why not? Right now society is failing to take care of a large number of humans in order to maintain status quos that greatly enrich the few.
> Perfect! Isn't that the point? Automation to make our lives easier? More automation will lead to commoditization of robots, instead of the current commoditization and dehumanization of humans.
> Again your mindset shows you want to use automation as a threat against humanity to keep human cattle in line, and not as a force for good.
Look, you're trying very hard to put me in some narrative that solely exists in your head, not mine.
Automation is not a "threat". It's happening, but it needs a push. And unions are here to provide that push. You think that millions of unemployable workers is somehow less "dehumanizing" than having a job that matches their skillset. Bizarre.
Regarding the Star Wars categories of what's a force for evil and what's a force for good, I'll stay out of that, because those are stories for children. Economics is about incentives and alignment of interests.
> Again your mindset shows you want to use automation as a threat against humanity to keep human cattle in line, and not as a force for good.
Look, you're trying very hard to put me in some narrative that solely exists in your head, not mine.
Automation is not a "threat". It's happening, but it needs a push. And unions are here to provide that push. You think that millions of unemployable workers is somehow less "dehumanizing" than having a job that matches their skillset. Bizarre.
Regarding the Star Wars categories of what's a force for evil and what's a force for good, I'll stay out of that, because those are stories for children. Economics is about incentives and alignment of interests.
>Automation is not a "threat". It's happening, but it needs a push. And unions are here to provide that push.
Again, you are positioning automation as a threat, and portraying unions as a bad thing, which will push people out of jobs, they will then become homeless, starve and die. That's the best society can offer?
>You think that millions of unemployable workers is somehow less "dehumanizing" than having a job that matches their skillset. Bizarre.
You've already dehumanized these workers and written them off as having no other skillset potential. You cannot think of an economy that could work without suppressing automation and grinding people's lives away with manual labor?
>Regarding the Star Wars categories of what's a force for evil and what's a force for good, I'll stay out of that, because those are stories for children.
No, you've made your feelings clear that "unions are a force for evil" and threats of automation are needed to nip that in the bud. We should incentivize automation, and look into ways to invest in improving the human experience, instead of writing people off as being incapable of achieving greater things.
>Economics is about incentives and alignment of interests.
This is so basic, it has practically no application in reality. You need to define what is being incentivized and who's interests are being catered to in the actual economy. Right now dehumanizing behavior and externalizing costs onto society is heavily incentivized, and I would strongly dispute there is an alignment of interests occurring.
Again, you are positioning automation as a threat, and portraying unions as a bad thing, which will push people out of jobs, they will then become homeless, starve and die. That's the best society can offer?
>You think that millions of unemployable workers is somehow less "dehumanizing" than having a job that matches their skillset. Bizarre.
You've already dehumanized these workers and written them off as having no other skillset potential. You cannot think of an economy that could work without suppressing automation and grinding people's lives away with manual labor?
>Regarding the Star Wars categories of what's a force for evil and what's a force for good, I'll stay out of that, because those are stories for children.
No, you've made your feelings clear that "unions are a force for evil" and threats of automation are needed to nip that in the bud. We should incentivize automation, and look into ways to invest in improving the human experience, instead of writing people off as being incapable of achieving greater things.
>Economics is about incentives and alignment of interests.
This is so basic, it has practically no application in reality. You need to define what is being incentivized and who's interests are being catered to in the actual economy. Right now dehumanizing behavior and externalizing costs onto society is heavily incentivized, and I would strongly dispute there is an alignment of interests occurring.
[deleted]
There seems to be some implementation misunderstanding in some of the comments.
The teamsters may seek to unionize the hourly workers and not the salaried developers. It's not unusual for very large manufacturers to have multiple unions (e.g. pipe fitters, electricians, clerical workers...). I'm sure the teamsters would Leo to be the only union for 100% of Amazon's workforce but I imagine they have tactical focus.
The teamsters may seek to unionize the hourly workers and not the salaried developers. It's not unusual for very large manufacturers to have multiple unions (e.g. pipe fitters, electricians, clerical workers...). I'm sure the teamsters would Leo to be the only union for 100% of Amazon's workforce but I imagine they have tactical focus.
I wonder if they can communicate a reason to unionise this time, that seemed to be lacking in the previous attempt...
Pipe dream.
America has changed so much and labor is so mobile now that unionization will not make a dent.
It would make sense when you were working at the same company, in the same town for 20 years.
But all that has changed. We now change jobs every few years. Or even take time off, or work remotely. We change cities all the time. Mobility and choice is where it's at now.
Unions make sense for careers like police and old-style factories.
Besides, everyone knows that all the unions -- except the police unions no longer have any teeth.
I'm sort of tired of people living in some kind of alternate reality to think that an initiative like this could really work.
(I'm by no means anti-union. I'm just a realist.)
America has changed so much and labor is so mobile now that unionization will not make a dent.
It would make sense when you were working at the same company, in the same town for 20 years.
But all that has changed. We now change jobs every few years. Or even take time off, or work remotely. We change cities all the time. Mobility and choice is where it's at now.
Unions make sense for careers like police and old-style factories.
Besides, everyone knows that all the unions -- except the police unions no longer have any teeth.
I'm sort of tired of people living in some kind of alternate reality to think that an initiative like this could really work.
(I'm by no means anti-union. I'm just a realist.)
I would argue that you are the one in the alternate reality, my friend. The majority of Americans live near where they grew up[0]. Mobility has actually decreased in recent decades. The lifestyle of switching jobs and locations every few years is not only unrealistic, it’s undesirable for most people I grew up with.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f...
Hasn't internal mobility within the US actually declined? And, forgive my ignorance, why would people changing jobs or locations prevent a unionization drive bring successful? Furthermore, what do you propose people do in the context in which jobs are continually made less stable and well paying, while corporate profits are strong, and additionally in which labor appears to be in high demand? Feels like this is exactly the right time to try again to make this happen?
If unions heavily favor long-tenured union members, people who move around a lot (or even an average amount) will be disadvantaged more than typical as the “new employee”.
Old-time Charlie will be paying the same 1-1.5% that you are to the union but getting a lot more from it.
Old-time Charlie will be paying the same 1-1.5% that you are to the union but getting a lot more from it.
[deleted]
> We now change jobs every few years. Or even take time off, or work remotely. We change cities all the time. Mobility and choice is where it's at now.
I think your anecdata around (presumably) tech labor is pretty wildly irrelevant for Amazon warehouse workers.
I think your anecdata around (presumably) tech labor is pretty wildly irrelevant for Amazon warehouse workers.
Is it? They have 150% turnover in the warehouses. Amazon warehouse worker is not a long term job for most people that do it.
>Amazon warehouse worker is not a long term job for most people that do it.
And why is that? I don't know but I doubt it is because they're "warehouse nomads". If Amazon warehouse offered stable jobs with good wages and benefits I doubt the turnover would look the way it does.
And why is that? I don't know but I doubt it is because they're "warehouse nomads". If Amazon warehouse offered stable jobs with good wages and benefits I doubt the turnover would look the way it does.
Amazon offers excellent wages and benefits for the industry.
That doesn't mean people are going on to bigger and better things that OPs mobility concept implies. It could just mean the work environment is terrible.
This news story — just as much as anything else it might be — is a marketing campaign from the Teamsters.
500,000 new members paying $50 a month in union dues is no joke and they want a piece of that pie — or realistically the entire $100M+ pie itself.
Free market capitalism is alive and well, except in this case it will be in the form of the Teamsters vs The RWDSU on who can offer the most organized power at the best price.
Regardless of how you feel about unions or Amazon, there’s something fascinating going on here at so many levels.
500,000 new members paying $50 a month in union dues is no joke and they want a piece of that pie — or realistically the entire $100M+ pie itself.
Free market capitalism is alive and well, except in this case it will be in the form of the Teamsters vs The RWDSU on who can offer the most organized power at the best price.
Regardless of how you feel about unions or Amazon, there’s something fascinating going on here at so many levels.
I often wonder… are they doing this protect people/workers or to extend their power and grow their business? ( yes a Union is a business and it has bills and high paid execs, like any other)
[deleted]
Companies get the union they deserve.
Go Teamsters. Hardest punching union in the nation. I've never been in one, but I've worked with them, managed them. This country needs more unions.
Go Teamsters. Hardest punching union in the nation. I've never been in one, but I've worked with them, managed them. This country needs more unions.
I think we need fewer cartels. I will continue to vote against unionization efforts in my workplace for this reason.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The most important think is if Amazon workers want to unionize.
Why is that. I don't want my tax dollars going to welfare for their workers. I have skin in that game.
Why would governments magically stop subsidizing Amazon if their workers unionized?
There are plenty of reasons to support unions, but this sort of corporate welfare could be eliminated by increasing the minimum wage.
Paying people minimum wage is "corporate welfare"? How so?
Because the alternative is the taxpayer winds up paying for those workers’ healthcare, food and housing (Medicaid, SNAP and Section 8 vouchers).
You're forgetting the alternative where the person ends up getting unemployed instead, in which case the taxpayer pays 100% for those workers’ healthcare, food and housing.
It isn't a binary, the question is the right representation as much as anything else.
Would that this were the most important thing in the Amazon unionization effort. We would maintain measures like an actual election with secret ballots — instead of card check, where the Teamsters can see if you've signed the card, and pressure you if you haven't.
The Biden administration, I understand, wishes the return of card-check.
The Biden administration, I understand, wishes the return of card-check.
I totally agree. I support the theory behind unions, but the practices by employers and unions make me wish for less coercion all around.
Look on the bright side: it used to be a whole lot worse.
I mean on both sides, too. The Pinkerton thugs get all the press, and are rightly condemned, but for coverage of the union men beating their non-union colleagues to death with clubs, blinding a man with thrown stones, I refer you to coverage such as McLure's Magazine article The Right To Work (1903) which gave its name to the type of law: http://moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/documents/Right%20to%20work....
I like the distinction that it draws at the beginning, too:
"PUBLIC opinion seems to be coming around to the view that the trades' union is here to stay. From many unexpected quarters we hear every now and then a more generous acknowledgment that the organization of labor is not only as inevitable as the combination of capital, but a good thing in itself. At the same time, and from the same fair minds, you hear expressions of passionate indignation at the abuse of power by unions. This means that public opinion is beginning to distinguish between unionism and the sins of unionists, as it is between organized capital and the sins of capitalists."
All we have to contend with today, here, are the vengeful downvotes.
I mean on both sides, too. The Pinkerton thugs get all the press, and are rightly condemned, but for coverage of the union men beating their non-union colleagues to death with clubs, blinding a man with thrown stones, I refer you to coverage such as McLure's Magazine article The Right To Work (1903) which gave its name to the type of law: http://moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/documents/Right%20to%20work....
I like the distinction that it draws at the beginning, too:
"PUBLIC opinion seems to be coming around to the view that the trades' union is here to stay. From many unexpected quarters we hear every now and then a more generous acknowledgment that the organization of labor is not only as inevitable as the combination of capital, but a good thing in itself. At the same time, and from the same fair minds, you hear expressions of passionate indignation at the abuse of power by unions. This means that public opinion is beginning to distinguish between unionism and the sins of unionists, as it is between organized capital and the sins of capitalists."
All we have to contend with today, here, are the vengeful downvotes.
I'm not an expert on US union law, but AFAICS, American workers have a choice between card check, which in principle allows intimidation by unions, and the NLRA process, which has been documented as enabling intimidation by employers. Do you have another proposal?
I like the way it was put. I love unions but I'm frustrated by the 'sins of unionists'
This was expected as soon as Biden appointed a union machine boss as Secretary of Labor.
Are they coordinating to create a monopoly on labor with the goal of price fixing? How can hat be legal? :P
Same way baseball, football, etc. labor price fixing is legal - it’s gov’t protected price fixing
There’s nothing wrong with a monopoly. Exploiting a monopoly to do something bad — that’s illegal.
So now it comes down to who is the doing the bigger evil: unions allegedly hampering free market capitalism, or Amazon allegedly exploiting workers.
So now it comes down to who is the doing the bigger evil: unions allegedly hampering free market capitalism, or Amazon allegedly exploiting workers.
Building a monopoly in the face of a monopsony is 100% ethical.
A monopsony? That's an interesting accusation. Amazon has over 100 warehouses across the country -- that's a lot. Can you name me one, just one, where they have a monopsony on the local labor supply? Where there are no restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, department stores, hardware stores, car washes, janitorial services, couriers, or any other type of business competing for the same labor pool?
|warehouse employers| <<<<<< |warehouse employees|
This is not how labor market monopsony is usually defined, but I say that's simply a sign of us setting the bar too low. Fixing this would require at least one
- employers with N employees to take on employees with average N jobs
- big unions for big corps
- Everything becomes co-ops
- Full socialism
You tell me what sounds the most practical.
This is not how labor market monopsony is usually defined, but I say that's simply a sign of us setting the bar too low. Fixing this would require at least one
- employers with N employees to take on employees with average N jobs
- big unions for big corps
- Everything becomes co-ops
- Full socialism
You tell me what sounds the most practical.
Funny :)
I can do this too: Amazon is feudalism to their employees, demanding totalitarian fealty in exchange for insulin.
They even ban membership in professional organizations by their employees in a rapt, paranoid, control fantasy.
Amazon even has cameras in some their homes, steals their wifi, and receives much their internet traffic.
I can do this too: Amazon is feudalism to their employees, demanding totalitarian fealty in exchange for insulin.
They even ban membership in professional organizations by their employees in a rapt, paranoid, control fantasy.
Amazon even has cameras in some their homes, steals their wifi, and receives much their internet traffic.
The Teamsters crippled American industry once. They can do it again.
Whatever bright spots appear in the economy, they are immediately targeted by rent-seeking union movements for exploitation.
Whatever bright spots appear in the economy, they are immediately targeted by rent-seeking union movements for exploitation.
> Instead the Teamsters plan to focus on a series of pressure campaigns involving work stoppages, petitions, and other collective action to push Amazon to recognize a union and bargain over working conditions.
This is good. Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals. It makes the decline of union power same rather inevitable.
This "going back to the roots", along with the tightening of the labor market we've seen lately, has the promise to attack that problem head-on rather than wishing it away.