Amazon's Global Quest to Crush Unions(newrepublic.com)
newrepublic.com
Amazon's Global Quest to Crush Unions
https://newrepublic.com/maz/article/167263/amazons-global-quest-crush-unions
263 comments
Just to give a minor counter point, I've been at Amazon for 5 years. In that time, I've been in two different orgs and 4 different teams. All in Seattle. I'm yet to see people crying at their desks.
The trick to happiness at Amazon is staying the hell away from anything tier 1 -- or, hell, just anything with direct lines to external customers. Those "9s" we give are delivered on the backs of engineers. I'd for sure break down and cry too if I was getting paged 50 times per week because the response time of some subsystem went outside SLA by 5ms.
Chill org, chill life.
The trick to happiness at Amazon is staying the hell away from anything tier 1 -- or, hell, just anything with direct lines to external customers. Those "9s" we give are delivered on the backs of engineers. I'd for sure break down and cry too if I was getting paged 50 times per week because the response time of some subsystem went outside SLA by 5ms.
Chill org, chill life.
[deleted]
And yet, Amazon continues to be a highly ranked employer [1] consistently.
Last I checked, these employees don't _have_ to work for Amazon.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/06/amazon-is-the-no-1-company-t...
Last I checked, these employees don't _have_ to work for Amazon.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/06/amazon-is-the-no-1-company-t...
On Wednesday, the networking platform released its annual Top Companies list identifying the 50 best places in the U.S. for professionals to grow their careers. Amazon ranked No. 1 on the list, followed by Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and Wells Fargo.
From the LinkedIn article:
LinkedIn Top Companies is a ranking of the 50 companies that are investing in their talent and helping people build careers that will set them up for long-term success.
Our 2022 LinkedIn Top Companies list is the 6th annual ranking of the 50 best workplaces to grow your career, all based on unique LinkedIn data. These are the companies that are offering stability in our ever-changing world of work — the ones that are not only attracting workers, but retaining them.
And this survey has nothing to do with quality of environment. This list, and the accompanying article, are completely meaningless.
From the LinkedIn article:
LinkedIn Top Companies is a ranking of the 50 companies that are investing in their talent and helping people build careers that will set them up for long-term success.
Our 2022 LinkedIn Top Companies list is the 6th annual ranking of the 50 best workplaces to grow your career, all based on unique LinkedIn data. These are the companies that are offering stability in our ever-changing world of work — the ones that are not only attracting workers, but retaining them.
And this survey has nothing to do with quality of environment. This list, and the accompanying article, are completely meaningless.
I'm sure there's no way to game or no bias in Linkedin's "top companies" list...
Wells Fargo at number 2? Come on.
Wells Fargo at number 2? Come on.
Seriously. I once worked for a company where Marketing and HR had a cross-functional team of three people working full-time to game such surveys, counter/contest bad reviews from former employees, writing fake positive reviews, etc.
Every employer tries to game those surveys, I have little faith in them.
But there is also a huge difference between "best employer to grow your career" and "best employer to work for".
Simply having the Amazon name on your resume is great for your career, but your career will probably be outside of Amazon.
But there is also a huge difference between "best employer to grow your career" and "best employer to work for".
Simply having the Amazon name on your resume is great for your career, but your career will probably be outside of Amazon.
Amazon likes to open warehouses where they are the only bigger emplyer in the area, so that it's not so easy for people to switch jobs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
You don't have to work there no. But employees should always feel free to unionise if they want to. No matter how well reviewed the workplace is.
Amazon has H1B visa workers who pretty much do have to work for them.
I always assumed those lists (& others) were like Christmas cards from media organizations to the advertisers who keep the lights on.
I'm confused by what you wrote, because when I worked there during the pandemic, or even a year into it, almost no one was in the office. The first plan was to bring people back by Jan 2022, but then it was decided that individual directors could decide for their teams what was best. From what I saw while I was there (approx 6 months ago), most desks were still empty.
I don't mean to necessarily disagree with the general tone of what you're saying, though. I felt some of that while I was there.
I don't mean to necessarily disagree with the general tone of what you're saying, though. I felt some of that while I was there.
I wonder how someone who founded a company like this could lead a rocketry company.. For all of Elon's flaws he does seem to reward hard work and taking responsibility. Bad leadership, blaming others, doesn't sound like a culture you'd want in something where more can go wrong than a few deliveries.
Granted, their rocketry company isn’t as successful as Elon’s.
Interesting perspective on the white collar part of Amazon. But given that Amazon is the second largest employer in the world and the vast majority of those jobs are blue collar, I don't think this is exactly what the article is mainly referring to?
Interesting. So not knowing a lot about the situation, is this actually a hiring strategy?
Hiring people into the country on Visas, because then they have to perform to very high levels and crazy demands else they have to go back home?
That's evil genius stuff right there.
Hiring people into the country on Visas, because then they have to perform to very high levels and crazy demands else they have to go back home?
That's evil genius stuff right there.
It’s not so much that it’s explicit strategy. It’s more that tech companies look for high performers, and the H1B situation creates high performers through extortion. The companies are happy to take advantage of it.
It absolutely is a hiring strategy.
Come visit Amazons campus around Denny Triangle and SLU in Seattle.
The majority of the foot traffic (Amazon employees) are #1 Indian nationals.
If you sponsor someone from Bangalore or Chennai, you pay some up front costs. But that person is going to work double/triple time and deal with a huge amount of shit. Otherwise, they have to pay themselves to move back to India within a limited amount of time.
If you see organizations like Prime Video, Alexa, Kindle - pretty much the entire org is Indian. You want to tell me white, black, Hispanic people can’t code?
The HR pipelines are set up where most new recruits come through specific colleges that have an abundance of Indians studying abroad.
If someone from Chennai has to be on a miserable on call, they’d rather do that and send their kid to a school in Seattle or Redmond, instead of moving back to India.
Come visit Amazons campus around Denny Triangle and SLU in Seattle.
The majority of the foot traffic (Amazon employees) are #1 Indian nationals.
If you sponsor someone from Bangalore or Chennai, you pay some up front costs. But that person is going to work double/triple time and deal with a huge amount of shit. Otherwise, they have to pay themselves to move back to India within a limited amount of time.
If you see organizations like Prime Video, Alexa, Kindle - pretty much the entire org is Indian. You want to tell me white, black, Hispanic people can’t code?
The HR pipelines are set up where most new recruits come through specific colleges that have an abundance of Indians studying abroad.
If someone from Chennai has to be on a miserable on call, they’d rather do that and send their kid to a school in Seattle or Redmond, instead of moving back to India.
> Amazon’s game is squeezing out every ounce of value they can.
Of course. And the union's and worker's job is to squeeze every ounce of value they can out of Amazon.
It's how marketplaces work.
Of course. And the union's and worker's job is to squeeze every ounce of value they can out of Amazon.
It's how marketplaces work.
And amazon has enough power to undermine the union’s power through legal, dubiously legal, and illegal means. Thus tilting the market in their favor. Does that seems ok with you?
Not to mention most of amazon’s workplaces are not unionized, so it’s amazon vs a single worker in the marketplace. Who’s gonna win in that pairing?
Not to mention most of amazon’s workplaces are not unionized, so it’s amazon vs a single worker in the marketplace. Who’s gonna win in that pairing?
Anybody who doesn't like working for Amazon can walk out the door and never look back. Amazon can't make you work, cannot make you stand on your head, cannot put you in jail, cannot send your family to a labor camp, etc.
> Who’s gonna win in that pairing?
If Amazon is so powerful, why aren't all its employees working at minimum wage?
The US is full of people who don't work for Amazon. Plenty of choices.
> Who’s gonna win in that pairing?
If Amazon is so powerful, why aren't all its employees working at minimum wage?
The US is full of people who don't work for Amazon. Plenty of choices.
Amazon does have a habit of putting its distribution centers in economically depressed places with no jobs where all the people who could leave already did.
In the 1930s the US government provided an "employer of last resort" to prevent giving people like bezos from wielding this kind of power and growing the economy but apparently these days weak moral platitudes suffice.
In the 1930s the US government provided an "employer of last resort" to prevent giving people like bezos from wielding this kind of power and growing the economy but apparently these days weak moral platitudes suffice.
How could Amazon force them to work there if they survived before Amazon built those centers?
Nobody forces anyone to live in depressed areas. Move. Even penniless immigrants cross the southern border and manage to move to every part of the US.
Nobody forces anyone to live in depressed areas. Move. Even penniless immigrants cross the southern border and manage to move to every part of the US.
Sorry but you sounds like you are completely out of touch with the poor.
In economically depressed area, Amazon can offer a penny better than a few handful employers and people will try and see if they can earn a better living, even if they heard enough story about how stressful it is working at Amazon.
Move? You might be wealthy enough to do so, but do you think those living in those area have enough money to afford that? The so called penniless immigrants, they paid their way to get to the border and try to cross the border illegally. You are talking about those who are living in the country legally, and not in a situation to move.
In economically depressed area, Amazon can offer a penny better than a few handful employers and people will try and see if they can earn a better living, even if they heard enough story about how stressful it is working at Amazon.
Move? You might be wealthy enough to do so, but do you think those living in those area have enough money to afford that? The so called penniless immigrants, they paid their way to get to the border and try to cross the border illegally. You are talking about those who are living in the country legally, and not in a situation to move.
As I wrote, penniless immigrants crossing the southern border migrate to every part of the US. How do you think they manage that? Have you seen the news footage of caravans of them walking thousands of miles to get to the border?
Every corner of the US was settled by penniless people, including the colonists who arrived here penniless.
Every corner of the US was settled by penniless people, including the colonists who arrived here penniless.
Why do you think that because some people from latin america do that that all of them can?
Yes, that is how a healthy marketplace works and why it should be illegal for Amazon to use its trillion dollars to crush unions.
If 51% vote for unionization, what about the other 49%?
How is that relevant? Whether or not employees unionize and how they do so is up to them to decide. It still should be illegal for Amazon to interfere in that process in any way.
If employees don't agree on stuff to the point there's a 50-50 divide, then they aren't actually united. There is no union. That's fine, as long as Amazon accepts whatever result. It's also totally possible that 99% want to unionize so they can apply maximum leverage on Amazon and extract better pay and benefits out of them.
If employees don't agree on stuff to the point there's a 50-50 divide, then they aren't actually united. There is no union. That's fine, as long as Amazon accepts whatever result. It's also totally possible that 99% want to unionize so they can apply maximum leverage on Amazon and extract better pay and benefits out of them.
> How is that relevant?
The minority doesn't get a choice. There's a big difference between a choice and a vote.
The minority doesn't get a choice. There's a big difference between a choice and a vote.
A fair chunk of southern and western US consists of "right-to-work" states, in which one cannot be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment.
They're still stuck with the union contract. Even if they join the union, a vote on the contract is not the same as a choice.
If union contracts only applied to people who voluntarily joined the union, then it might be fair.
If union contracts only applied to people who voluntarily joined the union, then it might be fair.
Okay. Amazon still has no say in that.
If 51% vote against unionization, what about the other 49%?
If it works for the president of the United States...
Make it an open shop, and they can negotiate individually.
That's why I'm jaded that IVONA TTS, a world-class product from my hometown founded by graduates of my alma mater, was acquired by a company with culture like this.
I guess someone else would acquire them regardless, but Amazon seems the worst outcome.
I guess someone else would acquire them regardless, but Amazon seems the worst outcome.
The fact that it's mostly about Europe is a genuine contribution. I had the (false) impression that in most of Western Europe, unions had won the political debate decades ago and this stuff didn't happen.
As for Amazon: they are the poster child for unionization. They treat their workers as disposable pieces of meat with no rights, and if you want to get unionized, that's how you do it.
People who have actual experience with unions in this country have a more jaded view of them: they tend to be run by cliques of people who enjoy the high life on their members' dime (cf. Teamsters). "Filing a union grievance" is often not at all a wise career move. However, I can still totally understand an Amazon warehouse worker voting for a union.
As for Amazon: they are the poster child for unionization. They treat their workers as disposable pieces of meat with no rights, and if you want to get unionized, that's how you do it.
People who have actual experience with unions in this country have a more jaded view of them: they tend to be run by cliques of people who enjoy the high life on their members' dime (cf. Teamsters). "Filing a union grievance" is often not at all a wise career move. However, I can still totally understand an Amazon warehouse worker voting for a union.
> I had the (false) impression that in most of Western Europe, unions had won the political debate decades ago and this stuff didn't happen.
Your impression is not entirely false.
Compared to the US, Western Europe is paradise on earth for employees.
There are so many rights taken for granted by Western European employees that your average US-peep could only dream of.
Where Western Europe does have problems is around contractors and the so-called gig economy (zero-hours contracts). That's still a bit of a grey area in many respects.
Your impression is not entirely false.
Compared to the US, Western Europe is paradise on earth for employees.
There are so many rights taken for granted by Western European employees that your average US-peep could only dream of.
Where Western Europe does have problems is around contractors and the so-called gig economy (zero-hours contracts). That's still a bit of a grey area in many respects.
> Compared to the US, Western Europe is paradise on earth for employees.
No, it isn't. For example,
> 80% of the French earn less than €3k a month (equivalent to $36k a year) and 50% less than €2k a month ($24k a year). This is BEFORE taxes on income.
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564868574879129600
No, it isn't. For example,
> 80% of the French earn less than €3k a month (equivalent to $36k a year) and 50% less than €2k a month ($24k a year). This is BEFORE taxes on income.
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564868574879129600
Money's one thing. Quality of life for that money is another.
My statutory minimum holiday allowance is 20 days[0], plus public holidays, plus sick leave[1], plus extra leave for things like weddings and funerals, plus parents get 3 years parental leave[2].
[0] my actual paid holiday allowance is higher than that
[1] for example, I opened a tin of tomatoes badly during the pandemic, and gouged out a 2 mm x 2 mm x 20 mm region of skin on my finger, bleeding profusely. I got a paid week off work for it to heal.
[2] Not sure the details, looks like it changed recently, but I think at least some of that is paid leave, between €(300+150) and €(1800+900) per month.
My statutory minimum holiday allowance is 20 days[0], plus public holidays, plus sick leave[1], plus extra leave for things like weddings and funerals, plus parents get 3 years parental leave[2].
[0] my actual paid holiday allowance is higher than that
[1] for example, I opened a tin of tomatoes badly during the pandemic, and gouged out a 2 mm x 2 mm x 20 mm region of skin on my finger, bleeding profusely. I got a paid week off work for it to heal.
[2] Not sure the details, looks like it changed recently, but I think at least some of that is paid leave, between €(300+150) and €(1800+900) per month.
This. I make less in Spain than I would in France. And less good conditions. And even less money than my home country the Netherlands. Would I move to the US for effectively 2-3x the wage? No way.
Money is one of the means to reach quality of life but not the only one. As QoL goes I am much better off here. Having good social security and healthcare (which is entirely free in Spain) are part of that. Not having to worry or paying $1000+ insurance per month like in the US really makes life more relaxed.
I was contacted by a FAANG recently for a job interview but as it was in the US and not remote I declined (I work for another multinational but not a FAANG). I live alone and I like exploring the world, I've also lived in two other countries :) But the US is not one I'd pick. Probably would have when I was younger and didn't have a care in the world though.
Money is one of the means to reach quality of life but not the only one. As QoL goes I am much better off here. Having good social security and healthcare (which is entirely free in Spain) are part of that. Not having to worry or paying $1000+ insurance per month like in the US really makes life more relaxed.
I was contacted by a FAANG recently for a job interview but as it was in the US and not remote I declined (I work for another multinational but not a FAANG). I live alone and I like exploring the world, I've also lived in two other countries :) But the US is not one I'd pick. Probably would have when I was younger and didn't have a care in the world though.
It's up to $2000+ here for health insurance now.
I'm in a company where the employees own and run it. We chose to have the company pay all health insurance and the first $8000 of the deductible. 99% of the time there is $Zero out of pocket for families each year.
We has been running like this for 20 years.
I'm in a company where the employees own and run it. We chose to have the company pay all health insurance and the first $8000 of the deductible. 99% of the time there is $Zero out of pocket for families each year.
We has been running like this for 20 years.
Yeah I heard most companies in the US pay for their employees health insurance.
But it also means that once you're between jobs you're really heavily out of pocket. It would be a reason to have to stay in a horrible job.
So $2000 a month and there's still deductibles??? Wow.
But it also means that once you're between jobs you're really heavily out of pocket. It would be a reason to have to stay in a horrible job.
So $2000 a month and there's still deductibles??? Wow.
People are typically on the hook for at least $500 a month (deducted via payroll) AND $12000+ per year deductible.
Not uncommon to have health insurance and not to be able to afford to use it.
Not uncommon to have health insurance and not to be able to afford to use it.
> 3 years parental leave
As an american worker, this is unimagineable. My company just announced that they've increased the maternal leave to a whole 3 weeks... To show off how progressive and forward they are
Meanwhile heavily unionized casino workers in Las Vegas are having the company help them finance their houses, months of maternal leave, and will even help people pay for school. All for blue collar work
As an american worker, this is unimagineable. My company just announced that they've increased the maternal leave to a whole 3 weeks... To show off how progressive and forward they are
Meanwhile heavily unionized casino workers in Las Vegas are having the company help them finance their houses, months of maternal leave, and will even help people pay for school. All for blue collar work
A good software engineer in SF with ~5 years experience takes home more than 3 years of top tier French pay in 1 year, so 3 years of parental leave doesn't sound so good to me.
It's really not as simple as that. For example, typically an employer is not allowed to fire you/let you go for going on parental leave. This hypothetical SF engineer is unlikely to get his old job back after 3 years. What are e.g. your health insurance and rental costs in SF during the 3 years you're off? In many countries all workers have certain benefits by law, this affects the society as a whole so you get benefits from that. Even if this specific engineer is better off, which isn't that clear, they're still impacted by society as a whole.
It's pretty easy to get a job as a software engineer in SF. If you're above median you can easily get 5 offers in a few weeks.
The costs are irrelevant, you can move anywhere for those three years.
The costs are irrelevant, you can move anywhere for those three years.
"Just pack up your life and move to another zipcode if you want to have a baby" is such an SF answer it's almost a parody of itself.
I'm not suggesting anybody do that, I'm suggesting that people move to SF for work because the pay makes up for the perks you get elsewhere. Europeans software engineers are better off moving to SF, working for a year, then moving back. Many people do this, mostly for multiple years.
The costs are not really irrelevant, you'd still want to be in a place you'd like to live, right?
I mean that the cost of living in SF isn't relevant because you can move. I'm claiming that if you're top ~25% software engineer with 5+ years of experience, you're much better off working for one year in SF, then moving to France for 3 years vs moving to France and working with 3 years parental leave. You'll have way more money at the end of 4 years if you spend a year in SF.
I very briefly looked at SF, and decided that if I were to work there, I would want to commute via Cessna.
Because at first glance, SF rents are so bad that learning to fly and owning a small aircraft isn't immediately obviously the more expensive option, like it would be in Europe.
Because at first glance, SF rents are so bad that learning to fly and owning a small aircraft isn't immediately obviously the more expensive option, like it would be in Europe.
I walk to work and buying a new car every year + gas + insurance + parking would be less than 10% of my income, whereas I would need to save for years to buy a plane and couldn't possibly afford the upkeep and storage here. So seems like a pretty silly comparison.
At the top end, life in the US blows life in any other country out of the water.
Outside that, you're better off in Western or Northern Europe, or Canada.
Outside that, you're better off in Western or Northern Europe, or Canada.
Sure, if you work in the hottest and most pampered industry in the country and work in the most high paying region in the country you'll make a lot of money and end up rich. And America is great for the rich.
Hard to employ the entire country as software engineers making 400k in SF.
Hard to employ the entire country as software engineers making 400k in SF.
what does having high amounts of leave matter if you can't afford to do much with it?
For this kind of stuff it's usually better to check things like life expectancy, satisfaction etc.
Many times, it's just a different way of money routing to run the services that sustain a society. Nothing is free, it doesn't really matter if you first get the money into your bank account and then distribute it to hospitals and schools personally or you don't see the money in your account and it's distributed on your behalf to schools and hospitals.
Fun fact, in Europe they sell plane tickets to America where you can go and pay for your education and healthcare like just like an American.
The real plight of our times is housing anyway and that unfortunately is a global plight.
Many times, it's just a different way of money routing to run the services that sustain a society. Nothing is free, it doesn't really matter if you first get the money into your bank account and then distribute it to hospitals and schools personally or you don't see the money in your account and it's distributed on your behalf to schools and hospitals.
Fun fact, in Europe they sell plane tickets to America where you can go and pay for your education and healthcare like just like an American.
The real plight of our times is housing anyway and that unfortunately is a global plight.
> No, it isn't. For example,
Its not only about the money my friend !
Please read the next line of my post, the one with the word "rights".
I think you will find it is an indisputable fact that employment rights in Western Europe are centuries ahead of the US.
I mean, there was another thread right here on HN posted yesterday about some guy worrying about mat/pat leave in the US. That's a given in Western Europe and woe betide the employer that tries to mess with your mat/pat rights !
Its not only about the money my friend !
Please read the next line of my post, the one with the word "rights".
I think you will find it is an indisputable fact that employment rights in Western Europe are centuries ahead of the US.
I mean, there was another thread right here on HN posted yesterday about some guy worrying about mat/pat leave in the US. That's a given in Western Europe and woe betide the employer that tries to mess with your mat/pat rights !
What were European maternity laws like in the 18th century?
In Europe, many things are provided by the government and at high quality. This means their quality of life is better, even if they don't earn as much. They don't "need" a high income to have a nice life. It's really not that useful or relevant to look purely at numbers, it's what you get out of your current political system.
In the US, you need to make good money because everything is out of pocket. If you don't, your quality is life is poor. This is also why whenever Americans compare their life to Europe, it's always numbers based. It's all we know: big numbers, better life.
Not to mention things that are not easily qualified by pure numbers, such as work culture, vacation time, public transit.
Europe has vastly more progressive and people friendly political, economic system and cultural setup. This is speaking as an American in tech with a relatively high income.
In the US, you need to make good money because everything is out of pocket. If you don't, your quality is life is poor. This is also why whenever Americans compare their life to Europe, it's always numbers based. It's all we know: big numbers, better life.
Not to mention things that are not easily qualified by pure numbers, such as work culture, vacation time, public transit.
Europe has vastly more progressive and people friendly political, economic system and cultural setup. This is speaking as an American in tech with a relatively high income.
High quality when an American is in the room or high quality all the time? My experience with family members and their friends, who live in countries with many social services, is that they only call them high quality when Americans are present. The rest of the time you'd think they were being marched to the gulag when trying to make use of said services.
Americans oversell the quality of their healthcare. American healthcare is actually just as bad as "socialized medicine", we just spend more on it and have less access.
"But you have to wait months for a specialist in Canada!"
That's different from the US system, how? Have you ever tried to get appointments? We're also booking many months out.
"Want this live saving surgery? Let's see if insurance will cover it first, you might impact our profits. "
K...
It all sucks, but at least everyone gets it in some places as opposed to the system working for a privileged few. Ironically, the US does have socialized medicine, it's called Medicare, which is wildly popular.
The US healthcare system is one of the strongest arguments for government take over.
"But you have to wait months for a specialist in Canada!"
That's different from the US system, how? Have you ever tried to get appointments? We're also booking many months out.
"Want this live saving surgery? Let's see if insurance will cover it first, you might impact our profits. "
K...
It all sucks, but at least everyone gets it in some places as opposed to the system working for a privileged few. Ironically, the US does have socialized medicine, it's called Medicare, which is wildly popular.
The US healthcare system is one of the strongest arguments for government take over.
Top-tier medical care is useless if you can’t use it! This is a vital point many Americans don’t seem to get.
Here in Spain the free healthcare I receive is really great. I have nothing but good words for it no matter what the audience is.
Sure there's some waiting lists but when I have something that may be serious I get seen right away.
In the Netherlands I've also had great care and even subsidized housing when I was making minimum wage.
Sure there's some waiting lists but when I have something that may be serious I get seen right away.
In the Netherlands I've also had great care and even subsidized housing when I was making minimum wage.
all those polls where people systematically support their national health services probably used tons of americans to influence the answers; i think you are up to something here
Maybe in the past your explanation was true. Looking particularly at Munich I must admit, it’s less and less welcoming city. 15 years ago it was doable to find a room or flat in the range 300-400€. Now double that with almost unchanged salaries. Getting doctor’s appointment with public health insurance is currently getting harder and harder. Now add skyrocketing energy prices, that will crush low income families. I just don’t see the Happy End in any scenario.
But don't you think people in Germany are more aware of the issue and more willing to find ways to actually solve this problem?
At least in Berlin there's been big movements towards controlling rent prices, building social housing, socialising the current housing that exists. Etc.
So although it is a problem, is it going to be a problem in 20 years? What's being done in the USA, as a counterpart, to solve these problems? Everyone talks about unaffordable housing in the USA but their zoning laws are still horrible. So any changes will have to go through that first.
In that regard, I think European countries are in a much better standing to solve these problems.
At least in Berlin there's been big movements towards controlling rent prices, building social housing, socialising the current housing that exists. Etc.
So although it is a problem, is it going to be a problem in 20 years? What's being done in the USA, as a counterpart, to solve these problems? Everyone talks about unaffordable housing in the USA but their zoning laws are still horrible. So any changes will have to go through that first.
In that regard, I think European countries are in a much better standing to solve these problems.
I don’t think, that Germans are capable of anything. Shitty railway tunnel in Munich needs 30 years for construction. The tunnel between England and France needed 6 years in comparison. There are no zoning laws, just big hole with lots of concrete inside. That sounds insane to me. Building a new district for 50000 people… I just can’t believe it might happen. It was done in Munich in the past, but now it’s lost knowledge. Like many other big infrastructure projects. Other countries meanwhile gained the needed skills and have no problems with infrastructure development.
This all feels very "I don't have the data to back up my assertion, so I'll just state it's true because your use of data makes it true"
I'll just state quality of life is flat out better in the US than Europe, and anything you use to show otherwise just proves that I'm right since you're just trying to reduce it to X metric.
I'll just state quality of life is flat out better in the US than Europe, and anything you use to show otherwise just proves that I'm right since you're just trying to reduce it to X metric.
In the Twitter thread folks mention it is after taxes. Looking at income alone and not other benefits is also pretty misleading. I’m not here to say I know how much better/worse it is in France, just that this doesn’t seem like a good argument.
This is before employee's taxes but after employer's taxes. OP explains
> Net in France means after the taxes your employer pays but before the taxes you pay on your income. I know it's confusing!
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564875547792080898
The benefits would have to be really, really sweet to consider making half as much a "worker's paradise."
> Net in France means after the taxes your employer pays but before the taxes you pay on your income. I know it's confusing!
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564875547792080898
The benefits would have to be really, really sweet to consider making half as much a "worker's paradise."
Please keep going, it’s worth trying to compare all compensation and benefits, and we both might learn something.
You really do need to look at the whole picture of cost of living & quality of life. Sure someone in the Bay Area could make 5x that, but that doesn't mean they're living 5x better or things aren't 5x more expensive.
> ...or things aren't 5x more expensive.
While I agree with you in regards to things like quality of life, health care, food, housing and many services, in a globalized economy certain goods that one might want to purchase don't scale that much depending on where one lives.
For example, consider an iPhone 13, in this case a black one with 256 GB of storage and not bound to any particular carrier: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-13
It costs 929$.
Now here's the same model in a local store here in Latvia, also an iPhone 13, black color, 256 GB of memory: https://www.1a.lv/p/mobilais-telefons-apple-iphone-13-melna-...
It costs 939€ or around 934$.
You hear a lot about people in US making over 100k$ (with varying taxes) per year, over here this year I'll probably make around 36k$ before taxes and 24k$ after taxes. So essentially when the cost of goods in a globalized economy (for these products that cannot be produced locally) remains consistent across different nations, someone in the US will realistically have a purchasing power that is many times larger than mine.
Actually I wrote about my personal finances on my blog a while ago "On finances and savings": https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/on-finances-and-savings
Note: I don't consider myself as someone who can actually afford Apple devices, just using them as one example of that kind of a good; nobody is going to give you a car 2-3x cheaper just because you're from Latvia either, or a computer, or many other goods.
Of course, your argument does hold true for other things, for example it's possible to rent a studio apartment here for around 300-400$ per month. Also my university degrees were free (though people with worse grades might have to pay if there are not enough budget places allocated) and I haven't had any significant healthcare expenses myself as of yet.
While I agree with you in regards to things like quality of life, health care, food, housing and many services, in a globalized economy certain goods that one might want to purchase don't scale that much depending on where one lives.
For example, consider an iPhone 13, in this case a black one with 256 GB of storage and not bound to any particular carrier: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-13
It costs 929$.
Now here's the same model in a local store here in Latvia, also an iPhone 13, black color, 256 GB of memory: https://www.1a.lv/p/mobilais-telefons-apple-iphone-13-melna-...
It costs 939€ or around 934$.
You hear a lot about people in US making over 100k$ (with varying taxes) per year, over here this year I'll probably make around 36k$ before taxes and 24k$ after taxes. So essentially when the cost of goods in a globalized economy (for these products that cannot be produced locally) remains consistent across different nations, someone in the US will realistically have a purchasing power that is many times larger than mine.
Actually I wrote about my personal finances on my blog a while ago "On finances and savings": https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/on-finances-and-savings
Note: I don't consider myself as someone who can actually afford Apple devices, just using them as one example of that kind of a good; nobody is going to give you a car 2-3x cheaper just because you're from Latvia either, or a computer, or many other goods.
Of course, your argument does hold true for other things, for example it's possible to rent a studio apartment here for around 300-400$ per month. Also my university degrees were free (though people with worse grades might have to pay if there are not enough budget places allocated) and I haven't had any significant healthcare expenses myself as of yet.
People need food, housing, education and health more than they need iPhones.
Everyone needs these, not everyone needs an iPhone. Which means a country where everyone has their basic needs covered but no one has an iPhone, I would say, is a better country to live in (on average) than a country where half of the people have iPhones and houses and the other half doesn't have either houses or iPhones.
I think a lot of people fall into a trap of looking at their own circumstances and virtually move themselves to the other country, of course, as a software developer living in the bay area it's very unlikely you'll find a better place to live. You already have everything. But if you were to think "which country would you rather have been born in" the equation changes. Because in a country like the USA the chance of being poor or marginalised (think being born a woman or LGBT in a red state) is much higher than, say, France. Of course if you look at developing countries like Latvia the equation might change.
So, really, I think it's important to think about how much of our basic are covered for how much of the population.
Everyone needs these, not everyone needs an iPhone. Which means a country where everyone has their basic needs covered but no one has an iPhone, I would say, is a better country to live in (on average) than a country where half of the people have iPhones and houses and the other half doesn't have either houses or iPhones.
I think a lot of people fall into a trap of looking at their own circumstances and virtually move themselves to the other country, of course, as a software developer living in the bay area it's very unlikely you'll find a better place to live. You already have everything. But if you were to think "which country would you rather have been born in" the equation changes. Because in a country like the USA the chance of being poor or marginalised (think being born a woman or LGBT in a red state) is much higher than, say, France. Of course if you look at developing countries like Latvia the equation might change.
So, really, I think it's important to think about how much of our basic are covered for how much of the population.
> So, really, I think it's important to think about how much of our basic are covered for how much of the population.
This is fair, it's just that I feel like focusing on PPP often makes people miss out on certain aspects of the greater picture.
For example, why many might choose to work for either US companies if possible, or even travel to US to work and build as much capital as they can, before settling down either back home with a substantial amount of money, or alternatively choosing another country.
Of course, at that point one also cannot disregard how good or bad any given country is from a social standpoint, like human rights issues and so on.
This is fair, it's just that I feel like focusing on PPP often makes people miss out on certain aspects of the greater picture.
For example, why many might choose to work for either US companies if possible, or even travel to US to work and build as much capital as they can, before settling down either back home with a substantial amount of money, or alternatively choosing another country.
Of course, at that point one also cannot disregard how good or bad any given country is from a social standpoint, like human rights issues and so on.
Is Latvia really a developing country?
I think seeing a PPP/COL breakdown between major metropolitan areas would be more useful than country-wide averages/medians, the US has huge variations with regards to compensation & cost of living. Most people in the US are not making $100K. Even in tech, many are not making $100K. A lot of people fail at getting those FANG salaries(partly due to the exhaustive hoops you need to jump through to get them), and even if you're getting those high salaries a lot of those benefits can be negated by very high localized costs.
That said, absolutely there is an arbitraged disparities going on where some contractor in India is making $10K/yr while someone in the US is making $250K/yr. Are statically priced global goods fair? Perhaps not, or perhaps the issue is our inability to agree on the worth of a human's labor, and the people who exploit that deficiency. Many US companies are now looking outside the US towards Europe for lower cost engineers, so who knows how long the levels.fyi salaries are going to last in the US.
That said, absolutely there is an arbitraged disparities going on where some contractor in India is making $10K/yr while someone in the US is making $250K/yr. Are statically priced global goods fair? Perhaps not, or perhaps the issue is our inability to agree on the worth of a human's labor, and the people who exploit that deficiency. Many US companies are now looking outside the US towards Europe for lower cost engineers, so who knows how long the levels.fyi salaries are going to last in the US.
Maybe compare things people buy monthly like bread, milk, cheese, etc - not an every three year purchase like an overpriced phone.
> Maybe compare things people buy monthly like bread, milk, cheese, etc - not an every three year purchase like an overpriced phone.
I'd suggest that some sort of a smartphone is more or less necessary to function in a modern society, as might some sort of a laptop/netbook and an Internet connection, at least when you intend to live with any semblance of fitting in. Given that complex electronics aren't produced locally, you're dealing with whatever the market prices are.
Essentially, you have to be able to communicate through WhatsApp, or browse the web to use many of the governmental e-services, or do online banking and be able to confirm payments, or digitally sign documents which is getting increasingly more inevitable thanks to the "eParaksts" ("eSignature") system we have. Technically you could go without those, but it'd be a cumbersome life that wouldn't respect your time as much.
And whilst the situation regarding public transportation is better in Latvia and certain other countries when compared to US (or at least so I've been told, possibly owing to the much smaller size of the country), the fact that many might need to own motor vehicles hasn't become untrue either, especially the further into the rural regions you go and the more items you need to transport.
Of course, instead of finding happiness in being able to purchase bread, milk and cheese, some choose to work for foreign companies and make many times more money than they could ever hope to make locally, to lead more comfortable lives, a trend that's also useful to note. Or, curiously, many of them simple emigrate, given that they don't find satisfying local salaries and thus add to the "brain drain" that certain developing nations are facing. This also shouldn't be overlooked.
Another interesting thing I've noticed people utterly miss out on in our own industry is the claim that "developers are expensive, tools/software/servers are cheap", which gets more and more untrue the more in the direction of less well off countries you look. I don't doubt that in some places a beefy EC2 instance would essentially mean the salary of another developer.
Focusing just on PPP and being able to purchase the bare essentials utterly misses out on these finer points of what the differences in the absolute numbers actually mean.
I'd suggest that some sort of a smartphone is more or less necessary to function in a modern society, as might some sort of a laptop/netbook and an Internet connection, at least when you intend to live with any semblance of fitting in. Given that complex electronics aren't produced locally, you're dealing with whatever the market prices are.
Essentially, you have to be able to communicate through WhatsApp, or browse the web to use many of the governmental e-services, or do online banking and be able to confirm payments, or digitally sign documents which is getting increasingly more inevitable thanks to the "eParaksts" ("eSignature") system we have. Technically you could go without those, but it'd be a cumbersome life that wouldn't respect your time as much.
And whilst the situation regarding public transportation is better in Latvia and certain other countries when compared to US (or at least so I've been told, possibly owing to the much smaller size of the country), the fact that many might need to own motor vehicles hasn't become untrue either, especially the further into the rural regions you go and the more items you need to transport.
Of course, instead of finding happiness in being able to purchase bread, milk and cheese, some choose to work for foreign companies and make many times more money than they could ever hope to make locally, to lead more comfortable lives, a trend that's also useful to note. Or, curiously, many of them simple emigrate, given that they don't find satisfying local salaries and thus add to the "brain drain" that certain developing nations are facing. This also shouldn't be overlooked.
Another interesting thing I've noticed people utterly miss out on in our own industry is the claim that "developers are expensive, tools/software/servers are cheap", which gets more and more untrue the more in the direction of less well off countries you look. I don't doubt that in some places a beefy EC2 instance would essentially mean the salary of another developer.
Focusing just on PPP and being able to purchase the bare essentials utterly misses out on these finer points of what the differences in the absolute numbers actually mean.
Nope, it's just as bad. The hours of work along with afterhours. Unions themselves are not necessarily good and often act as blockers for minorities. And often force you to socialize with people you don't want any business with. Not to mention the gaps for women in the workforce, most unions are male dominant and extremely unwelcoming to women. Not to mention that they often fail at adequately increasing wages if at all. Strikes are often meaningless as they can easily by diverted by importing the section the workers who are striking from are not doing, basically in a sense unions are an outdated model for helping people in general.
You could live with dignity here in France on minimum wage, how about the US?
> You could live with dignity here in France on minimum wage
I don't know about that, but - your French employer can certainly live off of you when you're making minimum wage.
> how about the US?
It's questionable whether you could live in dignity in the US regardless of what your salary is... just looking at the situation in Jackson, Mississipi right now, or the state of public transport or healthcare in a country as rich as the US makes you feel like someone is playing a cruel joke at people's expense.
I don't know about that, but - your French employer can certainly live off of you when you're making minimum wage.
> how about the US?
It's questionable whether you could live in dignity in the US regardless of what your salary is... just looking at the situation in Jackson, Mississipi right now, or the state of public transport or healthcare in a country as rich as the US makes you feel like someone is playing a cruel joke at people's expense.
The problem in the US is that there's a huge chunk of the population that believes the chief thing the government can give them is vengeance against their uppity neighbors. Where this movement is ascendant, the government does little more than deal out humiliation to those out of power. Those who control the movement are free to loot the governmental power left unused. I agree that there's little dignity in it.
This is ameliorated by federalism. If you don't want to live in crazytown, you can pull up roots and move to another state with a government that actually tries to identify and solve real problems.
I think the same dynamic plays out everywhere on Earth in different forms. In some places the folks seeking to avenge their honor, and the false friends stoking their grievances, are fewer, but there are some everywhere.
This is ameliorated by federalism. If you don't want to live in crazytown, you can pull up roots and move to another state with a government that actually tries to identify and solve real problems.
I think the same dynamic plays out everywhere on Earth in different forms. In some places the folks seeking to avenge their honor, and the false friends stoking their grievances, are fewer, but there are some everywhere.
What does dignity mean in this context?
It means an adverse medical condition doesn't financially cripple you for life.
How do you objectively measure that?
Overall quality of life umbers suggest the opposite of what you say in the above comment. We should always go by data and objectivity:
https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/compare_countries_res...
Also, HDI for the US is higher that of France:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/hdi-by-co...
Overall quality of life umbers suggest the opposite of what you say in the above comment. We should always go by data and objectivity:
https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/compare_countries_res...
Also, HDI for the US is higher that of France:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/hdi-by-co...
> How do you objectively measure that?
Compare the top causes of personal bankruptcies in the USA and France. Medical debt is one of the top causes in the USA. I wasn't able to confirm this with a quick search, but I sincerely doubt that's true of France.
(The other replies here seem to have missed that Marazan's point was about financial ruin from medical expenses, and was not a general point about quality-of-life.)
Compare the top causes of personal bankruptcies in the USA and France. Medical debt is one of the top causes in the USA. I wasn't able to confirm this with a quick search, but I sincerely doubt that's true of France.
(The other replies here seem to have missed that Marazan's point was about financial ruin from medical expenses, and was not a general point about quality-of-life.)
The other replies don't miss that.
Marazan's just randomly equated:
"You could live with dignity here in France on minimum wage"
with
"It means an adverse medical condition doesn't financially cripple you for life."
That is an important component of dignity but not the only one. Homelessness is another component. And frankly, after being in Paris and living in SF, I am much more worried about folks in Paris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_...
Marazan's just randomly equated:
"You could live with dignity here in France on minimum wage"
with
"It means an adverse medical condition doesn't financially cripple you for life."
That is an important component of dignity but not the only one. Homelessness is another component. And frankly, after being in Paris and living in SF, I am much more worried about folks in Paris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_...
If you use the inequality adjusted HDI then the USA falls below France.
It's up to you to decide if that's a more fair comparison or not, but we are not most people so I find inequality an extremely important measure to adjust for.
I think I'd rather be poor or middle class in France than I would the USA. But I would prefer to be wealthy in the USA than in France.
It's up to you to decide if that's a more fair comparison or not, but we are not most people so I find inequality an extremely important measure to adjust for.
I think I'd rather be poor or middle class in France than I would the USA. But I would prefer to be wealthy in the USA than in France.
As a non-Christian immigrant, I prefer to be in the US than France at any wealth level.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/eurocrisispress/2021/06/15/weaponiza...
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/eurocrisispress/2021/06/15/weaponiza...
I think you first link mainly demonstrates that quality of life is composed of many things.
It's OK for different people to weight each of those things differently.
It's OK for different people to weight each of those things differently.
You say that as if you think "quality of life" is not deeply, fundamentally subjective...
So? Go and make this point to the original poster.
Since I can't edit the parent.
Funny that a perfectly reasonable comment is downvoted to the max because folks here can't deal with an objective truth that goes against their beliefs "US bad Muh Europe good".
Funny that a perfectly reasonable comment is downvoted to the max because folks here can't deal with an objective truth that goes against their beliefs "US bad Muh Europe good".
Not having start a GoFundMe when you get sick.
> You could live with dignity here in France on minimum wage, how about the US?
In my experience there's not much dignity in the US working for minimum wage.
In my experience there's not much dignity in the US working for minimum wage.
Not sure how it is in France in particular, but €2k/month would allow you to live a pretty relaxed life in most places on the Iberian Peninsula (metropolitan areas is doable with that, but less comfortable of course)
The chart literally says "net"(s) salary. ~1400€ is also the minimum wage in France, and if you count in that you have a kinda decent welfare (still light years ahead of US) it means that you can live a better life than the equivalent in the US
In terms of median income, France and USA don't seem far apart 16K vs 19K
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...
> median income, France and USA don't seem far apart 16K vs 19K
After taxes and healthcare, adjusting for instability, the median European worker is better off. The top-performing American, on the other hand, is far better off than their European counterpart*. This is the design. Immigration + better life for the ambitious at the cost of a worse life for the median. It’s a recipe for brain drain and it works, though we must be honest at what cost.
*non-aristocratic
After taxes and healthcare, adjusting for instability, the median European worker is better off. The top-performing American, on the other hand, is far better off than their European counterpart*. This is the design. Immigration + better life for the ambitious at the cost of a worse life for the median. It’s a recipe for brain drain and it works, though we must be honest at what cost.
*non-aristocratic
That is extremely far off from what other sources report. For instance, it does not match what the OECD says [0]: median individual income in the US was $42k in 2019; in France, it was $28k.
It also does not match what the St. Louis Fed says [1], which says the US median individual income was $36k in 2019.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Median_equival...
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
It also does not match what the St. Louis Fed says [1], which says the US median individual income was $36k in 2019.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Median_equival...
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
Moreover, a normal work week in France is 35 hours. Assuming Americans work 40 hours a week, the implied median hourly wage is just about the same.
> There are so many rights taken for granted by Western European employees
Most of these rights are given by employment law, not union contracts, so unions are less relevant.
Most of these rights are given by employment law, not union contracts, so unions are less relevant.
I believe you for low skill employees but as a SWE, I wouldn’t trade a job over there in a thousand years. People in Western Europe are likely to think i’m lying when I talk about the kind of lifestyle I can afford.
I’m not even at a FAANG company and I have a 3,000 sq ft newer house, I drive a tesla, I have a nanny for my children. I have plenty saved for retirement, I can vacation to Europe or Hawaii i luxury every couple years.
The average EU employee is what, in a two bedroom with half a kitchen and no yard?
I’m not even at a FAANG company and I have a 3,000 sq ft newer house, I drive a tesla, I have a nanny for my children. I have plenty saved for retirement, I can vacation to Europe or Hawaii i luxury every couple years.
The average EU employee is what, in a two bedroom with half a kitchen and no yard?
Please don't do regional or nationalistic flamewar on HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Damn. Sorry dang. Will phrase that better next time.
Huh?
I am a swe and my wife is a geneticist. We both get middle pay, we both could get more money if we switched but we currently enjoy having more time for our two children.
House is 150m2, we could have aimed for a bigger one but consciously choose a smaller directly on the city center were almost anything is walk or bike able.
We have no need for a nanny, both our children (2,5)are at the kindergarten, completely free of charge.
I am a swe and my wife is a geneticist. We both get middle pay, we both could get more money if we switched but we currently enjoy having more time for our two children.
House is 150m2, we could have aimed for a bigger one but consciously choose a smaller directly on the city center were almost anything is walk or bike able.
We have no need for a nanny, both our children (2,5)are at the kindergarten, completely free of charge.
I sincerely hope you or someone in your family does not develop some serious illness or pre-existing conditions or some major medical condition. That fancy lifestyle will come apart pretty soon when someone gets laid off has a major health issue and has to get a surgery or treatment .
Are you implying that if tragedy strikes in an EU country where someone can’t work for years on end, their lifestyle doesn’t suffer or change? What a weird comment. I guess I also hope you don’t get brain cancer or die of a heart attack?
No, but at least there is a buffer.
Good friends of us had their child at the same time as we. It developed polio lite two years ago. He nearly died and still has lots of issues (not as bad as the maximum polio has to offer but basically cannot us his arms).
The initial hospital stay was two months, one enterily on the ICU. Afterwards months of rehab. Now special needs kindergarten and later on in school he will need a nurse to accompany him. Most of that is paid for except some medical items the medical provider deemed not necessary. Also time was not an issue, both where able to stay away from work for months and get paid sick leave for that time.
It still wrecks me to see him in that condition and his parents are still in shit condition but that's grief and exhaustion but not existential fear due to lack of income or .medical costs.
And yes, of course there are cases that will fall through gaps. But at least most of the cases are covered, and it does not depend on having enough money.
The initial hospital stay was two months, one enterily on the ICU. Afterwards months of rehab. Now special needs kindergarten and later on in school he will need a nurse to accompany him. Most of that is paid for except some medical items the medical provider deemed not necessary. Also time was not an issue, both where able to stay away from work for months and get paid sick leave for that time.
It still wrecks me to see him in that condition and his parents are still in shit condition but that's grief and exhaustion but not existential fear due to lack of income or .medical costs.
And yes, of course there are cases that will fall through gaps. But at least most of the cases are covered, and it does not depend on having enough money.
> The average EU employee is what, in a two bedroom with half a kitchen and no yard?
the average unskilled employee maybe?
an average swe can live a decent life, while the worker, every human actually benefits from universal healthcare.
the average unskilled employee maybe?
an average swe can live a decent life, while the worker, every human actually benefits from universal healthcare.
[deleted]
The people in Europe are getting shafted IMHO. Even in a small town in an average part of the USA you could make 70-80k managing a McDonalds. For a while my dad worked as a furniture salesman and cracked six figures on a regular 40 hour work week.
As long as you’re not in coastal California or NYC you can own a house and live a decent lifestyle with that.
As long as you’re not in coastal California or NYC you can own a house and live a decent lifestyle with that.
you are not the average us employee; it seems you are completely isolated from the working reality of most americans; including swe
[deleted]
Unions are crushing the European economy with the constant work stoppages. Why would you think European unions have won the political debate?
As the other answer says: "win the political debate" doesn't mean "everyone loves them." It's not a value statement.
It means "unions are highly encouraged, and companies pretty much have to recognize them."
It means "unions are highly encouraged, and companies pretty much have to recognize them."
And that's why the US are technically in a recession and the EU isn't yet, right?
I think they are referring the initial debate of whether or not to have a large union presence. In the USA that’s still a big debate, and the fact that there are large scale work stoppages in Europe only further proves the point that they decided having a large union pretense is good.
After unions are established, then new debates will surely arise which seems to be what you are referring to.
I have very conflicted views on unions.
I worked for ~2 years as a contractor for a government entity in Canada. ~3500 headcount of employees. What I observed there was sickening. This was a place that had white-collar unions for all non-management employees. This union had completely hijacked the mission of this institution. It was no longer about serving the people that this entity was created to serve, but rather to protect the union and its contributors.
The software we were in charge of writing had direct, material impact on the physical and mental well beings of people in the province. Life and death. And at times I saw things like a deployment of features being delayed by weeks/months because a union member who was responsible for _manually_ deploying the changes was on vacation. To automate that deployment meant automating a union employees job and was impossible. These features directly served the needs of people that were in critical need of them.
On the other hand, I have family friends who work for UPS and other delivery services and see the brutal toll it takes on their body and mind. Pushed to absolute limits and exploited because they don't have a union.
But to me, it seems unions can and often do exploit people. After witnessing all of this I've developed a very dim view of humanity. We all just want to exploit someone.
I worked for ~2 years as a contractor for a government entity in Canada. ~3500 headcount of employees. What I observed there was sickening. This was a place that had white-collar unions for all non-management employees. This union had completely hijacked the mission of this institution. It was no longer about serving the people that this entity was created to serve, but rather to protect the union and its contributors.
The software we were in charge of writing had direct, material impact on the physical and mental well beings of people in the province. Life and death. And at times I saw things like a deployment of features being delayed by weeks/months because a union member who was responsible for _manually_ deploying the changes was on vacation. To automate that deployment meant automating a union employees job and was impossible. These features directly served the needs of people that were in critical need of them.
On the other hand, I have family friends who work for UPS and other delivery services and see the brutal toll it takes on their body and mind. Pushed to absolute limits and exploited because they don't have a union.
But to me, it seems unions can and often do exploit people. After witnessing all of this I've developed a very dim view of humanity. We all just want to exploit someone.
It's hard to even have a reasonable discussion about unions with most people, because (it seems like) the vast majority of people either fall into
1. Unions are great and everyone should be part of one. Anyone who points out the bad parts of unions is an evil conservative and hates the middle/lower class.
2. Unions are evil and cause nothing but problems. Anyone who supports unions is a fool who doesn't see the horrors they cause.
Any discussion that includes the viewpoint that unions have both good points and bad points (as you allude to above) has a high likelihood of being attacked by _both_ sides.
It also doesn't help that it appears to very hard to actually set things up so that you get the good sides of a union without also getting the bad sides.
1. Unions are great and everyone should be part of one. Anyone who points out the bad parts of unions is an evil conservative and hates the middle/lower class.
2. Unions are evil and cause nothing but problems. Anyone who supports unions is a fool who doesn't see the horrors they cause.
Any discussion that includes the viewpoint that unions have both good points and bad points (as you allude to above) has a high likelihood of being attacked by _both_ sides.
It also doesn't help that it appears to very hard to actually set things up so that you get the good sides of a union without also getting the bad sides.
some European countries, the Netherlands, Germany and France for sure, have not two but three pillars of employee company relationship: unions, works council and individual contracts.
the works council (aka 'company codetermination') involves employee elected colleagues in company leadership decisions like during, hiring, reorgs, raise distribution, working hours, shift planning guidelines, ... while the unions focus on salary and compensation negotiations
the works council (aka 'company codetermination') involves employee elected colleagues in company leadership decisions like during, hiring, reorgs, raise distribution, working hours, shift planning guidelines, ... while the unions focus on salary and compensation negotiations
So long as the SEIU is around, I'll probably be in the second bucket. I get the theory of why unions can be beneficial, but the reality of the way they are structured in the US is fundamentally flawed.
Frankly, anyone who raids PCA funds the way they do is evil, plain and simple.
Frankly, anyone who raids PCA funds the way they do is evil, plain and simple.
It's not random that people who have had to collaborate with union workers in their company all fall into that second bucket.
This mirrors my experience with unions pretty closely. I would much prefer that the sort of workers rights unions provide were instead at a government policy level.
That being said, there will always be some need for collective bargaining. I only wish it were possible to limit these extreme union grabs for power.
That being said, there will always be some need for collective bargaining. I only wish it were possible to limit these extreme union grabs for power.
Hence the creation of OSHA and why union nearly entirely disappeared in America
In the United States, our ports have the same problem. They run almost entirely by unions and do not want any kind of automation whatsoever. Pors another major countries have automated a lot of the moving of cargo, but unions here have fought it and prevented it.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ports-problem-decad...
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ports-problem-decad...
> It was no longer about serving the people that this entity was created to serve, but rather to protect the union and its contributors.
This is exactly why Milton Friedman was against unions. Unions would eventually evolve into this amalgamation that only protects the union and its contributors while disallowing other qualified workers from getting jobs at the respective companies.
This is exactly why Milton Friedman was against unions. Unions would eventually evolve into this amalgamation that only protects the union and its contributors while disallowing other qualified workers from getting jobs at the respective companies.
This is not how unions work in most of Europe. Except perhaps France where the unions have grown a bit much and strikes are too common. In the other countries I've seen they established a healthy and stable counterbalance. So I would argue it's not inevitable.
I live in Ontario as well.
This is why we need more PPP (private-public-partnerships) here.
Just look at the MTO. It use to be an absolute cesspool or inefficiency which would make the old USSR envious.
Drivers license expired? Time to go stand in line where there are two tellers and 6 people "on break" in the back. The lineup is out the door, but who cares? Certainly not the union slugs who work there.
They finally introduced kiosks, which charged a "convenience fee" (probably at the request of the unions).
Fast forward, there is now a PPP in place for the MTO. Automation all over the place, you can renew your license online (FINALLY).
if not for the ability to step away from their union staff, none of this would have taken place. The union fights changes which leads to efficiency as this often means job losses.
Any "tech" the government builds looks like it was done by high school students and it is a shame they pay for this garbage.
Again, imagine you went to your bank site, and it looked like it was built 10 years ago and never been updated?
This is why we need more PPP (private-public-partnerships) here.
Just look at the MTO. It use to be an absolute cesspool or inefficiency which would make the old USSR envious.
Drivers license expired? Time to go stand in line where there are two tellers and 6 people "on break" in the back. The lineup is out the door, but who cares? Certainly not the union slugs who work there.
They finally introduced kiosks, which charged a "convenience fee" (probably at the request of the unions).
Fast forward, there is now a PPP in place for the MTO. Automation all over the place, you can renew your license online (FINALLY).
if not for the ability to step away from their union staff, none of this would have taken place. The union fights changes which leads to efficiency as this often means job losses.
Any "tech" the government builds looks like it was done by high school students and it is a shame they pay for this garbage.
Again, imagine you went to your bank site, and it looked like it was built 10 years ago and never been updated?
This is absolutely not how unions work in (most of) Europe. They don't get involved in day to day business. They just negotiate working conditions, pay scales etc.
Just saying it doesn't have to work that way.
Just saying it doesn't have to work that way.
UPS is fully unionized and has been for a long time.
I may be wrong about exactly what company he worked for. Also it could be they're not unionized in Canada. Anyway I don't think it changes much.
This explains why they lose all my packages.
Submitted this a couple of days ago, but it’s relevant reading: https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/amazon-workers-ready-strike
“Amazon workers at a Coventry warehouse have voted they are ready to take strike action over pay. More than 300 workers voted in the consultative ballot at the fulfilment centre in the West Midlands, with 97 per cent saying they were ready to walk out.”
“Amazon workers at a Coventry warehouse have voted they are ready to take strike action over pay. More than 300 workers voted in the consultative ballot at the fulfilment centre in the West Midlands, with 97 per cent saying they were ready to walk out.”
The fact that businesses are anti-union should be all you need to know as to why you should support them. Workers and employers have nothing in common.
As others posted, your logic is very very off on this one.
"the fact individuals are anti-income tax should tell you all you need to know.."
"the fact criminals are anti-law enforcement should tell you all you need to know.."
Why would a business support unions? Often UNION members dont support other union employees.
Go to a major unionized auto factory sometime and look at the parking lot and try to find "imports".
These same "pro union" individuals also shop at walmart knowing it is not unionized because they like the lower prices.
"the fact individuals are anti-income tax should tell you all you need to know.."
"the fact criminals are anti-law enforcement should tell you all you need to know.."
Why would a business support unions? Often UNION members dont support other union employees.
Go to a major unionized auto factory sometime and look at the parking lot and try to find "imports".
These same "pro union" individuals also shop at walmart knowing it is not unionized because they like the lower prices.
If you allow companies to consolidate and exert unlimited political power, workers need to be able to self-organize to ensure their interests are represented. Full stop.
All of the things you complain about happen on the business side of the table. People are people and do stupid shit with power. Why are Azure VPs buying shit from Amazon? Why do companies park burned out executives for a few years on gardening leave?
All of the things you complain about happen on the business side of the table. People are people and do stupid shit with power. Why are Azure VPs buying shit from Amazon? Why do companies park burned out executives for a few years on gardening leave?
If you allow unions to consolidate and exert unlimited political power, companies need to be able to self-organize to ensure their interests are represented. Full stop.
Does that work as well, or is this one of those "one way street" deals in your mind?
When have companies "consolidated and exerted unlimited political power"? Did they end up facing "anti-trust" laws? get broken up as a result?
> All of the things you complain about happen on the business side of the table.
Are you sure about that?
here's the head of the UAW being placed on leave for fraud:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uaw-president-leave-corrupt...
Let me guess, the "business" made him do it?
I have no idea what point you are making with Azure?
Does that work as well, or is this one of those "one way street" deals in your mind?
When have companies "consolidated and exerted unlimited political power"? Did they end up facing "anti-trust" laws? get broken up as a result?
> All of the things you complain about happen on the business side of the table.
Are you sure about that?
here's the head of the UAW being placed on leave for fraud:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uaw-president-leave-corrupt...
Let me guess, the "business" made him do it?
I have no idea what point you are making with Azure?
>> All of the things you complain about happen on the business side of the table.
> Are you sure about that?
> here's the head of the UAW being placed on leave for fraud:
Corporate executives commit fraud and malfeasance all the time on a scale commensurate with their greater power and wealth. They rarely face serious consequences for it. The Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal broke over 5 years ago and hasn't resulted in criminal charges for anyone. Purdue Pharma essentially murdered tens of thousands of people, and the end result for the Sackler family will be that they won't get to keep all of the billions they made off of it. And, of course, the 2008 financial crash. I could go on.
> Are you sure about that?
> here's the head of the UAW being placed on leave for fraud:
Corporate executives commit fraud and malfeasance all the time on a scale commensurate with their greater power and wealth. They rarely face serious consequences for it. The Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal broke over 5 years ago and hasn't resulted in criminal charges for anyone. Purdue Pharma essentially murdered tens of thousands of people, and the end result for the Sackler family will be that they won't get to keep all of the billions they made off of it. And, of course, the 2008 financial crash. I could go on.
Let me guess, unions would stop the corporate corruption? How are the two issues (corporate corruption and unions) related?
Because i was asked to point out corrupt unions therefor by showing that corrupt corporations exists they "cancel out" one another?
I'd look at US laws to determine why no one was ever prosecuted. In each of the examples you provided it is clearly US crimes and the US justice systems failures?
FWIW, the police are investigating Jerry Dias :
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/unifor-jerry-dias-1.6...
Because i was asked to point out corrupt unions therefor by showing that corrupt corporations exists they "cancel out" one another?
I'd look at US laws to determine why no one was ever prosecuted. In each of the examples you provided it is clearly US crimes and the US justice systems failures?
FWIW, the police are investigating Jerry Dias :
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/unifor-jerry-dias-1.6...
Companies seem to be able to organize themselves quite well to achieve their business and political goals. If it’s bad for an autoworker to buy an “import”, surely a Microsoft employee should be shopping at Walmart or some other Microsoft partner, not Amazon.
Why do you care about how the UAW guy defrauded his organization? And why would the company? Amazon fires blue collar workers for peeing too long, why is the stewardship of their dues relevant at all? If anything, they benefit from compromised union leadership.
Not everyone is a FAANG SWE who can get a new gig right away. Some of the proles benefit from protection from the capricious decisions of their employer.
Why do you care about how the UAW guy defrauded his organization? And why would the company? Amazon fires blue collar workers for peeing too long, why is the stewardship of their dues relevant at all? If anything, they benefit from compromised union leadership.
Not everyone is a FAANG SWE who can get a new gig right away. Some of the proles benefit from protection from the capricious decisions of their employer.
> Why do you care about how the UAW guy defrauded his organization?
Because in non-right to work states, the workers are forced to contribute part of their paycheck to the UAW. So "the UAW guy defrauded his organization" should really read "the UAW guy defrauded the employees he was supposed to represent."
Because in non-right to work states, the workers are forced to contribute part of their paycheck to the UAW. So "the UAW guy defrauded his organization" should really read "the UAW guy defrauded the employees he was supposed to represent."
> If it’s bad for an autoworker to buy an “import”, surely a Microsoft employee should be shopping at Walmart or some other Microsoft partner, not Amazon.
that really is a stretch don't you think?
Perhaps they are buying imports because they know the quality of the product they are building? Perhaps they know the "imports" are better and will last longer?
Does Azure offer socks? what if the Azure VP wanted socks for their kids
You seem to think an Azure VP shopping at Amazon (which only compete on the cloud computing space) is the same as a Unionized autoworker buying a car from a non-union shop????
> Why do you care about how the UAW guy defrauded his organization?
you are the one who said corruption only happens on the "business side of the table".. now you are shown this is incorrect your new position is "why do i care"?
that really is a stretch don't you think?
Perhaps they are buying imports because they know the quality of the product they are building? Perhaps they know the "imports" are better and will last longer?
Does Azure offer socks? what if the Azure VP wanted socks for their kids
You seem to think an Azure VP shopping at Amazon (which only compete on the cloud computing space) is the same as a Unionized autoworker buying a car from a non-union shop????
> Why do you care about how the UAW guy defrauded his organization?
you are the one who said corruption only happens on the "business side of the table".. now you are shown this is incorrect your new position is "why do i care"?
I never said that. You’re stuck on whatever you think that you’re missing the forest for the trees.
If companies are virtual people can band together and seek collective action, so should actual people. Governance of unions, professional associations, etc are another, irrelevant matter.
If companies are virtual people can band together and seek collective action, so should actual people. Governance of unions, professional associations, etc are another, irrelevant matter.
so you didn't write:
Spooky23 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
If you allow companies to consolidate and exert unlimited political power, workers need to be able to self-organize to ensure their interests are represented. Full stop. All of the things you complain about happen on the business side of the table. P "
Clearly you wrote about "business side of the table" when corruption exits on both sides of the table. Often the Unions corruption is rather bad as well (teamsters and organized crime anyone?)
you confuse me, now we are talking about "forest for the trees?"
Statements like this always seem like things people throw out there when they are unable to build a compelling case?
Spooky23 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
If you allow companies to consolidate and exert unlimited political power, workers need to be able to self-organize to ensure their interests are represented. Full stop. All of the things you complain about happen on the business side of the table. P "
Clearly you wrote about "business side of the table" when corruption exits on both sides of the table. Often the Unions corruption is rather bad as well (teamsters and organized crime anyone?)
you confuse me, now we are talking about "forest for the trees?"
Statements like this always seem like things people throw out there when they are unable to build a compelling case?
Read it in context dude. Try again, or better yet, move on.
> companies need to be able to self-organize to ensure their interests are represented
They did. It was a dirty business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Alliance
People died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster
They did. It was a dirty business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Alliance
People died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster
First of all, if it was unclear i was being sarcastic with my response back to the OP.
I took what he wrote, replaced "union" with "company" and asked if this made sense too?
One thing about "fairness" is it should run in both directions.
The point is that there needs to be a better balance of power between both unions (which have literally bankrupt companies) and corporations (which have done really shitty things like "company towns").
I took what he wrote, replaced "union" with "company" and asked if this made sense too?
One thing about "fairness" is it should run in both directions.
The point is that there needs to be a better balance of power between both unions (which have literally bankrupt companies) and corporations (which have done really shitty things like "company towns").
Your sarcasm failed because the corporations literally did band together in anti-union activities and used their disproportionate power to attach workers. This was a case of your metaphor backfiring on your point.
Unions may or may not have bankrupted companies, but did they ever engage in the same level of violence, physical intimidation, or criminal behavior as these union busting alliances?
Unions may or may not have bankrupted companies, but did they ever engage in the same level of violence, physical intimidation, or criminal behavior as these union busting alliances?
> Unions may or may not have bankrupted companies, but did they ever engage in the same level of violence, physical intimidation, or criminal behavior as these union busting alliances?
I like unions, but... yes? Pretending that they haven't is ridiculous. There's a reason that people are complaining that police officers can act (nearly) as horrible/brutal as they want to and fact (close to) no consequences. That reason is their union. There's also video of union members physically and mentally attacking people for crossing picket lines, etc.
When people get power, the bad eggs start causing problems for everyone else. And they also tend to gain power, so wind up making decisions for "the organization". This is true of both companies _and_ unions.
I like unions, but... yes? Pretending that they haven't is ridiculous. There's a reason that people are complaining that police officers can act (nearly) as horrible/brutal as they want to and fact (close to) no consequences. That reason is their union. There's also video of union members physically and mentally attacking people for crossing picket lines, etc.
When people get power, the bad eggs start causing problems for everyone else. And they also tend to gain power, so wind up making decisions for "the organization". This is true of both companies _and_ unions.
This is EXACTLY why i am not fond of unions.. the police.
Here (Ontario, Canada) we have dozens and dozens of police collecting full salary for YEARS pending criminal trials.
Cant fire them, cant do anything about it.
Instead of "defund the police" we need a way to reduce the police union power and FIRE bad cops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Wettlaufer
She killed many people before finally turning herself in. Her union PROTECTED her, hid her mistakes, etc.
Derek Chauvin had like 6 misconduct write-ups.
Elizabeth had over 200
Here (Ontario, Canada) we have dozens and dozens of police collecting full salary for YEARS pending criminal trials.
Cant fire them, cant do anything about it.
Instead of "defund the police" we need a way to reduce the police union power and FIRE bad cops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Wettlaufer
She killed many people before finally turning herself in. Her union PROTECTED her, hid her mistakes, etc.
Derek Chauvin had like 6 misconduct write-ups.
Elizabeth had over 200
Does that behavior happen with other unions, such as teachers unions?
I don't know much about teachers unions. I know there are some (debateable) bad aspects of it, such as that they lean very heavily towards making it difficult to fire bad teachers that have seniority. But I've seen a number of good things about it too. Honestly, it's hard for a union of public workers to do a very good job, because (being critical workers), they have less leverage when it comes to exercising their power.
The Teamsters in another union that has been mired in controversy due to their behavior.
The Teamsters in another union that has been mired in controversy due to their behavior.
We use to have a review panel where techers would discipline other teachers.
They got to the point they were simply moving bad teachers around from school to school so our government had to pass laws to rebuild the entire corrupt process.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s02007
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-7-2...
This nurse murdered a number of patients. her union protected her and hid her misconduct. Instead of being fired, back door deals were made to transfer her from hospital to hospital.
it was easier, firing her would create union problems and so the hospitals agreed to "go with the flow" and allow her to continue killing.
They got to the point they were simply moving bad teachers around from school to school so our government had to pass laws to rebuild the entire corrupt process.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s02007
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-7-2...
This nurse murdered a number of patients. her union protected her and hid her misconduct. Instead of being fired, back door deals were made to transfer her from hospital to hospital.
it was easier, firing her would create union problems and so the hospitals agreed to "go with the flow" and allow her to continue killing.
> Unions may or may not have bankrupted companies
there is no "may or may not".. Unions DID bankrupt several companies.
It is odd you wrote what you did because how many times has the US government ever have to intervene in a corporation due to mob involvement?
"FEDS AGREE TO REDUCE OVERSIGHT OF ONCE-MOB-CORRUPTED TEAMSTERS UNION"
the Department of Justice has a nice site on unions and organized crime
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/infiltrated-labor-unio...
As i said, there is a line between "too powerful unions" and "too powerful companies".
You tell us, how much violence did teamsters and their MOB inflict?
where's mr Hoffa?
there is no "may or may not".. Unions DID bankrupt several companies.
It is odd you wrote what you did because how many times has the US government ever have to intervene in a corporation due to mob involvement?
"FEDS AGREE TO REDUCE OVERSIGHT OF ONCE-MOB-CORRUPTED TEAMSTERS UNION"
the Department of Justice has a nice site on unions and organized crime
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/infiltrated-labor-unio...
As i said, there is a line between "too powerful unions" and "too powerful companies".
You tell us, how much violence did teamsters and their MOB inflict?
where's mr Hoffa?
> It is odd you wrote what you did because how many times has the US government ever have to intervene in a corporation due to mob involvement?
https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-businesses-supposedly-co...
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/65365/7-businesses-you-p...
https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/behind-real-estates-...
https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-businesses-supposedly-co...
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/65365/7-businesses-you-p...
https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/behind-real-estates-...
> People are people and do stupid shit with power
That point is true about unions, too.
That point is true about unions, too.
You need to clear up the antecedent basis of "them." I think maybe you mean "unions" (although I could be wrong) but your sentence actually means "why you should support companies."
Why would a business support a union? It's inherently going to be an adversarial relationship.
I completely get why unions are necessary. But it would be like me hiring a divorce attorney for my own wife.
A business is almost never going to want a union. And it seems weird to expect them to.
I completely get why unions are necessary. But it would be like me hiring a divorce attorney for my own wife.
A business is almost never going to want a union. And it seems weird to expect them to.
A recent story linked on HN that sadly didn't get much attention was that companies are in a crisis of not knowing what they can do to stop their employees from quitting. Glib answers like "pay them more" and "treat them better" aren't helpful because many of these are high paid jobs and everyone has a difference of opinion on what it means to be treated well (even if most will agree that being punched in the face all day is bad). Companies cannot get employees to tell them what they want. Exit interviews are mostly fruitless, surveys are avoided because workers don't believe they're truly anonymous, outside surveys have the same problem since the survey company is being paid by the employer.
How can a company get honest feedback from their employees without the employees fearing reprisals? A union is one way of doing it since employees (usually) trust their union to take their grievances to the employer with little risk to the employees as individuals or as a group. There was a case a few years ago where a European company opened a factory in the right-to-work state and wanted its workers in a union because that's how it maintained employee relations in their home country. They were confused by the hostility towards unions in that state, both by workers and by the government. IIRC, it was semi-skilled manufacturing so exploiting the workers would be self-defeating if they kept leaving for other jobs.
How can a company get honest feedback from their employees without the employees fearing reprisals? A union is one way of doing it since employees (usually) trust their union to take their grievances to the employer with little risk to the employees as individuals or as a group. There was a case a few years ago where a European company opened a factory in the right-to-work state and wanted its workers in a union because that's how it maintained employee relations in their home country. They were confused by the hostility towards unions in that state, both by workers and by the government. IIRC, it was semi-skilled manufacturing so exploiting the workers would be self-defeating if they kept leaving for other jobs.
There are things I don't want, and things I prioritise to get rid of. The fact that for amazon getting rid of unions is a priority, suggests that unions are effective
How much of the major auto bailouts years ago was the result of union rules?
For decades they met union demands to avoid costly legal fights.. and in the end?
this is rather old, but telling: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/09/2
Instead of restructure, the uion opted for bankruptcy? Way to "protect jobs"?
"The company's attempt to buy more time failed after union leaders rejected a new restructuring plan that would have cut a fifth of the 19,000-strong workforce. The union said its members would have to be paid £70m in wages arrears before it would consider the proposals."
For decades they met union demands to avoid costly legal fights.. and in the end?
this is rather old, but telling: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/09/2
Instead of restructure, the uion opted for bankruptcy? Way to "protect jobs"?
"The company's attempt to buy more time failed after union leaders rejected a new restructuring plan that would have cut a fifth of the 19,000-strong workforce. The union said its members would have to be paid £70m in wages arrears before it would consider the proposals."
Amazon sees the unions as a direct threat to their profits, but that doesn't mean that unions are effective. Amazon's profits going down doesn't guarantee that workers pay & conditions would go up.
I think nearly everyone agrees that unions are going to have a negative impact on profits, that hasn't a point of contention in the debate.
I think nearly everyone agrees that unions are going to have a negative impact on profits, that hasn't a point of contention in the debate.
And where do those profits go, when a union shows up, if not to better pay and work conditions?
To downtime. The one and only lever a union brings is a withdrawal of services – i.e. strike. An employer won't take a union seriously until it has demonstrated that it will strike, so if it is more than a bluff among workers a strike is inevitable.
This is also why unions have largely fallen out of fashion except in industries where the workers are well off. Unless you are wealthy enough to burden several months, if not years, without work striking isn't an option and thus the union becomes toothless.
This is also why unions have largely fallen out of fashion except in industries where the workers are well off. Unless you are wealthy enough to burden several months, if not years, without work striking isn't an option and thus the union becomes toothless.
That's a bad take. Strikes are temporary, and have clear goals of increasing pay and work conditions. You talk as if a union is formed, then strikes indefinitely and hurts profits, then the business fails.
Unions have "fallen out of fashion" in the US because there are not enough labor protections in place. Even now you hear of Starbucks and Amazon even going so far as hiring firms to do hit jobs on union leaders. If you think this is because they are afraid of downtime, rather than having to actually share more of their profits with workers, suit yourself.
Unions have "fallen out of fashion" in the US because there are not enough labor protections in place. Even now you hear of Starbucks and Amazon even going so far as hiring firms to do hit jobs on union leaders. If you think this is because they are afraid of downtime, rather than having to actually share more of their profits with workers, suit yourself.
> You talk as if a union is formed, then strikes indefinitely and hurts profits, then the business fails.
The original claim replied to was that profit would decline, not disappear... Talk about a bad take.
> enough labor protections in place.
That's the remainder of the story. Because labour laws have appeared over the decades and centuries, one doesn't have to forego financial stability to save their life like people once had to. Workers now become de facto members of the government union which has already negotiated minimum standards for all. That wasn't always the case.
Those who are in a position to be able to walk away from an income for months at a time may hold on to eek out an ounce more, but it's simply not worth it to low paid workers who rely on a regular paycheque. The cost of losing a home and going hungry greatly outweighs any potential returns.
The original claim replied to was that profit would decline, not disappear... Talk about a bad take.
> enough labor protections in place.
That's the remainder of the story. Because labour laws have appeared over the decades and centuries, one doesn't have to forego financial stability to save their life like people once had to. Workers now become de facto members of the government union which has already negotiated minimum standards for all. That wasn't always the case.
Those who are in a position to be able to walk away from an income for months at a time may hold on to eek out an ounce more, but it's simply not worth it to low paid workers who rely on a regular paycheque. The cost of losing a home and going hungry greatly outweighs any potential returns.
> The fact that for amazon getting rid of unions is a priority, suggests that unions are effective
Well, it suggests that unions are effective at creating negative consequences for the company. Those consequences could be "more costly to do business because the employees are paid more"; in theory, a good outcome. They could also be "more costly to do business because it's not against the rules for someone to plug in the monitor in their office because all electronics must be handled by a certified union member" (which actually happens); in theory, a bad outcome.
Not all "bad for the company" things are "good for the employees".
Well, it suggests that unions are effective at creating negative consequences for the company. Those consequences could be "more costly to do business because the employees are paid more"; in theory, a good outcome. They could also be "more costly to do business because it's not against the rules for someone to plug in the monitor in their office because all electronics must be handled by a certified union member" (which actually happens); in theory, a bad outcome.
Not all "bad for the company" things are "good for the employees".
Damn right it's effective when you want to blackmail someone because you have extra time.
If you were prioritizing your life then I came and tried to rob you, what would be the chance that you prioritize my angle of attack?
Unions are literally built to prey on that cost that a company IS prioritized and by distracting it with legal hell it becomes slower and risks losing its position in the marketplace and thus potentially vulnerable to negoitations that are unfaorable because of exploiting what would otherwise be prioritization. Your example is just that the vampire sucked too much blood, and has a clear boundary of policy.
If you were prioritizing your life then I came and tried to rob you, what would be the chance that you prioritize my angle of attack?
Unions are literally built to prey on that cost that a company IS prioritized and by distracting it with legal hell it becomes slower and risks losing its position in the marketplace and thus potentially vulnerable to negoitations that are unfaorable because of exploiting what would otherwise be prioritization. Your example is just that the vampire sucked too much blood, and has a clear boundary of policy.
Hiring your spouse's divorce attorney sounds like a smart play, honestly. Except for the whole "conflict of interest" thing.
.. and it probably gives them excellent grounds to challenge whatever agreement you and the spouse come up with. So, not actually a smart play.
Yeah, that's the danger of a conflict of interest. Like many things in life, there's daylight between "smart" and "sounds smart"
They also pretty much all anti -arsonist. Does the logic apply there too?
>Workers and employers have nothing in common.
That's untrue. Especially when workers own part of the company as a part of their compensation.
That's untrue. Especially when workers own part of the company as a part of their compensation.
You need laws to protect workers from unions or unions will abuse workers. In Europe you are pretty well protected against unions, in USA you aren't. I think this is by design in USA, businesses doesn't want unions to be popular and unions doesn't want to be regulated.
"the fact that businesses hate supplier cartels tells you all you need to know and why you should support them"
How does this make sense? Is your ethical framework simply loving everything businesses hate?
How does this make sense? Is your ethical framework simply loving everything businesses hate?
Coming from a French perspective, in addition to corporate, workers should also oppose union. Unions will crush work and life conditions for anyone, but a small group of people. They will morph into a cancer, nothing like advertised initially.
I hate them. They made me (and many others that I know) miserable.
I hate them. They made me (and many others that I know) miserable.
This was also my dad’s experience (in the 70s and 80s in the US). He saved up his money so that he could move to an non-unionized state. He worked his way from a machinist to a general manager, and worked hard to ensure his company remained competitive in the US as their competition moved all operations to China. It was a long play, but it paid off for his company. They’re the go-to for quality in their industry.
I’m sympathetic to unions, though, as many companies really are a terrible place to work, and employees need better representation in those situations. I just wish there was a better option than unions.
I’m sympathetic to unions, though, as many companies really are a terrible place to work, and employees need better representation in those situations. I just wish there was a better option than unions.
For the opposite perspective: One of my uncles worked a non-union construction job in the 50's. He died on the job. Another uncle, who watched my uncle die, never worked another non-union job in his life, choosing to go hungry rather than working a non-union job.
The better option than unions is better unions. They can be meaningfully improved, especially given the large number of highly suboptimal unions.
[deleted]
Yet I hear the situation is better in Germany. Also the US during the industrial revolution appears to have benefited greatly from unions. Any large organization is prone to corruption and bureaucracy for its own sake. I don't think we should throw out useful tools entirely because some have problems.
Part of the New Deal legislation was the US Government effectively granted corporations monopoly power if they recognized labor unions.
It was FAR from an ideal framework, but it did mean we still had industrial capacity going into WWII.
It was FAR from an ideal framework, but it did mean we still had industrial capacity going into WWII.
Coming from Germany they are fine.
Yeah. Germany got it right (as far as I can see). Anyone know why the situation seems so different there vs here in the US?
I don't know why it's different, but unions and employers are not terribly contrarian in Germany. For example, I have seen (edit: a works council, related to unions but not the same) argue for better quality control because they were fearing quality trouble, which would be bad for the whole company including employees. Unions also don't oppose laying off really underperforming employees (but might require a generous severance package) or automation, as long as affected people can be moved around instead of laid off.
Its like the saying that any form of government works well if everyone is altruistic. Maybe Germans or even western Europeans as a whole are just more altruistic than the US? Individualism and distrust of power are pretty core to the mindset of a decent portion of the US going back to colonial days. I'm not suggesting blindly trusting power is a great idea, but perhaps thinking that way, then acquiring power makes you more likely to abuse it.
I think "narrative" is probably the most underrated element in economic theory, probably because it's hard to measure. But it's easy to see: Many American CEOs appear to be only in it for themselves, and as you say US culture is very much individualistic: Always care for yourself first. Compare this to e.g. Japan where kids learn from very early age that everything you do, you do for the community. With these completely different mind-sets the style of cooperation is very different as well.
As a German I can also say that unions and Betriebsräte are not only looking for the employees but also looking that the business has a future. And that's a common ground with the employers, which is why there is not this kind of animosity as in the US. Also, as I said: Even managers in Germany know that the success of the company is a group effort.
As a German I can also say that unions and Betriebsräte are not only looking for the employees but also looking that the business has a future. And that's a common ground with the employers, which is why there is not this kind of animosity as in the US. Also, as I said: Even managers in Germany know that the success of the company is a group effort.
Managers in the US largely are concerned about the next quarter earnings so they get their full bonus. This at the sacrifice of the business in the long term because they will have moved on. And unions usually span many states even support multiple sectors of industry, so the failure of a single business often doesn't seem to matter to the union.
The unions are present at the board level after a certain size and therefore have more empathy for a companies plight and objectives.
They are more demanding when the company does well, but willing to chip in when the company is in trouble.
They are more demanding when the company does well, but willing to chip in when the company is in trouble.
AFAIK German unions are very diverse and workers can pick and choose which one they want to join, vs the US where it's typically a 1:1 relationship between workplace and union.
At the core of the German labor participation system lies the works council which is an (employee) elected board that represents them on a factory/office level (varies).
Large companies also elect a company wide works council which in the case of publicly listed companies is part of the board. (50% of the votes with a shareholder friendly tie breaking mechanism).
Works councils are traditionally dominated by unions but not always and there isn't a membership requirement to be represented.
Unions offer industry sector wide representation and also negotiate collective agreements that companies agree to (more or less) willingly and of course they coordinate strikes if need be.
Large companies also elect a company wide works council which in the case of publicly listed companies is part of the board. (50% of the votes with a shareholder friendly tie breaking mechanism).
Works councils are traditionally dominated by unions but not always and there isn't a membership requirement to be represented.
Unions offer industry sector wide representation and also negotiate collective agreements that companies agree to (more or less) willingly and of course they coordinate strikes if need be.
Generally, yes. Detauls a bit more complex so. There are industry specific unions for employees, e.g. IG Metall for everything electronics and hardware or Verdi for public services (covering a staggering amount of jobs). On the othet side of the table you have associations of employers for the same industries. This makes, overall, negotiations straight forward, unions negotiate with employer associations and the results are then adopted, with regional modifications, acroos Germany. Of course employers are free to quit thosr associations, there are also dedicated agreements betweens unions and specific employers, usually covering things like extended working hours and so.
And we have specialized unions, e.g. Cockpit for pilots or the equivalant for train conductors. The latter is funny, because there is more than one union representing those at DB.
On a more general note, all employees benefit from the conditions negotiated between employers and unions (if there are any that is), regardless of union memebership. Legally, unions obly negotiate for members, technically rmployers don't make a difference. All that of course up to a certain salary sealing, everything above is outside union territory.
And we have specialized unions, e.g. Cockpit for pilots or the equivalant for train conductors. The latter is funny, because there is more than one union representing those at DB.
On a more general note, all employees benefit from the conditions negotiated between employers and unions (if there are any that is), regardless of union memebership. Legally, unions obly negotiate for members, technically rmployers don't make a difference. All that of course up to a certain salary sealing, everything above is outside union territory.
Ditto. Unions are just another lobby. They seek subsides, money, and power.
Unions, like companies and governments, exist mostly for themselves. That doesn't mean they don't mean well (sometimes), but trusting them shows a bit of naivety.
This seems to depend on the sector.
Eg Hollywood vs some other union.
What sector do you work in?
Eg Hollywood vs some other union.
What sector do you work in?
A (deeply) personal note:
"Albert" is my pen name, not my actual name. Albert was my dad's brother, who was killed in his very first day on the job at Swift & Co. in the Chicago stockyards. He either fell off a scaffold, or it collapsed, I'm not sure which.
Was there a meatpacker's union then, and did Albert belong to it? I don't know.
Worker safety is a sine qua non of unions. In some industries, the union enforces safety regulations rigorously; in others, the workers' comp laws force the companies to watch out for it. Before unions, the companies didn't have to care, and there were no laws.
As other people have pointed out here, safety laws protect everyone whether or not they belong to a union.
"Albert" is my pen name, not my actual name. Albert was my dad's brother, who was killed in his very first day on the job at Swift & Co. in the Chicago stockyards. He either fell off a scaffold, or it collapsed, I'm not sure which.
Was there a meatpacker's union then, and did Albert belong to it? I don't know.
Worker safety is a sine qua non of unions. In some industries, the union enforces safety regulations rigorously; in others, the workers' comp laws force the companies to watch out for it. Before unions, the companies didn't have to care, and there were no laws.
As other people have pointed out here, safety laws protect everyone whether or not they belong to a union.
This is why OSHA was created.
It turns out that the centralized government can conduct safety inspections and enforce safety rules.
It's one of the reasons unions fell out of favor in America. They never enforced safety, and many fell in with the mafia instead to shake down companies while providing no service.
It turns out that the centralized government can conduct safety inspections and enforce safety rules.
It's one of the reasons unions fell out of favor in America. They never enforced safety, and many fell in with the mafia instead to shake down companies while providing no service.
People outside of EU tend to demonize unions through the lens of their own economic environment and lack of knowledge of the matter. The truth is that they should unionize, as this would be the best way to secure their rights (advice from a former Amazonian with exposure to operations).
Amazon would s*t bricks, if the same standards would be implemented in US, as in UK, Germany or France. That's the reason why they're so afraid of it.
Amazon would s*t bricks, if the same standards would be implemented in US, as in UK, Germany or France. That's the reason why they're so afraid of it.
> In Sweden, the company uses third-party workers
I never understood why Americans thinks this is bad. This means that the local company can handle labour laws and you pay extra for the workers to avoid having to learn the laws of yet another country. The local company could even be labour owned and negotiate with the employer as if it was a union, and even if it isn't the workers will likely be unionized anyway and they can easily organize against Amazon if Amazon abuses them.
I never understood why Americans thinks this is bad. This means that the local company can handle labour laws and you pay extra for the workers to avoid having to learn the laws of yet another country. The local company could even be labour owned and negotiate with the employer as if it was a union, and even if it isn't the workers will likely be unionized anyway and they can easily organize against Amazon if Amazon abuses them.
Many U.S. companies have a distinct social hierarchy where people who matter are direct employees and everyone else is outsourced. That lets them keep their reputations cleaner while blaming abusive conditions, various forms of discrimination or harassment, etc. on the other company. This improves their stats for employee compensation, job satisfaction, workplace injuries, labor complaints, etc.
If that company unionizes, they drop the contract and avoid their name in the headlines.
If that company unionizes, they drop the contract and avoid their name in the headlines.
In reality it's bad because Sweden has no minimum wage and unionizing is voluntary. It's full anarchy in the 3PL sector and impossible for unions to use traditional conflict actions forcing companies to sign collective agreements.
> The “Amazon Way” manifests differently country to country. In Sweden, the company uses third-party workers; in France and Italy, collective bargaining is predominantly sectoral, and Amazon chooses to identify itself with the sector that pays the least.
Everything in this article points to European labor laws working exactly as intended. The "weakening of norms" seems entirely confined to a) low strike participation and b) that Amazon continues to find people willing to work for them.
Everything in this article points to European labor laws working exactly as intended. The "weakening of norms" seems entirely confined to a) low strike participation and b) that Amazon continues to find people willing to work for them.
unsurprising (but disappointing) that hn readers are well compensated and lukewarm about unions
I think it's because we're older and have had the unfortunate experience of having to actually work with a union.
It's a nightmare. Do not ever engage a union worker if you ever want to get anything done.
It's a nightmare. Do not ever engage a union worker if you ever want to get anything done.
[deleted]
[deleted]
In Italy Amazon reached a decent agreement with the unions a year ago, and as far as I know workers are reasonably happy.
The article says "they choose to identify with the lowest paying sector", but that sector in Italy is "logistics" which makes pretty much perfect sense for warehouse workers.
The article says "they choose to identify with the lowest paying sector", but that sector in Italy is "logistics" which makes pretty much perfect sense for warehouse workers.
I just wanted to offer this warning to the younger set who seem to think that unions are one piece to fixing the problems that ail the workplace: in every place I've worked with a union, the union did little to protect me or my colleagues. They were sort of a junior, parallel branch of management that would usually favor some groups more than others. I have friends who were essentially targeted by the factions in the unions. So the idea that unions are some how always thinking of the worker has been untrue in my experience.
There was probably a time when unions made more sense. When much of the work is exactly the same and people are just cogs in a big machine, well, I think the idea of collective bargaining makes sense. But while Amazon warehouse workers and delivery teams are doing pretty similar work, there are still differences. Some people just do more work and I don't see anything wrong with rewarding them.
Now all of that being said, I can see a better argument for breaking up Amazon to ensure more competition. I feel like an open labor market is the best way for workers to earn good treatment. When the market was tight, Amazon responded with higher pay and more benefits-- without the need of a union to get in the way and collect dues.
There was probably a time when unions made more sense. When much of the work is exactly the same and people are just cogs in a big machine, well, I think the idea of collective bargaining makes sense. But while Amazon warehouse workers and delivery teams are doing pretty similar work, there are still differences. Some people just do more work and I don't see anything wrong with rewarding them.
Now all of that being said, I can see a better argument for breaking up Amazon to ensure more competition. I feel like an open labor market is the best way for workers to earn good treatment. When the market was tight, Amazon responded with higher pay and more benefits-- without the need of a union to get in the way and collect dues.
THIS!
i use to like r/antiwork on Reddit but dumped it over a year ago. It isnt about "antiwork" but "union drives". The answer to almost any workplace issue seems to be "join a union" but what about the major Union failures?
Here (Canada) we had an issues with a meat processing plant in Alberta. It didnt take long for the striking workers to lash out at their union as well for lack of support. The union felt there were not enough people for them to get involved. while they were content to take their union dues, they were reluctant to get involved in costly legal battles?
Unions are also a business as well, subject to the exact same "corruption" charges as any other organization, so it is ironic that r/Antiwork advocates them?
Look at the recent news from the head of the very powerful auto workers union (which also includes clergy?) here and his mystery $25,00. Naturally his excuse is his "prescription medication and alcohol abuse made me do it".
People complain about the "CEO" pay, but how much do union leaders earn?
Unions were very good in the past and did a lot for the country, but people would be far better off changing laws instead of joining unions.
This is what really kills me about r/anitwork. Not everyone can join a union, but legal changes apply to everyone. I actually had someone tell me once "why should my union fight to help ohters"?
i use to like r/antiwork on Reddit but dumped it over a year ago. It isnt about "antiwork" but "union drives". The answer to almost any workplace issue seems to be "join a union" but what about the major Union failures?
Here (Canada) we had an issues with a meat processing plant in Alberta. It didnt take long for the striking workers to lash out at their union as well for lack of support. The union felt there were not enough people for them to get involved. while they were content to take their union dues, they were reluctant to get involved in costly legal battles?
Unions are also a business as well, subject to the exact same "corruption" charges as any other organization, so it is ironic that r/Antiwork advocates them?
Look at the recent news from the head of the very powerful auto workers union (which also includes clergy?) here and his mystery $25,00. Naturally his excuse is his "prescription medication and alcohol abuse made me do it".
People complain about the "CEO" pay, but how much do union leaders earn?
Unions were very good in the past and did a lot for the country, but people would be far better off changing laws instead of joining unions.
This is what really kills me about r/anitwork. Not everyone can join a union, but legal changes apply to everyone. I actually had someone tell me once "why should my union fight to help ohters"?
Thanks. You have experience with unions in the real world, which the vast majority of American "progressives" don't.
The union often turns into another bureaucracy which has forgotten its original mission, and now exists just to feed itself. Your meat processing plant example is a good one -- the union leaders apparently just want to keep their cushy life and avoid trouble.
Nonetheless, as I said, if you're an Amazon warehouse worker and the company doesn't give a shit about you, then yeah, a union could look like the least-bad alternative.
The union often turns into another bureaucracy which has forgotten its original mission, and now exists just to feed itself. Your meat processing plant example is a good one -- the union leaders apparently just want to keep their cushy life and avoid trouble.
Nonetheless, as I said, if you're an Amazon warehouse worker and the company doesn't give a shit about you, then yeah, a union could look like the least-bad alternative.
Not sure where you are, but spend a few mins and see all the not-so-good things the unions have done here (Ontario, canada).
The idea of "forgotten its missing" really rings true here.
Every election they create some sort of "working family coalition" or such and spend millions on attack-ads. They have their guy in government and want them to win?
Why exactly are unions involved in politics? Why is this even allowed? Is this something the dues-paying members support, having millions of their dollars used on attack-ads?
Finally the party the unions seem dislike won a majority and passed laws to prevent this in the future: https://www.blakes.com/insights/bulletins/2021/ontario-passe...
The law was struck down as "unconstitutional" so the leading party used the "notwithstanding" clause to make it pass.
Look who was fighting it - "Working Families Ontario " This is not families, but unions. I dont know why they dont simply say "Ontario unions" instead of "working families"?
The idea of "forgotten its missing" really rings true here.
Every election they create some sort of "working family coalition" or such and spend millions on attack-ads. They have their guy in government and want them to win?
Why exactly are unions involved in politics? Why is this even allowed? Is this something the dues-paying members support, having millions of their dollars used on attack-ads?
Finally the party the unions seem dislike won a majority and passed laws to prevent this in the future: https://www.blakes.com/insights/bulletins/2021/ontario-passe...
The law was struck down as "unconstitutional" so the leading party used the "notwithstanding" clause to make it pass.
Look who was fighting it - "Working Families Ontario " This is not families, but unions. I dont know why they dont simply say "Ontario unions" instead of "working families"?
I think a common reply to this would be that it’s hard to change laws when an oligarchy has so much power, and siphoning the money and power from the oligarchs has to come first. Unions are one approach to attempt to do this. Unions are the workers that join them, and one of the more positive developments lately is the push to have more democratic unions. The teamsters even just changed their leadership drastically in this direction.
I'm Canadian but lived in the US for several years.
One takeaway from my time in the US is they really need to address its "lobbying" rules. We have a bit of a lobbying problem here, but no where near the level we see to the south.
When you do crazy things like rule that corporations are "natural people" when clearly they are not..
I have no clue how to fix this, but Lobbying is really bad which is why it is tightly controlled in most other countries.
One takeaway from my time in the US is they really need to address its "lobbying" rules. We have a bit of a lobbying problem here, but no where near the level we see to the south.
When you do crazy things like rule that corporations are "natural people" when clearly they are not..
I have no clue how to fix this, but Lobbying is really bad which is why it is tightly controlled in most other countries.
One proposed solution is to get rid of Sunshine laws. Make legislative votes secret again, and legislators are harder to hold to account. Cuts both ways, but it might have an outsized effect on moneyed interests' ability to buy their way.
The younger American middle-classs hate their HOAs but want unions at work. If you don’t like your HOA telling you how to cut your grass you’re also not going to like your union telling you how to do your job. Both are ostensibly democratic but in practice oppressive.
The HOA comparison doesn't make much sense here. Unions give people a democratic way to exercise power against an existing powerful organization (corporations), in what would otherwise be an authoritarian workplace. HOAs are a way to exercise power as a group against individuals in the group. It's true that democratic institutions can be frustrating, but this (obvious) fact is not the clever gotcha you seem to think of is.
This is solving a problem with the wrong tool. I shouldn't need another layer of bureaucracy in order to exercise my power as a citizen/employee against a powerful organization. The same way i don't need a priest to hook me up w/ the guy in the sky.
Yes, it seems a far more apt comparison to union dues would be government taxation.
> HOAs are a way to exercise power as a group against individuals in the group.
s/HOA/Union/ and this statement is still true
s/HOA/Union/ and this statement is still true
I'd take Democratic but imperfect over authoritarian any day. The company can also tell you how to "cut your grass", only you have no say at all in their leadership.
My union is fighting to raise my stake in the business I work for. Even if that means there are a couple new rules from the union it's still a hugely net positive.
My union is fighting to raise my stake in the business I work for. Even if that means there are a couple new rules from the union it's still a hugely net positive.
Presumably these are the arguments that led to the HOAs? ‘More democratic’, ‘everyone has a say’, etc. In practice it’s a tyranny of the majority, right? Same in a union, the majority have power and may act against your interests.
This is a common anti-union talking point but I’ve never seen anything like it at that anywhere I’ve worked - the unions have been what shut down those actions by management.
I’m sure there are some bad unions but that doesn’t mean we should give up on the concept any more than bad moves by companies means we should give up on the concept of private business.
I’m sure there are some bad unions but that doesn’t mean we should give up on the concept any more than bad moves by companies means we should give up on the concept of private business.
Your manager is trying to tell you how to do your job. The union gives you a way to push back.
The union will only push back if I’m in a majority group. If I’m part of a minority they won’t push back and will also prevent me negotiating individually with my manager if they’re using collective agreements.
That’s also what goes wrong in an HOA. If the majority want you to paint your fence then that’s it to have to paint it.
That’s also what goes wrong in an HOA. If the majority want you to paint your fence then that’s it to have to paint it.
Whereas your manager will always push back and the individual will always have much less negotiating power than the billion dollar corporation.
Some agency gained is better than no agency at all.
Some agency gained is better than no agency at all.
No always. Take the very common union rules around seniority. Can the employer offer some benefit to an individual union member (e.g. preferred shifts, certain shifts that get bonuses, etc).
Sure! But often only by seniority.
So the guy who has been around the longest, but doesn't do a great (because the union will protect him) gets the best hours and best bonuses. Can you do a better job? Sure! But it doesn't matter, you don't have seniority.
Take that same scenario and apply it across a bunch of other issues you might have with coworkers and you'll get a sense how unions can go wrong.
Sure! But often only by seniority.
So the guy who has been around the longest, but doesn't do a great (because the union will protect him) gets the best hours and best bonuses. Can you do a better job? Sure! But it doesn't matter, you don't have seniority.
Take that same scenario and apply it across a bunch of other issues you might have with coworkers and you'll get a sense how unions can go wrong.
[deleted]
They'll push back unless it's not good for the union. And you might think that means "not good for the workers", but not always.
Unions basically mean you give up individual autonomy in your job in exchange for group protection.
In some cases that's an improvement, in some cases it's not.
Unions basically mean you give up individual autonomy in your job in exchange for group protection.
In some cases that's an improvement, in some cases it's not.
This analogy makes zero sense. How is this analogy even supposed to work?
CEO = homeowner
Union = HOA
Employees = Grass on your lawn???
CEO = homeowner
Union = HOA
Employees = Grass on your lawn???
In a HOA the members are the home owners. In a union the members are the employees. In both cases a majority of members get to dictate to a minority. You may not like the outcome if you're in a minority on some issue.
Like if you like long grass, the HOA can dictate you can’t do that. Or if you like pay by performance but the majority of the union wants pay by seniority they can dictate that to you.
Like if you like long grass, the HOA can dictate you can’t do that. Or if you like pay by performance but the majority of the union wants pay by seniority they can dictate that to you.
I don’t mind the HOA handling all sorts of exterior work I can’t be bothered with. I may not like to the fees, but I understand that is the price I pay for amenities. So you’re saying a union would operate similarly? Not bad.
The HOA mandates the work you do on your own property - they don't do it for you as a service.
And while it sounds good in theory... in practice many people hate HOAs. They hate not being able to decide what to do themselves and they hate the pettiness and politics of it.
And while it sounds good in theory... in practice many people hate HOAs. They hate not being able to decide what to do themselves and they hate the pettiness and politics of it.
Sure, but if I don’t have anything I want to do in contravention to their guidelines, then I don’t care. The monthly fee is an annoyance but they take care of the exterior work I don’t want to manage. A relationship I am fine with.
Word of warning, this is what I thought HOAs were about when I bought a house in one, with extremely reasonable rules and landscaping services. But unfortunately power corrupts and the board members went out and hired a lawyer in secret, re-wrote the CC&Rs, and then used obscure vote procedures to take total control.
Once the board members gave themselves the ability to write rules without a vote, they started going after everyone for petty violations, like parking a car in your driveway for too many days or having the wrong colored door mat. And they have the legal power to foreclose on your house if you don’t play along.
Once the board members gave themselves the ability to write rules without a vote, they started going after everyone for petty violations, like parking a car in your driveway for too many days or having the wrong colored door mat. And they have the legal power to foreclose on your house if you don’t play along.
> Sure, but if I don’t have anything I want to do in contravention to their guidelines, then I don’t care.
And if you're in the majority in the union then you're also ok.
The problem is when you're in a minority for some reason.
And if you're in the majority in the union then you're also ok.
The problem is when you're in a minority for some reason.
So your analogy breaks down because there is nothing corresponding to CEO/Management.
Yeah, this is a terrible analogy.
Yeah, this is a terrible analogy.
You can't say something like this without specifying the country under an article about Amazon's global anti-union strategy. Going off what you said, you're probably talking about the US, which really isn't in any way comparable. You have shit labour laws and dynamics all around and nothing which could be useful when talking about other countries.
It’s so embarassing for a company that championed customer services improving quality of day to day life for so many people is now putting the basic rights of everyone (yes, market leaders tend to influence the whole game) at risk
The general positive rhetoric on HN for unions is a jaded. Take it from someone that lives in a country with very strong Unions that ultra strong unions are all they're cracked up to be.
... unless you need to actually get work done.
You've never dealt with American unions. Trying to get a union worker to help you do something means filling out paperwork to do things like moving a chair from one room to the next room.
At the company level unions in the 1980s became synonymous with organized crime. They would call strikes whenever they wanted a bribe.
You've never dealt with American unions. Trying to get a union worker to help you do something means filling out paperwork to do things like moving a chair from one room to the next room.
At the company level unions in the 1980s became synonymous with organized crime. They would call strikes whenever they wanted a bribe.
[deleted]
regardless of ones feelings about unions, instead of trying to crush unions, why don't they try to just make the workplace/pay better so people feel the need?
I worked in one of the Seattle buildings. It was still a culture of people crying at their desks, incompetent managers being checked out or just stressing out everyone around them.
Then you had the more seasoned people who figured out how to play the game. Something is broken or had some outage?
Find a way to blame another team. Think of the most sleezy used car sales manager you’ve met in the finance office of a car dealership. Now give them a “Sr. software development manager” role. That’s Amazon for ya.
Managers going on vacations to Hawaii while their teams are slaving away over the weekend to meet unrealistic deadlines. Utter lack of leadership. A house of cards held together by H1Bs and other visa situations where people put up with it out of fear of losing their jobs and having to leave the country.
I pray the government breaks up that scam. It’s a stain on humanity.