What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"They Cried, 'The Union Forever!' But That Was Untrue, Girl" -- Amazon Workers Vote To Unionize Warehouse In Staten Island (1 Viewer)

First one to get the reference song in question gets a hearty handshake and a backpat. Always been one of my favorites since I heard it. 

 
I had a couple of students in my class at Miami-Dade College near a big Amazon warehouse in north Dade. They liked the psy and benefits, but said they worked them very hard, especially round holidays, and were afraid of taking sick leave cause they might get fired or laid off. Anectdotes. Police unions are untouchable in most cities. 

Maybe a spiritual would make the hard work more palatable. 

https://youtu.be/SIoWRVE-H58

 
https://apnews.com/article/amazon-union-vote-staten-island-34a656411e0e2ba4eeedccaaac34e62b

I have a funny feeling we haven't seen the last of this. Doesn't Amazon do a great job with their employees. Sounds kind of like a union where there doesn't need to be one, while there are plenty of professions and jobs that need them that don't get them. That's a brief amateur's two cents on the deal. 
If Amazon is so great with their employees then they probably shouldn’t be so scared about them unionizing.

 
It's disappointing to me that this thread has received so little attention in here compared with all the threads about trans stuff and wokeism and partisan B.S.  I feel like this is way more important and bigger news than most of that stuff but nobody seems especially interested.  Anyway, I thought this NY Times article about it was interesting, it's paywalled so I'm posting the whole thing, sorry it is so long.

How Two Best Friends Beat Amazon

In the first dark days of the pandemic, as an Amazon worker named Christian Smalls planned a small, panicked walkout over safety conditions at the retailer’s only fulfillment center in New York City, the company quietly mobilized.

Amazon formed a reaction team involving 10 departments, including its Global Intelligence Program, a security group staffed by many military veterans. The company named an “incident commander” and relied on a “Protest Response Playbook” and “Labor Activity Playbook” to ward off “business disruptions,” according to newly released court documents.

In the end, there were more executives — including 11 vice presidents — who were alerted about the protest than workers who attended it. Amazon’s chief counsel, describing Mr. Smalls as “not smart, or articulate,” in an email mistakenly sent to more than 1,000 people, recommended making him “the face” of efforts to organize workers. The company fired Mr. Smalls, saying he had violated quarantine rules by attending the walkout.

In dismissing and smearing him, the company relied on the hardball tactics that had driven its dominance of the market. But on Friday, he won the first successful unionization effort at any Amazon warehouse in the United States, one of the most significant labor victories in a generation. The company’s response to his tiny initial protest may haunt it for years to come.

Mr. Smalls and his best friend from the warehouse, Derrick Palmer, had set their sights on unionizing after he was forced out. Along with a growing band of colleagues — and no affiliation with a national labor organization — the two men spent the past 11 months going up against Amazon, whose 1.1 million workers in the United States make it the country’s second-largest private employer.

At the bus stop outside the warehouse, a site on Staten Island known as JFK8, they built bonfires to warm colleagues waiting before dawn to go home. They made TikTok videos to reach workers across the city. Mr. Palmer brought homemade baked ziti to the site; others toted empanadas and West African rice dishes to appeal to immigrant workers. They set up signs saying “Free Weed and Food.”

The union spent $120,000 overall, raised through GoFundMe, according to Mr. Smalls. “We started this with nothing, with two tables, two chairs and a tent,” he recalled. Amazon spent more than $4.3 million just on anti-union consultants nationwide last year, according to federal filings.

The unionization vote reflects an era of rising worker power. In recent months, a string of Starbucks stores have voted to organize as well. But JFK8, with 8,000 workers, is one of Amazon’s signature warehouses, its most important pipeline to its most important market.

Amazon has fought unionization for years, considering it a dire threat to its business model. Its ability to speed packages to consumers is built on a vast chain of manual labor that is monitored down to the second. No one knows what will happen if the newly organized workers try to change that model or disrupt operations — or if their union is replicated among the more than 1,000 Amazon fulfillment centers and other facilities across the country.

For all their David-versus-Goliath disadvantages, the Staten Island organizers had the cultural moment on their side. They were buoyed by a tightened labor market, a reckoning over what employers owe their workers and a National Labor Relations Board emboldened under President Biden, which made a key decision in their favor. The homegrown, low-budget push by their independent Amazon Labor Union outperformed traditional labor organizers who failed at unionizing Amazon from the outside, most recently in Bessemer, Ala.

“I think it’s going to shake up the labor movement and flip the orthodoxy on its head,” said Justine Medina, a box packer and union organizer at JFK8 who had waited with an exuberant crowd in Brooklyn to hear the vote results.

The future of American unionizing efforts “can’t be about people coming in from the outside with an organizing plan that people have to follow,” said Sara Nelson, head of the flight attendants’ union, in an interview. “It has to come from within the workplace.”

Now, both the nascent JFK8 union and Amazon face pressing questions. The union, with no traditional infrastructure, experience or leadership, is likely to face a legal battle over the vote and challenging contract negotiations. The company, which did not respond to a request for comment for this article, will have to decide whether to reconsider some of its tactics and address the underlying labor dissatisfaction that handed it such a sweeping defeat.

“Amazon wanted to make me the face of the whole unionizing efforts against them,” Mr. Smalls wrote in a tweet on Friday, appearing undaunted by the task ahead. “Welp there you go!”

The Walkout

When Amazon opened the sprawling JFK8 site in 2018, the company was both drawn to and wary of New York, America’s most important consumer market. The established Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union announced a bold goal: to turn JFK8 into the first organized Amazon warehouse in the country.

Soon Amazon withdrew from its highly touted plan to open a second headquarters in the city, as a backlash grew over public subsidies it would receive and its history of opposing unions. But the talk of organizing JFK8 went nowhere. In labor circles, many believed that Amazon’s turnover was too high, and its tactics too combative, for a union to succeed.

When the first coronavirus cases were confirmed at JFK8 in March 2020, Mr. Palmer and Mr. Smalls confronted managers with safety concerns. Employees were increasingly worried about rising infection rates and felt that Amazon was not notifying them about cases in a timely manner, managers documented in newly released court records.

But Amazon refused to pause operations, saying it had taken “extreme measures” to keep workers safe. The pandemic had turned JFK8 into a lifeline for the city, where 24/7 shifts and a fleet of trucks delivered supplies as it went into lockdown.

As Amazon moved to fire Mr. Smalls that March, two human resource employees at JFK8 doubted the wisdom of his dismissal. “Come on,” one messaged. Mr. Smalls was outside, peaceful and social-distancing, she wrote. His firing, she predicted, would be “perceived as retaliation.” But the termination proceeded.

After the firing, the chief counsel’s smear against Mr. Smalls — a full apology came only later — and the dismissal of another protester, the two friends resolved to take action. Mr. Smalls was outspoken, Mr. Palmer deliberate. They were both Black men from New Jersey and the same age (31 then, 33 now). Both had dropped out of community college, prided themselves on high scores on Amazon’s performance metrics and once hoped to rise within the company.

Now they made new plans. Mr. Palmer would keep working at JFK8, the better to change it from inside.

In early 2021, they took a road trip to another Amazon warehouse. When workers held a union drive in Bessemer, Ala., Mr. Palmer and Mr. Smalls wanted to witness it. But they found organizers from the retail union — the one that had previously declared an interest in JFK8 — less than welcoming to them and thought the professionals seemed like outsiders who had descended on the community.

By April, workers in Bessemer had rejected the union by more than a 2-to-1 margin. Mr. Palmer and Mr. Smalls declared their intention to organize JFK8, but few took them seriously. Why should they win when better-funded, more experienced operatives had been beaten?

Turnover and Morale

As they set about their first task — gathering thousands of worker signatures to trigger a unionization vote — cracks in Amazon’s employment model were evident.

JFK8 had offered jobs to workers laid off by other industries during the pandemic. But a New York Times investigation last June revealed that the warehouse was burning through employees, firing others because of communication and technology errors and mistakenly depriving workers of benefits.

Black associates at JFK8 were almost 50 percent more likely to be fired than their white peers, according to an internal document. Even before the pandemic upended work, Amazon warehouses had an astonishing turnover rate of 150 percent.

As Mr. Palmer and Mr. Smalls approached workers at the bus stop, Amazon’s tone toward its employees kept shifting. Jeff Bezos, the company’s founder, was handing over the role of chief executive to Andy Jassy, and the company raised wages and added the goal of being “Earth’s best employer” to its guiding principles. It pledged to listen to complaints and improve working conditions.

At other times, it was contentious. In a widely publicized Twitter exchange about the Bessemer organizing, Amazon sounded so dismissive about workers who could not take bathroom breaks and had to urinate in bottles that it had to apologize.

In May at JFK8, an anti-union consultant called the mostly Black labor organizers “thugs,” according to a complaint filed against Amazon by the N.L.R.B. The retailer denied the episode.

And in November, the labor agency said Amazon had showed “flagrant disregard” for the law and threw out the results of the Bessemer warehouse vote, ordering another.

That fall, after months of gathering support, the New York union organizers delivered more than 2,000 signatures to the labor board, but they were rejected for not meeting the minimum required to hold an election. Mr. Smalls said Amazon had submitted payroll data to the board indicating that the company believed half the people who had signed cards no longer worked at the warehouse.

“After all those months of hard work, it seemed like the momentum was gone,” Mr. Palmer recalled in an interview. Between working his shifts and organizing at JFK8 on his time off, he had spent barely a day away from the warehouse for months. Some of the employees he approached were skeptical of unions or dues, or just grateful for Amazon’s health care and pay, which starts above $18 an hour at JFK8. Others seemed too exhausted and wary to even engage.

The Path to Victory

To press onward, the union leaders posted the TikTok videos, made outdoor s’mores and sang along to hip-hop and Marvin Gaye. When workers faced family crises, the budding union prayed. One fired employee became homeless, and the group set up a fund-raising campaign.

Their near-constant presence at the warehouse helped. “The more comfortable they get with us, that’s when they start opening up to us,” Mr. Palmer said of other workers.

Some union sympathizers took jobs at JFK8 specifically to help the organizing effort, according to Ms. Medina, who was among them.

Amazon countered with the full force of its anti-union apparatus. It monitored organizers’ social media, court filings show, pelted workers with text messages and blanketed the warehouse with signs saying “Vote NO” or claiming the union leaders were outsiders. The company often held more than 20 mandatory meetings with workers a day, The Times reported last month, in which managers and consultants cast doubt on the effort.

“The Amazon Labor Union has never negotiated a contract,” one presentation said. Dues would be expensive, it continued, and the union “has no experience managing this massive amount of money.”

Andro Perez, 35, works at a smaller Amazon warehouse near JFK8, where another union vote is scheduled this month. He’s leaning toward voting yes, he said, because Amazon’s mandatory meetings mostly criticized unions. He would rather his employer address the question: “What could you do better?”

The organizers at JFK8 fought back, filing dozens of complaints with the N.L.R.B. claiming that Amazon violated workers’ rights to organize. Amazon has denied their allegations, but the labor board found many to be credible and pursued them in administrative court.

By Christmas, the organizers scored a major legal win. Amazon agreed to a nationwide settlement, among the largest in the agency’s history, that said workers could stay in the buildings to organize when they were off the clock.

With that, the organizers moved their potlucks indoors, giving them more access and legitimacy. Mr. Smalls’s aunt provided home-cooked soul food: macaroni and cheese, candied yams, collard greens and baked chicken.

“What you do is you create a community that Amazon never really had for workers,” said Seth Goldstein, a lawyer who represented the organizers free of charge.

One day this February, Mr. Smalls was bringing lunch to the break room when Amazon called the police, saying he had trespassed. He and two current employees were arrested. The response may have backfired: The union’s videos of the episode on TikTok have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

Kathleen Lejuez, 41, employed by Amazon for nine years, said she was not a “union fan” but voted for the organizing effort to send a message to a company that she felt had lost its connection to workers. “The humanity at Amazon is gone,” she said in an interview.

In the weeks before the count, Amazon, which has consistently said its workers are best served by a direct relationship with the company, laid the groundwork for potential challenges to the election — arguing in legal filings that the labor board had abandoned “the neutrality of their office” in favor of the union.

On Friday morning inside the agency’s offices in Brooklyn, Mr. Smalls, in siren-red streetwear, sat next to Amazon’s lawyer to review each ballot. His knee jittered as each vote was presented.

The votes were tallied — 2,654 for the union, 2,131 against. With a comfortable margin secured, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Smalls and other representatives emerged into the spring light, screamed with joy and clasped one another in a tight circle.

A few miles away, at JFK8, workers were stealthily monitoring the results in between packing and stowing boxes. There was no formal announcement. Instead, a shout rose up from somewhere on the floor: “We did it! We won!”

 
I don't know that unions are the only way, or the best way, to counter the rise of global mega-corporations with inordinate power.  Sure seems like something needs to be done to advance the cause of workers.  I hope this helps.

 
I don't know that unions are the only way, or the best way, to counter the rise of global mega-corporations with inordinate power.  Sure seems like something needs to be done to advance the cause of workers.  I hope this helps.
It's the government unions that scare the #### out of me.    Private unions have historically been a good.

 
It's disappointing to me that this thread has received so little attention in here compared with all the threads about trans stuff and wokeism and partisan B.S.  I feel like this is way more important and bigger news than most of that stuff but nobody seems especially interested.  Anyway, I thought this NY Times article about it was interesting, it's paywalled so I'm posting the whole thing, sorry it is so long.

How Two Best Friends Beat Amazon
Thanks for that article.  I'm conflicted on the issue.  I believe employees at the lowest level of a company usually do the most essential work and deserve better compensation for their utility.  However, as a co-worker or customer, I see a lot of low level employees that lack conscientiousness and work ethic.  (I'm sure high level employees have the same faults but I've never had the opportunity to witness their work.)  Tracking speed and accuracy in an Amazon warehouse seems fairly straight forward.  This could be the reason for the high turnover.  Earning low wages never feels good but nothing is more demoralizing than seeing lousy co-workers earning the same wage.  I worry that unions offer shelter and protection for these slackers. But maybe unions are necessary for the benefit of everyone.   

 
I don’t really have really well thought out unionization position.

One one hand I guess people should be free to join groups to collectively bargain.  But corporations are not allowed the same right, to join with other local companies to collectively bargain with employees.

But let’s say people can and companies cant.  I think the company should negotiate in good faith, seems like a good approach but why should they be required to?  Can companies fire union workers for joining a union?

So basically my starting point is why not let people and entities bargain how they want including as groups…but it seems like the companies have a lot of restrictive requirement that makes the process artificial.

 
But let’s say people can and companies cant.  I think the company should negotiate in good faith, seems like a good approach but why should they be required to?  Can companies fire union workers for joining a union?
In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), making clear that it is the policy of the United States to encourage collective bargaining by protecting workers’ full freedom of association. The NLRA protects workplace democracy by providing employees at private-sector workplaces the fundamental right to seek better working conditions and designation of representation without fear of retaliation.
https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act

 
Thanks for that article.  I'm conflicted on the issue.  I believe employees at the lowest level of a company usually do the most essential work and deserve better compensation for their utility.  However, as a co-worker or customer, I see a lot of low level employees that lack conscientiousness and work ethic.  (I'm sure high level employees have the same faults but I've never had the opportunity to witness their work.)  Tracking speed and accuracy in an Amazon warehouse seems fairly straight forward.  This could be the reason for the high turnover.  Earning low wages never feels good but nothing is more demoralizing than seeing lousy co-workers earning the same wage.  I worry that unions offer shelter and protection for these slackers. But maybe unions are necessary for the benefit of everyone.   


My position exactly.  Thanks for summarizing that so eloquently.  :thumbup:

As someone who HAS worked with and continues to work with high level employees there are ones that certainly have somehow found their way in with doing the absolute minimum  or shoddy work - if that at all.  Usually they get weeded out fairly quick, though, but some manage to hang on.  

But, then again, usually they are salaried employees too.

 
I don’t really have really well thought out unionization position.

One one hand I guess people should be free to join groups to collectively bargain.  But corporations are not allowed the same right, to join with other local companies to collectively bargain with employees.

But let’s say people can and companies cant.  I think the company should negotiate in good faith, seems like a good approach but why should they be required to?  Can companies fire union workers for joining a union?

So basically my starting point is why not let people and entities bargain how they want including as groups…but it seems like the companies have a lot of restrictive requirement that makes the process artificial.
I think the reason rules are different for companies than employees is because of the difference in inherent power that these two entities possess. Companies inherently have much more power in relation to one employee which is why unions exist. To tip the balance of power back to neutral. It's the same reason that individual rights need to be protected via the constitution. Otherwise the balance of power would tip too far in the direction of the government. 

 
I think the reason rules are different for companies than employees is because of the difference in inherent power that these two entities possess. Companies inherently have much more power in relation to one employee which is why unions exist. To tip the balance of power back to neutral. It's the same reason that individual rights need to be protected via the constitution. Otherwise the balance of power would tip too far in the direction of the government. 
I agree and I think conceptually I’m ok with the protection of workers, companies still have the right to not give the employees what they want…even though it still seems unfair to me.

If a company needs to operate in an area I’m not sure why the union does not have a tremendous amount of leverage and that companies then still need to be restricted.

One thing is that not all companies are Amazon. Is the restaurant union allowed to represent employees to the small restaurant?

 
The NLRA was a compromise between the two competing sides of the capitalist coin, i.e., capital and labor. It was to prevent labor from fomenting secondary and wildcat strikes while companies were forced to collectively bargain. In other words, strikers could no longer protest or strike along the chain of goods, meaning that if you were a car company, the same union representing auto workers couldn't ask its members to form picket lines against steel manufacturers, thereby possibly shutting down production of steel. 

This is the sort of stuff that was being proposed and implemented by labor in the years running up to the NLRA, and was proving to be effective in not acquiring better wages or working conditions, but shutting down industry and production. It's not as simple as it looked. The NLRA was a gigantic compromise, one that FDR deserves enormous credit for, as do the parties that sat down and agreed to it being a national bill. 

Otherwise, unions were going to run fairly rampant and shut down necessary production. The WWII effort likely thanks the NLRA that we were up and running when it happened. 

 
Your moment in questionable history with rockaction. 

No, I'm pretty sure the above is right, just not necessarily in scope or details about the WWII effort. But I'm extrapolating there. I know the big trade-off were no secondary strikes against forcing corporations to come to the table and bargain in good faith provided the employees were represented by a union. 

 
It's disappointing to me that this thread has received so little attention in here compared with all the threads about trans stuff and wokeism and partisan B.S.  I feel like this is way more important and bigger news than most of that stuff but nobody seems especially interested.  Anyway, I thought this NY Times article about it was interesting, it's paywalled so I'm posting the whole thing, sorry it is so long.

How Two Best Friends Beat Amazon
I agree in part, and it's part of the reason I started the thread (to see if interest was piqued at all). I figured the uber-capitalist company of the day being forced to collectively bargain with its workers when it trumpets itself as a worker-friendly place that doesn't need a union would be interesting to some people. 

It was getting little response, but I think people can concentrate on both at once. Lord, look at who started this thread and consider his position and frequent musings on wokeism. 

*points thumbs inward*.  This guy. 

And besides, wokeism doesn't take a knowledge of the underlying history or issues that go along with unionization. Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion when their entire identity (read: white men) is being lambasted as bad or that they need to take a back seat while their fifth graders are introduced to subtle queer theory. 

 
I agree in part, and it's part of the reason I started the thread (to see if interest was piqued at all). I figured the uber-capitalist company of the day being forced to collectively bargain with its workers when it trumpets itself as a worker-friendly place that doesn't need a union would be interesting to some people.
While it is true that Amazon trumpets itself as a worker-friendly company, I'm not so sure it's true that Amazon actually is a worker-friendly company.  A quick web search will bring up hundreds/thousands of hits describing how Amazon treats it workers poorly.  Sure, most of those are anecdotal and likely biased, but there does seem to be a theme and some of them contain some significant specifics regarding Amazon's policies.

 
It will be interesting to follow this story. Amazon won’t make it easy for them. I have no idea how this will turn out other than there will certainly be a lot of conflict and drama.

 
The Weavers - Union Miners

Chris Smalls, the guy that organized the whole thing, called out AOC on twitter for not showing up to the final union drive he’d been organizing for months.  Apparently she stood them up on a promise to show up to one of their events.  I don’t believe aoc ever responded to him.  

Smalls was fired for sticking his neck out.  Now he’s the president of the Amazon Labor Union.  

 
My position exactly.  Thanks for summarizing that so eloquently.  :thumbup:

As someone who HAS worked with and continues to work with high level employees there are ones that certainly have somehow found their way in with doing the absolute minimum  or shoddy work - if that at all.  Usually they get weeded out fairly quick, though, but some manage to hang on.  

But, then again, usually they are salaried employees too.
How many of these slacker, salaried, high level employees you have worked with were unionized?  Were shielded by the union?

 
I agree and I think conceptually I’m ok with the protection of workers, companies still have the right to not give the employees what they want…even though it still seems unfair to me.

If a company needs to operate in an area I’m not sure why the union does not have a tremendous amount of leverage and that companies then still need to be restricted.

One thing is that not all companies are Amazon. Is the restaurant union allowed to represent employees to the small restaurant?


Here is my take on this:

A single company negotiating with a single employee has a huge power advantage.  The company can fire the employee, which can be significant cost to that employee if he is out of work for any significant length of time.  The most the employee can do to the company is to quit, which may be a mild inconvenience for the company but isn't too big a deal in most instances because it can just replace the employee with someone else.  There is very little incentive for the company to compromise with the employee.

A single company negotiating with a union has more equal power.  The company can impose severe costs on the union by locking out workers or closing up shop.  But the union can also impose severe costs on the company by striking.  Because the union has the power to impose serious costs on the company, it is often in the company's best interests to compromise rather than to take a hard-line stance.

But we don't want anybody to go on strike.  Strikes are detrimental to companies, employees, and often to consumers and other third parties.  For every strike that happens and then gets resolved, it would have been better for everyone if that resolution had been reached without a strike.  But strikes happen because the parties don't know what that resolution will look like in advance.

And so in the "company v. union" example above, there is a safety valve that makes strikes less likely -- the opportunity for unhappy employees to voluntarily quit their jobs and go someplace that has higher wages or better working conditions.  If Wal-Mart has crappier wages and working conditions than Amazon, then employees will naturally migrate to Amazon.  If Wal-Mart sees this happening and it is a threat to their business model, Wal-Mart will improve wages and working conditions for their employees.  This results in a benefit to employees without having to go on strike.  That is far more desirable for everyone than a strike. 

But if Wal-Mart and Amazon (and a bunch of other big employers of low-skill labor) were able to collude together, they could all agree to the same wages and working conditions.  And that takes away the safety valve.  So then the only way for employees to improve their wages and conditions is by threatening to strike.  And this leads to more strikes.  Which hurts everyone.

 
Here is my take on this:

A single company negotiating with a single employee has a huge power advantage.  The company can fire the employee, which can be significant cost to that employee if he is out of work for any significant length of time.  The most the employee can do to the company is to quit, which may be a mild inconvenience for the company but isn't too big a deal in most instances because it can just replace the employee with someone else.  There is very little incentive for the company to compromise with the employee.

A single company negotiating with a union has more equal power.  The company can impose severe costs on the union by locking out workers or closing up shop.  But the union can also impose severe costs on the company by striking.  Because the union has the power to impose serious costs on the company, it is often in the company's best interests to compromise rather than to take a hard-line stance.

But we don't want anybody to go on strike.  Strikes are detrimental to companies, employees, and often to consumers and other third parties.  For every strike that happens and then gets resolved, it would have been better for everyone if that resolution had been reached without a strike.  But strikes happen because the parties don't know what that resolution will look like in advance.

And so in the "company v. union" example above, there is a safety valve that makes strikes less likely -- the opportunity for unhappy employees to voluntarily quit their jobs and go someplace that has higher wages or better working conditions.  If Wal-Mart has crappier wages and working conditions than Amazon, then employees will naturally migrate to Amazon.  If Wal-Mart sees this happening and it is a threat to their business model, Wal-Mart will improve wages and working conditions for their employees.  This results in a benefit to employees without having to go on strike.  That is far more desirable for everyone than a strike. 

But if Wal-Mart and Amazon (and a bunch of other big employers of low-skill labor) were able to collude together, they could all agree to the same wages and working conditions.  And that takes away the safety valve.  So then the only way for employees to improve their wages and conditions is by threatening to strike.  And this leads to more strikes.  Which hurts everyone.
Dude, all that is just the road to serfdom.  Why are you against the greatest thing ever devised by humans... capitalism?

 
All that is going to happen, if this becomes a thing with Amazon employees, is Amazon will expedite further automation efforts and the need for human labor will continue to decrease. You are seeing this play out in many different businesses throughout the land. McDonalds employees believed they should be paid $15 and hour (and now some are demanding even more). McDonalds responded by outfitting restaurants with ordering kiosks. I have one by my house that you walk in and there are order boards. You enter your order--pay right there and a human employee will call your number when your food is ready. I guarantee as soon as McDonalds can get machines that bag food, that person's position will be cut as well. They probably cut the need for 4-5 employees just by installing those. 

Amazon starts employees at $20.00 an hour, plus at most locations is offering signing bonuses. That is a good starting wage for a low-skilled, non-college educated employee. I have known people that have worked there, and it is tough, demanding work, but to put that in perspective, my wife's school district pays their teaching assistants (most of whom have college degrees) $14.50 to $16.50 an hour to start. Bus drivers make about the same. 

In the end, Amazon will win this battle. Unions served their purpose at one point, but not in this case in my opinion. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All that is going to happen, if this becomes a thing with Amazon employees, is Amazon will expedite further automation efforts and the need for human labor will continue to decrease.


Decreasing the need for human labor should be a good thing.  It should mean that everyone can work less and do more things that they want to do.  All we need to do is take some of the wealth that Amazon shareholders gained by automating.  And then redistribute that wealth to the masses through social services or a Basic Income Guarantee.

 
All that is going to happen, if this becomes a thing with Amazon employees, is Amazon will expedite further automation efforts and the need for human labor will continue to decrease. You are seeing this play out in many different businesses throughout the land. McDonalds employees believed they should be paid $15 and hour (and now some are demanding even more). McDonalds responded by outfitting restaurants with ordering kiosks. I have one by my house that you walk in and there are order boards. You enter your order--pay right there and a human employee will call your number when your food is ready. I guarantee as soon as McDonalds can get machines that bag food, that person's position will be cut as well. They probably cut the need for 4-5 employees just by installing those. 
People have been predicting technology eliminating the number of jobs for over 100 years yet we have more job openings currently than ever before. I don’t buy the argument that it’s different this time.

 
Here is my take on this:

A single company negotiating with a union has more equal power.  The company can impose severe costs on the union by locking out workers or closing up shop.  But the union can also impose severe costs on the company by striking.  Because the union has the power to impose serious costs on the company, it is often in the company's best interests to compromise rather than to take a hard-line stance.
First, thanks for the post.   Understand that inherently I am pro unionization (or at least the ability to unionize), I’m just evaluating the dynamics, particularly in present day times.

To your point above  why is it a given that a single company negotiating with a union has more equal power. A company that operates in a single geography  must draw employee resources from that geography, which in this case happens to bargain collectively through a union, while employees in the geography almost always have multiple options for employment.  Seems the employees have more leverage, no?   I think a lot of this is also case specific, smaller companies have much less leverage while larger companies that dominate specific towns would have much more leverage.

And so in the "company v. union" example above, there is a safety valve that makes strikes less likely -- the opportunity for unhappy employees to voluntarily quit their jobs and go someplace that has higher wages or better working conditions.  If Wal-Mart has crappier wages and working conditions than Amazon, then employees will naturally migrate to Amazon.  If Wal-Mart sees this happening and it is a threat to their business model, Wal-Mart will improve wages and working conditions for their employees.  This results in a benefit to employees without having to go on strike.  That is far more desirable for everyone than a strike.
I agree with the above but why is a union needed for employees to have the ability to migrate from Walmart to Amazon?  They have that ability without a union, which to my point above is each individual employees leverage.

But if Wal-Mart and Amazon (and a bunch of other big employers of low-skill labor) were able to collude together, they could all agree to the same wages and working conditions.  And that takes away the safety valve.  So then the only way for employees to improve their wages and conditions is by threatening to strike.  And this leads to more strikes.  Which hurts everyone.
yes, I wasn’t advocating for Walmart and Amazon to have the ability to collude, more illustrating that particularly in certain instances when the employees of a specific geography unionize and a company is required to have operations in that geography then the collusion of the employees gives them much more leverage.

overall I’m fine with unionization and the reality is that the end costs are typically passed along to the workers anyway, where I think it is of particular importance though would be in industries where global competitiveness is an issue and the collective bargaining of higher wages results in less competitive companies domestically and in the long run less production and less domestic jobs.  That’s not an issue with Amazon distribution.

 
Interesting discussion in here thus far.  I don't want to spam reply to everybody, but I read the full thread and feel like making a few points.

Agree that with respect to automation, unless we're on the verge of some sort of AI breakthrough, I am very skeptical that we're about to automate our way to almost no jobs.  There will be displacement, but every time you, e.g., put automated kiosks in a restaurant, somebody has to make, sell, install, and service those kiosks.  In my experience a lot of times automation allows a job to be done better, but does not ultimately eliminate the need for manpower.

I think the idea that people can job hop their way to pressuring employers to do better is a bit shortsighted, as there are real costs to doing so.  You may be in a geographic region where there are no real competitors to your employer.  There may be health insurance concerns with changing jobs.  You may be friends with a lot of your coworkers.  You may through high competence have advanced to responsibilities beyond what your resume/education would imply, but a different employer who doesn't know you may not give you a comparable job without some more tangible accreditation that you can do the work. Could these be somewhat characterized as "excuses"?  Sure, but people are human, not robots, and all these forces push them to not rocking the boat too much.  To that end, I do think that the demise of private sector unions has been a real loss for workers.  But...

I've worked at two different employers that gave me first hand experience with unions, and in both cases I have to say that the unions seem to spend the vast majority of their resources defending the worst employees from reprimand or dismissal.  I'm not exactly sure why that is or how indicative of the general union my experience was, but it was very disheartening.  I will also say that I am totally against the strict seniority system that seems to be part and parcel of unions.  I saw firsthand young, good employees get laid off and bumped out of their jobs by surly older employees that made 2X the wage for <50% of the productivity (and this was in a manufacturing environment, so productivity was not some nebulous concept - you could query the numbers).  I understand the concerns about just treadmilling young workers and shafting older employees, but there has to be some kind of a balance.  I guess what I'm saying is that I hope unions make a comeback, but I hope they do so in a way that is actually good for the workers on the whole.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top