> The ALU may ask you to sign an authorization card or share a QR code to fill out an online authorization card.
> This is a legally binding document
Ooh scary ... is the employment contract signed by Amazon's employees not legally binding? How is it Amazon's business what their grown-ass employees can or cannot sign?
> By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are providing the ALU your personal information.
Like Amazon monitoring my spending habits?
> By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are authorizing the ALU to speak on your behalf.
And thats terrible how?
> The ALU is not part of Amazon and does not represent Amazon
They’re transparently trying to exploit people not knowing any better and being horribly afraid about losing their jobs in a recessing economy. It’s despicable.
If ALU gets over 50% of employees to sign the card, they can bypass a vote and declare themselves the union and petition for recognition of such to the NLRB (which will grant it unless Amazon can demonstrate malfeasance somehow). It’s a common tactic by unions and a common response by employers is to carefully but thoroughly explain this tactic to employees—-which they’re allowed to do, but it’s totally illegal to say “DON’T SIGN THE CARD” so it’s a tightrope to walk. When it happened at a facility at which I worked, the HR director read a script, showed a video, took no questions, and videotaped the entire thing to ensure that he could prove it was done legally.
Of course, this is Amazon we’re talking about, so they may just go for it and plan to clean up the mess later. Walmart got away with that approach for decades.
I mean, yeah. We don’t have to pretend it’s in good faith. This is obviously calibrated to make the union card sound as scary as possible while (they hope) stopping just short of being illegal interference.
>> By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are authorizing the ALU to speak on your behalf.
> And thats terrible how?
You really can't see the issue with authorising a group you have little to no control over, speak on your behalf ? I can totally understand that people share some views with what unions are currently defending.
But the requirement on signing a paper that says "whatever the union currently says and will say in the future 100% represents my point of view" is a fair criticism of the union model.
It's a bad thing if the people signing the card or filling out the form do no, in fact, want the union to represent them. In fact, if you look at those signs they pretty much all have one thing in common: the people they'd convince not to sign up to a legally-binding agreement that the union will represent them are those who are not aware this is in fact what they're signing up for, and in the case of the last one specifically people who aren't aware this isn't something Amazon is requring of them as a normal part of the job. Make of that what you will.
Realistically an Amazon-wide union is the only way Amazon workers are going to get decent wage increases. If the USA is going to allow manufacturers to outsource the majority of well-paid (~$30/hr avg) manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China, without having any cross-border capital flow penalities (neoliberal globalism in a nutshell), then the major employers like Amazon and Walmart are going to have to double their wages.
Yes, that means less for the executives and shareholders. They may have to sell some of their properties, oh dear.
Amazon has significantly increased wages. They were at the forefront of the $15 wage, more than double the federal minimum wage. I think at the time Walmart was at $10 or $11.
I live in very liberal SF but outside of my bubble, I hear people complain that it’s not possible to hire Nannies/housecleaners/employees anymore when Amazon and Starbucks pay $18/hr. Seems like the answer is easy: pay them more or make the job more desirable.
Amazon working conditions are challenging, and they have been super anti-union. But they’ve also done more to increase wages in the US than anyone in Washington in the past 15 years, arguably second biggest in past 40 [1].
> If the USA is going to allow manufacturers to outsource the majority of well-paid (~$30/hr avg) manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China
What? You think overseas manufacturers are paying $30 an hour?
It wasn't high-skilled manufacturing that was outsourced. Welders and machinists still have near zero unemployment and make about as much as a software engineer. It was low skilled manufacturing jobs that were outsourced to China. Those jobs never paid anywhere close to $30/hour even in the heyday of unionized American manufacturing.
I may be wrong, but besides and before the wage increases, it seems to me like the priority would be for decent working conditions, if what is published from time to time on media is actually true, the biggest issues are about lack of (normal, decent) pauses or rest periods, continuous summoning for increases in productivity, total control on the workers, etc.
> Yes, that means less for the executives and shareholders. They may have to sell some of their properties, oh dear.
Is it what usually happens when workers unionize? It seems like most of the times, the result is a higher price for the customer, at least when things go well.
I don’t think you are taking the price increases and inefficiencies that a nationally isolated economy would produce into account. People with less disposable income would suffer most from this.
If you don’t like supply chain issues and inflation right now, you won’t like the model
you propose.
Why do you think it means less for executives? It could be that they pass the costs on to consumers. So everything at Amazon will be more expensive just to pay the premium.
A lot of people, even economists, conflate the freedom of trade with the free movement of capital. They are not the same and not equivalent. I like to point people to this comic [1] that someone made when the TPP was hot news as it accurately describes this in a very accessible way.
Neoliberalism serves the interests of the capital-owning class.
People nowadays have no memory of the decades of struggle, sacrifice to win the rights we currently have. Unions are the most effective tool the working class has to affect change where they spend a majority of their waking life. No wonder why its demonized at every possible instance.
They used to be a tool to help the working class in the US.
My parents had good experience with their unions. Every interaction every person I know in my generation has had with them (CWA, UAW, teamsters, railway unions, etc, etc.) has been strongly negative.
The Amazon workers should form a new union if they want representation.
Cards from existing corrupt national unions are definitely a trap. Once enough people sign, they will swoop in to extract dues, bribe politicians on unrelated issues, and alternate between sabotaging Amazon's work environment and negotiating away whatever current benefits the workers get.
People that are good at negotiating union politics will somehow become unfirable, and just stop bothering to do their jobs.
If history repeats itself, the union reps will then work with Amaozn to create an underclass of ununionizable jobs and hire people at minimum wage to do the old $18/hr work, while the union cronies "supervise" for $25+/hr.
yeah my parents only remember their parents having to move their family farm to a different state due to the trucking union (Teamsters, aka the actual mafia associated group). you know where the business was prior to 1950.. Ferguson outside St Louis where the riots were. So they certainly didn't bring prosperity to the area. There’s a middle history of unions that’s not so nice.
> By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are authorizing the ALU to speak on your behalf.
Yeah, they were great at listening before.
Also, where are these unions where the people in it aren't the people it represents. Recently, a school board election ad, "we have to stop the teachers union and start listening to teachers." Well, who the hell is in the teachers union if not teachers?
Larger unions sometimes hire staff to represent their interests who are do not work in the profession represented: negotiators, lawyers, etc. It sets up a bit of a principle/agent problem, but it also makes a lot of sense: a professional lawyer may be much better at negotiating on your behalf than the people from your profession who win the union elections.
> Well, who the hell is in the teachers union if not teachers?
Professional bureaucrats.
Teachers unions in public schools are the worst. They hold our childrens’ futures hostage and get paid out by politicians buying votes, who pass the bill to the next generation.
It's a huge grey area, largely up to the NLRB to decide when anti-union campaigners cross the line. They did similar tactics in the Alabama vote and were slapped for that behavior[1], and many other infractions, with an order to re-do the vote[2]. Amazon's execs and lawyers clearly think they have enough to lose (and their workers to gain) that it's worth finding exactly where the line is.
---
[1] "The [NLRB] hearing officer also found objectionable Amazon's distribution of "vote no" pins and other anti-organizing paraphernalia to employees in the presence of managers and supervisors. ... U.S. labor law forbids companies from spying on organizing activities or leaving employees with the impression they are under surveillance. It also prohibits other actions if they are found to be coercive." https://www.reuters.com/business/amazon-interfered-with-unio...
go look up what other illegal union busting behaviors they've gotten away with. and look at democrat or republican behaviors, such as biden actively strike-busting the other day
The NLRB[1] is supposed to handle it. I have no idea how they would rule on forcing anti-union propaganda on employees today.
And today's SCOTUS seems to want to defang all government agencies' ability to rule on or enforce . . . anything, really, based on their rulings on the EPA and the SEC. Well, unless it's the government trying to enforce on reservation land - that is newly allowed.
mrits: "You guys love the police union too, right? Right???"
The general idea, yeah. It proves how strong a union can be.
The implementation? No. A union for people who have monopoly on violence? No. A union that protects people who are actively hurting civilians without recourse? No.
The general framework for understanding police unions from a labor perspective is that the primary function of police is to safeguard private property rights, specifically the rights of the owning class. In that sense they are structurally opposed to all other sorts of labor unions, since labor unions threaten the maximal control of owners over the private property used (in conjunction with labor) to generate profit. Police often play a direct role in breaking strikes and harassing organizers, sometimes to the point of physical assault or murder. Police unions are permitted to exist without suppression for this reason: they support the powerful.
I was with Amazon working in tech for over 10 years.
I lost control of my health, my hair turned white, and during that time I lost most of my friends. It’s obviously my own fault for letting all that happen.
Of all the companies in the world, Amazon is probably one of the coldest, soulless places.
Management is riddled with politics and third rate talent who’ll often knowingly do the wrong thing, just to get promoted.
The people who actually drove the innovation, who weren’t necessary easier to work with but at least had some technical vision and production vision have all left.
A significant piece of the company is all just legacy systems and tech debt, supported by Indian H1Bs who hire more H1Bs.
If the government breaks up AWS and the rest of Amazon, most of their domains won’t make business sense anymore. There are too many middle men who are against this though - everyone from companies that help people relocate, to vendors that provide special tax services for the H1B army.
I hope Amazon fully unionizes. Even in tech, it was a grueling, toxic place to work.
No doubt that Amazon is being scummy here, but you can’t quote someone/something and put a phrase (“don’t sign”) in quotations unless it’s a direct quote…
Yes, we get it. You're special. You're not like the rest of those... those... workers. You are capable of deluding yourself that your negotiating power is anywhere near that of any company you may want to be employed by or otherwise do business with. Which, of course is a delusion. Unions give workers, including you, power.
The union I am a member of more than doubled the wages of its members after its first 12 years of existence. Crucially it also ensures twice yearly cost of living adjustments.
Turns out if the Union wasn't there I'd have a lot less freedom in the form of disposable income. I prefer not living paycheck-to-paycheck, thanks.
Amazon has incredibly crappy working conditions and extremely high turnover. Even if you don't like unions on average, I don't see what they have to lose in this case.
A union is just a way to make a multilateral contract negotiation between one huge party and hundreds of thousands of very small parties into a bi-lateral contract negotiation between two equals, it’s a completely rational negotiating tactic in a pure capitalist system and it can only be prevented by restricting basic human rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of contract and the right to live without fear of violence.
Some comments were deferred for faster rendering.
noisy_boy|3 years ago
Ooh scary ... is the employment contract signed by Amazon's employees not legally binding? How is it Amazon's business what their grown-ass employees can or cannot sign?
> By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are providing the ALU your personal information.
Like Amazon monitoring my spending habits?
> By signing a card or filling out an online authorization form, you are authorizing the ALU to speak on your behalf.
And thats terrible how?
> The ALU is not part of Amazon and does not represent Amazon
Thats the whole point.
nathanaldensr|3 years ago
Waterluvian|3 years ago
fatbird|3 years ago
Of course, this is Amazon we’re talking about, so they may just go for it and plan to clean up the mess later. Walmart got away with that approach for decades.
eli|3 years ago
wahnfrieden|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
sieabahlpark|3 years ago
[deleted]
imgabe|3 years ago
IMTDb|3 years ago
You really can't see the issue with authorising a group you have little to no control over, speak on your behalf ? I can totally understand that people share some views with what unions are currently defending.
But the requirement on signing a paper that says "whatever the union currently says and will say in the future 100% represents my point of view" is a fair criticism of the union model.
makomk|3 years ago
photochemsyn|3 years ago
Yes, that means less for the executives and shareholders. They may have to sell some of their properties, oh dear.
smugma|3 years ago
I live in very liberal SF but outside of my bubble, I hear people complain that it’s not possible to hire Nannies/housecleaners/employees anymore when Amazon and Starbucks pay $18/hr. Seems like the answer is easy: pay them more or make the job more desirable.
Amazon working conditions are challenging, and they have been super anti-union. But they’ve also done more to increase wages in the US than anyone in Washington in the past 15 years, arguably second biggest in past 40 [1].
[1] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart
dcolkitt|3 years ago
What? You think overseas manufacturers are paying $30 an hour?
It wasn't high-skilled manufacturing that was outsourced. Welders and machinists still have near zero unemployment and make about as much as a software engineer. It was low skilled manufacturing jobs that were outsourced to China. Those jobs never paid anywhere close to $30/hour even in the heyday of unionized American manufacturing.
jaclaz|3 years ago
GuB-42|3 years ago
Is it what usually happens when workers unionize? It seems like most of the times, the result is a higher price for the customer, at least when things go well.
lotsofpulp|3 years ago
Based on retail business profit margins, it would mean higher prices for customers. Not that that is a bad thing, less consumption would be great.
bufferoverflow|3 years ago
Right now these workers work at Amazon, because that's the best paying job they can find.
jupp0r|3 years ago
If you don’t like supply chain issues and inflation right now, you won’t like the model you propose.
xhkkffbf|3 years ago
jmyeet|3 years ago
A lot of people, even economists, conflate the freedom of trade with the free movement of capital. They are not the same and not equivalent. I like to point people to this comic [1] that someone made when the TPP was hot news as it accurately describes this in a very accessible way.
Neoliberalism serves the interests of the capital-owning class.
[1]: https://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
rapnie|3 years ago
Unrealistic, in neoliberalism.
nxmnxm99|3 years ago
[deleted]
SnowHill9902|3 years ago
ekianjo|3 years ago
If everyone gets paid tomorrow 100 USD/hour, everything around you will start costing 10x more. Look at Switzerland.
Varqu|3 years ago
0n0n0m0uz|3 years ago
hedora|3 years ago
My parents had good experience with their unions. Every interaction every person I know in my generation has had with them (CWA, UAW, teamsters, railway unions, etc, etc.) has been strongly negative.
The Amazon workers should form a new union if they want representation.
Cards from existing corrupt national unions are definitely a trap. Once enough people sign, they will swoop in to extract dues, bribe politicians on unrelated issues, and alternate between sabotaging Amazon's work environment and negotiating away whatever current benefits the workers get.
People that are good at negotiating union politics will somehow become unfirable, and just stop bothering to do their jobs.
If history repeats itself, the union reps will then work with Amaozn to create an underclass of ununionizable jobs and hire people at minimum wage to do the old $18/hr work, while the union cronies "supervise" for $25+/hr.
thepasswordis|3 years ago
denimnerd42|3 years ago
zeroonetwothree|3 years ago
yardie|3 years ago
Yeah, they were great at listening before.
Also, where are these unions where the people in it aren't the people it represents. Recently, a school board election ad, "we have to stop the teachers union and start listening to teachers." Well, who the hell is in the teachers union if not teachers?
ravel-bar-foo|3 years ago
koolba|3 years ago
Professional bureaucrats.
Teachers unions in public schools are the worst. They hold our childrens’ futures hostage and get paid out by politicians buying votes, who pass the bill to the next generation.
Anderkent|3 years ago
well, union higher-ups are basically politicians, they're not usually working in the job by that point
maybeiambatman|3 years ago
coldpie|3 years ago
---
[1] "The [NLRB] hearing officer also found objectionable Amazon's distribution of "vote no" pins and other anti-organizing paraphernalia to employees in the presence of managers and supervisors. ... U.S. labor law forbids companies from spying on organizing activities or leaving employees with the impression they are under surveillance. It also prohibits other actions if they are found to be coercive." https://www.reuters.com/business/amazon-interfered-with-unio...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2021/11/29/1022384731/amazon-warehouse-w...
Synaesthesia|3 years ago
wahnfrieden|3 years ago
drewcoo|3 years ago
And today's SCOTUS seems to want to defang all government agencies' ability to rule on or enforce . . . anything, really, based on their rulings on the EPA and the SEC. Well, unless it's the government trying to enforce on reservation land - that is newly allowed.
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...
ixwt|3 years ago
pxeger1|3 years ago
blamazon|3 years ago
Starlevel001|3 years ago
capableweb|3 years ago
The general idea, yeah. It proves how strong a union can be.
The implementation? No. A union for people who have monopoly on violence? No. A union that protects people who are actively hurting civilians without recourse? No.
ahelwer|3 years ago
jimnotgym|3 years ago
2OEH8eoCRo0|3 years ago
notacoward|3 years ago
Police are civilians too. Using "civilian" in this way is supporting the militarization of police, and is not a good thing.
designium|3 years ago
ozzythecat|3 years ago
I lost control of my health, my hair turned white, and during that time I lost most of my friends. It’s obviously my own fault for letting all that happen.
Of all the companies in the world, Amazon is probably one of the coldest, soulless places.
Management is riddled with politics and third rate talent who’ll often knowingly do the wrong thing, just to get promoted.
The people who actually drove the innovation, who weren’t necessary easier to work with but at least had some technical vision and production vision have all left.
A significant piece of the company is all just legacy systems and tech debt, supported by Indian H1Bs who hire more H1Bs.
If the government breaks up AWS and the rest of Amazon, most of their domains won’t make business sense anymore. There are too many middle men who are against this though - everyone from companies that help people relocate, to vendors that provide special tax services for the H1B army.
I hope Amazon fully unionizes. Even in tech, it was a grueling, toxic place to work.
the_only_law|3 years ago
justinzollars|3 years ago
carbadtraingood|3 years ago
Until Amazon can start treating workers well, it seems to me the best move is not to pay them to abuse people.
bamboozled|3 years ago
bamboozled|3 years ago
laweijfmvo|3 years ago
d1sxeyes|3 years ago
s0l1dsnak3123|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
darepublic|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
ervine|3 years ago
tjoff|3 years ago
crikeyjoe|3 years ago
[deleted]
stevespang|3 years ago
[deleted]
tus666|3 years ago
[deleted]
JWlrCk9PkipFTDq|3 years ago
2OEH8eoCRo0|3 years ago
rideontime|3 years ago
[deleted]
oldjavacoder|3 years ago
[deleted]
LBJsPNS|3 years ago
Freedom to be exploited by their employer.
Yes, we get it. You're special. You're not like the rest of those... those... workers. You are capable of deluding yourself that your negotiating power is anywhere near that of any company you may want to be employed by or otherwise do business with. Which, of course is a delusion. Unions give workers, including you, power.
hellotomyrars|3 years ago
Turns out if the Union wasn't there I'd have a lot less freedom in the form of disposable income. I prefer not living paycheck-to-paycheck, thanks.
sp332|3 years ago
willyt|3 years ago
slater|3 years ago
tomohawk|3 years ago
alexnewman|3 years ago