Slashdot Mirror
Workers at Amazon's Main Italian Site To Hold First Strike on Black Friday (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Workers at Amazon's main distribution hub in Italy are planning their first ever strike for Friday, trade unions said, threatening to disrupt one of the busiest shopping days of the year. Like the rest of Europe, Italians in recent years have embraced the U.S. tradition of Black Friday, a day of heavy discounting by retailers on the day after Thanksgiving. Unions said in a statement more than 500 Amazon workers at the Piacenza site in northern Italy had agreed to strike following a failure to negotiate bonuses with the company. Workers have also decided not to do any overtime until Dec. 31, covering the peak season for the online retailer which hires temporary workers during this period.
What a wonderful group. Conspire to harm their employer when they are most needed.
As well they should, if their employer is a shitheel.
Why would you trust such a group with your business? Such children!
This is Amazon, it's not about trust, it's about control. And only children still believe the fairy tales about the business owners being benevolent keepers of society.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is capitalism, where everyone is supposed to be selfish, worry about his own interests, and screw the other. Their employer isn't some special snowflake who deserves protection from the government.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
While the naive believe that unions are really out to protect the workers, rather than enrich the union bosses.
In Germany they strike every year for Christmas, to get the union contract for retail workers instead of logistics ones.
Problem is, nobody notices it, because Amazon, being a Logistics company, just reroutes shipping to Austria, Belgium, France or Poland and not a single package comes an hour late.
You'd think that they'd learn from this, but no.
Move to Italy, I heard a lot of jobs are going to need replacements there!
By the quality of your writing, I'd say you might be qualified enough.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While the naive believe that unions are really out to protect the workers, rather than enrich the union bosses.
I think some of them might be, but I'm not astoundingly pro-union. I am, however, in favor of the right to unionize. If you tell people they can't associate freely, you're violating a natural right. I'd rather have protections for all workers than any unions at all, but since governments don't seem to be able to see their way to protecting workers more than corporations, I see unions as a necessary evil. I do not consider this contradictory to the idea that we should eliminate them going forwards, since it is not acceptable to simply replace them with nothing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Even more than that US Thanksgiving is not a holiday anywhere but the US so this is no different than striking on any other random day of the year.
The best protection for the workers is to have many (a half dozen or more) job options available to them. Changing employers is the ultimate feedback that an employee can provide.
Reality check: the only way to get what you want is to force the issue.
Employers want to pay their employees as little as possible. Every dollar they pay an employee is a dollar they can't keep. They don't set wages based on what is morally right or benevolent; but based on what they have to pay according to law or labor market economics.
If you have a rare and valuable skill, employers will make all kinds of noble gestures towards you. But when you have a general skillset that most people have or can easily get, you are not getting a dime more than you can force them to pay you.
If workers don't keep striking, they won't keep getting a decent wage. The moment they stop raising a fuss is the moment their pay stagnates, their working conditions start to deteriorate, and their hours start going up.
It is *also* true that unions become self-serving predators as well. It is unfortunate, but inescapable, given that everyone involved in a union has the same "I want more for me" incentives that the greedy employers have.
It is not pretty, but it is human. You fight for what you want, or you don't get it.
they haven't busted their Unions like they have over here in the States. Unions are basically dead here. How did Europe pull that off?
Not as evil?
Instead of fighting for a stupid bonus, why aren't they asking for a higher hourly rate?
#DeleteFacebook
The best protection for the workers is to have many (a half dozen or more) job options available to them.
I don't disagree, but the problem is, that's not the situation. It's not the situation in Italy, it's not the situation anywhere in the EU in fact, and it's not the situation in the USA either. It's not the situation anywhere in the world, as far as I can tell. And this is because the worker's share of the profit has declined, and when owners spend money they tend to give it to other owners, but when workers spend money they tend to spend more of it in ways that put the highest percentage into another worker's pocket (i.e. locally.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not going to cry for Amazon. If it were a major health care system as opposed to a slinger of poor-quality Chinese junk and destroyer of local economies, then I might be sad.
Employees can be greedy, too.
In Europe wage increases after strikes are published in the news. ...
And a union boss hardly earns more than a mid level manager
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Tax laws.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Not sure where you are from.
There is a difference between Unions in the US and in Europe.
In the US you have trade unions. In Europe we would call that a guild and was popular in the middle ages. It protects the job, not the workers. e.g. you had a nbakers guild and a brewers guild. They where very protective and you had to be a member or you could not do that trade.
In Europe (OK, Belgium, but the rest will be similar) you can join almost whatever union you desire or not. That means that I can join a union at any moment, regardless of what job I have or even IF I have a job. Nobody will ask or even care if you are a member of the union. In fact when the Unions negotiate an increase in holidays or pay or whatever, I will get it regardless if I am a union member or not.
Many times these Union bosses who organize the strikes are working members in the companies. So yes, they want to enrich themselves by having better pay and/or better working conditions.
The communication between union and company is pretty open (no, not 100%, as often things are discussed that could harm the company when discussed in public, like buying another company and what not).
There are also more than 1 union, so if one would try to do something illegal, they would have to have all of the aboard. Unpossible? No, just that when it happens it is an exception, not a rule.
So the monthly meetings are held with management and several elected union members from different unions. And from what I know the greater goal is indeed to protect the workers, not the job and not to enrich the union bosses, who are just people who work themselves with cow orkers they ask the same raise for as they wanted. Bit like the 6 on friends who asked for raises for all of them instead of individual talks.
There are obviously people who are elected as union member to represent others who do it because they will get very protective job security and abuise that. Some people are assholes, news at 11. The most I know are just cow orkers I work with day in day out who have a bit more meetings so it might look as if they work less.
This was just how it works in Europe. It does not mean that I either agree or disagree with what Unions do or how how they do it partly or as a whole. As with everything, with somethings I agree, with others I absolutely am against it. I am still aware that thanks to them I have 35 days holiday and enough money to do womething when I am on a holiday. It protects me enough from random fireing if the boss is an asshole and not enbough to not get me fired if I am an asshole. That is also good. Yes, people still can get fired, but there will be a cost involved.
And I am sure that there are union members that take pay illegally for themselves. That is human nature. Does not mean they are all like that. Not by a long shot.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
when workers spend money they tend to spend more of it in ways that put the highest percentage into another worker's pocket (i.e. locally.)
[citation needed]
... not to reward the local hipster artisan selling repurposed trumpets as flower vases. Most of their groceries will be cheaper when purchased from a chain with a large delivery pipeline, and that means they're buying at least nationally if not globally. And when those workers need something else, they're doing what the rest of us do, more and more frequently, and shopping online for price and free delivery.
"Workers" are just like everyone else. They buy what they have to, and if they only have the skills for an entry level job, they're shopping based on price
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We didn't elect Reagan?
Ayn Rand was considered laughing stock here (the few who knew she existed anyway)?
We didn't elect Trump?
This is capitalism, where everyone is supposed to be selfish, worry about his own interests, and screw the other.
Your cartoon vision of a market economy is pretty silly. Nobody becomes prosperous by having everyone screw everyone else. Competing for sales, or for better talent to hire, isn't "screwing" anyone, except for those whose world view is that they are entitled to prosperity without having to work for it, and then the sense of being screwed is entirely in their own minds.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The right to form unions is part of most constitutions in Europe, and on top of that aright granted by the european charter. ... there is no force for workers to be in a union.
Unions and companies affected work different than in the US anyway
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I am, however, in favor of the right to unionize.
I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that anyone is against the right to unionize given the choice of a majority of the workers in a fair and secret ballot.
As I understand, the disagreement points are over: "right to work" - whether a collective bargaining agreement can forbid management from employing non-union workers, "agency dues" -- whether unions can take partial dues from non-members in exchange for representation and certain public sector union benefits that seem to me contrary to public policy -- for instance rubber-rooming.
Or, as an example from Chicago, the police's CBA actually forbids the department from interviewing officers suspected of misconduct until they are informed of the complainant's names, requires investigators to wait 24H after the incident, and forbids any requirement that multiple witnesses be kept separate before questioning. If ever there was a rule more tailored to promote collusion and prevent effective investigation, I can't imagine one.
I like the idea of unions however every union I've been in has been about protecting the jobs of the union organizers. Supposedly anyone could run for a union position. In reality the current board members control the agenda, the vote and the communication. 2 out of the 3 times I was in a union they acted specifically against my interests. One union had less respect for peoples lives the employer, this was a Canadian hospital so the bar was pretty low.
I think we need laws to protect union members from the unions, to make the unions more transparent and to better regulate how people are appointed to union positions. Until then unions will be useless or harmful to their members.
if you're Union boss is no longer representing the Union replace them. Crazy, right?
Seriously, I keep seeing this argument. You're basically saying "Democracy can't ever work because people might use power to their advantage". No shit Sherlock. The question isn't are they better off because they're in power, it's "are _you_ better off because they're in power?".
And if you're just going to dismiss the basic premise of Democracy outright then why not just make me Emperor and be done with it. After all, it doesn't really matter who's in power right? You're doomed either way.
Now, before you go off on a tangent about how you just wouldn't have those power structures in the first place, well, welcome to Anarchism. Because as soon as you back pedal one inch you start building those power structures you tried to tear down. Face it, Governments are just plain too useful. It's like having a box of loaded guns sitting around. If you don't pick one up someone else will and they'll shoot you with it if you don't do what they say.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Europe has been around a lot longer than the US. They know their history and they've seen it all. Revolutions where rich people have their heads cut off. Cities burning. Right-wing fascists marching in the streets and burning people in ovens. They've seen feudalism first-hand.
Here in the US, people are still naive enough to believe what their leaders tell them and there's still enough of the Puritan/Calvinist mythology to make people believe that rich people are the "elect" and will do the moral thing.
Here in the US, we've been trained to believe that the aggregation of capital is a wondrous and magical thing, but the aggregation of labor is some satanic Maoist plot to destroy society.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Workers" are just like everyone else. They buy what they have to, and if they only have the skills for an entry level job, they're shopping based on price
My big-assed Channel Lock pliers (relatively, anyway... they're something like 4-5") were actually made by Channel Lock here in the USA, and they were really not that expensive. I could have ordered something cheaper, and waited for it, but I needed a tool right away. I could have driven around burning fuel trying to find something cheaper, but that would have been stupid.
A rich person doesn't buy a tool. They subscribe to a management service which contracts a major plumbing company to do that kind of work. That company pockets a large share of the profit and bones the worker. A rich person spends their money on high-dollar items with a lot of padding in the price, where most of the money goes to another rich person.
Now in absolute terms, the rich person might put just as many dollars into their local economy, hell they might put in ten times as much. But if you give them a hundred times as much money, and they put ten times as much into their local economy... you can see where this is going, right? I'm not railing about small business owners here, I'm talking about the curd of the turd, the cream of the crap. You give 'em all the money, they trade it mostly between themselves and avoid taxes wherever possible, and the system then has to prey upon the middle class (the only other people with any money) in order to function.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't disagree
In that case, just say "I agree, but"
Having money, and stashing it, gets you nothing. You're not rich. You're a person who owns paper (or, really, electrons). You don't get to "be" rich until you actually buy a huge house that it takes 200 people to build, or a yacht it takes years to complete, or fine wine that someone has to grow and bottle.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's not the situation in Italy, it's not the situation anywhere in the EU in fact, and it's not the situation in the USA either.
Actually, it is the situation in the USA. Unemployment in America is at 4.1% while 5% is considered "full employment". Anyone capable of working can find a job, although they may need to move.
The unemployment rate in Italy is 11.3%. That is worse that America at the very bottom of the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
Looking at the attitude of these Italian workers and given a choice, would you open your business in Italy? I don't think so.
Unless something changes, Italy will be the next Greece.
I'm sure Italians have their busiest shopping day on their Black Friday holiday, just after eating all that Tacchino arrosto ripieno.
I don't disagree
In that case, just say "I agree, but"
Agreement and disagreement are not the only alternatives. It is also possible to have no opinion.
Channel Lock may be incorporated locally, but guess what, the owners stiff the little guy there as well.
But only because it breaks the paradox.
Actually, it is the situation in the USA. Unemployment in America is at 4.1% while 5% is considered "full employment". Anyone capable of working can find a job, although they may need to move.
The U-3 unemployment rate is not meaningful, and even the U-6 is inadequate (this is by design.) The current U6 unemployment rate as of October 2017 is 7.90. Tell us again about "full employment", please.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Channel Lock may be incorporated locally, but guess what, the owners stiff the little guy there as well.
I'm sure, but at least more of the money winds up getting spent in the country. There are choices everywhere, but they are not unlimited, and I'm not going to make my own pliers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that anyone is against the right to unionize given the choice of a majority of the workers in a fair and secret ballot.
Lots of people think that unions should be illegal, so yeah, there are plenty of people against the right to unionize. It's not an unusual view for conservatives to hold, either. That's probably why the supremes had to weigh in on that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Automate.
"Europe has beel around a lot longer than the US."
BS
The United States of America has been a country for a lot longer than the European Union.
100 years ago the Italians were fighting ob the same side as the French and British, against Germany and Austria
Although a couple decades later they were on the same side as the Germans, until we invaded them.
Sort of. People are not going to give you money out of the goodness of their hearts. If you are happy working every year for the same crappy wage they are happy to keep paying it and passing the savings on to themselves. Most people, I have observed, have no idea how much money some people make. They pass me on the street and may interact with me but have no concept that I make three times what they do and work less than half the hours. Instead of a universal income or higher minimum wages we should make everyone's wage public so we have a true market.
If Joe Six-Pack knew what those people in the office actually made he might actually demand more. Joe Six-Pack is blinded by his own ignorance and sheer inability to comprehend the real wage gap. Your average (mean, whatever) income in America is about $50k per year and when people work up to that they think they are doing good. They can't fathom that there are large swathes of people, a lot of whom they lay eyes on every day, that have much better benefits, work less hours, and earn a salary that is double or triple what they earn. These people drive pretty much the same cars, eat the same food, shop at the same places, go to the same schools, wear the same clothes as them but they have an actual retirement savings, a serious cushion in the bank, their car payment and other bills don't even make them break a sweat and they have equity in their homes. The debt-riddled lower-middle class have no idea how bad of a deal they are agreeing to because all the things I mentioned above are propping up an illusion that they are on parity with their middle-class fellows that walk among them.
I have no problem paying more for things if it means workers are getting paid more--hey it's what "it" costs. But I will be damned if I'm going to pay more taxes to have my money taken from me by the government waste machine and doled out to those same workers. The government has no interest in removing themselves as the middle man. For them to protect the worker is to give up their own power.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
When they say "Full Employment," they mean "the most employment they are going to allow before it triggers the Fed to adjust rates and ruin people's lives so they can remain in control." The "they" is another discussion but includes The Fed.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
I agree but you have to consider the organizing factor. The capital owner is the business organizer responsible for the going concern. Workers do not do any of that. The organizing factor is more valuable than any single worker.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
They have already started. It is not politically correct to say that the government should not accept refugees. They are overrunning certain countries like Sweden and are fostering the rapid decline of their once functioning socialist utopia. I'm not being sarcastic.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
"Here in the US, we've been trained to believe that the aggregation of capital is a wondrous and magical thing, but the aggregation of labor is some satanic Maoist plot to destroy society."
LOL. That is awesome. Don't know if I agree but it has the ring of truth.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Italians had a developed republican form of government when Americans were still painting their bodies and worshiping the Sun.
The United States is said to be a "Christian" nation. The Italians had a rich, developed civilization a millennium before Christ was born.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Then say neither agree/disagree, and simply express your opinion. The double negative in question is never appropriate (imo).
The United States of America has been a country for a lot longer than the European Union.
Definitely, since The European Union isn't a country yet, and probably never will be.
-- Make America hate again!
Instead of a universal income or higher minimum wages we should make everyone's wage public so we have a true market.
Absolutely not "in stead of", but "together". Those things solve completely different problems.
If Joe Six-Pack knew what those people in the office actually made he might actually demand more.
"I want more money." "No, we'll hire someone else." Conversation over, as long as we won't have a universal income or higher minimum wages.
They can't fathom that there are large swathes of people,
No, you are the one with the failure of imagination here. Lots of people know that some people have a better deal than they got. You're not just luckier than they are, you're also an asshole because you think they deserve what's happened to them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Then say neither agree/disagree, and simply express your opinion. The double negative in question is never appropriate (imo).
Your opinion is wrong. I used the phrase for understatement, which is typical and valid. I realize that English can be confusing, but your confusion does not amount to an error on my part.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You come off as pretty dumb defending this..
You come off as pretty dumb defending this..
Only to you, and only because your grip on the English language is tenuous at best. Now run along, son. I have people with language skills to communicate with.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"