Amazon's Aggressive Anti-Union Tactics Revealed In Leaked Video (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Amazon, the country's second-largest employer, has so far remained immune to any attempts by U.S. workers to form a union. With rumblings of employee organization at Whole Foods -- which Amazon bought for $13.7 billion last year -- a 45-minute union-busting training video produced by the company was sent to Team Leaders of the grocery chain last week, according to sources with knowledge of the store's activities. Recordings of that video, obtained by Gizmodo, provide valuable insight into the company's thinking and tactics. Each of the video's six sections, which the narrator states are "specifically designed to give you the tools that you need for success when it comes to labor organizing," take place in an animated simulacrum of a Fulfillment Center. The video's narrators are clad in the reflective vests typical of the real-world setting. "We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either," the video states, drawing a distinction that would likely be largely academic to potential organizers.

To expound on what non-neutrality might look like, the video adds in plain language (emphasis ours): "We do not believe unions are in the best interest of our customers, our shareholders, or most importantly, our associates. Our business model is built upon speed, innovation, and customer obsession -- things that are generally not associated with union. When we lose sight of those critical focus areas we jeopardize everyone's job security: yours, mine, and the associates.'" Throughout, the video claims Amazon prefers a "direct management" structure where employees can bring grievances to their bosses individually, rather than union representation. However, a number of warehouse workers have expressed to Gizmodo in past reporting that they believed voicing their concerns led to retaliatory scrutiny or firing.

Comments

In other news

[Spy Handler]

the Washington Post today published 24 articles explaining how unions prevent a culturally diverse workplace that's vital for a progressive rainbow society. "Because white men run unions. Well it's Sicilian men, but close enough."

They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[ShanghaiBill]

Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.

Not in America. But in some European countries, unions and companies often work together, and realize that in the long run, happy employees and profitable companies are in everyone's best interest.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[0100010001010011]

Finally getting exposure to a lot of unions not all American Unions are created equally.

The UAW is one of the most useless organizations in the world. It still exists so some members can skim off of it and blow money on golf courses and radio stations. It sums up everything that is wrong with American Unions.

Trade unions, especially local ones, are great. I've watched 'not college material' peers get good educations, training and jobs. They act more like German Engineers union than the UAW.

Some unions still actually go on strike. The UAW basically backs down at the last minute, screwing the guys on the bottom while saving face for 'negotiating'.

Programmers and IT in the US could really use the latter types. Fair working hours, fair wages, protection from a H1B changeover, ageism/seniority, could all be addressed if workers would stand together. The problem is everyone is willing to throw each other under the bus because they believe themselves 'rock stars' that will never run into those issues.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember:

Capital working together to promote the interests of capital = good.
Workers working together to promote the interests of workers = bad.

Now get back to work and tend those machines and pull the levers like good little drones.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Jzanu]

Exactly! In Germany, such cooperation is in fact a regular part of corporate governance called co-determination. Here is a good summary of the legal premise.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.

Why not?

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

> protection from a H1B changeover

The problem there is the legal system. Congress passed the law allowing it to happen. If the law changed (lowering the cap, or raising minimum salaries) the problem would largely disappear. And it's not just programmers. I've heard about pharmacy workers getting visa'd out of a job (not to mention farm workers).

But the fact is certain types of employment need some sort of oversight, either from unions or from the government. Contract-workers or "gig economy" workers are in incredible danger of getting screwed. The employer can seek to offload all their costs onto the contractor, netting them below minimum wage. It'd be like a restaurant skimming tips.

But screw teacher's unions. They're salaried, government desk workers.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions and large corporations are more similar than not. They share in common the basic fact that they take the initiative away from the individual and place it in the hands of an indirect bureaucracy whose goal is to give itself more power.

The debate breaks down along Republican and Democratic lines. Are they really so different though?

Republicans are for giving power to mindless corporations that will use their monopolistic control to squash the individual
Democrats are for giving power to a mindless government bureaucracy that will use the law to squash the individual.

Both are really about amassing power and squashing the individual. It is made worse when you finally realize all these liberal programs designed to help the poor are run by rich oligarchs who make billions off the government programs. Also Rich corporations are always receiving tax payer funded bailouts.

I am looking for a party that favors the individual over the corporations and the government. How can the union be the answer when it takes away to individuals initiative and responsibility in favor of one 'workers collective' where the Union bosses run the show. But I also don't favor the corporate run business types who can see nothing beyond the share holder value and layoff the soul of a company so that they can retire rich in Dubai.

Maybe we could have individual small cottage business each competing to make individuals the most money possible. That would be true local democracy.

Big government, big corporations and big unions are bad.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Opportunist]

That's true in Europe. In the US, even unions are corrupted to serve the ones on top exclusively. I guess that's what you get when you cultivate an environment that tells you the "screw you, I got mine" attitude is the right one.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[dcw3]

You're spot on regarding UAW. I grew up in Detroit, and saw it first hand with many family and friends...it was mostly mob run. Additionally, the grocery store union that my mom had to join (and was eventually a steward for) was pretty useless as well. They did virtually nothing for the dues that the clerks were required to pay from what was already essentially minimum wage.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[FictionPimp]

As a IT worker. I'll pass. My pay is higher than my peers, because I could negotiate it. I have more vacation than many of my co-workers, because I could negotiate it. I got promoted 3 months into my new job, because I'm a strong hard worker who gets my job done. None of this would have been possible with a union. I've worked in a union before when I worked at a college. Wages were low (I got a 50k raise when I left), promotions were often seniority based rather than performance based, vacation was set based on experience, etc. A terrible way to live.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[0100010001010011]

My pay is higher than my peers, because I could negotiate it

Case in point. "I got mine, you get yours" attitude that is why unions won't take off in this space. At some point in the past people realize company owners really weren't looking out for them.

A terrible way to live.

[You can make a new Union operate how you want]

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.

Not in America. But in some European countries, unions and companies often work together, and realize that in the long run, happy employees and profitable companies are in everyone's best interest.

Europe is a very different place from America. The people in Europe seem willing to trust leaders, and at least some of the leaders in Europe don't seem to brag as loudly about betraying their followers.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.

Not in America. But in some European countries, unions and companies often work together, and realize that in the long run, happy employees and profitable companies are in everyone's best interest.

I don't understand why people in America feel the need to reply to any discussion of what to do in the USA with "but it's not like that in Europe". Europe is a bunch of small states with distinct cultures. Europe is what the US would be if every state acted as a sovereign nation.

If France and Germany do not agree on something, they each make their own choice. If California and Texas disagree on anything involving the federal government, they do not have the option of going their own way. Every American political fight involves the federal government.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a load of this rockstar.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

Because union have no reason to keep their membership employed. it's not like they collect dues from them or anything.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[hazardPPP]

I've worked in a union before when I worked at a college. Wages were low (I got a 50k raise when I left), promotions were often seniority based rather than performance based, vacation was set based on experience, etc. A terrible way to live.

Well, it's not terrible if you're an unskilled factory worker...

Remember where modern unions originated - 19th/early 20th-century factories. The assembly line was invented so you could produce complex things with low or unskilled labour. Workers were essentially interchangeable. As a worker, knowing that you could be replaced overnight by any unemployed bloke on the street basically gave all the leverage to your employer. You were not special, just a cog in the machine that could be easily replaced by another, identical cog. How do you get some leverage over your employer? Organize. Strike. Form a union and negotiate a collective agreement. Remember, collective agreements make sense since workers are interchangeable...

In a low skillset environment, promoting based on seniority makes sense, because seniority = experience. Giving more vacation based on experience/seniority also made sense since it was just assumed the older folks had families, grew tired more easily, etc. and needed more time off.

The problem is that this model then got extensively copied into medium-skilled, and, sometimes (in the public sector, basically as a rule) into high-skilled workplaces. Where the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't make sense, where not all people have the same skill set and the same mastery over it, where experience does not necessarily mean superior job performance, etc. This is because the low-skilled worker unions were the biggest and most dominant, and set the template as to what a union should be. In many cases, these unions themselves expanded into other fields of work via new "locals", "chapters" and whatever. I was, for a semester, a member of the United Steelworkers Union - I have never been inside a steel mill, or worked in the steel industry. Rather, for some reason, auxillary contract (non-full-time) staff at my university were part of the USW, and as I had a contract to do some course/lab development work for a professor, I fell under this category. The odd thing was that most of the other staff were part of the public employees' union, which made more sense.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[LazarusQLong]

Too bad you are anon, I would mod this up if I could!

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[FictionPimp]

How would the union benefit me? I'm already doing just fine. If a company doesn't treat me well, I find a new company. Always have and always will. If you are in a low skill job, then your concern should not be getting a union to protect you, but rather spending time on yourself developing your skills and improving your life. I will survive on my merits and everyone else should do the same.

Unions were important in the past, there is no denying that. They may even still be important in the low/no skill market, but that is more of a political/belief conversation. They have no business in highly skilled fields.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[FictionPimp]

I guess my disconnect is why would you settle for being low skill? I never rest when it comes to my education and career advancement. I didn't come from a wealthy family and I had to work my way through college stocking shelves and taking odd jobs to pay for it on my own. I once had a job carrying shingles up a ladder all day for minimum wage and a "you're fired before you hit the ground" mentality. I had to then pay my dues on shitty help desks and call centers. I kept pushing and learning. I'm in a very good position now and honestly could easily retire here without any hardships. It's not good enough and I will continue. I'm finishing my masters degree now and should have some more industry certifications by the EoY. I will continue to do this until I'm ready to retire or I'm dead. Even if I could be the next Jeff Bezos, it wouldn't be enough to rest on my laurels.

So I get being poor. I know what it's like to cry with your girlfriend about deciding between rent and food. I know what it's like to be a replaceable cog in a work for hire state. I know how hard it can be to break into a industry that wants entry level applicants to have 5 years experience. I prefer it this way. I have great pride in what I've done to get myself and my family to where we are. I honestly believe that if my industry was heavily unionized I'd be in a way worse position today. I would have lower wages, less vacation, and less opportunity for career advancement.

I've also had terrible IT jobs. I've had bosses that expected 80 hour weeks. I've had bosses that asked us to do unethical things. I found new jobs. I kept my head down, kept learning, and found the good companies. In a highly skilled field there will be good companies who want to pay our worth and treat us like people. You just have to be willing to put the work in. If I would have found no good companies, well then I'd start one.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[painandgreed]

Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.

It probably will. These days the main cause of unionization is bad management. The main thing that the unions are there for is to come up with a set of mutually understood rules for both employer and employee to follow. It might not make management happy as they won't be fuedal lords anymore, but their operation will probably run much better. This was the case where I work at, and in the words of the managers who might not get their way all the time, they'd never go back to when they did because things run so much smoother now. If businesses would take the responsibility to do anything but let managers run roughshood over all their employees, they'd cut unionization off at the bud.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[J-1000]

protection from a H1B changeover

Unfortunately, I think a strike would only worsen this problem. If management didn't already think domestic workers were vital, they especially wouldn't if the domestic workers started causing problems.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[painandgreed]

You're spot on regarding UAW. I grew up in Detroit, and saw it first hand with many family and friends...it was mostly mob run. Additionally, the grocery store union that my mom had to join (and was eventually a steward for) was pretty useless as well. They did virtually nothing for the dues that the clerks were required to pay from what was already essentially minimum wage.

I said the same thing when I worked for a grocery store and had a union. Then go to work for a non-union place and see how that can turn out: have your schedule changed with no notice, be told to skip or cut short breaks, charged to do jobs that higher paid employees are supposed to do, etc. Chances are that the only reason there was a union to being with is because the business was doing that sort of thing to begin with. Sometimes even things that were illegal by state law. Trouble is, without a union, who are you going to complain to? The manager that is telling you to do these illegal things? Raising a stink through state channels will just get you fired for "unrelated" reasons.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also had terrible IT jobs. I've had bosses that expected 80 hour weeks. I've had bosses that asked us to do unethical things.

So your attitude is that rather than do something to fix those broken places, it's the workers' fault for working there? Classic "Got Mine, Fuck You" right there.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[dcw3]

When you're being paid minimum wage in a 3-4% unemployment environment, who gives a fuck. If they screw with you, go somewhere that they don't.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[FictionPimp]

The places will fix themselves if they have no workers. Just saying. In the field that i'm in, there is no excuse for working a shitty job. If you have the training, work ethic, and are even halfway pleasant to speak with you can get your pick of jobs.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[strikethree]

The problem is everyone is willing to throw each other under the bus because they believe themselves 'rock stars' that will never run into those issues.

While I feel fairly certain that the problem you mention has some honesty to it, I sincerely doubt that is the only reason; otherwise, we would have unions for technology workers.

My thing is that I have seen how large unions work in America. If it is not controlled by a mafia-style leadership, then it is controlled by corrupt assholes to line their own pockets. In short, many large American unions do not act in the interests of their members. Why would anyone who is at least semi-intelligent submit to that kind of arrangement? Sure, there will be *some* benefit to the average worker, but ultimately, it will not be worth it. It is better to let the business owners slit their own throats.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

But you'll never have pay as high or as many vacation days as the company owner, your manager, or anyone inbetween them. Unions should disrupt that immoral process, then you can actually get paid what you're worth (bonus: so can your coworkers! We can already tell you're sub-standard by the amount of bragging you do, so it's a given that you're the lowest tier worker).

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

The party you are looking for is the Socialist party sir. You've essentially outlined the tenets of Socialism.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace "realize" with "pretend, by ignoring the fundamentally conflicting interests of owners and workers,"

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[painandgreed]

When you're being paid minimum wage in a 3-4% unemployment environment, who gives a fuck. If they screw with you, go somewhere that they don't.

Well, it's not always a 3-4% unemployment environment. Still, why should the workers be punished by having to find a new job? They might like their job, the commute might be ideal, it very well might not be minimum wage; in a small town, there might not be someplace else to go. Better to unionize and tell the manager that he can go find someplace else to work at.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[dcw3]

Yes, it's not always, nor often, but you're not going to get a lot of support to unionize when it is, and when people can demand more or walk away. Regarding your question about why should workers be punished... I'd suggest to you that if you're working for a shit boss, you're punishing yourself, so walking away is the only sane thing to do. Shit bosses are the number one reason people leave their jobs, and a union isn't going to help you fix that, you'll still have a shit boss and hate your job.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[0100010001010011]

Trade unions don't work at all like that.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[hazardPPP]

I guess my disconnect is why would you settle for being low skill? I never rest when it comes to my education and career advancement.

Because not everyone can attain a high-skilled, well-paid job, no matter how hard they try, for a gazillion reasons. We can't all be the top of the pyramid. Or even close to the top, or the upper part of the middle... I understand your attitude and I share it myself: I would not want to "settle" for a low-skilled job. Nor do I like unionized workplaces in my field of work. However, if my life circumstances were such that a factory job was the best that I could get, I'd sure hope it was a unionized one.

By the way, the type of advancement you describe does not always happen in a single lifetime, but over a generation or two. A lot of working class people in America were able to put their kids through college and thus help them get high-skilled, high-paying (usually non-unionized) jobs exactly because they were members of a union at work, which gave them job stability and a liveable wage with steady and predictable raises.

Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization

[hazardPPP]

Trade unions don't work at all like that.

I'm sure that there are unions that function differently, however I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "trade union". My dictionary says that's just a synonym for "labour union" or plainly "union", but I'm sure you have something more specific in mind.

Anyone else see tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

and read that as "tic tacs" and do a double take? Hey I'm hungry!

-Chris

laws

[fluffernutter]

You can have your own opinions about whether unions are ultimately good or bad, but it should be illegal for a company to influence employees in that regard. Companies only want to keep their employees divided because they are weaker that way and that's just oppressive.

Re:laws

[ShanghaiBill]

it should be illegal for a company to influence employees

Then work on repealing the 1st Amendment. In the meantime, employees should hear all sides and make up their own minds.

Companies only want to keep their employees divided because they are weaker that way and that's just oppressive.

Unions don't always work in the best interest of the employees. In one famous example, UPS offered their employees a retirement package, and the Teamsters fought and won a significantly LESS generous package, and prevented their members from voting on it. Why? Because it allowed the Teamsters to manage the money, and divert much of it to older retirees from other companies whose own funds had been squandered by the Teamsters' management.

Companies look out for the interests of the company.

Unions look out for the interests of the union.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Then work on repealing the 1st Amendment. In the meantime, employees should hear all sides and make up their own minds.

That might ring true save for the fact that virtually every business under threat of unionization wont allow the other side to speak one way or another. Mere whispers of a potential union rep in the parking lot can cause managers to just so happen to find unrelated reasons for targeted layoffs.

Unions don't always work in the best interest of the employees.

"Don't always" is much better than the employer's "never."

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

It is.

The National Labor Relations Act, Section 7, makes it illegal for any company to interfere with union organizing activities. That can include things like Tesla's saying how if the workers chose not to unionize they would be financially compensated in some way, or claiming that if they choose to unionize there will be layoffs, it would also include more obvious actions like firing, demoting, or in any way retaliating against people who were trying to organize a unionization vote.

The problem comes in that many people, like you, don't know that it is already against the law. Many people also think that the NLRB only takes cases from people already in unions, which is also not the case.

So, it wouldn't surprise me if within the next couple of days this is heard in the Amazon C-Suite: "Mr. Bezos, I have the NLRB on line 1 for you."

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You can have your own opinions about whether unions are ultimately good or bad, but it should be illegal for a union to influence employees in that regard. Union officials only want to sucker workers into joining them so they can live large as parasites on actual workers, and that's just oppressive.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:laws

[ShanghaiBill]

What you describe is expressly illegal under American labor law. If a union has evidence that this has happened, they can go to court and collect damages.

Even if a company prevents unionization activities during working hours (which companies can restrict) there is nothing preventing the union from mailing, calling, or emailing the employees outside of work. Most unionizations efforts fail, not because of illegal company actions, but because the employees don't see the union as a benefit, often with good reason. They get a union deduction from every paycheck, and end up with a more confrontational working environment, less opportunity for individual advancement, and get to see their job outsourced to Mexico (or at least to South Carolina).

Re:laws

[fluffernutter]

Really? Threatening people is a first amendment right. Americans..

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

If a union has evidence that this has happened, they can go to court and collect damages.

Dude, the discussion at hand is of trying to form a union in the first place. Please do not goal-post move.

Re: laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! NLRB are 100% subservient to the investor class.

Fuck off, you paid shill.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

If a union has evidence that this has happened, they can go to court and collect damages.

How could a union have evidence of something happening where they are not allowed to enter? Right to work destroys legal liability.

Even if a company prevents unionization activities during working hours (which companies can restrict) there is nothing preventing the union from mailing, calling, or emailing the employees outside of work.

How could a union have a list of employees where they are not allowed to enter?

You never addressed the second point. This intellectual laziness of cherry-picking a point to contest, lay down words and phrases as if they are playing cards, and claiming victory is tiresome. Identify and refute critical points. Anything less isn't even worth reading.

Re: laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Laying people off with impunity are no idle threats. Indeed..

Re: laws

[Anonymous Coward]

you god damn transparently paid damage control operatives need to fuck off

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

It also should be illegal to force employees to be part of a union and pay union dues.

Unions do a lot of things, including making it tough to get rid of poor performers, especially those who are failing because they refuse to update skill sets. When everything about heating and cooling has gone computerized but you have 3-4 old guys who refuse to learn anything new because they know they are "safe" due to seniority it gets really frustrating.

Re:laws

[Cederic]

By helping managers provide staff with working conditions and a level of support that makes unionisation unnecessary Amazon are in fact helping their employees stay in the job: Amazon are big enough to just close a warehouse if it gets unionised.

You want it to be illegal to look after your employers in the absence of a union?

Re:laws

[dave420]

So the union they're not allowed to create or join should fight for them? Eh?

Unions are not intrinsically bad - the rest of the developed world can show you example after example of successful, decent unions protecting people. You seem to be extrapolating from a couple of union scare stories, which is in itself massively illogical. It will result in a belting argument, I'm sure, but the facts of said argument will be thin on the ground - as we are indeed seeing.

Re: laws

[Anonymous Coward]

A union you have to join isnâ(TM)t a union. Itâ(TM)s a gild.

Re:laws

[dcw3]

"Don't always" is much better than the employer's "never."

If all you've ever gotten from your employer was "never" than the problem isn't your employer. I've been in the workforce for 42 years, and had good experiences with many employers, and never once needed a union to get ahead.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

centralized and institutionalized power is inherently bad
it always falls in the hand of the power-hungry sooner or later

that said, unions can at times be a necessary evil
having two giants battling each other can be better then just one that enjoys squasing ants

Re:laws

[painandgreed]

Most unionizations efforts fail, not because of illegal company actions, but because the employees don't see the union as a benefit, often with good reason. They get a union deduction from every paycheck, and end up with a more confrontational working environment, less opportunity for individual advancement, and get to see their job outsourced to Mexico (or at least to South Carolina).

Doesn't really match my experience. The main reason that the employees give backing to the union is due to bad management and the union does provide for an agreed upon set of rules that makes for a less confrontational working environment, and opportunity for individual advancement. If the job is moving to Mexico, it was going there anyway and the union is the excuse, not the cause.

Re:laws

[fluffernutter]

What you are suggesting is that the company is in a position to "protect the employees from a bad union". This is completely laughable. It is, beyond a doubt, for the employees to decide for themselves. The company is the WORST entity to make this decision, because they are the only ones who benefit from a union not forming. Talk about conflict of interest.

Re:laws

[fluffernutter]

Unionization is only unnecessary if a free and empowered workforce that is allowed to congregate and talk among themselves regarding workplace issues DO NOT WANT TO FORM A UNION. What other metric could you possibly go by?

Re:laws

[houghi]

And here I am in Belgium. I am a Union member and I do not think my boss, let alone my company, knows. They do not even care.

There is a difference. I am in a Union, not a trade-union. The second is more like a guild.

A union is there for the people, a guild for the jobs. I have been a member for many years at the same union, regardless of what company I worked for and even when I had no work and was unemployed.

I have no idea who in tne company is union, except for the union representatives. I can join one as easy as joining a gym-club.

Re:laws

[dcw3]

You seem to be extrapolating from a couple of union scare stories...

You seem to be extrapolating from fantasy land. There are plenty of examples of exactly what he pointed out. Yes, there are good reasons for unions, but there are also plenty of unions UAW, Teamsters, etc, that have a long shady history. My mother was in the grocery store clerk's union for many years...they did jack for her or anyone else except collect dues from minimum wage employees.

Re:laws

[dcw3]

Really? Threatening people is a first amendment right. Americans..

Clearly, you've never heard of assault. Go ahead and threaten someone in front of a cop and see how that works for you.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem comes in that many people, like you, don't know that it is already against the law.

No, the problem comes in that many people, like you, can't comprehend written language. The video was sent to "Team Leaders" i.e. management. The video could actually even say "here's some ways to interfere with union organizing activities as a manager" but it's not illegal until some manager actually interferes.

Are you actually alleging some law exists that prevents a company from communicating its anti-union stance? To its managers?

Holy shit, talk about a socialist utopia.

Re:laws

[fluffernutter]

centralized and institutionalized power is inherently bad

That's what a corporation is!

Re:laws

[fluffernutter]

I was being sarcastic, not making a statement. I can see how that could be misconstrued.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

When employer's treat employees badly, it's the employee's fault.

Do you blame rape victims too?

Re:laws

[dcw3]

Sorry, it's often difficult to detect sarcasm in print. By now, I should have learned that it's typically the default position here.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut up about the first amendment. There are many laws where expression in support of an undesirable act is illegal. Hell, just look at Musk's latest trouble with the SEC. Have you taken your asshat sourced legal advice to discussions of Musk to declare that the first amendment must be repealed to charge or sue Musk? If no then why not?

While corporations have gotten some extraordinary indulgences from corrupt courts, there is still a difference between commercial speech and free speech. Any speech that amounts to conspiring to violate law can be used to prosecute that law. Duh.

Idiot.

Red Herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

Our business model is built upon speed, innovation, and customer obsession -- things that are generally not associated with union.

Other things not generally associated with unions are star constellations, one party systems and cocaine obsession.

  In some other countries students already join unions at the first year. They get recruitment and legal help, salary and career planning information and political opportunities through these.

Re:Red Herrings

[omnichad]

Technically, that sounds more like a modern-day guild (in a world where most people don't run their own business) than a union, though a guild would be a great way of achieving collective bargaining.

Amazon slaves of the world, Unite!

[SigIO]

WalMart's answer to employee unions was easy: shut down the store where the union succeeded, and open another one nearby later. A "kill it before it grows" strategy.

It'll be interesting to see how Amazon retaliates.

Re:Amazon slaves of the world, Unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford pioneered this a century ago. He actually up and moved an entire car factory when they unionized.

Re:Amazon slaves of the world, Unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember, they don't shut down those stores to bust unions, they shut them down to fix "plumbing issues".

Re:Amazon slaves of the world, Unite!

[ShanghaiBill]

Ford pioneered this a century ago.

Nitpick: A century ago wages were fixed and strikes were banned, and the Allies were about halfway through the Hundred Days Offensive that ended the Great War on November 11th.

He actually up and moved an entire car factory when they unionized.

He also sent buses down to Dixie to hire black replacements for white strikers. But eventually the UAW realized that racism wasn't working, and they unionized the blacks too.

Re:Amazon slaves of the world, Unite!

[swb]

I can't help but wonder if part of the success of unions was union leaders willing to play dirty themselves.

Unions often seem portrayed in history texts as performing a Ghandi/MLK like non-violent protests; pickets, sit-downs, etc, as if that's what swayed management at many companies.

I wonder if what really swayed management was getting their delivery fleet firebombed while they had their workers locked out or their scabs beat to a pulp.

Minneapolis had a huge trucker's strike in the 1930s. The union side decided nothing moved, so they started stopping and hijacking trucks trying to break the strike. They fought company goons and the police with axe handles. Even though strikers got fired on, the violence against police/management forces got extreme enough that they finally had a to call out the National Guard and the Governor ended up forcing a compromise that was basically a union organizing victory, breaking the anti-union cartel.

The union only succeeded to the extent they were willing to use some kind of force to achieve their goals. It seems like many turning points in labor relations hinged on how willing the union backers were literally willing to meet force with force, even if they technically didn't win any specific street battle. There's a point at which the political system is only so willing to engage in small-scale urban warfare for the benefit of the capitalists.

never, ever provide honest feedback to your boss.

[Anonymous Coward]

In corporate america there is a huge push to promote communication and engagement. What it always always ends up being is a way to figure out who the problematic people are who dont accept things as they are and keep their mouths shut. Everyone knows this except the handful of rubes who get caught each year.. Which is good because it keeps everyone else in line watching them get fired. People are shocked but its management 101... Virtually every large bureaucracy does some version of Maos Hundreds Flowers or Stalins fake Trotsky groups ... We are blessed that we dont get murdered anymore.. Just fired or blackballed usually.

Public relations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our business model is built upon speed, innovation, and customer obsession -- things that are generally not associated with union.

Blame the Teamsters for that image of unions.

Re:Public relations.

[Tablizer]

Blame the Teamsters for that image of unions.

Yes, they once grew almost as evil as big corporations.

All big orgs have some corruption and sliminess in them, but we still need checks and balances. Unions provide a check on corporations abusing employees (or at least used to).

I can testify that corporations do evil because I've worked in multiple who've payed me to do evil. (I didn't like it, but was not always in a position to quickly leave.)

Re:Public relations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the abuse the unions were originally designed to prevent are covered by OSHA and labor laws, now they "help" negotiate salary and benefits for semi-skilled labor. The only slimey-ness step below unions are the trades that have created artificial entry barriers to try to protect their jobs. If you want to require a license to do something that's fine, just make sure it is a knowledge test (no stupid apprenticeships requirements) and make everyone take the test every so often(no grandfathering in). If I want to be a plumber or an electrician or a teacher, I should be able to try to take the test and if I pass I get my license.

Re:Public relations.

[dcw3]

No, you can't go making excuses for the Teamsters. That's just bullshit. Go read up on how involved they were with the mob. Here's a little starter for you...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And here's a paragraph from their own wiki page:
Infiltration by organized crime dominated the agenda of the Teamsters throughout the 1950s. The Teamsters had suffered from extensive corruption since its formation in 1903.[12][13][14] Although the more extreme, public forms of corruption had been eliminated after General President Cornelius Shea was removed from office, the extent of corruption and control by organized crime increased during General President Tobin's time in office (1907 to 1952).[10][13][23][65] In 1929, the Teamsters and unions in Chicago even approached gangster Roger Touhy and asked for his protection from Al Capone and his Chicago Outfit, which were seeking to control the area's unions.[66] Evidence of widespread corruption within the Teamsters began emerging shortly after Tobin retired.[67] In Kansas City, corrupt Teamsters locals spent years seeking bribes, embezzling money, and engaging in extensive extortion and labor rackets as well as beatings, vandalism and even bombings in an attempt to control the construction and trucking industries.[23][68] The problem was so serious that the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on the issue

Re:Public relations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, you mean that unions needed mob muscle against Pinkertons, other organized crime, and the like? And that once the mob does you a favor it doesn't just go away?

Blaming unions for that is like blaming slavery on the Civil War.

Correlation is not causation

[evanh]

Unions don't do the hiring. And in my experience, management staff are also not in the unions.

You need to look more closely at particular hiring practises.

Re: Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

This narrative to be part if union busting training bootcamp. Stand up for those evil soulless corporations now!

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the contract. A lot of construction jobs, the union sends the members to fill the job. If they are welders, they get tested; otherwise, they are excepted. There is a bit of quip pro quo with unions, such as steward fees. The good part of the construction unions is that they work with the company because the next job will not be union if they don't. Lowers HR overhead. However, the nationals will jack up a good union contract to increase their own membership numbers by discouraging travelers.

Where unions screw up is where they get comfortable. They get fat and happy and fight change. See service and manufacturing unions. Usually that ends bad for both the company and the members, see the auto industry.

Having worked with and against unions, I have seen their benefits and their issues. I have seen a quick vote run on open ballot, where the amount of union strong arming (tires slashed / people beat up) has been rampant), and I have seen great vote done on the up and up. I have seen a union come in tell everyone they will get better benefits and greater scale. Sick time and scale go up, but slightly better medical costs 4 times as much and scale increase is less then union dues. Regressive overtime policies (because they want more members), leads less money in employees' pocket.

Don't get me started on the fraud of bought books.

Re: Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald J TRUMP drank all my beer!!

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

And in my experience, management staff are also not in the unions.

Depends on what part of the world you're in - in mine they often are.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Opportunist]

I fail to see the difference between the Trump administration and the apprentice show he was running. Every week someone gets kicked out, usually someone who couldn't do anything to prevent it but the rules say someone has to be the scapegoat when the hairpiece fucks up.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, your opinion means very little in the real world. But hey, salty tears!

Re: Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you live? Corleone? Palermo? Caltanissetta?

Re: Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was Bret Kavanaugh.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see the difference between the Trump regime and Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Shit, they closed up shop, because they knew they couldn't compete with him.

Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signaling

[blind biker]

The new left, rabidly anti-Trump and anti-white-male, are not left-leaning in any way. It's all smoke and mirrors. They are, as many have suspected by now, just fascists supporting as much censorship as they can get away with.

couldn't they at least be honest ?

[cats-paw]

We do not believe unions are in the best interest of our customers, our shareholders, or most importantly, our associates

what a bunch of shit. their "associates" are absolutely the least of their concern.

shareholders come first.

actually corp executives come first, then shareholders.

there's a reason that companies don't want unions and want their employees to be replaceable cogs. so they can pay them as little as possible and give them the least benefits possible.

as for the unions : thanks for nothing. while you play defense trying to save your governement employee unions you let the rest of the working people in this country suffer under the likes of amazon and wal-mart.

don't you remember why unions were formed in the first place ?

Re:couldn't they at least be honest ?

[Koby77]

there's a reason that companies don't want unions and want their employees to be replaceable cogs. so they can pay them as little as possible and give them the least benefits possible.

The Whole Foods in my area actually pays MORE in hourly wages than competing union food stores, with the same benefits. I find it understandable that companies don't like unions, because it will hurt the company's ability to operate, but in this case Whole Foods is willing to pay to avoid the huge inefficiencies that unions bring.

Re:couldn't they at least be honest ?

[BlueStrat]

We do not believe unions are in the best interest of our customers, our shareholders, or most importantly, our associates

what a bunch of shit. their "associates" are absolutely the least of their concern.

Just because associates (employees) are not Amazon's (or other's) greatest concern does not mean that current-day unions are always or even mostly in the associate's (employee's) best interests.

Remember the Hostess Twinkies disaster? I'm sure those workers who lost their jobs when Hostess closed didn't feel like the union had *their* best interests in mind, and neither did all those who loved Twinkies at the time.

Strat

Re:couldn't they at least be honest ?

[careysub]

Remember the Hostess Twinkies disaster? I'm sure those workers who lost their jobs when Hostess closed didn't feel like the union had *their* best interests in mind, and neither did all those who loved Twinkies at the time.

You mean the 11 January 2012 disaster when Twinkies went bankrupt after a private equity firm Ripplewood Holdings took them private saddling the company with debt, but getting from the two major unions a concession of $110 million in annual wages and benefits, and did so at at a time when sales were falling sharply, being down 20% over the previous year when the bankruptcy was declared?

That disaster?

It is clear that the shutdown in November 2012 was planned, to rid itself of debt. The escalating demands for concessions from Ripplewood that continued throughout the spring, summer and fall were intended to force the unions to take some sort of action, and the plan was as soon as they did they would shut down operations and declare the union was to blame.

Re: couldn't they at least be honest ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on the money!

Re:couldn't they at least be honest ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They pay them more to keep the unions out. If they paid them less then they would have a union. The case here is the union is still helping the employee.

Unionizing IT.

[Anonymous Coward]

That must explain why IT has never had a union. All those high-paying employers dividing their employees.

Re: Unionizing IT.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this "high pay" you speak of? Or do you really mean "barely enough pay to rent a studio apartment in a bad neighborhood"?

Re: Unionizing IT.

[Cederic]

Compare IT wages to the national average. Shit, compare the to the local average.

IT pays well.

Re: Unionizing IT.

[Anonymous Coward]

First, no jobs really pay 'well' these days compared to cost of living. Some jobs pay a bit more or a bit less then others, but, your first mistake is comparing your wages to an 'average' wage or to your peers. You should be comparing your wage to the cost of living. And since about the 1980's the cost of living has been increasing at a rate much faster then wages.

Stop being easily manipulated.

Re: Unionizing IT.

[Cederic]

The cost of living is so low that I've spent the past year not working and instead using the previous four years' of savings to fund a relaxed lifestyle involving a lot of holidays and other entertainment.

IT salaries and the cost of living are fucking miles apart.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[110010001000]

Here is a hint: the rich and the political elite don't give a sh*t about "left" vs "right". They just care about power and money. I don't understand why people don't get this. Donald Trump is no more "left" or "right" than the Clintons. They just chose the side that get them to the power and financial level they want.

unions stockpile cash and pay bosses $$$$ 4 keeps

[Anonymous Coward]

So they unionize and get to milk the innovation of the kind of work for a thousand years. reason SHLD is going bankrupt coz it cant fund its pension liabilities which unions have demanded more and more - its not earned money - its cash diverted from R&D. Folks behind the unionize movement are protectionists for a time when America's workforce needed a representative - now a days - that representative is plainly your attorney.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[Tablizer]

Here is a hint: the rich and the political elite don't give a sh*t about "left" vs "right".

Most billionaires do have something in common: they want lower taxes for the rich and less gov't regulation, because both of those conditions make them richer; and the rich wouldn't be rich if they didn't really like yet more money. Yes, there are exceptions.

The rich are more balanced on social issues, however, because those don't affect their income sources as directly as the above economic issues. (Social issues include but are not limited to abortion, ethnic and religious diversity, and LGBTQ rights.)

Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Our company has a union branch and non union. The union branch wont even work with the non union to progress the company goals. They flat out state they wont work with us. While the pay in the market increases for my position, our company pay stagnates because the pay rate is dictated by the union agreement for fewer duties and a specfic rate for those duties. The agreement requires the same for non union. Its insane. Our techs are leaving for the higher pay because of it.

Re:Unions

[Cederic]

The agreement requires the same for non union.

How is that not tortious interference?

Also: Why the fuck did your company agree to such a ludicrous term?

Both

[spinitch]

Lawyers have bar association Medical Doctors AICPA Etc... Balance is the key. In some cases good and in other not so good. USA preamble in order to form a more perfect union... Seniority vs Performance etc... Many countries have labor union requirements. Keeps abuses down.

It doesn't matter anymore

[bussdriver]

You can fight over whatever side issues as a distraction. If it messes with the ruling elite (the status quo) then real problems happen for all who dare.

Swimming down stream to the left or the right but they are lucky to not drown when swimming upstream (left or right doesn't matter much in that direction either.)

The culture / environment is designed to get you appeased with smaller compromised successes instead of drowning and losing it all to gain a little progress upstream. All while your supporters are clueless and bitching no matter what you do... your base will go with the sell out who produces numerous tiny nothings.

Think about it on the weekend...

[Anonymous Coward]

...which you wouldn't have except for unions.

Re:Think about it on the weekend...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like as things progress, some things become obsolete. I'll think about this while I'm using my computer later wondering why I'm still using my 56k modem while everyone around me has moved on.

Where is a link to the actual VIDEO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is a link to the actual VIDEO?

They're not hearing all sides

[rsilvergun]

they're being threatened. It's not longer free speech when it's a threat, and the article makes it very clear that the video exists to teach management how to make those threats while giving just enough plausible deniability that Amazon can hide behind a free speech defense when they go in front of a court stacked with pro-corporation judges or, worse, an arbitration.

Ok, I'm going to rant now, so stop reading if you've got no stomach for such things.

What the hell is wrong with the American working class? Seriously. My bro just took a new job and he's waiting for the background check to pass and praying they don't just change their mind. He quit his old one because his company was going around telling everyone they'd either work 60+ hours a week or be laid off. He has zero recourse for any of this. Companies can lie with impunity with no consequences. They can tell you you're hired so they can get you off the job market and change their mind on a dime and you're highly unlikely to get unemployment. All the power is with companies and nobody seems to give a shit. We won't change a thing because of some blind obedience to ideals that were crammed in our heads when we were children. Why in God's good name can't workers see past that and realize that if one worker's being abused than _everybody's_ open to abuse. How bloody hard is it to understand solidarity? That the only thing that can counter the enormous wealth and power of the ruling class is a united working class? That classes didn't go away just because the ruling class said so? What the hell is wrong with us? We're not this dumb. I know we're not. We're letting our feelings get the better of us, and if anyone should be better than that it's the nerds that hang out on a technology site like /.

Ok... done ranting.

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[ShanghaiBill]

the article makes it very clear that the video exists

No it doesn't. There is no link in TFA to the actually video.

TFA mentions "the video" 24 times, but has this many links to it: 0.

Re: They're not hearing all sides

[Brujis]

None of what you said is true, you are just another braindead Marxist. Your brother is an idiot and I doubt you are even telling an actual story but instead lying. Please get cancer and die.

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[DRJlaw]

the article makes it very clear that the video exists

No it doesn't. There is no link in TFA to the actually video.

So, to be clear, you allege that Gizmodo also lied about Amazon's statement?

"We're perplexed as to why Gizmodo takes issue with a company wanting to better engage its employees, train hundreds of managers to maintain an open and direct dialogue with associates, and create channels to drive innovation on behalf of the customer in a caring and inclusive environment. The reporter clearly cherry-picked soundbites from the video to meet his editorial objective and do not align with our view on how to create career opportunities for employees.

In the U.S., the average hourly wage for a full-time associate in our fulfillment centers, including cash, stock, and incentive bonuses, is over $15/hour before overtime. That's in addition to our full benefits package that includes health, vision and dental insurance, retirement, generous parental leave, and skills training for in-demand jobs through our Career Choice program, which has over 16,000 participants. We encourage anyone to come see for themselves by taking a tour at one of our fulfillment centers -- learn more at http://amazonfctours.com./"

Amazon admits that the video exists. Who are you to say that it does not?

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[DRJlaw]

Probably not an outright lie, but Gizmodo is clearly trying to twist the facts. Why else would they omit a link to the video?

Perhaps if you read the article for comprehension instead of word occurence -- "Gizmodo has opted to not publish the video itself in order to maintain source anonymity" -- you would have your answer. Not everyone is eager to be the next Reality Winner thanks to video watermarking.

Amazon admits that the video exists.

Then where is it?

Nope. Not required. When the video's original source admits that it exists, ShanghaiBill's ability to view that video is not required to confirm that it exists.

They want to cherry pick, and they don't want you to see the cherries that weren't picked.

Penalty - moving the goalposts. 15 yards from the spot of the foul.

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[rtb61]

You are listening to the noise, rather than listening to the people. Most people agree with you, they and you are just effectively silenced on purposed in order to promote the lies. The greed of a tiny minority over the healthy, welfare and safety of the majority, is good, that is the lie, obviously told in more effective terms but that is the core of it. Slashdot plainly draws enough attention to have dickwads with money, spend that money on PR=B$ trolls, as such, noise exists on /. as well.

Corporate main stream media is dying a slow painful death and with them will go the ability to maintain the charade. Thinking in team of human life, this lie has only been effective from the late seventies on and died in the late 2000. The corruption is exposed and now blatant and public, they have corrupt control of institutions but it is collapsing, they have sucked too much out of the economy of their societies but insane greed will not let them stop and as a result the system they abuse will collapse with somewhat unpredictable outcomes. It kind of depends how violent they get in the end in their last violent flailings as to how disturbed the results.

They should have stepped back from insatiable greed a while back but didn't mainly because the mid level types were still forcing their access to unlimited riches and power, leaving them locked in their insane plots and schemes until it all blows up. For US society generally, well, lead water pipes, lead in fuels and firing lead bullets a lot has done your society no favours but the millennials seem to be getting back on track (less lead poisoning) but it will not end will. It works like this, all the psychopaths you put in charge of everything, well they put the 'i' in run, the run everything how it best serves them now, that 'i' of course changes run to ruin and that is how the run or ruin everything they touch, their forte ruining the future of everything they touch to serve their ego and greed now. They have a death grip on power and will not let go, until actively forced to do so. Want change simply become politically active, run or campaign, your choice, fail to do so and the outcomes will be worse.

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[terrycarlino]

I've worked at union establishments. I once saw a manager and a union rep argue for three hours while workers stood around doing nothing.

There was a misting rain. Basically no rain at all. The manager needed a guy to go up a pole. The guy wanted hazard pay, which is suppose to be reserved for those situations where there is actually a hazard. Like going up a pole in a driving rain. So the union rep, who is a worker in another department gets pulled off his job to argue for the worker, who is now not working.

The manager isn't going to authorize the hazard pay because that means that every time there is a sprinkling rain he's going to have to pay hazard pay in the future, which will bust his budget.

The union guy and the worker see a see a chance to soak the company for more money so they're not backing down.

Three hours later it stops misting and the guy goes up the pole after causing 3 man hours wasted because he wouldn't go up the pole, 9 hours wasted because 3 other workers were standing around waiting for him to go up the pole. 3 man hours wasted because the supervisor was standing around arguing with the union rep and 3 man hours wasted because the union steward was there arguing instead of doing his job. Basically 18 man hours wasted because of the union.

Why would any company want their employees in a union?

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[Anonymous Coward]

... because of some blind obedience to ideals ...

The American worker doesn't realize he's blindly obeying ideals: Because there's no voice proclaiming that opposing socialism, government regulation and egalitarian law is destroying society.

... one worker's being abused than _everybody's_ open to abuse ...

There's good reason to distrust US federal government, they're the ones committing the abuse; by not enforcing labour, sexual harassment, environmental and even tax laws. They also ignore slander created when corporations claim government and unions are hurting the workers. This video is a classic example by proclaiming "... having a union could hurt innovation". Translation: The corporation is a victim, won't someone please think of the not-so-poor capitalists? This self-victimization uses the "government is evil" and "socialism destroys America" lies that drive US culture, and it works every time. The workers rush to save the rich and can't understand why they remain poor.

... letting our feelings get the better of us ...

Until the bribery and 'free speech' enjoyed by corporations is ended, the working class doesn't have a voice. Until voters stop asking corporations to save them from government and socialism, they are enforcing for their own oppression. Until they start punishing politicians for politicizing every issue and electioneering with negative advertising, they are protecting the plutocracy. 40 years of corporatism and elitism hasn't protected the American people, it's robbed them of rights and equality. It's easy to agree upon the problem, it's impossible to agree upon the solution. Alas, that is what's needed: An answer that doesn't contain "me too" or "fuck you, I've got mine", and it's needed today.

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[Greyfox]

Your brother should have stayed in his old job until the new one was a done deal, worked 40 hours a week and taken whatever layoff terms were offered. Usually there's a package in return for a promise not to sue them, and he'd be eligible for unemployment at some point (If a layoff package offers some months of salary, it's usually after that many months, IIRC.) He'd be in a much better position whether the new job comes through or not. It probably will, but he's going to be a lot more stressed about it until he starts. Companies will also routinely contest unemployment claims on flimsy grounds (best to keep emails and have everything in writing,) which they can do with no penalty. Apparently a lot of people give up and don't appeal the denial.

No one teaches you any of this stuff, and picking it up as you go isn't fun. Your brother could probably file a complaint with the state labor board about the mandatory overtime, if it continues beyond a certain amount of time that probably varies from state to state. I work on a fixed hourly rate and never get asked to work overtime, so I don't know what that is in my state off the top of my head.

Most people let the company dictate the terms of their employment and will allow the company to walk all over them in the process. There generally isn't any need for that, but it can be hard to figure that out for yourself. If most people knew a bit about basic labor regulations, they wouldn't even need unions. Of course, the unions are the reason most of those regulations are even there in the first place.

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[blahplusplus]

We're not this dumb.

Yes we are, you have to understand the nature of the class system is toxic for many kids being raised at the bottom of capitalist society, capitalist societies goal is to manufacture ignorant poorly politically educated workers and professionals.

In fact if you read Oswalds spenglers decline of the west, his theory is that civilizations rise and fall based on their own internal dynamics and there comes a point in every civilizations life that the slave classes no longer recognize they are slaves and get eaten by their upper classes - aka the corruption exists because of the mass stupidity of the slave classes.

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people are self motivated. As long as they think they can win they have no interest in helping others. That old story, first they came for the Jews, but I wasn't Jewish, so did not care, then they came for the queers, but I wasn't queer, so did not care, then the Muslims...

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[hjf]

Many Amazon and Walmart workers are on food stamps and get no vacation. But somehow the average american thinks he doesn't need unions. That he can stand for himself in front of a huge corporation.

But then they complain about the 1%.

Weird.

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[hjf]

Because misty rain is still wet and makes poles slippery.

Let's get on the other side of your argument for a bit: you argue that he should just have gone up the pole and get done with it. I argue the opposite: the manager should have just waited for the rain to stop to ask the employee to climb that pole. They had 3 hours to argue. If they were in such a rush, they would have agreed to pay hazard.

Re: They're not hearing all sides

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[Anonymous Coward]

ShanghaiBill, rsilvergun come out of their holes to troll every once and awhile. Just ignore.

Re:They're not hearing all sides

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. Plenty of people die surrounded by their loved ones. Humans are THE MOST social mammal on the planet. Pretending they aren't and encouraging the narcissism that only individuals matter is how the evil bloated vampires (the ones sucking the life out of everything) keep the individuals powerless. You are an active part of that problem.

aggressive?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Nothing in the fine summary sounds aggressive.

I guess "aggressive" now means "things that I don't like to hear".

Re:aggressive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone tell them union-busting isn't very nice no matter what they've heard to the contrary

Re:aggressive?

[MightyYar]

Agreed. "Aggressive" when talking about labor-management should be a much higher threshold. Examples of actual, literal aggression abound on both sides of the issue. When the nurses went on strike at my wife's hospital and nurses who crossed the line had their tires slashed, that was aggressive. When Philly steelworkers burned down a church that was being constructed by a non-union workforce, that was aggressive. When companies would hire local cops to violently break up a strike or walkout, that was aggressive. A watered down opinion expressed in a training video is not aggressive.

Right wing corporatists have been co-opting

[rsilvergun]

left wing rhetoric since Clinton. There's nothing "new" about it. Corporate Dems have been a thing since the 90s. We didn't notice the damage done when a big chunk of the Democratic party turned against the working class because we had two major economic booms (.com and housing).

Jeff Bezos, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer. Make no mistake they are not the left. They are far, far right wing. They couldn't care less about the problems of white males. What they care about is money and power. And you're giving it to them.

The goal here is to move money to the ruling class. right now you're focused on a imaginary race war against white men when they're busy crushing the middle class. Your class.

I keep saying it but the best bet is a group that calls themselves the Justice Democrats. They're a PAC (political action committee ) that who's members refuse corporate money.

There are some things you're going to have to accept though that might be bitter pills to swallow. There's going to be a few Ne'er-do-wells who get food, shelter and healthcare and don't work as hard (or at all) to get it. If you want to end the class war you've got to take care of everybody. That's because the primary tool of the ruling class is to keep the working class on edge non stop fighting amoung themselves (often over racial and caste divides, seriously, look up the Burakumin. When Japan didn't have a racial group to crap on they made one up). The way you end this is making sure everyone, even the worst of us, is taken care of. That nobody can become disaffected and be turned against their fellow man. Otherwise you'll get what we have now: a whole bunch of different groups fighting among themselves while the rich and powerful are laughing at us all the way to the bank.

Re: Right wing corporatists have been co-opting

[Brujis]

That's funny because in reality the lower classes and middle class asre shrinking while the upper middle and upper class are expanding. But what else can else expect from a self absorbed, entitle lying, selfish, leftist? If you want to help people go right ahead, but do not think you should force others to do the same. The second world war was about fighting that evil Socialist ideology and now ignorant POS like you take up the banner and charge head first into the mass graves of the Fascist regimes you want to establish.

Re: Right wing corporatists have been co-opting

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha ha. You're not even wrong. Hitlers National Socialist party were fascists.

Good! Unions are WRONG for the U.S.!

[JohnnyConservative]

Good! Unions are WRONG for the U.S.! They raise costs and lower quality for everyone. The support the worst political candidates that seek to ruin our country. They REQUIRE works pay dues even when the worker does not want to join the union and does not want to pay dues to the corrupt unions. Right To Work laws and states are better for the country. They provide freedom of choice for the worker. In a Right To Work state, the worker has a CHOICE to join or NOT Join a union and thus NOT PAY DUES to a corrupt union organization.

Re: Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signal

[Brujis]

Fascism and censorship are inherrently left wing. They are both big government power and control...

Re: Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signal

[Brujis]

Most billionaires want more regulation not less. They want to protect their established businesses and force potential competitors out of the market. You are either lying or ignorant of the facts.

FedEx not union; UPS is union

[commodore64_love]

I just learned that today. Some claim UPS workers provide better service than FedEx workers, due to UPS workers being unionized.

I can honestly say I've never noticed any difference. Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/po...

Of course unions can also stand in the way of progress, such as forbidding the use of drones or driverless delivery trucks: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/2...

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Anonymous Coward]

FedEx in the 90s had a good argument for non-unionization: Employees were treated as valued team members... family, almost. Monthly discussions on difficulties about the job. Suggestions listened to and some tried. Many were bust, but like any good science project, many others were wildly successful. Pay and benefits were extremely generous. All of these were recipes for a healthy, strong company. In the late 90s, FedEx dropped this "family" aspect ("People Service Profit" Take care of the People they will give outstanding Service which will generate Profit turned into, basically, Profit Profit Profit). Engineers were brought in with no operational knowledge who decided, arbitrarily, how things should run. If things didn't run that well, they blamed not the engineers, but the employees. "You must be doing it wrong! The engineers said..." The bean-counters and the MBAs took over. No longer would people work their way up the ladder through hard won experience. They went from family to cogs. What used to be a company with a year long wait list just to get an *interview* became one that started bussing people in from rural areas an hour away because the locals wised up.

Now? I'd say a union would be greatly beneficial to FedEx.

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Uberbah]

Of course unions can also stand in the way of progress, such as forbidding the use of drones or driverless delivery trucks

The continued erosion of the working class isn't "progress". All those reduced labor costs are going to be pocketed by shareholders, not passed onto customers.

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're so sure, then time to start buying some stocks, no?

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Anonymous Coward]

UPS drivers are UPS employees, most of the FedEx drivers are contractors.

So if you are a FedEx driver you get paid based on how many packages you deliver. If you are a UPS driver, you get paid by the hour to follow your route...make a left turn where you shouldn't, you get a "mark", get in an accident, you are done driving for UPS. Many of the better FedEx drivers are UPS washouts.

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really surprised fedex is not union.

Personal experience, UPS delivers things properly fedex drops a paper on the door saying come pick up the package because you weren't home when you were actually home.

On the other hand, when I lived in Canada, UPS slapping a 30 dollar fee on ever package that crossed the border for customs brokering was pretty crap too. I wouldn't order from companies that shipped via UPS. (3 dollar book, 30 dollar customs brokerage fee they want to collect from ME not the shipper... no, just return the package)

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Uberbah]

How is a laid off delivery driver going to be able to afford to buy any stock at all - much less an amount large enough for him to live off the dividends - from the company that just laid him off?

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Uberbah]

FedEx in the 90s had a good argument for non-unionization: Employees were treated as valued team members.

Not seeing a connection between your premise and your conclusion. Your favorite professional sports team? They're all members of a union, and they're all valued team members - else they wouldn't be on the team.

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Daralantan]

Some claim UPS workers provide better service than FedEx workers, due to UPS workers being unionized.

That's really just going to depend on where you are and who the driver is. For years I got much better seeming deliveries from FedEx while everyone else said UPS was way better (slash FedEx was just awful) for them. Meanwhile UPS for me literally threw a package up the stairs onto my porch and hit the door with it... damaging the door and causing the box to bust open.

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[commodore64_love]

>>> unions can also stand in the way of progress, such as forbidding the use of drones or driverless delivery trucks

> The continued erosion of the working class isn't "progress".

You sound like the workers who complained when they stopped making Carriages and Horsewhips. Yeah I'm sorry those men got laid-off, but society "progressed" beyond the horse-and-carriage days. Unions should not stand in the way.

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious, what do Jeff Bezos' boots taste like? Because you sound exactly like a boot-licker.

Re:FedEx not union; UPS is union

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee. We just had a Uber car mow down a lady in the street and Uber caught lying about it with a doctored video. But it's unions that stand in the way of "progress"?

Drug induced fantasy spewed by way too wealthy CEOs to appeal to psychotic haters of humanity (stockholders) is not progress. In all this "progress" where are the provisions for the future of the bulk of the populace? These tech "innovations" appear to be decidedly inferior in performance to what we now have. The only appeal being the feature that they can help rid the planet of those pesky people that perform work. Drones will have trouble with this thing called weight. Oh, and trouble with the rights of property owners above their property. No, property rights don't end at ground level. And then there is the problem of safety if drones would just fly over the right of way made available by roadways.

Self driving delivery vans? The driving is the easy part and only the corporate dispensation of lying allows for anyone to even act as though self driving cars are a short term reality. And NO, painting self driving car on a buggy doesn't make it so. But the actual hard part is the delivery itself. Suddenly you are out of the realm of somewhat standardized roadways and into the realm of pedestrians, children at play, bikes, skateboards, lumpy pavement, missing pavement, dogs, varying gate and fence manifestations, thieves and millions of other variables. PR, marketing, visionary statements, and reality are all very different things.

But sure, the murderous psychotic desire to destroy the majority of the population is too important for rights and safety to stand in the way of progress. I don't like US unions either but unions don't really stand in the way of progress.

Re: Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signal

[Tablizer]

While it's true they want to "pad" their specific industry or company; in aggregate, they want less regulation. One CEO typically won't have enough power by themselves to make significant changes for their own particular industry or company to counter other CEO's. Let's see if I can better illustrate this numerically:

CEO 1: Less-Regs: A,B,C More-Regs: D.

CEO 2: Less-Regs: A,B,D More-Regs: C.

CEO 3: Less-Regs: A,C,D More-Regs: B.

CEO 4: Less-Regs: B,C,D More-Regs: A.

Total against regulation A: 3
Total for regulation A: 1
Total against regulation B: 3
Total for regulation B: 1
Total against regulation C: 3
Total for regulation C: 1
Total against regulation D: 3
Total for regulation D: 1

Thus the net weight is against regulations in general.

Gizmodo?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like Giz-who-is-being-shadow-banned-next.

"the best interest of our customers,"

[mackul]

comes first in their line of arguments against unions, right? So, it is obviously in the interest of their customers to lower prizes as much as possible. Why, then, do they not lower the profits for their shareholders (who come after the customers, according to their list) and their managers so much that the prizes could be significantly lower? Because, you know, unions are not as old but almost as old and old-fashioned as the old capitalism itself and its greed for margins and profits. Amazon, you are such a modern company: If you don't want unions to achieve a the best for your customers, you should get rid of this old-fashioned concept of profits, too, right? If Bezos and his morons believe people in the lowest service ranke could live of X USD/year, why don't they lower their own incomes and profits not to the same level? "We all are a big family here working for the best interest and expierince of our customers", I hear them proclaim: So, just do it!

If the sound bites are there in the first place

[rsilvergun]

it doesn't matter if they're cherry picked. They were there to teach a lesson that is technically illegal. Amazon is skirting the law and they know it. It's a form of Dog Whistling. They're not going to be blunt about it. Not until they finish getting the last of the pro-labor laws left repealed. Man, is it going to suck for everyone when they do...

Re:If the sound bites are there in the first place

[DRJlaw]

it doesn't matter if they're cherry picked

Not the point of the emphasis -- Amazon's admission that the video exists, which was subsequently questioned by ShanghaiBill because he simply word-counted the term "video" instead attempting to comprehend what had been stated.

Re:If the sound bites are there in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they skirting the law? It is not illegal to talk about unions in a bad light.

Re:If the sound bites are there in the first place

[dcw3]

Every large company briefs their managers/employees on what can/can't be said in order to avoid litigation. It would be stupid of them not to do so. I didn't watch the video you're talking about, but could you please give specific items you're taking issue with? Claiming something is "skirting the law" is questionable...it's either legal or illegal, so if something seems iffy to the general population, it's typically legal but the legislation/regulation was poorly worded, and business is always going to take advantage of those situations...fix the damn law.

Nobody in this thread seems to know anything

[Anonymous Coward]

At-will workers can be fired for any reason, with negotiated contracts employers often need JUST CAUSE. Then there is a DUE PROCESS hearing. There is also a GRIEVANCE process, and LEGAL REPRESENTATION. Typically, union members also get LIABILITY INSURANCE with their dues. HEALTH INSURANCE is often negotiated by union representatives.

It is illegal in most U.S. States for dues to be used for political purposes. However, union members can donate separately. Just pricing out liability insurance through State Farm was significantly more expensive than the cost of my yearly dues. Hell, I wrote the check today without hesitation because the benefits of membership make the decision a no-brainer.

How do I know all of these things? Because I have been the president of my local union. I live in a RTW Freedom to Freeload State. I may be forced to represent a non-member because they are covered by the contract. My total compensation for being president was $0, and it is somebody else's turn to take the thankless job.

Clearly everyone in this thread has been living in their own echo chambers for some time. None of you mentioned anything related to the functions of a union. When workers die on the job and nobody notices for 8 hours, it is time to consider unionizing.

Re:Nobody in this thread seems to know anything

[Cederic]

I don't need a union to negotiate an employment contract. I've done that for myself in every job I've had.

Every company (with more than 7 people in it) that I've worked for has had a grievance process, people can't be sacked without cause, the disciplinary process is documented and followed.

Liability cover is provided by the company and private health insurance is thrown in without me even having to ask for it - and that's in the UK, where it's entirely unnecessary.

Clearly everyone in this thread has been living in their own echo chambers for some time.

Ironic.

But do tell me, how the fuck would a union have made a difference on someone dying in a carpark?

Re:Nobody in this thread seems to know anything

[Gonoff]

I don't need a union to negotiate an employment contract. I've done that for myself in every job I've had.

This is because we have had legal and effective unions here for a long time. They are fading away. Watch for the Conservatives to "do something about" unions as soon as they finish their current cunning plan...

Every company (with more than 7 people in it) that I've worked for has had a grievance process, people can't be sacked without cause, the disciplinary process is documented and followed.

Liability cover is provided by the company and private health insurance is thrown in without me even having to ask for it - and that's in the UK, where it's entirely unnecessary.

See above but be aware that it is Conservative policy to make private health insurance a lot more needed.

Re:Nobody in this thread seems to know anything

[Cederic]

I seem to recall it was Labour that introduced PPPs but I'm quite content being pro-NHS and anti-union. Of course, the NHS would be a fuck of a lot better if it wasn't rife with union idiocy.

Re:Nobody in this thread seems to know anything

[Anonymous Coward]

At my company everyone is in the union mainly for cheaper and better health insurance. The union can bargain a much better deal with BCBS than the company could or a person could alone.

I'll keep paying my union dues as it is far cheaper than the cost of a different insurance or having reduced medical benefits.

Re:Nobody in this thread seems to know anything

[Anonymous Coward]

The most preventable problems in the NHS have nothing to do with unions. These problems include underfunding, underinvestment, understaffing, micromanagement by unqualified (in the relevant skills) professional 'managers', overworking of staff and more.

In fact, the unions contain a lot higher a proportion of people who like the idea of the NHS than the government!

Re: They're obligated to try to impede unionizatio

[Anonymous Coward]

The railroad union is an exception. We own the safety standards and we enforce them.

It all depends on conditions of local labor market

[iamacat]

Let's take a factory town with one employer and a hard to train workforce. A union is then good for both employer and employees, and is no different from hiring your workforce from a consulting agency like Accenture. On the other hand, in innovative Sillicon Valley each employee has many choices of empoyees and vice versa. A union in such conditions would just inhibit creative negotation of salary vs longer term/less tangible benefits. What we need is firm control of lawlessness so that people can negotiate labor arrangements most approporiate to their situation. No blooding noses of picket busters, no spying on your employees cell phones to prevent them from organizing and so on.

Fellatio not statesmanship

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/russia-interview-transcripts-house-intelligence-committee/index.html - Including sounds of Trump sucking Putins dick, pantomimed by translators. Yep.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[Anonymous Coward]

... chose the side that get them to the power and financial level ...

The left side is about distributing the money among the people (Marxism, socialism, welfare-capitalism) while the right is about holding it in a few families (plutocracy, oligopoly). Of course, Trump and Clinton care about that: It's why Clinton didn't have a 'for the people' policy like Obama and even ("big, beautiful wall") Trump did. Trump knew he had to bribe the voters while Clinton thought power-plays would beat whichever clueless white plutocrat the Republicans chose.

No worse than "Who moved my cheese"

[Munich Munchkin]

I was at a UK company where that video was shown. It was only done once. However, it showed how USA managers are encouraged to view their workers. Unions are both good and bad, the UK record from the 1970's and Thatcherite anti-union laws showed both of those sides in action. That all said, sometimes technology overtakes the problem and makes it redundant - there is an ongoing dispute here about having guards on trains while at the same time Thales is rolling out driverless train systems - https://www.thalesgroup.com/en... Amazon workers do have valid issues about working conditions that unionizing might help with, but equally Amazon could just automate all of its warehouses and just get rid of all of the workers too. Then what ?

try reading some history

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascism was created by the former leader of the socialist party of Italy, Benito Mussolini. It was a hybrid form of socialism where government did not directly control the means of production, but rather indirectly controlled by controlling corporations. It left corporate big wigs in charge of their businesses (at least publicly and in appearance) in exchange for better performance than would be generally seen with total government takeover. Hitler later adopted Mussolini's fascism and gave it a uniquely Germanic tone under the National Socialist German Workers Party (the actual formal name of the NAZI party, and clearly a LEFT WING party).

Somewhere, some dishonest left wing teacher/professor told you that the NAZIs were right wing. That's been a big lie all along, the only reason it seems to fit is that lefties see right wingers supporting the military and they've seen news reels with Hitler's goons in military garb and parades. You should have challenged the person who spoon-fed you the lie. Look at all the old photos and films of big NAZI parades - you'll see "NSDAP" all over the place (National Socialist Deutche (German) Arbeit (worker) Partei (party)). Read Hitler, Goebels, and other henchmen's speeches - you'll read numerous recitations of "national socialism" praised and pushed. The Democratic party platform calls for many of the same things as the NAZI platform: universal govt healthcare, universal govt childcare and education, nationalized mass transit, and more, all the usual left wing dreams. I am NOT equating Democrats with NAZIs (Democrats are currently not promoting racism and eugenics and Jew hatred, though Planned Parenthood started as a eugenics outfit, the Democrats used to support racial segregation, and the Democrats cozying up to Muslim groups that hate Jews these days), but I am pointing out the similarities in their economic and related policy promises because they are both LEFT WING.

Re:try reading some history

[Anonymous Coward]

You youngsters need to read more history. The fact is, in the 60's and 70's, everyone knew the Nazis were far right wing. It wasn't even questioned, just accepted because the preponderance of evidence left little room for question. Then, in an attempt to "whitewash" the right from the evils of the Nazis and Fascists, the right created a document called the Powell Memo in the 70's. This was an outline to infiltrate academia with far right individuals who would preach the magic of free market capitalism, how the Nazis were actually left wing (and they invented scores of unconvincing books to reference, all published well after the fact and none sourcing any of their claims), etc.

This is so extremely well known that most of the youngsters I know already know all of this. In fact the only people I've even heard of that aren't aware of this easily verifiable fact are the Alex Jones fans who really believe the government is turning frogs gay and the moon landing was a hoax.

Read some actual history kiddo, not the revisionist history. Find some books on Nazis that was published before 1970. You'll see that 100% of them consider Nazis to be far right wing. Hell, they invented privatization, which is what libertarians love.

Re:try reading some history

[LaughingRadish]

If you really are an honest historian, you will realize that there have often been notions that everyone knew to be true. If you are so sure of your assertions, you could tell us some of your sources to eliminate doubt. You should also understand that every implementation of socialism has served as a vehicle to totalitarianism when it reached a critical mass of power and influence. The National Socialist German Workers' Party aka the Nazi Party was a ploy for totalitarianism. The same was true for Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and Venezuela among others. Every time god-emperors were installed.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that the rich do not like government regulation is a fallacy. The rich love government regulations. As a matter of fact most of them are written by politicians elected by the rich. The major corporations can easily maneuver through the government regulations. Small companies however can not. All laws favor the entrenched power structure.

Businesses have no 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

Then work on repealing the 1st Amendment.

WRONG. Businesses have no First Amendment rights.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[Anonymous Coward]

The rich are far too eager to exploit social issues as wedge issues to call them "more balanced" in that regard. Where are the rich people speaking out for a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy, for example? You'd think that that "social" issue would be neutral to them, so they'd come out somewhat balanced on it, but clearly that does not happen, because abortion is far too useful as a tool to motivate low-income voters to vote against their own interests.

None of which means that rich conservatives are sincere about their "values," of course. What do you think DJT would do if Ivanka got pregnant by the pool guy? Hypocrisy is as old as humanity, but the damage that conservatives can do is no less real because of it.

Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

If labor unions are so effective why are teachers so underpaid? Both of my parents were teachers and their dues to NEA always went up even if there was no pay raise to offset the dues. NEA appears to have accomplished almost nothing in terms of making the lives of teachers better.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[drinkypoo]

Here is a hint: the rich and the political elite don't give a sh*t about "left" vs "right". They just care about power and money.

This is an aggressively stupid thing to say. The "right" is "conservative", which means they want to control your personal behavior but believe that limitations on corporations are immoral. Of course the rich and political elite are right-wingers. Most of them don't actually care about the morality aspect, they're just greedy, but leftists want to redistribute wealth and they don't want the wealth redistributed because they're currently sleeping on a big pile of it.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a retard. I'm far left and cant stand Bezos or the Democrats. If you think the "left" supports Bezos then you're an idiot centrist, stupid liberal, or a corporate Democrat; none of which a real lefty supports.

But do they have a unionization reporting hotline?

[GameboyRMH]

Wal-Mart has an emergency hotline managers can call to report unionization attempts. If Amazon doesn't have one then they're just not trying very hard are they?

Not anti-union and not neutral...

[GameboyRMH]

"We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either" says the narrator in the video. So they're pro-union? Logically that's the only position remaining. They seem to be really bad at helping people unionize.

Employee relations

[Anonymous Coward]

or most importantly, our associates.

Yes, we can tell how important your employees are to you when you are trying to build stores that don't have any.

All horseshit of course

[DrXym]

If Amazon want to prevent unions then the best thing they can do is ensure their staff are happy - i.e. well paid, well rewarded and incentivized. Employees should be treated with respect with a full redress scheme and the company should be open to grievances, complaints and criticism. Do all those things and a union isn't necessary.

The problem is that Amazon's culture is paranoid, micromanaging and demeaning. Workers are poorly paid and work long hours especially in the warehouse / fulfillment side of things. Complain about unfair treatment, or sexual harassment, or some other grievance and it's more likely to be you who gets whacked than the other person. It's absolutely toxic.

But hey, let's put out a video slamming unions. BTW I've seen the damage unionisation can do so I wouldn't be pro union by any stretch but Amazon are basically begging for it to happen with their attitude.

Re: They're obligated to try to impede unionizatio

[Anonymous Coward]

A good union would. As company profits would translate to higher wages and more earnings for the union. They are meant as a buffer to prevent poor conditions at work. An example would be chronic understaffing. Or management threatening workers with un-employment for poor reviews. Or management giving lighter loads to employees they like while giving harsher or less liked jobs to employees they dont. They can also place pressure on management to take care of issues that would otherwise be ignored.
They also give the lowest tier workers negotiation leverage with management. (Something they don't normally have.)

Now on the downside, unions to incure additional costs for the organization and for the union members. They tend to be a social things as well, and can suffer from the same problems as management. They can be a headache and get in the way of prompt resolution of an issue.

Now I'm not pro or anti union. I just believe that they are more of a double edged sword. If wielded right they can be extremely useful tool, if wielded wrong they can hurt more than they help.

Re: They're obligated to try to impede unionizatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow have you ever seen how much a teacher does. Maybe before you comment on them you should volunteer as an teachers assistant for a fee weeks. I work at a school. (Tech worker not teacher) In all the time I have been there I have yet to see a single teacher put in less than a 60 hour work week. And that does not include after school activities, or the work they put in a way from school. Many teachers will grade papers, create lesson plans, or write grant proposals on their weekends or other time off. To top all of that off they get treated like they are rich, when many of them live near or at the poverty line. They have to deal with **** that you and I would not tolerate. Would you deal with a client hitting, spitting, pulling out your hair, or throwing your desk supplies paper work etc all over the room. (Much of which they have to buy out of thir own money, as school budgets tend to be very tight.) This happens weekly, the teachers have very limited ability to control these events. And every teacher has to deal with it to some extent as, no child is left behind. So we can't put the troubble makers into a single class, we have to distribute them to all classes. And dont get me started on IEP requirements. One child can halt a class, and it's not like there are no pressures there either. Federal guidelines require teachers to cover a lot of material.

These "desk workers" as you call them are the some of the hardest workers in our nation. I doubt many of us could do their jobs for one day, much less a whole year. And most of us would raise arms over the pay if we did.

Before you critisize some one else's job, maybe you should find out what they do first.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[Anonymous Coward]

left and right change meaming based on place, time, and speaker
no 2 people have exactly the same idea about those terms

the same is true for pretty much any political label

want to have a usefull political discussion, name actual policies and specific views and avoid labels

Re: They're obligated to try to impede unionizatio

[Anonymous Coward]

They have no business in highly skilled fields.

Tell that to the AMA, ABA, IAU, and more.

The reason you don't want a union is you think you're better off without one.

Yet, perhaps all of that might change in an instant.

Re: They're obligated to try to impede unionizatio

[houghi]

In Belgium every company who has 50 employees will have union representation. Every adult can be a member of one of the many unions, regardless if the work or where. A company will have generally representatives from several unions. You can join a union like a gym. Quiting is much easier than quiting a gym.

Nobodycares if you are union or not. (Except for the representatives). They will have meetings on a regular basis. This will include things like improving the cafetaria, increase in bonusses and the budgegt for a Xmas gift. Also could include fiering policy if more than e.g. 10 people get fired.

And whatever is decided will be for all,not just the union members. I do not have more or less right by being a union member. (Being a union rep would be a different matter).
  Almist all of my rights as an employee are due to unions work over the last 100 years.

The Right

[Anonymous Coward]

The political Right have been on an anti-union march for decades. They have systematically advertised against unions forever.

For the longest time it was because unions were Communist (allegedly). Then it was because unions were Bad For Business. All along they stated that unions were corrupt.

Here's the thing. There are grains of truth in all these assertions, but that was never what this was about. If you did nothing but focus on the bad aspects of business, wouldn't you come away convinced that business was Bad, Evil and Deserved To Die? Yes you would.

The fact is that unions take away some of the power of owners, and those owners don't like that. It's like long ago when kings asserted the Divine Right of Kings. Eventually the aristocracy challenged that (read up on Magna Carta for details) and there was a huge fight that lasted a century or more. The outcome was that even monarchs were subject to laws and Parliament (this is in the English legal tradition, of course). Owners want to maximize their wealth and power, just like monarchs attempted to maximize their wealth and power.

The wealthy have associated themselves with the political Right and have effectively used the Right to advance their cause here. So effective that large blocks of working people are anti-union, even though a union might actually benefit them.

Unions aren't perfect but there is almost nothing that exists that can replace them.

Not neutral, but not anti-union

[whitroth]

And since they're saying "we don't think a union is in anyone's interest, our customers (why?), our shareholders (we can pay lower wages and benefits), or our "associates" (that is, employees), this is not a distinction without a difference, it's bullshit.

I'd say a $10B unfair labor practices lawsuit against Amazon is overdue.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[dcw3]

I don't understand why people don't get this.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because your statement is extreme bullshit.

Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali

[drinkypoo]

want to have a usefull political discussion, name actual policies and specific views and avoid labels

That's ass-backwards. We have these labels specifically so that we don't have to do that, because it takes too long.

Actual UPS information

[Anonymous Coward]

In one famous example, UPS offered their employees a retirement package, and the Teamsters fought and won a significantly LESS generous package, and prevented their members from voting on it. Why? Because it allowed the Teamsters to manage the money, and divert much of it to older retirees from other companies whose own funds had been squandered by the Teamsters' management.

Nice try. Many UPS employees who are Teamsters receive their retirement packages through their locals. And hey, if that was such a bad deal (I assume you're talking about the Central States region, but then again, it's hard to tell) there was one simple solution: leave the union and accept the company retirement benefits.

Go take your "famous example" that supports your biases and actually learn something about it.

Re: They're obligated to try to impede unionizatio

[Anonymous Coward]

AMA = American Medical Association? Not a Union, a professional organization who's membership is optional.
ABA = American Bar Assocation? Also not a Union, its a professional organization who's membership is optional.
IAU = I guess you're talking about the International Astronomy Union? Also not a labor union, despite having the word Union in it. Its a professional organization.

The computer world already has organizations like that, IEEE and ACM come to mind. Those too are not unions.

I'm not entirely sure you even know what a union is.

Not illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm sure a one-page summary from the NLRB can deal with this situation.

From TFA: "sent to Team Leaders".

You know... management. Did the video instruct Team Leaders to retaliate? STILL NOT ILLEGAL. The illegal part would be actually retaliating.

Re: They're obligated to try to impede unionizatio

[FictionPimp]

Right. In IT we also have associations that help us. Certification bodies, user groups, technical groups, etc. I'm a member of many so that I have a network. I know who's who and what's what. Most of the time I know about the open jobs in my area before they are posted. Real social networking is always going to be better than blind trust in some higher power.

They need one

[wardrich86]

Considering how the workers are constantly being shit on... they need to unionize asap.

Re: Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signal

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with power can censor, not just government. Its not a Left/Right thing it's authoritarian thing

Sounds like you need some new cliches...

[Uberbah]

You sound like the workers who complained when they stopped making Carriages and Horsewhips.

...clever guy. Because the carriages and horsewhips are still being used here, just not by humans.

Yeah I'm sorry those men got laid-off, but society "progressed" beyond the horse-and-carriage days.

Since you skipped it the first time: The continued erosion of the working class isn't "progress". All those reduced labor costs are going to be pocketed by shareholders, not passed onto customers. The tired "buggy whip" canard doesn't fly as more than enough jobs were created to build & service cars, construct roads and highways to make up for what was lost in the equine industry.

That's not going to happen with automation and autonomous delivery vehicles. Because the whole point is to take humans out of the equation, purely for the benefit of shareholders. Not customers, not workers.

Funny you mention 'First they came'

[nnappe]

The first to verses are 'they came for the socialists' and 'then they came for the trade unionists'. Probably not chance

What animal are you talking about?

[nnappe]

Octopuses? Every human is born defenseless and remains mostly so until many years later. Sexual maturity takes more than a decade. Moreover, that just gives you a homo sapiens, and I bet you'd gladly deny humanity from a wild raised barbarian. Now, to raise a person you most often will need paternal care, education in language and thought, even the self learned erudites did not figure it out by themselves but from books written by other people. Newton's standing in n the shoulders of Giants.
Your described isolation of humans is delusion. You could say that we ought to strive for it, and we could discuss it. Stating it as a fact though, over what is essentially a social animal is just plain false. Homo sapiens is social, as our ancestors were and our relatives are., civilized people is even something else, not just a socialized animal but an entity whose existence is cultural, and since no one constructed his own culture from scratch, it is social.
Between your imagined dystopian north Korea and your also imaginary hermit natural state there are real societies where humanity and individual humans actually thrive.

Re: Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha ha
"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties."
"Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum."

I notice you keep saying "Average"

[rsilvergun]

and so does Amazon. Funny how nobody says "median" or even "mean". This being a nerd site I'd like to think most of us understand the difference and why it is Amazon (and yourself) use the word "Average". In case a non-nerd stumbles across it, it's because the Average is a much higher number than the median due to a small number of well paid employees.

Re:I notice you keep saying "Average"

[DRJlaw]

Jesus Christ, stop relying to my posts to critique points that Iâ(TM)m neither replying to nor making.

Iâ(TM)m well aware of the difference between a median and more. Iâ(TM)m also well aware that quotation marks set off things that others have said, especially as evidence to support a topic established by the sentences that are not inside quotation marks. Also, by the topic sentence and conclusion.

Are you? Because I literally did not use the term average myself. I quoted the whole statement as evidence of an admission that the video existed. And only that.

So kindly sod off.

Re:I notice you keep saying "Average"

[DRJlaw]

Just in case you forgot my reply to you in this very topic, just slightly higher in the thread:

"Not the point [] -- Amazon's admission that the video exists, which was subsequently questioned by ShanghaiBill because he simply word-counted the term 'video' instead attempting to comprehend what had been stated."

Still applies here as well. Even 11 days later.