Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
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.)
Table-ized A.I.
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.)
Table-ized A.I.
Just remember, they don't shut down those stores to bust unions, they shut them down to fix "plumbing issues".
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.
Fascism and censorship are inherrently left wing. They are both big government power and control...
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.
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.
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.
Penalty - moving the goalposts. 15 yards from the spot of the foul.
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.