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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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 ?
Absolute statements are never true
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
...which you wouldn't have except for unions.
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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Nothing in the fine summary sounds aggressive.
I guess "aggressive" now means "things that I don't like to hear".
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
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...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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!
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...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Compare IT wages to the national average. Shit, compare the to the local average.
IT pays well.
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?
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?
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.
Just another day in Paradise
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.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Too bad you are anon, I would mod this up if I could!
"Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Considering how the workers are constantly being shit on... they need to unionize asap.
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.
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.
Trade unions don't work at all like that.
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.
The first to verses are 'they came for the socialists' and 'then they came for the trade unionists'. Probably not chance
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/