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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
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/
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.