Amazon's Aggressive Anti-Union Tactics Revealed In Leaked Video (gizmodo.com) 208
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.
In other news (Score:2, Funny)
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."
Correlation is not causation (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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.
laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:laws (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
They're not hearing all sides (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 eate
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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./ [amazonfctours.com.]"
Amazon admits that the video exists. Who are you to say that it does not?
If the sound bites are there in the first place (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
I notice you keep saying "Average" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 statemen
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:They're not hearing all sides (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [theatlantic.com] thanks to video watermarking [digimarc.com].
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:laws (Score:5, Insightful)
What you describe is expressly illegal [nlrb.gov] 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
centralized and institutionalized power is inherently bad
That's what a corporation is!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Compare IT wages to the national average. Shit, compare the to the local average.
IT pays well.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Amazon slaves of the world, Unite! (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
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! (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signaling (Score:2)
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.
Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signali (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re: Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 regula
It doesn't matter anymore (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Right wing corporatists have been co-opting (Score:2)
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 mo
Re: Right wing corporatists have been co-opting (Score:2)
try reading some history (Score:2, Insightful)
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 Ge
Re: (Score:2)
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 Russi
Re: Jeff Bezos' (and the "new left") virtue signal (Score:2, Insightful)
couldn't they at least be honest ? (Score:1)
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. whil
Re:couldn't they at least be honest ? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
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 l
Re:couldn't they at least be honest ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Both (Score:1)
aggressive? (Score:2)
Nothing in the fine summary sounds aggressive.
I guess "aggressive" now means "things that I don't like to hear".
Re: (Score:2)
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 aggres
FedEx not union; UPS is union (Score:4)
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... [motherjones.com]
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... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
>>> 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.
Sounds like you need some new cliches... (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
It all depends on conditions of local labor market (Score:2)
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
But do they have a unionization reporting hotline? (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
"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.
All horseshit of course (Score:2)
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 th
Not neutral, but not anti-union (Score:2)
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.
They need one (Score:2)
Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 base
Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 marke
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 g
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Trade unions don't work at all like that.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:They're obligated to try to impede unionization (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Public relations. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.