As someone who spent most of their life working in labor jobs, some union, some non-union, I prefer non-union. I think that the existence of unions is a good thing, they give a standard that employers need to live up to, they form a political group that represents workers.
But actually working for one myself? No thanks.
TLDR:
The NLRB ruled that voting would be by mail, not in person at the plant. Amazon then got a mailbox installed in a prominent spot near the plant entrance and promoted it as the place to vote in communications to employees. Reportedly, supervisors were stationed near the mailbox, monitoring who used it.
I honestly can’t see it having had a big effect as I understand the facts so far, but it’s certainly a shady move in terms of following the letter of the rules. I guess the idea is that employees might not have trusted that their votes wouldn’t be read by management …
An interesting postmortem on the campaign from a pro-union perspective, pointing out what the author sees as numerous unforced errors by the organizers:
To stand a chance at winning the hardest campaigns, the best methods must be deployed from the earliest days of a campaign and followed throughout the election. Wishful thinking and inexperienced hunches have no place in a campaign against an employer as sophisticated and well-resourced as Amazon.
That is pretty much how I see it as well; I was just reacting to the idea that we should be happy that a union failed. It’s possible that people who voted against unionization sympathize with many of the complaints that those who organized have but assume Amazon will find ways to shut the shop down, which they probably would.
So what then? What kind of leverage do workers have in 2021?
I’ve seen the complaints. And I really see it as people who just don’t want a hard job. I worked at UPS for a while, that was union, and we didn’t get bathroom breaks whenever we wanted, we had to keep working, or the belts would get backed up. You had to be careful, as there were things that could injure you if you weren’t. It was hot in the summer, cold in the winter. If you missed more than a certain number of shifts, you were terminated.
I don’t see how Amazon is any worse than UPS, and I don’t see how unionizing would make Amazon’s work conditions any better. People will still need to show up and work, and that seems to be the complaint of the employees. They want a job, but they don’t want to have to put in any effort.
Not that recent, Amazon has started employees at $15 since 2018. I’d say that the big reason for this is that it is hard to find quality employees. People that are willing to show up for their scheduled shifts and do the work that is being asked of them. I’ve raised my starting pay from $9 to $13 an hour over the last few years, and it had nothing to do with the “fight for $15”, and everything to do with the fact that you get higher quality applicants if you advertise a higher starting pay.
Not sure I understand this. If they are already paying more than MW, then why would they care if MW was raised?
It also protects those who underperform, and punishes those who overperform.
When I was at UPS, I once had a supervisor come by my truck, and told me that I was loading some number of boxes an hour (I forget exactly, this was over 20 years ago.) I was like, “Cool.” He said, “No, you need to slow down.” I pointed at the belt that was packed with packages coming down into my truck that would back up if I didn’t keep up with it, and said “How?”
He just left my truck and went to bother someone else. Now, in a non-union shop, that may have gone differently, as I may have gotten a raise for my efforts, rather than an admonishment.
How, exactly? What is it that they are doing that they need to “shape up”? And how would unionizing help that.
Like I said, when I worked at union shops, I wasn’t allowed to wander away to use the bathroom whenever I wanted. Amazon is actually more generous in regard. They not only give 2 15 minute breaks and one 30 minute break, but they also give you 18 minutes of flex time to go off task as well whenever you want. That’s not something that I ever had at a union shop.
If we want to make laws that increase worker protections, that require employers to give more time or access to bathroom facilities, that’s fine. But from what I’ve seen, them becoming a union would not have done so.
Like I said, I saw that Amazon’s policies on bathroom breaks was more generous than any union shop I’ve ever worked at. What changes do you think that they should make?
What other complaints are there? That’s pretty much what I’ve seen, the work is too hard, and that they don’t get enough time in the bathroom. During the early days of COVID, it did seem as though they weren’t moving fast enough to incorporate safety protocols, but my understanding is that they have pretty comprehensive protocols now.
You ask this of the person who agrees with the decision made by the people who do work there? Who are you to say that they got it wrong?
You are opining about the labor and wage of a company that you do not work for, but you excoriate someone else for the same?
Personally, I’ve done similar work for similar companies. And it has been harder work for less compensation. Have you spent much time in the unskilled labor market?
Sounds like it. I’m not sure why, but your tone seems to indicate to me that you see this as a bad thing.
It really needs to be political in nature. Unions had their day, but the number of people that we need in low skilled work is dwindling daily, and unions are following quickly.
A union really has no power if it is in a “right to work” state anyway, and a union can’t stop that from happening. Right now, unions pretty much take dues from members, and make sure that the best performer doesn’t make any more than the worst performer. You can almost always find better wages and conditions in a non-union vs a union shop.
As far as Amazon is concerned, I really don’t get the hate. They are more generous in terms of work conditions and pay than pretty much every non-skilled labor job I’ve had.
I’m sure why–Snowboarder_Bo is a huge union fanboy. What he means is “these are pathetic suckers”.
All I got to say is I sympathize, legitimately. I’ve worked for a few unions, and my current job is in a union (I’ve been there for almost 7 years now) and nothing you describe matches any of my experiences. With one exception; it can be hard when a person underperforms. We have a collective bargaining agreement and it takes a lot to fire someone. Which is great for job security but not so great if you have a coworker who is dragging everything down and is just awful to work with. At my work, often they just get reassigned to a job that nobody wants (our CBA allows for that sort of thing) and the really bad ones are subject to investigation. Fortunately, we don’t seem to have very many bad apples and my coworkers for the most part are pretty great so that’s not an issue.
Bathroom breaks aren’t an issue, having good service and being competent and helpful can lead to promotion and more importantly, a good reputation. I’m not only in a union but I’m also in government so my pay is based largely on what the legislature sets it at, so I’m not eligible for merit raises and bonuses like I’ve had in private sector jobs, but my benefits and security more than outweigh that.
Unions aren’t all great and aren’t all bad. All unions have their pros and cons, and some unions are better than others to work for.
…here is a well cited twitter thread that makes your claim here look utterly ridiculous.
Takes some balls to speak of “the people who work there” when a third of the votes were in FAVOR of the union, against a heavily lopsided and powerful company in a heavily manipulated election. You’re a joke if you think this reflects the unanimous will of the workers. You’re a joke if you think this was due to anything but threats and coercion.
This is a bullshit ad hominem argument that deserves no response, but I have indeed spent time in the unskilled labor market. And I’m not the sort of spiteful bastard to say “I got less than $5 an hour digging ditches*, nobody should get more than I did”, but you do your own journey I guess.
*actual physical ditches, not hyperbole
And you will kindly note that I’m not so much about setting an appropriate wage myself. I’m about letting the PEOPLE have some say over their working conditions. Perhaps they use that power to change things, perhaps they don’t, but the PEOPLE ought to have that option. And I don’t trust a wild-west election with a billionaire in one corner matched up against people who have to pee in bottles to make quota.
I do find it hilarious and telling that of the different opinions about what Amazon working agreements should be, you want to fight the people who think they should be better, and say nothing about the people with loud opinions that it’s just fine. I don’t know, maybe you just have a thing for punishing the lowest people on the ladder.
I agree that part of it is demand for labor but the political pressure for higher wages has been building since at least 2015.
Some do, but that’s less of an issue if you screen people in the first place.
Yup. If a vote goes other than the way you want it to go then it was rigged! We waz robbed. The only answer. Never trust an election you don’t win. Stop the steal!
I readily accept that Amazon did everything within its legal power to convince workers to vote against unionization. Mandating they workers sit and listen to their case against, for example.
I personally am pro-union and the simple fact is that the workers of that fulfillment center have spoken loud and clear against unionization. The overwhelming majority. Don’t. Want. It. There.
It is a consistent loss for unionization of big corporations in the South. It does not mean that unionization is dead across the country or even with a different tactic in the South (less national stage battles, more smaller companies in which pay, benefits, and working conditions are worse).
I don’t see how. Could you please cite the part that contradicts my apparently “utterly ridiculous” claim that it’s a hard job?
It was a pretty long thread that you linked to, so maybe I missed it.
And two thirds voted against it. Are we in favor of democracy here, or are we joining in on the republican’s desire to replace democracy with our better judgement?
Heh, that’s funny, I’m a joke. It’s obviously not the unanimous will of the workers. I made no such claim, you just made that up out of whole cloth. It does, however, reflect the will of a large majority of workers.
The vote is anonymous, so how did they threaten and coerce people into voting one way or another?
I’m not such a spiteful bastard to say what you did either. However, I did note that they did get more than I did while I worked for labor unions.
I’ve dug some actual ditches, too. I’ve also loaded and unloaded trucks, I’ve sorted packages, I’ve cut down trees, I’ve spent an enormous amount of time in hot kitchens.
And from the reports that I see, Amazon employees have better conditions, better pay, and better benefits than any of those jobs. I’m not making an argument that we shouldn’t want conditions to be better, I’m making an argument that unionizing isn’t the way to make conditions better.
If you think that we should pass labor laws to improve work conditions in general, then that’s a separate discussion, and I’d be all for it. This, however, is not about passing laws, this is about instituting a union at a particular company. Having worked for unskilled labor unions, I’ve not found the conditions any better, usually found the pay lower, and had co-workers who brought down moral and productivity with sandbagging and malingering.
I find it a bit disturbing that you would make something like that up about me and my positions. What other delusions float around in that damaged imagination of yours?
No, absolutely not. In fact, the lowest people on the ladder, those at our southern border wanting to enter, would love to have these jobs.
Have you ever been involved in the hiring process of low/unskilled labor? It’s hard to tell if someone is willing to do a hard job until you put them out there and see how they perform. I’ve hired a whole lot of people in my time for low/unskilled work, and most of the interview is me telling them what is going to be expected of them, and asking them whether they can fulfill those expectations. They all tell me that they can and will, but not all do. How would you go about screening out the underperformers ahead of time? (This is a serious question if you actually have an answer, as I could use any tips you may have for pre-screening people who will not follow through on the expectations that they are given.)
I think the system is actually more fair than some arbitrary screening process. Rather than have someone judge you before they see your work, they give you a chance, and judge you based on the work you do. They even pay you during this evaluation period.
Most of the complaints that I see, including several in @Banquet_Bear’s “well cited thread”, is that they are being judged on their performance.
They are told what the conditions will be, that they will get two 15 minute breaks, one hour break, and 18 minutes of flex time that they can use however they want when they are hired. The news is full of reports of what happens within Amazon, it’s not a secret.
Maybe the people should screen the jobs that they apply for, to make sure that they are a good fit, as they know far more about the job requirements than a hiring manager knows about the candidate for employment.
…don’t be disingenuous. Your claim wasn’t just that it was a “hard job.” Your claim was"
That tweet storm had at least 40 examples of how Amazon is one of the worst employers in America. Can you point out any examples of people who were complaining because (as you characterize it) they “just don’t want a hard job?”
Why shouldn’t the one third who voted for it be allowed to join the union if they want too? Why can’t an employee nominate someone to negotiate on their behalf? That’s how it works in much of the rest of the democratic civilised world. Why wouldn’t that work here? How is allowing those who wanted to join the union the chance to actually join the union inherently anti-democracy?
…well don’t be general about it. Tell me which ones specifically you are talking about.
Yup. This is pretty much the herpyderp response I’ve come to expect from you. No idea why you keep stalking me to share them.
If you think it’s okay that it’s legal for employers to force-feed their workers anti-union propaganda, you don’t support unions in any way that matters to anybody except maybe as a weak argumentative posture.
I don’t give two fucks what jobs you’ve had. It’s a bullshit ad-hominem argument, as I said, and I only answered it to demonstrate that you’re full of shit. If you did those jobs and root against anyone who wants to collectively negotiate for better pay, then you’re sociopathic and/or full of shit.
I’m no expert on how unionization works but my limiting understanding is that it lives and dies by whether or not the workers speak in one united voice abiding by the will of the majority, to hold out, to strike, or to accept an offer. I think that if the workers voted 50% plus one for unionization you’d expect the other 50% less one to go along?
And let’s play out your proposal. A third of a shop pays dues to join the union. They strike even, risking being replaced. Either they lose their jobs or they win and those who did not join the union, did not pay their dues, who took no risks, gain the benefits as well. Or only union members get the better conditions?
I honestly have no real thoughts of who you even are. You are not someone I specifically note as especially egregious or especially insightful. Seek treatment.
Are there serious claims that Amazon broke laws by having those mandated sessions? Or is that part of your private reality? Again I am no expert but please some citation that such was illegal. Okay is immaterial. I am not sure honestly. But coercion it ain’t.
I don’t see what your point is. It’s a hard job. Hard jobs aren’t for everyone.
Heh, worst employers in America? It’s one of the biggest, so one of the most criticized, but I’ve worked for far worse, many of them union.
A fair number of the complaints were that Bezos makes so much more money than the employees. So? If we want to talk about taxing the wealthy and ultra-wealthy more, then I’m all for that. But it has nothing to do with whether or not it should be unionized.
Some of the complaints were that they were judged on their performance, is being judged on your performance verboten?
One was that they didn’t hold services for employees who were killed by a tornado.
So, the complaints are either irrelevant to unionizing, or they are complaints that the job is hard.
It’s your cite, that you claimed backed your point. It’s not on me to go over your cite, that would be on you. Can you point to a complaint that is more than it just being a hard job? (Or is that too hard a job for you?)
Because that’s not how unions work. You want to change the laws on the formation and running of unions, then that’s a separate discussion. This is whether or not they wanted to join a union based on the laws that govern unions here in the United States.
I voted for Clinton in 2016, should I have been represented by her as president?
There were a bunch of people that voted for Trump in 2020, should they get to be represented by him?
A democracy means a vote, and the important part of democracy is that the loser accepts the outcome of the vote, and doesn’t demand that they get their own way.
I take it you didn’t get very far into your own cite, huh? Try number 4.
So, relevant experience is irrelevant to you?
You keep saying that word, but I don’t think you know what it means.
You did a poor job of that, to be honest. How am I full of shit when I share experience that unions do not have better work conditions than non-union shops?
And if you think that that is what I am doing, you are incapable of basic reading comprehension and not suited for having this debate.
To some extent, you can’t screen them out; turnover is part of the job.
I don’t pretend to know about how Amazon fulfilment centers operate and what the true working conditions are. Obviously a fair number of people tolerate the conditions, whereas some reports suggest that a fair percentage of the workers there find conditions rather stressful.
The counterargument against the latter category of employees is that Amazon might not be the right environment for them, and that they should just find work elsewhere. But what if it could be the right environment for them if they had more input on these conditions?
I agree with you that many of the practices and tactics of unions are counterproductive. Maybe the modern union should function more like a political association as opposed to a conventional union. But giving the labor force the power to negotiate directly with the company is what gives employees real power.
I think this is a great question. Alabama is a right to work state so it doesn’t require non union workers to join a union. I see no reason a minority union couldn’t have formed. I can’t seem to find a reason online.