Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

Yes. Don't be a scab and cross the picket line. Don't buy from Amazon today.

Scabs are workers who cross the picket line, not customers. If you think boycotts are a good idea, ask the auto unions how well customers not buying cars worked out for their members.

Customers boycotted Stop & Shop when workers went on strike earlier this year, and it worked out pretty well for the workers[1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/stop-shop-strike.html

Not the first time New Englanders have boycotted a supermarket chain either. When Market Basket ousted their president and voted to give the shareholders dividends rather than reinvesting in the company[1]. Though these workers wern't on strike they were protesting what they felt like was the first step of the company getting gutted and sold.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Basket_protests

>Scabs are workers who cross the picket line, not customers.

That's not the way unions themselves use the word.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/24904995/boston-union-ca...

"Boston union calls Yankees 'scabs' for crossing hotel picket line"

Only because it's a way to use and coöpt language for your cause, not because it's the way the public understands it. It's like AOC insunuating Pelosi racist. It's used for effect.

Or, imagine a nurses' strike, but I as a patient don't honor their strike, am I a scab?

If you're a patient for something elective that could be delayed until after the conclusion of the labor action then yes, you're a scab. For emergency care? Probably not.

A strikebreaker (sometimes derogatorily called a scab, blackleg, or knobstick) is a person who works despite an ongoing strike. [Scabs] are usually individuals who were not employed by the company prior to the trade union dispute, but rather hired after or during the strike to keep the organization running.[0]

The parent comment was absolutely correct in saying that you are trying to co-opt the actual definition to serve your goals, as the word has nothing to do with being a customer.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker

Are you implying that the unions asked Americans to boycott cars that weren't foreign-assembled crossovers?

Your comment seems to not really make much sense since UAW and other unions are currently involved in calling for boycotts of Mexico-assembled GM vehicles.

While you're correct about the meaning of the word scab, there doesn't yet exist a word with appropriately caustic undertones to describe the customer who continues to patronize a service whose workers are striking -- and so we typically use that word for both situations. Welcome to the party.

Or buy from Amazon, and then return the purchase for refund when they fail fulfillment promise due to staffing outage.

Here are instructions to block AWS from your computer as well: https://bigboy.us/other/aws/

Don't be a scab and cross the picket line. Don't use anything hosted on AWS today.

(Which basically means "turn off your computer because nothing will work" today)

Everyone on this site uses AWS.

It's not simply about hurting Amazon, it's about sending a signal. "This specific part of our business is threatened by the way that we're running it." Let it make business sense for Amazon to treat people like human beings. Otherwise it won't.

And then what? Amazon will continue to do the bare minimum to appease these signals periodically.

It is not the duty of consumers to provide a social safety net for workers. This is precisely where government should step in. If you really give a shit about the people working at Amazon, write to your congressman/congresswoman and voice your support for social programs that would positively impact them.

> And then what? Amazon will continue to do the bare minimum to appease these signals periodically.

Which is the point of a strike.

> It is not the duty of consumers to provide a social safety net for workers. This is precisely where government should step in. If you really give a shit about the people working at Amazon, write to your congressman/congresswoman and voice your support for social programs that would positively impact them.

The reason people are striking is because again and again, the american government has not done this, and many people (on this site, even) believe that the government should not do it. That's kind of the whole point of the 'small government' schtick.

I'm not against striking - I'm just undecided on the efficiency of it in this particular case.

It seems to me it would be easier to get people to vote than to boycott Amazon in an impactful way. But as brundolf pointed out, it doesn't have to be either/or.

Strikes can serve multiple purposes. Generally, the first purpose is showing the employer that the workers have leverage and are willing to use it, but if the strike becomes publicly known and discussed by people who aren’t Amazon or its employees, it can provoke discussion in the wider society about workers’ rights.

That may not happen as the result of one strike, but if there are lots of strikes over a period of time they can incrementally make the public more aware and tilt the odds of electing people who will pass such legislation.

> If you really give a shit about the people working at Amazon, write to your congressman/congresswoman and voice your support for social programs that would positively impact them.

It's not either/or. In today's political climate, unfortunately, pushing the market is the only thing that seems to ever accomplish anything.

> It's not either/or

Valid point.

I do question how much something like this could realistically push the market though. Boycotting a public transportation system with only one revenue stream is very different from boycotting a multinational corp with diversified revenue streams.

Why not both?

Which is in an of itself an entire set of problems to sort through, but I don't see what actual point you're making other than spewing do-gooder derogation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com