Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmiller2 | Hacker News Reader

Fingers crossed for "yes!"

> ...lengthy mandatory "information sessions"...

This practice really should be banned, IMO. The employer is taking advantage of the fact that the employee typically needs the job to survive. Recall the statistic where many Americans would have to borrow to cover an unexpected $400 expense. Do you think someone in that position is going to do anything to jeopardize their job? The employer is literally coercing the employee into attending these "information" sessions by threatening their survival, and it needs to stop. This is not a free association any more than you "choosing" to drive on the correct side of the road, when the alternative is to starve, or miss rent / mortgage.

View on HN

> This practice really should be banned, IMO. The employer is taking advantage of the fact that the employee typically needs the job to survive.

I assume Amazon is paying for the time these employees have to spend in the mandatory information sessions? I don't see the problem.

Amazon MUST get the opportunity to present its case even if anti-union is not a popular stance. If the deal offered by Amazon is so bad then what is the harm? We should not be shielding people from information because we don't believe they're smart enough to see through it... that reeks of elitist paternalistic thinking.

Why MUST they, if the union doesn't?

The union does. The right to bargain collectively is protected by law, as is unfettered communication with your labor representatives.

But no, Amazon isn't required to pay you for the time you spend talking to your union rep, no.

I know they're not. I am literally arguing that if they're going to sit there and say "nice job you've got there... wouldn't it be too bad if you lost it," and then "invite" you to a "mandatory information session," which you can "freely" choose not to attend, then the union should get equal time at this session.

>then the union should get equal time at this session.

Why? They're not footing the bill. I'd agree with giving the union the option to do this, if they can compensate amazon equal to the hourly wage that the workers are paid, but I doubt labor unions have enough of a bankroll to make this viable.

They're also not literally threatening the employees' jobs if they don't attend.

It's not a threat. It literally has to be mandatory since the decision will have large impacts on the current employees and the company. Employees need to know what they are voting on. It's not as simple as union good, company bad and you're being disingenuous painting it as such.

Yes, they need to know what's being voted on. But that's not the purpose of company-sponsored, mandatory "information" sessions. The purpose is to coerce employees into sitting down and listening to anti-union propaganda, and you know it.

Would you be in favor of the union being able to hold a mandatory information session, also under threat of dismissal? Why or why not?

How can it be a "mandatory session" that people can freely choose not to attend? That's impossible.

It's "mandatory" if they want to keep their jobs, but they can "freely" choose to quit. Or, so the party line goes. It's also "mandatory" that you drive on the correct side of the road, but you can "freely" choose not to, and risk arrest, injury, or death.

But do they officially make the claim that they would fire anybody who doesn't attend?

I personally would want to fire anybody who wants to form a union, if I was in the situation. Why should anybody be forced to employ somebody who wants to make trouble in their organization?

Yes. They officially used the word "mandatory."

The union has access to the employees out of work hours.

Why should the union get compensated time to express their position. If the Union wants to comp Amazon access to their employees and lost productivity then sure maybe, but I don't see that being proposed. It's always Amazon who must "give" something.

Amazon has the same access outside of work hours. They can host events and invite employees just as easily as the union can. The union has zero access during work hours.

Amazon must "give" something because Amazon "has" 99% of the cards.

Not how it works mate. Unions are also private parties, and your desire to see more unionization does not entitle one private organization to the time, money and/or resources of another.

I know that's not how it works. I'm saying that's not how it should work. Amazon should not be able to abuse its employees by forcing them to go to mandatory "information" sessions under threat of dismissal, precisely because the union doesn't have that power. Either both should have it, or neither should. Which would you prefer?

Edit: I notice you've done this exact same thing in another comment subthread here. Are you deliberately overlooking the fact that I'm proposing a change to "how it works?" That means "that's not how it works, mate" is completely irrelevant.

If you’re going to put me on the spot, I come down on Amazon’s private property rights, employer’s prerogative and First Amendment interest in their own warehouse; I also come down on the side of the private sector employees to unionize, and exercise their own rights if that is what they want to do, but not by spending their employer’s resources and time on the effort.

I am a proponent of work/personal separation, and union efforts are a personal effort up until the point they succeed, if they succeed. That isn’t fair to the union but life is tough in the aluminum siding business.

Edit in response to your edit: we can go back and forth, I’m watching the other subthread too. Feel free to consolidate if you like.

> Edit in response to your edit: we can go back and forth, I’m watching the other subthread too. Feel free to consolidate if you like.

Good enough. I think I'll hop over there and ditch this one if it's all the same. No need to spew things all over the place.

All the same to me mate. :)

They can send a letter, not require attendance in a propaganda seminar.

I'd go for that, too, provided the union gets access to the same mailing list.

> The employer is literally coercing the employee into attending these "information" sessions by threatening their survival, and it needs to stop.

I don't get it. The employer is paying you for your time. Why does it matter whether it's stacking boxes or sitting in front of a TV?

> This is not a free association any more than you "choosing" to drive on the correct side of the road, when the alternative is to starve, or miss rent / mortgage.

Are they threatening to fire the employees if they form a union?

Boxes don't spew propaganda at you while you stack them. At least not yet.

Edit: Yep, predictable. Y'all want to upvote "fingers crossed for yes," but then downvote for suggesting employers shouldn't be able to propagandize against unions. Let's just make it go away rather than have a discussion, yeah?

Edit in response to your edit: no, but they're literally threatening to fire anyone who doesn't sit and listen to their propaganda. Amazon doesn't give a relative shit if they fire you, but you sure do if you don't have $400 to your name.

I was about to reply "At least not yet", but your edit beat me to the punch!

I'm sorry. I wish I didn't need to add that.

"Are they threatening to fire the employees if they form a union?"

Not in an overt way that you could take to the NLRB...they aren't dumb. But the message is often clear enough. For example:

"At a mandatory meeting Thursday for workers, where the warehouse’s leadership pressed its case to vote against the union, the 51-year-old rebutted the company’s suggestions that the RWDSU’s goal was to raise money to pay for union leaders’ cars and meals. One Amazon manager took a picture of his employee badge, a tactic Richardson believed was intended to intimidate him."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/09/amazon-...

To be clear, Amazon REQUIRES workers to attend its "information sessions" while at work. Union organizers have no comparable power. To say that it's fair because the time is paid for is just whistling Dixie--Amazon is using its power to feed employees their propaganda with great efficiency. This is a brazen psychological asymmetry, and parity of information (in all forms--including time spent considering valid arguments pro or con, etc.) means everything when it comes to fairness in group decision-making processes.

> Why does it matter whether it's stacking boxes or sitting in front of a TV?

Should it be OK if the company shows an anti-LGBTQ video or religious propaganda? There should obviously be limits to what an employer can coerce their employees into watching, and I think the vast majority of employees would agree that they shouldn't have to watch anti-union or other politically-charged propaganda.

Diversity training? The former president banned it and people have been fired for not attending. Seems quite "politically-charged".

Treating people with respect is politically charged, but it shouldn't be. The side of that argument that thinks racial slurs, sexual advances, hurtful stereotypes and treating employees differently because of race, religion or sexuality should be OK in a workplace is wrong. It's no more propaganda than telling people not to punch each other or spit in each others faces.

> I don't get it. The employer is paying you for your time. Why does it matter whether it's stacking boxes or sitting in front of a TV?

Just because I signed a contract that I'm willing to stack boxes for X amount of money doesn't mean they can tell me to clean toilets or manage a team.

Just for nuance - I mostly hope they don't. The track record of modern unions is spotty as far as I can tell and I'd rather that big gamble isn't taken with Amazon.

Still, I hope it ends up being a push in the right direction.

I would agree.... modern unions are almost a joke (rug color doesn't match what we agreed on, so back to negotiations!)... or police unions, where officers with significantly questionable backgrounds are re-hired...

But against amazon, how do you fight? They probably are paying 50 people right now to do cost calculations on if it's more profitable to shut down the warehouse and move a few miles down the road, vs. accept the union.... and they have the capital to seriously consider it...

If the government wont do anything to protect workers, unions are basically like class action lawsuits... a terrible option, but the only one remaining (except for the groups that are legally forbidden from unionizing)

Oddly, in countries with strong sectoral bargaining, there is less government intervention, because the unions work things out directly with the employers. IMO that solution is better in the end, as the unions and employers are better positioned to understand the issues than the government is.

Of course for any of this to work, you need strong institutions, and ours in the US are very weak IMO. But that just means we need to keep building, not give up.

That's a good point. A perfect example here is that Denmark has no minimum wage.

> The employer is literally coercing the employee into attending these "information" sessions by threatening their survival

I used to be mildly in favor of unions, but the use of this kind of loaded language is why I'm starting to oppose them. It just give me the impression that the pro-labor side are a bunch of entitled whiners, even though I logically know that vast majority of the people voting pro-union are perfectly reasonable. At the end of the day, you're being paid to sit in a room. Nothing is stopping you from daydreaming or planning your next dinner.

Does the union get the same deal?

If the union pays people $15 to watch pro-labor documentary, I'm sure many people would sign up.

That's not the same deal. Amazon's deal is "here, watch this anti-union propaganda. We won't pay you any more than we usually do, and you're fired if you don't."

Would you be in favor of the union having the same power? Why or why not?

In that case, there's no equivalent comparison because one's an employer and the other is not. That doesn't change my original point that the description was loaded.

Sure there's an equivalent. It's

> Hey, guys, we're going to have 2 mandatory information sessions, one put on by the company and one put on by the union. They'll be during work hours and you'll get paid your normal rate.

> Hey, we're holding some optional information sessions outside of work. Here's the info. The union is holding their own session, too. Feel free to come to both, or neither. It won't affect your job at all.

Would you be in favor of either one of these?

Yes, if the union is accepted the union gets a cut of the employee's wages via dues.

But there is no union yet. This is only about the election. Does the union get the same ability to "inform" the electorate as Amazon? Can the union threaten peoples' jobs to get them to come to "information" sessions?

Maybe those information sessions should be allowed, but require the company to give equal speaking to union representatives.

That would be fair. When I said "this practice should be banned," I meant the way it is now, where the employer gets to abuse their position to shove their opinion down peoples' throats. Make them invite in a union rep and give them equal time, and I'd be good with it.

Well about that. There is presently a case before SCOTUS regarding a law in California that allows union organizers to go onto private farm property and sell their message to the workers there if the workers quarters are not accessible to organizers otherwise up to some defined amount of time for up to some defined amount of days out of the year.

Google tells me 3 hours a day, 120 days a year.

It is being argued by the property owner’s that this is a taking. Not even a regulatory taking, just a straight up taking.

Here we go: Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid ( https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nurs... )

Oral arguments were heard last Monday. Advisory Opinions (a podcast) had a pretty good take on the oral arguments, but SCOTUS hasn’t put out an opinion yet.

If that's the way it falls, then ban all "information sessions" during work hours altogether. I'm fine either way.

Arguably that would infringe on Amazon’s own First Amendment interest. Their house after all.

That said I have no idea how this case is going to turn out. I’m not sure if they would have been better off arguing it was a regulatory taking because there was some indication they could have narrowly won that. SCOTUS may not issue an opinion, but punt this back down.

Arguing that it was a taking was a bold move. I can see it, but that is a tough argument to make and win on.

No, it wouldn't. They could still host sessions outside of work, and make them truly voluntary. There is no particular reason Amazon must speak their message in their house, under threat of dismissal, except to coerce employees into listening.

When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement.

Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages, but there isn’t a legal problem with it. Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon.

> When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement.

This is correct. The employer's ability to de facto force someone to sit and listen to a prescribed message, while the union doesn't have the same ability is precisely why either both sides should have that power, or neither.

> Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages....

Are you against fairness?

> Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon.

Or are you somehow missing or overlooking the fact that I'm literally proposing a change to what the law is?

Not missing or overlooking it; disagreeing with your proposed change to the law.

I’m against prescribed fairness written into statute.

So, you're in favor of employers being able to threaten their employees' survival in order to get what they want? Because that's de facto what happens. Sure, it's not the anarcho-capitalist definition of "coercion," but that's a ridiculous concept, anyway.

I’ve been in that position. If you work for someone that is threatening your livelihood, it’s time to start looking somewhere else for a new job, and renegotiating the terms of your employment.

One of the things my first boss told me at my interview was: if you want to just be a body, you can be a body and there is plenty of work out there for bodies. How well represented you are really depends on how much you step up for yourself. Unionizing is a legitimate option for private sector employees, but they don’t need to expend their employer’s resources to accomplish it.

If you view everyone else around you as just an easily programmed droid, then sure, fairness might matter. I don’t see people that way: they’re free agents and they can make their own choices. Not choosing to unionize is also a legitimate choice, and this vote could go either way.

Why do I have to assume everyone's a preprogrammed droid in order to want everyone to have a fair choice? Why wouldn't you rather just be presented with a fair choice to begin with? Should I have to question your motives whenever you offer me a choice between A or B?

Your M.O. just seems like it would have you bouncing from job to job forever, until you exhaust the labor market, because, if there's one thing I know for sure, it's that if there's a power imbalance in an economic relationship, it will eventually be exploited for profit. To not exploit it would be economically irrational.

And, to be clear, if the workers did freely choose not to unionize, after being presented with all the information on the same terms by both sides, good on them. That's a decision I respect.

But, back to the actual point, why would you support the employer's right to de facto coerce employees in any way?

> Why do I have to assume everyone's a preprogrammed droid in order to want everyone to have a fair choice?

I have not sighted these ballots, but it’s a yes/no choice isn’t it? Unionize or don’t unionize: that’s a fair choice. You don’t need equal time to have a legitimate election, time can buy you mindshare but you’re not buying an election overseen by the NLRB.

> Your M.O. just seems like it would have you bouncing from job to job forever

I do just fine.

> But, back to the actual point, why would you support the employer's right to de facto coerce employees in any way?

Because no one in an employer-employee relationship is entitled to that relationship: not the employer, not the employees. If Amazon really can fire everyone and replace them, then the employees made a bad call going ahead with this. If they can’t, then Amazon is stuck with the outcome and they’re going to have a rough few years, maybe they’ll sit there in the C suite trying to figure out how it was this happened and how they could have prevented it.

I also don’t see the government having a compelling interest here, and your proposal is toothless without government enforcement. One of the last things I want is for the government coming down on the side of unions, just as I don’t want them coming down on the side of corporations, therefore it doesn’t have any reason to transfer assets or their use from one private party to another. A union has to be earned on your own time, and your time at your workplace is your employer’s time.

Also there is a potential this could backfire on Amazon too. Think of it this way: if Amazon employees have legitimate complaints, I don’t know one way or the other where they do, but let’s say they do, and rather than seeing their complaints serviced, extra bathroom breaks, better health and safety standards and so on, Amazon corporate decided the best use of their time and resources was a load of anti-union propaganda, then why wouldn’t they unionize? In their position, I would do it just to defy my corporate overlords.

I don’t think these warehouse employees are lacking in either information or choices here. Amazon holds loads of advantages, that doesn’t mean they can’t lose this fight. If unionization fails here, that doesn’t necessarily mean it necessarily would have succeeded without an anti-union drive. How Amazon spends their money, possibly throws away their money, is ultimately their choice and I’m not looking to empower the government to take that away from them.

> I have not sighted these ballots, but it’s a yes/no choice isn’t it? Unionize or don’t unionize: that’s a fair choice. You don’t need equal time to have a legitimate election, time can buy you mindshare but you’re not buying an election overseen by the NLRB.

Yes, it's a binary yes / no. You're correct, you don't need equal time to have a legitimate election, but you do in order to have a fair election. Do you favor giving one side (Amazon) more power than the other to influence the vote?

> Because no one in an employer-employee relationship is entitled to that relationship: not the employer, not the employees.

This is irrelevant. There is a relationship. You want it to be an abusive one? I don't get it.

> I also don’t see the government having a compelling interest here, and your proposal is toothless without government enforcement.

Government has a legitimate interest in serving the people. If it does not do that, there may as well be no government. Notice I said "people," and not "unions." I am not proposing that government come down on the side of unions; rather that government come down on the side of the people, by making the employer / employee relationship as fair as possible in this context. Again, why would you oppose this? What's wrong with restoring fairness to an unbalanced relationship?

I truly don't even understand the point you're trying to make here, other than "Amazon should be able to abuse workers because workers don't deserve jobs." If that's literally your point, I'm afraid we're done here.

And why should an employer pay for something against their interests?

Because they shouldn't be able to abuse the power asymmetry in the employer / employee relationship to advocate for their position, while denying the union an equal opportunity.

Alternatively, they don't have to pay for it. They can choose to just not have the "information" sessions.

This is a false dichotomy. As an employer, if I’m paying I can do whatever I want within the law. Who says a third party acting against my interests should get any air time at all?

That depends. Are you in favor of coercively using your influence over your employees to get what you want, or would you rather have them have all the information and arguments on both sides?

Are you saying that the employees of Amazon are not intellectually capable to determine when they are being told an untruth? How are you able to determine, when they are not?

No, I'm saying they should see all the information both sides have. Are you in favor of suppressing information on either side?

Please don't try to play rhetorical games like that. I asked that of you, since you implied that the workers at Amazon cannot determine what you have been able to discern. You are the person with 40 comments on this page repeating what is essentially the same comment.

I said that they should have all the information, regardless of whether they are able or not. That's not for me to judge. What more do you want?

So, do you want them to have all the information or not?

Define “all the information.” Because they can’t have it all... So should I facilitate people working counter to my interests?

All the information both sides want to offer.

Are you in favor of coercing workers to watch anti-union propaganda without giving the union an equivalent opportunity to persuade them?

Why should they pay taxes? It's against their interest.

Well... they kinda don't pay taxes, but that's a whole different barrel of monkeys.

AFAIK they don't pay corporate income taxes... because they don't make corporate income (aka profit). They do pay other forms of taxes, eg. payroll, medicare, unemployment, sales tax.

Amazon? Your argument is hilarious. They are widely known as paying a pittance in taxes.

What do you think my argument is?

Who knows, it was that bad.

If they have good arguments against unionization, I don't think it would be necessarily against their interest to have employees hear the other side as well.

That assumes people can tell the difference between good and bad arguments. If you look at the divergence between popular beliefs on economics and the spread of field consensus, that case gets really hard to make. The truth is usually a lot harder to communicate than populist soundbites are.

How are they supposed to even have the chance to tell the difference between the good and bad arguments if they don't get a chance to hear them both?

So people shouldn't be informed about the things they are voting on? Or they should only be allowed to hear pre-approved "good" arguments.

People should inform themselves. People shouldn't be forced to pay to have others give arguments against them.

Well, only one side gets that opportunity at the moment. Would you rather that be the case, that neither side be able to do it, or that both sides be able?

To be fair, they’ve been “having their time” for months, potentially years.

Here’s the million dollar question:

do we believe that a union is going to make it easier for a delivery driver in Idaho to find a bathroom?

How long has Amazon "had their time?"

"do we believe that a union is going to make it easier for a delivery driver in Idaho to find a bathroom?"

I believe they would put in a grievance process that makes it painful for Amazon to set unrealistic quotas, etc, yes. Separate from whether there's a bathroom in a rural area, if that's what you mean.

Why not require Amazon to build bathrooms every 2 miles. Everything is possible under socialism. Just command it.

Unions are socialism?

OK fair enough - workers uniting to have better negotiating power are not automatically socialism.

In my country the special legal protections for unions are socialism (special worker rights in general are). And so is the claim that workers are being exploited and employers have all the power and so on. That's straight from the socialist propaganda booklets.

that stat is missing the context that Americans are terrible at saving and tend to live beyond their means, overconsuming.

also, you are trying to solve a 21st century problem with a 19th century tool. that's not going to work.

> that stat is missing the context that Americans are terrible at saving and tend to live beyond their means.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the fact that these people depend on their jobs.

> also, you are trying to solve a 21st century problem with a 19th century tool. that's not going to work.

The modern version of the flush toilet was invented over 400 years ago. I'd say it still works in the 21st century, yeah?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet#Pre-modern_flush_...

It's not the employers fault if an employee needs a job to survive.

And the 400$ story really needs to be analysed some more. I don't think it means most of those people are broke, just that they don't keep that much cash around for immediate use. It might all go into saving accounts or other investments (including mortgage).

I just googled it, apparently the story is 40% of Americans don't have 400$ in cash for an emergency. On the other hand, the median income in the US is 65000$ - that is 50% of all Americans earn more than 65000$. I don't think any of those are in the situation to not be able to come up with 400$. And below the 50% there won't be such a steep fall of income.

However, it is such a nice story, so none of the leftist media seems to want to question it.

Don't believe this so called "leftist media," then. Here's the data: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2020-economic-we...

Read.

Regardless of it being the employer's "fault" that the employee depends on the job, they are still exploiting the fact that they can literally disrupt that employee's chance at survival.

That is just the same story, which is based on a survey. At least it mentions that many people would decide to pay for such an expense with credit, even though they would have the cash.

And just because some person has financial issues, they are not being exploited. It is still not the employers fault if a person is in that situation.

While I sympathize with that problem, the solution in my opinion is not unions, but the creation of more jobs. Then workers who would be fired could simply find another job.

Well, if it's the same story, I guess the liberal media isn't responsible, right?

How exactly do you figure exploiting someone's precarious financial position isn't exploitation, anyway?

The ~65k figure is the household income and not individual income [1]. Furthermore, household income is not evenly distributed by race, and this is relevant because 85% of the workers in this warehouse are black [2].

[1] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/29/technology/amazon-union-v...

The first article says poverty rate is 11%, which just goes to show that the "400$ expense story" is misleading (making it sound as if 40% were in trouble). I don't have time to read the details, but "poverty" is also an arbitrarily defined cut off.

The average weekly salary for American full-time workers were about $990 in 2020. Assuming 10 vacation days per year, that comes out to $49 500. Note also that only about 110 million Americans are employed full-time. The remaining are either underemployed, students, minors, retirees, etc.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

Reply on news.ycombinator.com