"Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, is using a heat map to track stores that may be at risk of unionization"
"a “diversity index” represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity"
https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/10/31/h1b-visa-ban-google...
In October 2020 Google, Amazon & 44 Tech Companies Sued the US Govt Over the H1B Visa Ban
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/h-1b...
European countries make up only 2.8% of the H1B intake.
What we've seen from Amazon's anti-union efforts this round is that they are not sophisticated enough to be pulling some kind of machiavellian plot.
If unions are going to work in America, they have be able to navigate a diverse group of people. The American working class is incredibly diverse, more than the country itself. It's a challenge but it's not insurmountable. But the left/union approach to diversity and the corporate approach are completely different from each other and have different material motivations.
For instance, diversity programs are invariably justified by reference to needing a diversity of perspectives or ideas. But the resulting personnel policies are never about ideas, they're always about gender and skin colour. In fact the typical diversity program often results in hiring lots of ideologically homogenous people.
That disparity between claimed goals and actual goals invariably makes it appear like there's some sort of hidden agenda at work.
Study the working class movements from the mid 19th century to the 1970s. Look at their coalitions and demands.
Study the woke movement of the 2015-2021. One was pushing for collective unity and demanding concrete rights, including healthcare, working hour limits and unionization rights. The other wants to fire racists and change language. Which would you prefer if you were a corporate board member with the interests of your company at heart?
Which is more of a threat, a movement that demands corporate tax pay for a single payer healthcare model, or a movement which demands we make it easier to fire people accused of racism?
"Concrete" things like healthcare reform, voting reform, policing reform, tax reform, immigration reform, and women's rights have been front and center. You'd have to be looking through a very distorted lens to not see it.
And once it does, one of the most major lines exploited against economic and social progress becomes much more difficult to exploit.
It's rare in the economic left to reject identity politics entirely (outside of some wretched nazbol twitter types), because people like CTH, Adolph Reed, Mark Fisher, Barbara Smith, Bernie Sanders, etc. all recognize the need for navigating identity in left movements. Where they reject neoliberal identity politics is in accepting a need for a greater collective goal.
Case in point: Vox writers, who eventually unionized, spent years publishing articles arguing for laws limiting the gig economy, like this one:
"The gig economy has grown big, fast — and that’s a problem for workers" [1]
Three years after the above article was published, its agenda succeeded, and a new anti-gig-economy law was passed in California. That law in turn forced Vox to let go of hundreds of gig economy freelancers, thus reducing competition to the full-time journalists who used their media platform to lobby for the law:
"Vox Media to cut hundreds of freelance jobs ahead of changes in California gig economy laws" [2]
[1] https://www.vox.com/2016/10/26/13349498/gig-economy-profits-...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/vox-media-to-cut-hundreds-of...
Nobody? Certainly, not the person you're responding to. This comment _almost_ feels like a non-sequitor to me. Someone saying to "keep something in mind" is _not_ them calling it a crime.
We're already pretty far down that path; too far, IMO.
Isn't that what any company should do?
I would like to think that a "good" company should also consider other factors like when they make a PR statement (things like: "is this statement a lie"?). I'd certainly have a hard time arguing that a company should lie in a PR statement, even if it appears that such a lie would be in their interests.