Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

I'm so torn on this.

On the one hand Amazon and its bad labor relations and squeezing the last drop out of everyone and discarding ones who have no juice left. Looking the other way on fraud in their marketplace. Copycatting brands and underselling them with inferior copies (the camera bag[1] for example but many others).

On the other hand, organized labor and its infamous corruption, bullying, and drive to have everyone do as little as possible (sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw, I'll be back Monday morning to do that for you) totally undermining progress, improvement and development.

It's hard to pick sides on this one. Both are quite bad and unlikable.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545421

View on HN

> undermining progress, improvement, and development

An honest question - whose progress? Whose development? Do workers benefit by turning that screw at 5:01?

There are many companies where laborers do benefit by having the freedom to work outside the box to benefit their careers, learn, take pride and ownership in a long-term project, foster their own creativity, and in aggregate lift the local community. I’d fully understand your point in such circumstances, and agree that certain unions work against those less-tangible benefits for their members, at times in excess.

But Amazon specifically has designed itself to destroy alignment between warehouse workers and company goals. Promotion from the warehouse floor is actively discouraged (this is well documented), turnover is expected and encouraged well beyond industry norms, tasks are rote and automatically fed, no project is long enough to foster ownership, no operating procedure or penny of local profit not controlled by corporate from afar. Does this sound like an a situation where labor and company interests are at all aligned?

Amazon will not change this status quo at the behest of any single individual at any level; it sees no strategic value in empowering any such individual. Organizing is the natural consequence of such a situation.

>An honest question - whose progress? Whose development? Do workers benefit by turning that screw at 5:01?

Yes these sort of tropes are being brought out repeatedly, is there any evidence they actually exist? Let's talk teachers union who people like to criticise a lot. There's still plenty of excellent teachers around who go above and beyond for their students (and if you are invested in what you're doing teaching is definitely not a 9-5 job). So they are not prevented by their union from doing that?

I think this is all from the expectation of employees to go above and beyond for their employers. Just do this 10min extra unpaid work because it really needs to be done... On the other hand, no company or contractor will do that, they will charge you handsomely.

Depends very much on the locations.

I've worked in union shops where I wasn't union, and I was warned to ensure nobody is watching when I plug in my test equipment for the embedded system I was working on. In a different location for the same company the union guys were cool and would pretend not to see me do that (same union, just different workplace culture in different cities).

> An honest question - whose progress? Whose development? Do workers benefit by turning that screw at 5:01?

Companies provide service to society. They don't exist in a vacuum. Hence it'd be good if workers are aware of the big picture and don't just stubbornly antagonize their own employers, as if they're in a battle against one another, rather than in cooperation.

In Japan when Fukushima blew out, old employees where there to contain the disaster. Do you think they did it for their personal benefit? How far would we go as a society if we're complete egoists? Not that far.

>Companies provide service to society.[...] How far would we go as a society if we're complete egoists? Not that far.

And yet publicly traded companies are legally bound to maximize the profit for the stock holders.

They’re not.

Japan has a different corporate culture to the US. Lifetime employment is still attainable, and company loyalty goes both ways. It's not really fair to compare that to the US, where it's primarily about the bottom line. In this culture, you can't fault workers for looking out for their own interests first.

So the argument that it should be all about the bottom line in the US is that in the US it's always all been about the bottom line. Circular argument is circular.

It's really hard to change a culture because of the vicious cycle that you have pointed out.

There is a difference between operating a nuclear power plant and stuffing random shit into a box. I'm not really sure the latter contributes to any measure of "progress" beyond Amazon's bottom line. It's a weird position to take that unionizing Amazon warehouses would detract from society. I'd say that for the thousands of warehouse floor workers, who are also members of society, it would move things very much forward.

What about 2-day or next day deliveries? Would unions agree to the change in work necessary to achieve these SLAs?

Do we need shoes or screwdrivers delivered next day? Doubt it. But that's only one aspect. These innovations allow for other things to be possible (grocery delivery, time sensitive deliveries, lowered costs, due to efficiencies, innovations in alternative delivery methods, etc.)

They’re still possible. Not everything has to be done at the lowest possible poverty wage. It’s not as though those savings are being passed on to you in the first place.

Staff up, and pay staff appropriately.

> There is a difference between operating a nuclear power plant and stuffing random shit into a box.

Are you under the impression that running a power plant day to day is a glamorous job? Funny.

No, the difference I’m alluding to is regarding the criticality of the power plant vs. stuffing shit into a box. Amazon can pay its workers more to fix the shortage without detracting from some notion of “progress.”

> sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw, I'll be back Monday morning to do that for you

Alternative view: "I have a life outside work, now I am free to enjoy that life as a normal human being."

It is devastating to me to see people thinking that to go home and take care of yourself and your loved ones is "undermining progress, improvement and development".

Your family and friends are important, your company is going to fire you just to make share price go up before the end of the quarter. Even if firing you is hurting "progress, improvement and development" of the company in the long term.

Which is why I sometimes leave early. The union guys who finish early stand at the door until the 5:00 bell rings because they are not allowed to leave early even if their work for the day is done, while as a non-union employee if I'm done a bit early I get to leave. Sometimes I work until 5:30, sometimes I'm out at 4:30. It all works out.

We are talking about Amazon warehouse and logistics workers here. They wear location tracking smartphones and get fired by text message if their bathroom breaks are too frequent.

You are describing the difference between hourly and non-hourly employees, not union vs. non-union. Many companies won’t let hourly employees work past the end of your shift because of overtime rules regardless of whether or not there’s a union.

If it's an emergency, pay overtime for that screw. If you regularly need a second shift, hire one. Understaffing is a problem caused by management and it's not the worker's fault or their family's fault if you can't make 40 hours of use out of them in 40 hours or pay a little overtime.

> sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw, I'll be back Monday morning to do that for you

Honest question. If you're paid hourly and have job security, what's wrong with saying that? Pros don't work for free, right?

So if I'm not in a union (salaried or hourly) I can do someone a favor or someone can do me a favor.

Union members get "ratted out" by others if they go "above and beyond". There is no flexibility.

> There is no flexibility.

That's fair. The "I only sweep floors, if you want mopping it's another department" type of union inflexibility is terrible for productivity. But I think your scenario is an example of inflexibility that's completely warranted.

What you describe is a fallacy... it's more like: "I'm a heavy machinery operator, not a welder; if you need a weld, you'll need to requisition a welder."

I've been in places where you can't move your PC to the other side of your desk.

A long time ago in grad school I had a administrative assistantship in the university's physical plant. My boss (basically the head of IT for the department) and I moved a couple of computers between buildings as they had actively used applications on them (this was before the web) and we couldn't wait for someone from building services come and do it.

The next day I was in his office when we got a nice visit from the Teamsters steward flanked literally by two huge guys glaring at us. The steward told us not to do it again. He did back off when we told him we walked the computers between the buildings - if we would have drove them between buildings he said they would have filed a union grievance.

Depends on the Union and local work culture. Just like if you aren't part of a union (Amazon workers get "ratted out" by others if they "go on a bathroom break", as a hypothetical).

I think it's more the fact that there aren't alternative options.

Other comments have already explored how America has a "union monopoly" system for lack of a better term: where unions exist, the labor pool that is non-union is often extinguished.

> what's wrong with saying that?

If the alleged screw is flooding your home and you're on the phone with a contractor who says "it'll be Monday morning", it's safe to assume that the contractor feels safe because there's no competition out there that will come out to finish the job due to the union monopoly or other rules/regulations that the unions have established to make them the only turn screwers.

Unions in the United States gained a bad rap from things like this, and I think that's what the OP's intent was with their comment.

> If the alleged screw is flooding your home and you're on the phone with a contractor who says "it'll be Monday morning",

Free market would dictate you say back: "double pay" or hire another contractor.

Which you can't do because the rates are established in law and the only people who are allowed to do the job are people with a certificate that is only provided by the union. Regulatory capture happens with unions as well as with bosses.

Who told you that?, sources?

Overtime pay is a thing everywhere including union jobs.

I'm based in Europe and i get overtime pay if I'm forced to work late/weekends. One of the nice things of unions everywhere.

If i dont want to or cant work late, there are colleagues that will jump at 150% pay rate.

Companies can hire contractors at any point but these expect much higher wages to deal with the almost no protections and doing their own taxes.

Otherwise employer could hire a second shift as they do with manufacturing and pay normal wage there.

There is no such thing as union certificate or things of the sort. Union is there just to negotiate basic contract applied company wide and make sure you are not abused.

Working in software.

You are going to deal with overtime for one screw that takes you 30 seconds? Sure if we are talking about a lot of time, but one screw is a few seconds and you go home.

I thought we were talking reasonable people. No reasonable person would do what you said - leave a 30 second task to put in one screw for another day.

And even if they did, if it only takes 30 seconds and no extra effort... why can't the person asking do it or get someone else?

Also, if you need to leave on the hour to make other commitments why should boss be able to force you to stay without compensation? (bus schedule, pick up children and spend time with them, pick up spouse, go to concerts, meet friends etc)

Taking it to the extreme is what you already see in shops and warehouses, etc, where they need to stay, unpaid, for a couple of hours to secure things and clean up...

> No reasonable person would do what you said - leave a 30 second task to put in one screw for another day...why can't the person asking do it or get someone else?

From what I've heard of US unions (never been in one myself) they're quite strict about not allowing this kind of thing. Certain tasks can only be performed by particular union employees. I suppose they consider it a slippery slope. But again, it's also possible that in the story we're discussing the union member just didn't like this person enough to do them a favor.

I’ve worked in a union shop before, and that’s not how it worked. When push came to shove people would work overtime (and actually be paid for it!). I remember one department was under intense pressure for months, and the people there were literally running around to get their jobs done.

That was my point. Union contracts generally have an overtime clause. If they don't then saying "See you Monday" a completely rational thing to do.

Amazon could avoid this by not squeezing so hard.

Over squeezing labor leads to pushback.

In this community, I think you can say, "The more you tighten your grip, Bezos, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Amazon _has_ avoided this by not squeezing so hard. They have no unionized employees. The latest vote lost by a 75-25 margin, humiliating the union organizing the process.

The Teamsters wants to force this issue in the political arena because they can't win votes.

There are a lot of reasons not to take much away from the Bessemer vote. Well ahead of the vote there were lots of signs that the organizers hadn't, you know, organized.[0] Humiliated, absolutely, but by their own ineptitude.

[0] https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/bessemer-alabama-...

Really? This was national news for weeks. President Biden flew down there and talked to them!

I cannot possibly imagine what more organizing could have accomplished.

i think the public media publicity campaign was well organized but the on the ground campaigning to the actual warehouse workers themselves was not. IE there were more interested in a national story and just assumed they had the workers in the bag.

Organizing involves building close relationships amongst a larger and larger network of people. The President flying somewhere doesn't do that. The article describes this.

The Democratic party often confuses activism and media presence with organizing, and focuses on get-out-the-vote and media strategy without having done the work of organizing strongly-tied networks on the ground. The Obama campaign was the exception, because Obama had worked as an on-the-ground organizer.

If they can't organize a vote campaign, do you really want them negotiating your employment terms against a company like Amazon?

Yes? Organizing is very very hard. There are lots of people bad at organizing who still are capable negotiators and who understand my interests as a worker and how to protect them.

The union in this case isn't some cash-poor startup with people filling multiple roles that they aren't qualified for. They certainly have more than enough resources and experience to do much better... or, as the case may be, to start with a different location that would have been more receptive.

Resources maybe, but not necessarily experience. Very little actual organizing has been done over the past several decades. McAlevey's book No Shortcuts is worth a read on this front.

Also, the RWDSU is not affiliated with the Teamsters. This is a different (and much better-resourced) union looking to step up and do the work better.

The 5:01 is probably exaggerated a bit, most people won't be too anal about doing a little overtime if they're nearly done for the day.

But having those protections in place is important, because an employer may start taking advantage of it - slippery slope argument, but bear with me.

A common example - not just in the US but on my side of the pond as well - is closing time. There's a lot of people that get paid until closing time (e.g. 9PM in the DIY store I worked at as a part-time job during my college days), but, nobody goes home until the last people are out and the day's take is put in the (time locked) safe (and there'll be a security guy waiting outside to make sure it's safe, then he'll drive around back to make sure everybody's out and safe). If all goes smoothly, that's 20 minutes of unpaid overtime - but it can be more.

That's just one example, but I'm sure it's relatable to a lot of people. Think kitchen staff who work until close, but have to clean up and prepare for the next day outside of their normal working hours.

TL;DR: Don't work for free, your employer is not your friend, your time is worth more to you than his and his business is.

I'd err on the side of Amazon because the free market is more likely to address their practices.

My hunch is that corruption, bullying, etc don't go away. Organizations don't stop doing those things unless they lose their power.

On the other hand, if a company like Amazon is treating workers poorly, then a competitive environment should fix that in the long run. E.g. if Amazon overworks its people while other companies don't, either Amazon has to pay more and more if its working conditions are worse and worse (relative to peers), or it'll have to improve working conditions to keep its workers.

Unions are the product of free markets.

So there were no unions in the Soviet Union and no unions in North Korea?

That’s good to know.

You're being obtuse. Unions in the USSR and unions in a free market capitalist system serve different purposes.

There is some truth to what you're saying though: unions exist where there is a struggle between labor and private ownership. The existence of them in a "socialist" mode of production (barring some kind of syndicalist setup in which economic governance happens specifically through unions) seems superfluous and suggests that private ownership had not been abolished but was relegated to the state/bureaucracy instead of wealthy holders of capital.

Except the harm is not theoretical, and such a market correction doesn’t happen overnight. People don’t deserve to be ground to a pulp while your simulation plays out.

> People don’t deserve to be ground to a pulp while your simulation plays out.

IMHO you're making a judgment about what other people want, but those people's actions suggest otherwise. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on its workers, and those workers are free to work at other places: a different company's warehouse, a non-warehouse job, etc. They are choosing to stay at Amazon for some reason, so it seems like the bundle of Amazon's work intensity and its wages & benefits is worth it to a lot of people.

As an analogy, if Google hypothetically paid $200k to engineers for 40-hour weeks while Amazon paid $400k to engineers for 70-hour weeks, then there would be engineers that prefer one and engineers that prefer the other. But these engineers are not forced to work at either of those companies. In this scenario, an engineer at Amazon might complain about 70-hour weeks and poor work-life balance, but if they're working there then they find those negative conditions worth the compensation.

Your analogy is useful, but the numbers have a lot to do with the conclusion. We're not talking about people choosing a Tesla or a beach house, we're talking about people choosing between living in section 8 + riding the bus, or living in a one bedroom + owning a vehicle.

I grew up (middle-class) in Alabama, in a smaller town than Bessemer; I have known people in these situations. Warehouse workers there are paid $15/hr, double the minimum wage. That warehouse employs thousands of people. Folks stay in these jobs because, if they left, they would drop (far) below the Federal poverty line. There aren't enough $15/hr jobs elsewhere to go around. So, enduring the hard working conditions is a very different choice for these workers vs. someone making $400,000/year in an engineering role.

Everyone has a right to make this call for themselves, but there are limits.

Except Amazon is a monopoly, that all but obliterated all major competitors. They need a much bigger workforce, can afford to keep their wages comfortably higher, while extorting whatever conditions for it.

If Amazon has a monopoly on something, then what is it? I can not think of anything.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Amazon has a monopoly on online retail: If prices are low and wages are high, what is the problem?

> sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw

If you're getting paid for 9-5 with no overtime, why should you put in unpaid effort if you don't want to?, if you want to, all on you.

Rephrasing would be: what would happen if your boss asked you to work a few more hours overtime unpaid?

> sorry, it's 5:01 and

You are entitled to your time. If you're set to work til 5, then your employer should pay you a minute's overtime if they need you to turn that screw.

Why would you volunteer for someone else's money-making venture?

> "corruption, bullying, and drive to have everyone do as little as possible" <-- this exact same verbiage could be used to describe the current state of affairs sans unionization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com