Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video] | Hacker News Reader

Amazon training video on handling unionizing activity (2018) [video]

youtube.com

So I did my first part in trying to support everyone who dislikes this as much as I do. I cancelled my Prime and I will try to not purchase anything from Amazon for a year. It's not much, but it's something.

I invite everyone to do the same.

Goodonya. Here's what I did. It's not for everyone. It was painful, awkward and led to a lot of bother... but ultimately I feel proud of myself and how the other responded.

I rejected a gift that came in an Amazon box.

Very politely, and apologetically., I said, "I'm really sorry, but I can't accept this." And why, (working conditions, monopoly etc).

It had an effect not only on myself - to make an ideological whimsy into a real and binding action - putting my skin in the game - but also on the other person who was initially embarrassed, then emboldened. It led to a memorable and positive conversation.

> It led to a memorable and positive conversation.

Was the conversation really positive? My first instinct was to think that this is incredibly awkward and harsh for the person that made the effort to buy you a gift; or to speak for myself: I would be pretty pissed if a good friend has a birthday, and I buy them an iPhone from AT&T and they refuse my gift because... <working conditions, monopoly>.

Yeah. I also make it a personal rule to never buy things on Amazon, but I can't imagine turning down a gift like this from someone.

No social movement in history has ever been powered by people being considerate about their consumption patterns. I'm not saying it's a waste of effort, but I am saying this is unlikely to be sufficient to any cause. In fact, I'd posit that it has a far greater (and largely negative) impact on your life than it has a positive one on other peoples' lives.

As a counterpoint, here's a brief history of social movements that were powered (in part) by considerate consumption patterns:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott

They were organized of course, which starts by communicating your cause and action to other individuals.

Boycotts are precisely the type of ineffective political action to which I'm referring, so I'm not sure i understand your point.

To pick an extreme example, should you steal something that's lying out in the open in a dodgy area because someone else will if you don't? Some things you do for yourself, and an action isn't required to have an effect for it to be moral.

A far greater (and less needlessly entrapping) commitment to that would be to drop all traffic from AWS. Watch the Internet break, and never contribute to Amazon’s bottom line.

This person had no idea about your beliefs and you pick the receipt of a gift as the moment to inform them through rejection? That seems rather mean for something where Bezos has already been paid.

Ever since AWS has become so ubiquitous it's hard. Bezos make more money from my OSS work from people using it on AWS than I'll ever make myself, that's the reality of OSS work these days

Thats how it is for every job though the seller make more money the close they are to the end user. The baker makes more for his bread than the millar makes for his flour but he makes more than the farmer does for his grain. Each step adds value and makes a larger share. Your software without the hardware and infrastructure isn't as valuable to the end user on its own.

>A far greater (and less needlessly entrapping) commitment to that would be to drop all traffic from AWS. Watch the Internet break, and never contribute to Amazon’s bottom line.

"Watch the Internet break" basically makes this a non-starter for everyone.

I agree with your sentiment, but equally with the other reply that points out how this may backfire and embarrass the gift giver.

I've previously turned down Amazon gift cards at things like social games nights, quizzes etc in the past and asked instead for the equivalent value to be donated to charity. In this case I think there's less risk of embarrassing the giver (there's no personal connection) but hopefully achieves something similar to your intent.

Gift cards in general are a scam, I never understood why giving money is a problem.

Because people tend to be encouraged not to handle cash anymore by much of payment infra being centered around cards/metadata resale.

I said money not cash. Paypal or bank transfers are also money

A Paypal or similar transfer is also money...

I like getting Alexa devices every holiday and putting them straight into the garbage without unboxing.

For those that want to follow, what are good online shopping alternatives?

I find that most people I talk to are drawn to Amazon simply because Amazon has managed to set an expectation of fast deliver, often as little as same-day delivery in areas that have a warehouse nearby (like the one I live in). I make every effort to shop local, or find alternative places to order online, but one cannot argue the convenience Amazon has created when it comes to speed and selection. I say that being an old fart who remembers when 6-8 weeks was standard delivery time.

Note I am not defending Amazon, abd frankly, I despise what they have done. The warehouse in my town was build about 6 years ago, and it has definitely had an impact on small businesses combined with the presence of chain retail giants. In most cases, when I need a specific tool for a job, or am trying to find out-of-season product (both happened recently), I have no choice but to turn to Amazon.

This may speak to the larger problem of the busy life we have built (or allowed to be built for us?), but perhaps that is another discussion.

Check the more direct producers/distributors. Either the producer itself is likely to list the shops stocking their stuff, or sell it directly. Worst case, just search for "buy (the thing you want) (location)" and you'll likely find a place.

Otherwise, eBay is quite good around my area.

I recently switched to Walmart Plus. For me, on the whole, it's better:

- Shipping times are faster than Amazon. I do consistently see same-day delivery, whereas Amazon almost never did, and had frequent delays (in my area)

- Less of a problem with comingling / fakes

- Returns work better.

- So far, no broken / damaged packaging. Amazon would e.g. toss delicate items, a heavy bottle of detergent, and sharps in the same box with no packaging, with the expected results.

On the downside:

- It's slightly more expensive. On the whole, went accounting for broken / damaged items, fakes, etc., I still think I come out ahead.

- Less selection of esoteric items. I just order those from Aliexpress, Amazon, or eBay (and wait until I get up to $35 free shipping for the former). Amazon never shipped those quickly in either case.

This was not based on unions or ethics. Amazon worked great for me through 2020. It broke in 2020, and since then, I've had consistent issues. Customer service is also no longer empowered to resolve issues.

Yeah, this one works okay for you, but I don't see someone making a switch from Amazon to Walmart if they're concerned about unions or ethics.

Target, Costco, and Newegg (for certain items) come to mind has having good prices and return policies.

Costco in particular, treat their employees quite well.

Target is also notorious for union-busting tactics.

In Poland, the major competitor to Amazon is Allegro (https://allegro.pl/). It's an online shopping platform that is not as centralised as Amazon. It's more of a marketplace where both small and larger sellers can list their items. In tandem with InPost (which has lockers spread around entire country), Allegro creates a great and efficient online shopping experience. The only drawback for me really is that sometimes if you order a numer of things, they will all come shipped separately.

> The only drawback for me really is that sometimes if you order a numer of things, they will all come shipped separately.

Amazon does this too. My fiancée frequently places one order for 5-6 items and receives 3-4 different packages throughout the week.

I often buy things on ebay. At least here in germany it's filled with offers from small to medium sized companies that offer usually cheaper or equivalent prices to amazon.

I do find it amusing that back in the day eBay was considered a scammers paradise and now I find it more trustworthy then Amazon.

> For those that want to follow, what are good online shopping alternatives?

In Blighty, Argos.

No counterfeit stuff (which frankly, should be a given), same day delivery and a good network of bricks'n'mortar shops (with pick-up and drop-off) if you need it.

http://www.argos.co.uk/

If you are concerned by the ethics of Amazon I don’t see how Argos is a step up:

https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/news/argos-buzz-bingo-a...

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/business/union-takes-l...

I often use Amazon to search & then just search the brand online, often you can but direct from them

Generally speaking, convenience is king. I find a lot of like-minded people will easily overlook or not even consider what is happening behind the scenes. There is a tradeoff for low prices/convenience and it's not always obvious.

I cancelled Prime about 6 months ago and I thought it would be difficult, but it's actually been fine.

I shopped at Whole Foods for over a decade and there are staples I thought I couldn't find elsewhere. I discovered through a combination of Trader Joe's, my local grocery store, and Aldi, I found replacements for everything, items I like better, and I save way more money!

As for non-grocery items, I'll often try to buy from the manufacturer directly, even if that means paying a little bit more. If I can't find something directly, I'll check Walmart, Target or other established retailers and usually can find something for a comparable price.

I've also made a slow shift to buying used items. For books, on eBay I can often find them used, in like-new condition for a fraction of the cost at Amazon and with free shipping. It's a gamble and sometimes I get books with highlighted pages or cosmetic damage, but it's rare.

And when Amazon is only the cost effective way to purchase something or I can only find it on Amazon, I'll wait until I can hit $25 for free shipping and wade through Amazon's dark patterns in the checkout process. Turns out, "standard shipping" still ships in 2 days because I'm guessing logistically it's better to just keep inventory flowing with all other Prime purchases. My wife managed PTO orders for teachers at our local school through their non-Prime Amazon account... guess what, every order shipped "early" anyway and received within 2 days. Prime is kind of a scam IMO if fast shipping is the draw (although I never utilized other value-add services like Prime Video or Music).

When someone asks me about Amazon and I mention I don't have Prime, I often get shocked responses. I'm not trying to actively dissuade people from Amazon/Prime if they like it, but I'm hoping it will get people thinking.

Convenience is a hell of a drug.

If you’re turning to trader joe’s to boycott anti-union behavior, I have bad news for you…

Uh oh, just did a search... well that's too bad.

I guess my point still stands where I'm not buying all my eggs from 1 marketplace.

For non Amazon books, check out bookshop.org if it's in your country yet, they're created to provide an alternative to Amazon for brick & mortar independent retailers. They basically manage inventory & shipping for them and you can direct part of your sale to a specific shop or let be shared among all members.

The best and most helpful thing you could actually do would be to unionize, yourself, and engage in illegal sympathy strikes.

I love Amazon and will continue to use their store. Just adding some balance here. I don’t immediately watch a clip and decide to protest.

The reaction to this specific clip is merely a synecdoche of the reaction to Amazon's labor practices writ large. If you were following the news about the unionization efforts at Amazon warehouses at all you would know the lengths to which Amazon makes their employees' lives painful. Extremely high injury rates compared to other warehouse jobs, the complete dehumanization experienced in the automated system of quantifying "operational excellence" or whatever euphemism they want to call "invasive tracking and computer-defined evaluation", etc. And if you have friends who work in Amazon corporate, you would know the culture there is generally (though there are exceptions) one that encourages petty politicking, ruthless subjugation to inappropriate KPIs, and the negging-overwork-burnout pipeline engendered by the management style encouraged from above.

Amazon succeeds by extracting ruthlessly in all domains. Generally when people understand the scope of these issues, it's only the Land acolytes and the psychopaths who consider Amazon's rise as "progress" unqualified.

So … this clip is the first bad thing you’ve seen about Amazon and its business practices? Are you one of the 10,000 that is just learning about Amazon today?

I won't be.

Out of all the big tech companies out there, Amazon is the one that delivers the most value to me. I have my gripes with them, but overall I pay them and they send a product I want to my house and that's it.

I am also not fond of unions and understand their position. Them trying to prevent unions from forming in their company isn't something I'm up in arms about, I'd do the same thing if I ran a big company.

> I am also not fond of unions

I can understand this stance from the POV of a strong armed union monopolizing an industry and preventing small struggling businesses from making ends meet.

These are but lowly workers being exploited by a large corporation that makes hand-on-fist even in hard times. The power imbalance is huge and the cost of a wage increase so small respectively, I can't quite grok why you'd not be for it.

Are they being exploited? Do you mean paid for their voluntary labor, which is ethical exploitation, or something else?

There's a strong push in the media for this, when that happens I get suspicious.

And again, I'm just generally opposed to unions. I don't like them, I don't think they are usually a positive development.

> Our business model is built on speed, innovation, and customer obsession. Things not generally associated with unions.

Unions are there to stop employers using their might to exploit their workers - sorry - associates. Unions and management have a valid stake in the company. No company, no workers, no profit.

Unions are there to take care of the interests of their members. This is undeniably good for their members, but I'd like to remind you that it's not always good for outsiders.

For example, the union of California's prison guards (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) have helped lobby for the "three strikes" rule to get more people in prison: https://academic.oup.com/book/11009/chapter-abstract/1593367...

Arguably prisons should not be privatized in the first place. There are problems associated with prison and police unions in general but this specific problem is largely a result of prison guards having a direct incentive to want more people in prison.

From the union's perspective, isn't it good to have more prisoners whether or not the prison is privatized?

> Arguably prisons should not be privatized in the first place.

Private prisons house ~8% of all prisoners in the US.

They'd still want that in public-sector prisons. They still need prisoners to stay employed.

People who work for the government still, for some idiotic reason, are allowed to form unions.

There is also a case to be made regarding the behaviour of teaching unions prioritising their members over the children they teach.

> Unions are there to stop employers using their might to exploit their workers

in theory yes. in practice it gets murky.

Do you have examples of murky? I can think of police and prison unions but those are a symptom of an entirely different set of problems and aren't really about "unions". Any others?

Teacher's unions becoming so strong that schools cannot fire bad teachers, and in the end it's the students who pay for it.

Sometimes unions make bad calls in individual situations, sure. But for all of the myriad of big issues that exist in public school systems, I don't see unions as being the fundamental source for system-wide issues. Here are some issues I identify: - Money. Schools just often lack the financial resources they need to provide a robust and well-rounded education. - Bureaucracy. Public schools are heavily regulated in complicated ways, from the local school board, to state education board, to federal laws. When changes need to happen, it can be hard to figure out how to change something, or to find people with enough energy and stubborness to push through the bureaucracy. I guess union contracts would be included in the web of bureaucracy, but it is my experience that teacher unions are just as often the vehicle with enough energy and experience to push for beneficial changes. - Culture war nonsense. The education of our children is an emotional and sensitive issue for people, understandbly so. Unfortunately, public schools are becoming a battle ground for people to "fight" in whatever culture war issue is being roused up at the time (discussions on gender, critical race theory, book bans, prayer in schools, sexual education, military recruiters on campus, cops/school resource officers, take your pick). These issues have to be acknowledged and addresses, and it uses up real resources to do so. In the nastiest situations, individual school staff can be targeted and harassed, and in those cases it is very good to have a union to support staff.

There are specific local issues I'd like to provide as anecdotes, but it's local and newsworthy enough that my IRL identity would start to bleed into this online identity, which I try to keep pseudo-anonmyous. So I'll try to stick to generalities.

While I won't argue that unions get things right 100% of the time, and I would absolutely say that my child's education benefits from teachers having strong unions.

No no, it's not about and calls, unions always do what's in the interest of their members. If that means it's bad for non members, tough. Non members can form their own interest groups.

I guess I just think teachers are, on the whole, a pretty great group of people. I feel that way about most working-class people, tbh. I think we'd be a stronger society if more working people were represented by strong unions.

I think many teachers are pretty great. Yet some teachers are failing our children, and we need to be able to fire them. For me, the issue is totally about public sector unions. Public schools have a government granted monopoly on education. Who is on the other side of the bargaining table with the union representatives? It's parents, or the representatives that they voted for. Yet unions themselves are political, and they lobby those representatives. Teachers, and their friends and family are voting too. The bargaining power of parents becomes diluted. This is how teacher's unions become so strong that schools can no longer give children the quality of education they otherwise would get. Check out "Waiting for Superman" for a concrete example of how this is playing out in LA and NYC.

Well, I feel the opposite about teachers at least, I think they're mostly an awful group of people. Maybe my view is colored by my experience, or maybe by the state of education in the US. I do like most working class people, and I tend to agree with them more often than not politically.

Employers, particularly large employers, exploit there workers unless those workers unionize. That's not murky at all, it's quite well documented.

Debatable. Unions can also be seen as there to benefit current union workers only.

Milton Friedman is as libertarian as it gets, but he makes a good case about how unions only serve current employees, and have no incentive to see the business grow and serve & hire more people if it does not lead to higher wages for employees.

> no incentive to see the business grow and serve & hire more people if it does not lead to higher wages for employees

The alternative being lower wages for the same work? This argument doesn’t make sense to me, unless he implicitly agrees companies only grow by exploiting workers.

It makes sense if you don't assume any of this has anything to do with the workers benefiting long-term because Friedman doesn't care about that: being able to suppress wages gives a business more room to grow by redirecting surplus to the owners, who can choose to reinvest the money by hiring more workers or buying machines that increase the productivity per worker. Unions on the other hand would use their leverage to redirect some of that surplus back to workers by increasing wages, reducing the overall profit.

Unions can also use their leverage to mandate a better and safer working environment and reduce workloads, which reduces the short-term productivity whereas a business owner could otherwise weigh the benefits of these measures reducing churn (i.e. people being too exhausted/injured/maimed/burnt out to continue doing their job and having to be replaced) against the overall increase in productivity.

"Growth" means increasing profits. Profit means surplus from income that is not paid out to workers (wages, bonuses, etc) or spent on sustaining the business itself (operating costs, rentals, service contracts, etc). Payroll can easily be one of the biggest cost factors and productivity one of the biggest factors to income, so being able to squeeze both of these liberally makes it much easier to grow a company. This is completely tangential to the interests of the workers.

Sometimes unions will cut their nose to spite their face. In other words their demands may ultimately bring a company down (slowed innovation, resistance to change) but their directives are more immediate -higher wages, less work. These things are desirable for a worker but ultimately may doom the company. It’s not too different from not understanding balanced diets. Sure, some things taste better, are easier to prepare, but they may not be the best choice for long term health.

Unions in some other countries are less antagonistic )zero-sum)and more symbiotic (grow the pie).

Probably not a term we should use anymore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_practices but often the result of negotiations with unions.

I don't know how Milton Friedman being extremely libertarian is a reason his criticism of unions should be taken more seriously. Libertarians (in the modern political sense, i.e. right libertarians) are generally anti-union because they want free enterprise and unions interfere with the freedom of business/capital owners.

But you're right to an extent: unions are a stop gap. The better option would be collectivization, turning the business into a cooperative so all workers have a stake in the success of the company and unlike shareholders have a strong interest in its sustainability, which may in some cases involve lowering wages (to weather a loss of income during a market downturn or to allow more room for investments, not to increase profits in quarterly reports).

Not only that, it's also possible for current employees to get the short end of the stick after union negotiations, possibly leading to the end of their job after many years of employment.

Here the long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpwVwFxyk4

If anything, watching the long version makes it even worse. Regardless of what one may think of unions, them portraying this video as some sort of objective (mandatory?) training session really feels dirty. You do not choose words such as "warning signs" and "vulnerability to organising" by accident. Personal "favourites" would probably be the "Is this comment a warning sign or an innocent interaction?" training and advice such as "By being silent at times in a conversation, an associate may divulge information rather than you interrogating them (which is illegal)" and "Be a regular in the break room so that you can not be accused of only being there to monitor union activity when it occurs".

The "Threaten. Interrogate. Promise. Spy." (TIPS) section where they explain how to legally do those things is fucking crazy.

For some reason I thought that intentionally looking for ways to circumvent laws in this way was kinda illegally

It starts reasonable (okay I can understand their position) and as it goes on it becomes more dystopian

“early signs of associate disengagement should be reported”

“Living wage”, “grievance”, and “contract” are so-called “union words” according to this training.

My mouth is agape.

These are words and phrases I openly use with colleagues in exactly the setting the video implies and I’m an non-unionised office worker.

Maybe that means I’m itching for a union? /s

It sounds like you're wielding "job marketplace bargaining power" and/or "structural strategic bargaining power" to pursue the same goals that unionized workers without those assets to leverage pursue via "associational bargaining power."

> Contentions about the state of world labor are based on assumptions about the impact of contemporary globalization on workers' bargaining power. A useful starting point for differentiating types of workers' bargaining power is Erik Olin Wright's (2000: 962) distinction between associational and structural power. Associational power consists of "the various forms of power that result from the formation of collective organization of workers" (most importantly, trade unions and political parties). Structural power, in, con- trast, consists of the power that accrues to workers "simply from their location... in the economic system." Wright further divides "structural" power into two subtypes. T h e first subtype of structural power (which we shall call marketplace bargaining power) is the power that "results directly from labor markets." Thee second subtype of structural power (which we shall call workplace bargaining power) is the power that results "from the strategic location of a particular group of workers within a key industrial sector."

> Marketplace bargaining power can take several forms including (1) the possession of scarce skills that are in demand by employers, (2) low levels of general unemployment, and (3) the ability of workers to pull out of the labor market entirely and survive on nonwage sources of income. Workplace bargaining power, on the other hand, accrues to workers who are enmeshed in tightly integrated production processes, where a localized work stoppage in a key node can cause disruptions on a much wider scale than the stoppage itself. Such bargaining power has been in evidence when entire assembly lines have been shut down by a stoppage in one segment of the line, and when entire corporations relying on the just-in-time delivery of parts have, been brought to a standstill by railway workers' strikes.[0]

0. Beverly J. Silver, "The Forces of Labor"

ah yes, my first job was at office depot and most of my training video was this, basically. they also taught us how to profile people and had us follow poors around the store incessantly asking "what may i help you with today?"

May I ask, when you ask someone that, what are the expected answers and what are the courses of action?

that part wasn't really fleshed out haha, the goal was to make them so uncomfortable they either buy something cheap or walk out the door to avoid the awkwardness. we weren't allowed to do anything to actually stop them

Slide 2 says it all: business model = speed, innovation, customer obsession.

Worker safety not only isn't priority #1 -- it's completely absent !!!

Let alone the broader concept of employee "well-being."

Think about it: large employers of course optimize employee happiness and turnover ("regrettable losses"). Like Henry Ford reducing parts cost until the car breaks down uniformly [1], companies like Amazon and Walmart reduce pay/benefits and working conditions, until they cannot recruit enough workers.

This is why we have labor laws and why unions exist.

Absolutely disgusting. To claim this is not anti-union is just hilarious, how can they get away with that? It looks like something out of American Factory.

What a beautiful example of propaganda, in the truest sense of the term.

The guitar intro is folksy, the guy is warm and lovely, and _excited_ to have us at this training.... it's about your "success".

Success of course, is not getting fired for being a collaborator with counter-revolutionary "associates" who reject Generalissimo Uberführer Bezos inspired vision and "history making" five year masterplan for "direct working relationships".

I can honestly imagine this in a museum of the 21st Century one day, like how you can go to the British Museum and watch 1938 films of "doctors" measuring Jew's heads for criminal degeneracy.

The Museum of Neoliberalism, perhaps?

https://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/museumofneoliberal...

Years 2020 and 2021 are rich for topic about propaganda. I never understood why there was something like holocaust in history. After covid, I understand how fear, media and oppression shape behavior.

What bothers me more is question, if we can ever learn from history.

I think human nature has a floor and ceiling. Capacity for good and bad that everyone shares. And I think people underestimate (or overestimate?) the floor of human nature. They think its higher than it is. And that everyone shares it.

Thats not to say human nature is bad. Its a spectrum.

The one thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history

If I was leaking that I'd be afraid of Amazon including steganography in the video or sound sources, they have the resources to do that to identify leaks.

Fair, though it's simultaneously showing the risk is losing a terrible job.

Maybe there's some merit to old smartphones with bad camera/audio quality.

I have so many ambivalent feelings about the whole IT / Silicon Valley sector.

Although many people are interested and even passionate about technology, I feel we can’t look away from the bigger picture in which it operates.

I support a startup - that wants to ethical - on AWS, owned by a union buster that exploits people and - like many other companies - gets rich through wage theft.

Airbnb has been a negative influence on the housing market, so people can’t buy or rent a home.

Uber, well, do I even need to discuss that one?

The book “Palo Alto” by Malcolm Harris shows the historical context for Silicon Valley and damn it’s beyond the pale. If you are in IT I think you should read it.

But in the end, though, it’s not about big tech, it’s about our centuries old nemesis:

Capitalism.

> Airbnb has been a negative influence on the housing market

airbnb exposed the fact the societies are full of nimbys and politicians are useless. all while providing a good alternative to hotels.

> Uber, well, do I even need to discuss that one?

uber is amazing. it completely undercut the monopolies of the taxi companies. it provides an amazing service at a reasonable price.

> our centuries old nemesis: Capitalism.

you're referring to the the biggest driver of wealth, education and health in the history of humanity as a nemesis? humans are, right now, the richest, most educated and healthiest they have ever been in their short history on this planet, and that is due to capital first and foremost.

> while providing a good alternative to hotels.

This was true for a couple of years before Airbnb renters realized they could bait-and-switch customers with fees at checkout.

I will never forget making it to the checkout for an Airbnb in Memphis, seeing a $200 "service fee" (for one night!), going back, then checking the reviews and seeing that there wasn't a functioning toilet.

> Uber, well, do I even need to discuss that one?

Getting shoehorned into the back of a Kia Rio is NOT "amazing service" relative to a Crown Vic with a privacy divider.

Humans are better off now primarily because the imperial jackboot has been lifted off the neck of the india and china (which, together, contain quite a lot of people) and that has led to a rebound in their living conditions dragging up the averages.

Sure, you can call the chinese communist party the biggest driver of wealth, education, and health in our time if you want. But I view them as parasites exploiting the labour of a billion chinese people.

There is little doubt that development could proceed just as well without the exploitation and extraction performed by a layer of fabulously wealthy parasites. In fact, it would probably do better since less of the wealth would be being sequestered into nonproductive activity like luxury yachts, sex slavers, and what not, and would be available for reinvestment instead.

You really should read the book I mentioned since you seem to have zero knowledge about the larger context.

If you've got something to say, you say it. I'm not going to go find, buy, and read a book to find out what your point is.

Isn't it ironic that you reply to a remark meant for someone else showing that you also missed my point/context?

i actually read the book. or tried to. it was very poor reading, wasted a few hours of my time. but to each his own.

Airbnb is an excellent source of bed bugs, lice and fleas.

If you want to be closer to those fantastic creatures, use Airbnb.

I wonder where they find the guys selling their voice like that. Not that there is a high bar in advertising, but this is on another level.

It's a regular job. I follow a youtuber who was, before his youtube career, a voice actor among other things, and it's a job like any other. Large companies have large advertising budgets, and they usually pay better than, say, film and animation. Voice actors are often signed to agencies, they have profiles and portfolio. Voice is a product and a service, and agencies can be requested to provide samples for a request like a warm, friendly voice for a 15-minute training video. They have contracts that specify where and how the voice will be used, and if the payment is fixed, dynamic based on a business metric or success of the use, or a mix of these, and how much of that does the agency get.

What's interesting is that voices can also be exclusively licensed. You for example Mercedes can request a characteristic voice, and they pay extra so that the actor signs that they will not take another transportation related job, or even any other job for a period. This is how McDonalds has a specific, associated voiceover for every commercial over a period, for example. It becomes part of branding, like a color, a font, or a logo design.

Voice acting is not a mystical profession only partaken by the creme of the crop of Ivy League graduates.

Plenty of broke people who can talk and read are willing to say anything for $5 online

If you're willing to go up to $100, you can start hiring Hollywood actors to say greeting messages to you and your family on Cameo.

Haha, thats nice of you. Most people wouldn't think twice, and tech no higher bar than advertising... what are our tech giants anyways? but advertising tech platforms.

They can just use VALL-E or ElevenLabs to clone somebody's voice and let AI talk over these points. Trivial.

It's a job in the end, if this person didn't take it, someone else would've. If they can't find anyone, they'll just pay more or do it themselves. After all, it wasn't just the voice actor, but the animators, the script writers, and all the chain of command that was involved in this.

Morals are flexible especially when money is involved, which is a major problem with capitalism. I too would lend my voice to a clip like this if they offered me enough money.

Wouldn't be surprised if it did come straight out of Amazon Mechanical Turks.

It was very vexing to make it to the end of the video considering the anime character looks like he showed up to work on molly.

This is beyond disgusting, and definitely not acceptable. So much for being "the world's best employer".

I want to dig a hole and bury myself from the embarrassment of being associated with this company.

Who claimed that they were "the world's best employer" though? Always look at who proclaims that; it's never the employees themselves. Or if it is, it's a subselection of those that actually had something positive to say about it (e.g. higher management, IT, etc, not the warehouse staff).

It's not about the claim, but about the supposed promise [1]. You can't claim that you aim to be world's best employer and at the same time be union-busting.

Granted Jeff and Andy are ... different.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-bezos-amazon-employee-care...

Wait until you learn what happens to returned packages.

Wait, what happens to returned packages? Now I'm curious about that too.

A straight forward research led me to https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/28/amazon-returns-what-really-h...

In many cases returned packages were simply destroyed. This is also true for some other online retailers though. There are infamous videos of employees chucking various expensive items into something looking like an industrial woodchipper. Some brands explicitly don't want used/opened items to be resold because it drives down the demand/price for their goods.

At least in Germany at least some returned items seem to be refurbished though. This would explain some reviews I've been seeing of people complaining about the "new" product they ordered having clearly been opened/touched before or missing small parts like screws. I've also heard that any item that doesn't arrive unopened in its original packaging is automatically considered "used" regardless of whether it was ever even removed from the packaging.

I don't trust Amazon but I believe them that they have reduced the amount of returns they destroy, even if only due to the public pressure.

They force the "associates" to unpack them and file lots of paper work. 30% suffer paper cuts. 20% are reported to CCP for complaining about "cheap Chinese crap" and of these many end up in Chinese gulags making the amazon Dick sign stickers against their will. And 5% must attend "Jeff and Andy"'s seminar on Capitalism with Amazonian Characteristics sessions. 5 individuals last year were hospitalized with PTSD after these sessions which included self-criticism of the workers and enumerating the exceptional leadership characteristics of Amazon's central committee.

> So much for being "the world's best employer".

wut, you actually bought that until just now?

No, I am just saying that it's pure hypocrisy, and even more disgusting than it already was given the evidence.

For who? Those at HQ in Seattle? Sure. Those on the ground/in the field? lol

It is embarrassing for me, as an AWS employee and affects the moral calculus I am solving every day I decide to go to work.

I'm terribly sorry! My reply was very vague. I meant "the world's best employer" for who?

Fuck this shit I'm done with Prime.

It's a pretty rare company that wants unions. If you are running a business, you don't want to be forced into paying above-market wages, or to have disciplinary measures blocked for certain classes of employees [1], or to effectively pay protection money to a new set of bosses in an outside organization. It's really just losses all the way down. That any company would resist this should not be shocking.

Obviously, a typical guy working in a warehouse would be smart to vote for unionization, because why wouldn't he want more money and a lower probability of being fired? The chance of the place completely shuttering in the future is, for him, the big risk. (This is why public employee unions are the big survivors--the shuttering never happens.)

But I'll tell you, actually working with unions will put a stink on the whole concept. It seems like most people have a "unions=good" presumption and derive all their other views from that.

[1] That is, if an employee would normally be fired for incompetence or misconduct, a strong union would typically prevent it.

I love the part where they encourage suspicion of their employees for making friends with each other and for being interested in company policies and benefits. Definitely sounds like a healthy work environment.

> Living Wage is a Union Word.

Wait what ?!?

Paying you more than the absolute minimum is not in the interests of our Customers, Shareholders, Associates, Shareholders and our Shareholders.

Amazon actually pays significantly above the minimum wage, this frequently leads to complaints by businesses located near their plants that they have to hike their pay in response to still get workers. NYT did a nice article on this two years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/business/economy/amazon-w...

That's true, but I don't think it's altruism. Working conditions that incent people to urinate in a bottle to avoid being marked as slow...tend to mean higher wages are needed to close that deal.

Higher being relative, of course. I know from a historical perspective that warehouse work in the 1980's, after a couple of years, was enough to pay for a modest apartment and car, etc. It's not now.

> That's true, but I don't think it's altruism.

It's almost as if we already have a good system for discovering prices and wages.

Leaving aside Amazon's appalling labour record, I do think this is a brilliant strategy to lure away the highest quality workers from nearby factories and warehouses. I am sure it is part of their decision making when deciding where to build a new warehouse.

No one said Amazon is paying the minimum wage though. They're working to pay the absolute minimum while still having adequate staffing.

Competition for employees? In my capitalism?

It all reminds me of the TTRPG Paranoia:

"SERVE THE COMPUTER. THE COMPUTER IS YOUR FRIEND! The Computer wants you to be happy. II you are not happy, you may be used as reactor shielding. The Computer is crazy. The Computer is happy. The Computer will help you become happy. This will drive you crazy. Being a citizen of Alpha Complex is fun. The Computer says so, and The Computer is your friend. Rooting out traitors will make you happy. The Computer tells you so. Can you doubt The Computer?"

Better...it's also an "early warning sign". Oof.

Why do they call employees, "associates"?

Not quite doublespeak, but forced language, like how "shellshock" was changed to "battle fatigue" and then to "post-traumatic stress disorder" (George Carlin has a great set about that).

But it's really effective in changing the mindset. You're not just an employee or a laborer, you're a partner, we're in this together!

Or another take on it; in Scrum, during the retrospective, you don't list things that were shit, you list things that could be improved. This immediately puts you into a different mindset, not of things that are bad (and thus immutable), but how you can improve things. Thinking in solutions instead of problems.

Or in internet terms: removing the dislike button. Only positive enforcement, no negatives. Negatives are bad for business and conversion.

PTSD is a better term because it can come from a wide variety of sources, many of which have nothing to do with war or combat. It also recognises the disorder part explicitly (most people who go through traumatic experiences don't end up with PTSD) as well as its place in time (after the trauma, not during it, which is very unclear with 'shellshock' or 'battle fatigue').

Before employees, partners, and associates it was workers. All part of the same old euphemism treadmill. "Städare" (cleaner) becoming "lokalvårdare" (environment caretaker) is a personal favourite from my childhood in Sweden. Same darn job and pay; that fancy new name cost your employer nothing other than a new badge of course.

> "Städare" (cleaner) becoming "lokalvårdare"

We often call it "facility management" / "facility manager" in the German world.

Just to be clear: we use those exact English words in German. "Manager" in this case is just a euphemism although normally "Manager" is used exactly as in English (i.e. someone overseeing other people).

The ostensible root of it is about maintaining the theoretical legal division between contractors and first-party employees while still addressing them as the same group. The cohort of 'Amazon associates' includes for example seasonal contract workers and contracted delivery agents, neither of whom are (generally speaking) directly employed by Amazon.

Transcript:

    Welcome! We're excited to have you at this training, specifically designed to give you the tools you need for success when it comes to labor organizing. During this course, we will cover important topics such as our position on unions, associate's rights, signs of employee disengagement, and how to identify, escalate, and address associate's concerns.

    We're not anti-union, but we're not neutral either. We will boldly defend our direct relationship with associates as best for the associate, the business, and our shareholders. We do not believe unions are in the best interest of our customers, our shareholders, or most importantly: our associates. Our business model is built upon speed, innovation, and customer obsession. Things that are generally not associated with Unions. When we lose sight of those critical focus areas, we jeopardize everyone's job security. We don't bad mouth unions in general, but we will speak openly with associates about unions, including any specific concerns about particular unions involved in organizing. And we share a preference for a direct working relationship frequently and boldly, even when no organizing activity has occurred.

    You will learn about the warning signs common with early union organizing, as well as other warning signs that could indicate associate disengagement, vulnerability to organizing, or early organizing activity. While employees have the right to organize, we have the right and responsibility to share our position that a direct working relationship is better for the customer, the company, and the associate. In order to be able to do that effectively, it is critical that we recognize the early warning signs of potential organizing and escalate concerns promptly. If you see warning signs of potential organizing, notify your building HRM and GM sight leader immediately. HRM's and GM's site leaders should notify their assigned ER managers or ER principal immediately. The most obvious signs would include use of words associative with unions or union-led movements such as 'living wage' or 'steward.' Petitions or other concerted activity such as an associate purporting to speak on behalf of his or her coworkers when raising concerns. Union graffiti, union t-shirts, hats, jackets, or other clothing. Union flyers, and union visitors in or near the parking lot. Some signs are less obvious than finding the actual union flyer, but they can still indicate associate disengagement, which is itself a warning sign for potential organizing. Examples include: associates who normally aren't connected to each other suddenly hanging out together, associates normally close suddenly stop speaking to each other, groups of associates scatter when approached by management, increased associate negativity, anger, or confrontation; unusual complaints or change in passion or detail around complaints. Unusual interest in policies, benefits, employee lists, or any other company information, or any other associate activity that is out of character. For example, an associate who normally leaves promptly begins hanging out in the break room for an hour after work each day. In order to recognize warning signs, it's critical to know what an associate's normal behavior looks like - often it's the change in behavior that is the warning sign.

Who makes up this stuff?

> 'The most obvious signs would include use of words associative with unions or union-led movements such as 'living wage' or 'steward.'

Talking about making a living wage is dangerous to shareholders now?

Yes? Every dollar paid to workers is a dollar not available to be paid to shareholders. Hence people with a zero-sum mentality go to extreme lengths to keep pay down.

What a difference it makes by paying your employees more money (up to a point). Almost all businesses get more productivity out of employees by paying them more money. Which means you need fewer employees, or your business grows. Both are good. See: Cosco

Talking about worker rights is dangerous to parasites yes

In Amazon's case, it is

> We're not anti-union, but we're not neutral either.

We're not racist, but ...

Before grabbing your pitchforks, how about some proof this isn't completely made-up?

As evidence of authenticity, Amazon commented on the matter officially after Gizmodo reported this leak in 2018,[1] which I have pasted an excerpt of below.

> We’re perplexed as to why Gizmodo takes issue with a company wanting to better engage its employees, train hundreds of managers to maintain an open and direct dialogue with associates, and create channels to drive innovation on behalf of the customer in a caring and inclusive environment. The reporter clearly cherry-picked soundbites from the video to meet his editorial objective and do not align with our view on how to create career opportunities for employees.

[1] https://gizmodo.com/amazons-aggressive-anti-union-tactics-re...

It’s completely consistent with Amazon’s behaviour though. Their use of union-busting techniques is well documented

I do wonder how likes of Jeff Bezos, Andy Jassy square their claimed left-wing worldview with being anti-union.

What claimed worldview?

TIL that wanting to protect your rights is virtually indistinguishable from being a drug addict.

> were not anti-union, but we're not neutral

So pro-union?

Easily the most disingenuous double-speak in the video. They aren't anti-union in principle, just against any union at Amazon?

It's legalese; they CANNOT be anti-union because the law says so, but they can doublespeak their way around it.

This video's script has been thoroughly vetted by a team of legal experts to make sure it conveys an anti-union stance, without saying it out loud and making them liable for union busting.

How can they be banned from having a position on unions? What legislation proscribes that? How has this legislation survived legal challenges on constitutional grounds?

Does it apply to NGOs and political parties?

Not an exhaustive list, but:

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in...

I like how hidden in the middle of a list of normal or at least defensible things there's bizarre stuff like "Convey the message that selecting a union would be futile."

Tried to look into the actual law[1] and it includes the following sentence: "The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this subchapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit."

Seems kinda scummy that the NLRB's guidance to it's own enabling act explicitly contradicts the protections for a basic human right enshrined in the act.

Makes you wonder how much US businessmen's union busting is based on fear of organized labor, and how much of it is not wanting to give the NLRB power over them. Wouldn't be surprised if China or South-East Asia has better labor relations than the US in a few decades.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/158

I've felt the same way about several employers, actually. I'm not anti-union in principle, but I was anti-union at specific jobs and pro-union in others.

The line is about whether management treats employees fairly. If an employer has reasonable policies, feedback channels, wages, benefits, etc. and employees have reasonable bargaining power, then unions are usually counterproductive. If an employer abuses employees and employees don't have individual bargaining power, than unions are usually helpful.

Union needed: Major local factory is the only employer in an area. (reason: no individual bargaining power)

Union harmful: SWEs in Silicon Valley during a boom cycle (reason: extensive bargaining power, good workplace conditions)

Amazon sweatshops and delivery services are, pardon the pun, prime examples of where unions make sense. Things like the Google unionizing efforts make no sense to me, though.

I have not worked for many employers where I've wanted to be in a union because I try to do due diligence on workplace conditions before taking a job, and usually employers compete for me and not the other way around. In retrospect, the place where a union most made sense in my career was as a graduate student.

It's because the US do not have unions covering the whole population, it's mostly segregated per industry. I'm part of an union, but it's absolutely not for my or in a confrontation agaisnt my direct employer. Howver, i have comrades (dockers recently) that had to strike, and this allowed me, a tech worker, to support them.

for myself, the line is usually drawn right around how a boss would respond to you stepping out for an hour to deal with something at a normal non-critical time (or leaving early, or arriving late). If they're prying trying to figure out what could possibly be so important that I dare disrespect them like that, its usually indicative of a severe culture problem between management and workers. If they trust me as a professional to meet my deadlines, then it's probably not much use to unionise.

When I was starting out my career, I felt similar. However, today, I have a rather higher bar. The older I've grown, the more I've come to believe employers should treat employees humanely.

I'm not quite sure how, if old me met young me, I could communicate the bug in my thinking back then.

On its own, that sentence doesn't seem self-contradictory per se, even if they're not pro-union. It's like an employee saying "I'm not anti-employer, but I'm not neutral" (when it comes to salary negotiations), or an activist saying "I'm not anti-government, but I'm not neutral" (when it comes to government powers). It just means you're not arguing against the existence or operation of that entity, as you acknowledge they clearly have an important role to play, but that you have conflicting interests, so you're clearly advocating for your side to advance your own interests.

However, the rest of the video makes it clear they're against the very existence of their employees forming any union whatsoever, which seems pretty clearly anti-union...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com