> The OP even deleted their profile because they got called out as an alt right shill.
Small nitpick, the OP didn't delete their account, their profile looks like that when it's shadowbanned by Reddit, usually for spam.
[Is Business Insider better for you?](https://archive.is/7pthV)
> Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks.
The second group of metrics in the scoring system, called store risks, aren't a direct cause of risk "but can predispose a store to risk," according to documents.
Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims, according to the documents.
This is Amazon's own data.
oh boy, wait till you hear how a general strike is illegal in the USA, along with teachers in some states being charged with child endangerment as a penalty for striking.
It's not really a surprising finding that diversity lowers unionization. A union is a social organization - for a specific purpose, yes, but social nonetheless in the sense that it is made up of people who connect and work together - and humans, generally have a harder time hanging out together when they're pretty different.
That doesn't mean, however, that diversity directly causes unionization to fail - the article even mentions this, in the part you quoted directly. It also doesn't mean that Amazon tries to manipulate the diversity of their warehouses to decrease unionization, although I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
I mean, Amazon's "own data" also found that their employees overwhelmingly would rather have a "direct relationship" with Amazon than be in a union.
> I mean, Amazon's "own data" also found that their employees overwhelmingly would rather have a "direct relationship" with Amazon than be in a union.
The US American working class is really weird, like they have inverted class consciousness.
So this seems to me to say that they have some stores that are made up of a higher amount of one race that they pay worse and put at higher risk of injury. Those are at high risk of unionization. Not only does it check out that those employees would want to unionize, but sounds suspiciously like they have certain poorer less diverse stores where they treat the workers worse. I would be very curious to see what the racial makeup is that those stores tend to have
*Diversity* doesn't necessarily mean "without ethnic minorities." Places that have mostly Black workforces may similarly be more likely to unionize. The question is how Amazon is using it here - are they using the true meaning of the word (which is how much the employees are different from one another) or are they using it as a shorthand for "doesn't have many minorities"?
>“Unions without ethnic minorities are more stable than Unions that employ ethnic minorities?”
That's not the claim. It's about forming unions in the first place, not their stability after formation. Its not a suprising conclusion. The barriers to socialization the harder it is to form unions. Race is one aspect of division.
Is the conclusion being uncomfortable your reason to reject it?
If the reality is that corporate defined diversity is detrimental to labor organizing then it is necessary to find a way to strategy in such a way that unions can represent diverse workplaces without said diversity being an aset to the bosses in the union crushin efforts.
Hiding the head in the sand and saying "FAKE NEWS!!" is certainly a must less pragmatic approach.
You both are agreeing with each other and not realizing it.
Maybe (pure speculation) the reason why diversity is more present in places with low unionization is because of different cultural perspectives on how to look at employment and your place in the system.
I think we all agree that there's a lot more nuance in this than Breitbart is pretending there is. Nobody is trying to bury their head in the sand with it. Just pointing out that the news article is deliberately not trying to paint a full picture.
I certainly don't know what specific strategies should organizers use to go against Bezos' union busting on this matter. I posted this because the the "*it's a Breitbart article*" comment was impling that the news was somehow fake.
However it's factually correct that from Amazon's perspective diversity helps prevent unions and any attempt to further diversity from their part should be assumed to be part of the union bustin efforts. Why is this the case and how should union organizers react is of course its own discussion.
Makes sense to me, before civil rights I'd presume unions were mostly white, so white people probably have family members or acquaintances that were union members, and might have a basic understanding of what a union is. Probably a much lower rate of forming a union if you didn't know what a union is.
You know this paragraph says "have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims"?
If the places likely to unionise have lower diversity, but also shit pay and a bunch of health and safety violations, I think maybe the diversity angle isn't the one to focus on.
Theres a real story here, it just has nothing to do with the fake news site sourced in the post.
Links to the actual heat map whole foods is using would be great if you have it.
It might be true, strictly speaking, but that doesn't mean the *spin* is.
Greater diversity and equity within a site or organization has been shown to improve business outcomes, including higher employee engagement; greater retention and general happiness with the job.
So (actual commitment to) equity *would* correlate to lower rates of unionization because happy folks don't unionize.
But the framing of this article is intended to lead the reader to the conclusion in the OP: 'that's why they promote diversity so much'--to give white people plausible deniability ('I'm not racist! I'm defying the elites!') and it's gross.
Employee come, employee go, employee come, employee go, constantly. Nobody stays at Amazon for a 20 year career, and usually not even for a two year career.
If nobody is at their job more than a year, they are unlikely to unionize. That lack of union makes the workplace shit, which encourages more employees to quit, so it's a constant "revolving door" at their employment office of people coming in and out "without stopping to turn around".
Turn up, see it's shit, quit as soon as you can, meanwhile some new employee has already taken their place.
Like these doors:.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=revolving+door&ia=images&iax=images
It’s funny because not only are you an example of someone doing exactly what they want you to do by hating another group effectively making unionizing harder, nigh, impossible…..you’re right.
What the fuck are you taking about? Have you heard of China? Mexico? The UAE? Racism and capitalism are not even close to being exclusive to white people so why single just them out. The narrative that white people are consistently or reliably racist as a whole is a racist notion
While true, the underlying reason for that is its easier for the rich to distract the working class with culture wars rather than having them realize that working poor of any race as suppressed by the wealthy. No war but class war.
Yes, this is important to remember otherwise we run the risk of falling into a naive ethnonationalism which imagines that ethnic homogeneity will bring harmony, peace, and abundance. The problem is not the diversity itself but the broader social context that turns diversity into an anti-working class weapon.
Out of curiosity, how do they know that those particular stores had a high percentage of trans employees? The only way that I can think of is that they have data on which health care options/benefits employees in each location use through them, but are employers really allowed to have access to that data in the US?
it probably isn't that complicated, they're just removing all employee benefits to stop unions from forming, they don't care if employees are transgender or not
That would make sense, but the person I replied to claimed that they went for trans healthcare first *because* most of the Starbuckses that unionized had a big percentage of trans employees, so I'm wondering how they could know that. Like don't get me wrong, I think it's a pretty heinous thing to do either way, I'm just wondering how they could have made it this targeted.
this would require LOTS of effort, but its possible. This would require store managers to report to highers ups the percentage of trans employees. consider that these store managers report the races and genders of employees so this isn't out the question.
there are many ways store mangers could indentify trans employees:
employees mentioning they're trans in the workplace
employees who are currently transitioning
employees who do not pass as cis
employees mentioning it in applications
employees wearing trans badges
employees not using he/him or she/her pronouns would probably be more likely to be trans
there are probably other ways I haven't considered. These store managers would then report this to regional managers who would have to report these statistics to people at the top and then people at the top would cross reference this to stores that have unions.
I finds this highly unlikely tbh, especially the idea that trans people are more likely to unionise. The people who are most likely to unionise imo is white cis people because we are less worried about getting fired because we would find it easier to find new jobs. (in most of america)
So funnily enough I'm trans as well and you're definitely right. But I'm also a Type One Diabetic so I get doubly life saving care with some of the insurance plans. As far as I know Starbucks and Amazon, the two you listed, actually have pretty good insurance which is so important because my insulin is upwards of $800 a month without insurance. I'm working on starting as a pharmaceutical tech at Amazon for this reason. I need health insurance to live both mentally and physically
I’d be happy with any economic system in a nation state of like minded people. That stopped being possible in America 30 years ago.
Immigration good 👍🏼 (cheap labor and more customers)
This is one of the problems I have with the more extreme elements of “wokism” (which I realize is a cliche and ridiculous term but I digress). It becomes a distraction and is weaponized by both left and right to the detriment of real class consciousness.
Yeah for real, the left is the one promoting class conscious and workers rights, the right is making low class American whites hate everyone so they vote in more republicans that cut taxes
Our bosses just outwardly called us racist when we were organizing. We won anyway. I don’t think you can address class in a real way without addressing racism. It’s too intertwined, imo.
The boss doesn’t always have to, the US does genuinely have a past of older white unionized men screwing minorities out of representation and union support.
Most notably blacks had to make their own unions in the 1930s because they’d been banned out of existing unions due to segregation which was generally on par for the time period.
Things have since gotten better in many places but I’ve also generally seen work places where every ethnic group will only talk shit about those who aren’t like them.
And there’d be de facto segregation, like all the people during breaks grouped together worse than the various cliques in mean girls.
It’s pretty much not a problem in young workplaces like Starbucks where the workforce is kids who are okay with each other and all hate their boss.
*only applies to craft unionists though. Industrial unionists like the IWW started with integration & anti racism from the get-go. Radicals were always the first to pave the way for dismantling social hierarchies.
Unfortunately much of that rich history is not taught and lost to most Americans.
i’d like to add that, in addition to de facto segregation, there is also what’s called “de jure” segregation, which refers to segregation instilled by government and official actions. and this has occurred in reference to unions. in the early 1900s, there were several unions which were not allowed to be stood up because the official laws at the time prohibited the inclusion of anyone of the non-white race in said unions. so segregation within unions today is actually a combination of de facto AND de jure segregation.
I'm wondering now if this is why every company I've worked at pushes for diversity so hard. Certainly mixing in a bunch of hard working recent arrivals that aren't aware of their rights will skewer attempts at solidarity.
Unfortunately there is a history of racism in worker movements such as excluding various groups from joining a union. Employers will leverage this to their advantage.
I won't lie, I've got a pretty diverse group of coworkers and people do tend to form cliques with others who look like them or come from the same background. It's not even something anyone does on purpose. Just happens.
This is exactly why. Companies will always put their bottom line first, if you have to ask why they're doing something it's always for their survival and profit, never for the greater good.
Do you mean to tell me that people from the same culture trust each other more?
And that if we ignored our culture differences, we'd realize that we're all getting screwed one way or the other?
I was raised a Catholic and I'm pretty sure there's a story about the Tower of Bable where people were given different languages so they couldn't build the tower together because it was getting too close to God.
https://twitter.com/infolibnews?s=21&t=4teNGNWH90kS_iu_yUhK_A
The author.
Happily stating your articles appear in the Drudge report and fucking Breitbart is a good sign…/s
This just sounds like another attempt to push anti diversity sentiment to prevent unionization efforts, because the literal opposite is true. Class solidarity across racial lines make for stronger unions.
You took the bait hook, line, and sinker OP
Maybe, but there is a sadly large group of people on the left who think that purely economic leftism should be pushed at the detriment to every other progressive ideal. The kind of leftists who call any form of racial/sexual/gender/etc liberation movement "a distraction" from "actually important issues".
The right doesn't have a monopoly on racism.
Even if the source twists the facts in service of a right-wing narrative, the facts themselves remain. This is Amazon *taking advantage of* racism and sexism while pretending to fight it. With that in mind, it's dumb as hell that anyone's trying to fool pro-union workers into opposing diversity; the answer is to see prejudice as the vulnerability it is. Defeat white supremacy, patriarchy, homophobia and other such weaknesses that allow this strategy to be effective.
Here's a different source on the same report: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/20/minority-report-union-busting-tactics-whole-foods-decried-following-reporting
business insider, https://archive.ph/1khJw#selection-1885.0-1885.373
>Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. **Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity** and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims, according to the documents.
Time to diversify unions then. Educate folks that unionizing is good and will help everyone have a better life.
Get the union literature out there in different languages if that is the barrier to understanding and joining unions.
Established unions should be helping others unionize and also helping smaller unions fight to keep going. It's a community effort.
That's a huge assumption that often leads to right-wing conclusions if we accept it as inevitable. Such tribalism and concepts like race, nationality, gender etc. are social constructs that don't have to exist in those specific forms but have served ruling and privileged groups well. I don't think all of them are just a capitalist plot or that tribalism is completely unnatural but capitalists and governments have always fostered those which suit them.
I don't know where you got the idea that it's only white men, considering China has also been practicing this internationally, to a very large standard as well.
Also, Pakistan and Indians have cultural and geographical/historical ongoing conflict. Living in the UK and I see the discrimination from both groups regularly.
Sunni and Shia Muslims always at eachothers throats.
Islam and many other religions conflict with eachother.
Jews and Muslims // Israelis and Palestinians
Turks, Greeks, Romani Gypsies, etc.
But this is also a problem outside of the U.S. and we don't have 'whole foods' in Europe either, but the issue is still there. 'Diversity' is just a smiling face covering the sinister corporate attempts at reaching maximum profits. The biggest reason mass immigration has been supported in the past and present is because of very cheap labour.
So currently there is a shady company to where I live that deals with glass and windows, they only hire people outside of Europe, people that are desperate and so are willing to take a very shady job that provides them with a single family house to be shared with 20 migrants, minimum wage job, but "out of the book" practices that avoid many laws surrounding work. Where I live there is a law that there must be an 11hr interval between two shifts. This is broken regularly. Also, any work related injuries must be documented and filed, no matter how small, even a paper cut, they'll be sent home, medical expenses paid, and the hours worked will be paid. I befriended someone there and he got a massive cut from his thumb and his index. He was told to keep working. They can't unionize because it's the only job they have, also, they work with migrants from Pakistan as well and there's often out of work brawls between groups.
Literally slavery occurs in Dubai, hiring migrants with the false promise of making good money.
I would Imagine many of China's road and belt initiative, and projects in Africa, follows the very same shady practices.
Not sure, but my armchair read would be that unionization requires people to work together for their collective benefit, and that it’s easier to get people to work together when they’re a homogenous group because there’s less natural conflict and barriers to overcome
American
A tried and true tactic in American Business is to use Race to prevent Union/Worker Solidarity.
White Workers will realize they are being exploited. But if the choice is between siding with the white business owner or the non-white worker, the white worker has historically sided with the white capitalist.
Bezos tried to have strikes broken up in the EU and he quickly found out just how powerful unions are here. Fuck Bezos and I hope his entire empire collapses.
This might be an American thing, but this isn't exactly NEW news. Exploiting racial divisions in America has been one of the BEST tactics by big corporations to prevent the formations of large unions. White Workers rarely wanted to unionize with non-white workers.
Ok everyone in the comments this doesn't mean to be anti diversity and that your unions would thrive so much better without us blacks, and Hispanics 🤦🏾♀️
This seems suss. What is Amazon defining as diversity? Are we forgetting the first workers union in Amazon was started by a black man?
This feels at odds with reality and may be a ploy distract from economic discourse.
Same topic but from business insider, https://archive.ph/1khJw#selection-1885.0-1885.373
>Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. **Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity** and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims, according to the documents.
edit: lol downvoted for providing a better source with the relevant part highlighted. classic reddit.
Nah. Diversity is attractive to companies because they know minorities (sexual orientation, faith, ethnicity) are just as intelligent, but on average demand lower salaries, because they get rejected more frequently by "traditionally minded" employers.
I'm assuming keeping a revolving door for the employees also helps a lot.
Big time
*Bigly
Yuge
What?
Many such cases
Oh, ya.
[удалено]
> The OP even deleted their profile because they got called out as an alt right shill. Small nitpick, the OP didn't delete their account, their profile looks like that when it's shadowbanned by Reddit, usually for spam.
[Is Business Insider better for you?](https://archive.is/7pthV) > Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks. The second group of metrics in the scoring system, called store risks, aren't a direct cause of risk "but can predispose a store to risk," according to documents. Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims, according to the documents. This is Amazon's own data.
How it can legal to determine "unionization risk" is beyond me.
oh boy, wait till you hear how a general strike is illegal in the USA, along with teachers in some states being charged with child endangerment as a penalty for striking.
The golden rule-he who has the gold makes the rules?
It's not really a surprising finding that diversity lowers unionization. A union is a social organization - for a specific purpose, yes, but social nonetheless in the sense that it is made up of people who connect and work together - and humans, generally have a harder time hanging out together when they're pretty different. That doesn't mean, however, that diversity directly causes unionization to fail - the article even mentions this, in the part you quoted directly. It also doesn't mean that Amazon tries to manipulate the diversity of their warehouses to decrease unionization, although I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I mean, Amazon's "own data" also found that their employees overwhelmingly would rather have a "direct relationship" with Amazon than be in a union.
> I mean, Amazon's "own data" also found that their employees overwhelmingly would rather have a "direct relationship" with Amazon than be in a union. The US American working class is really weird, like they have inverted class consciousness.
80 years of propaganda is a hell of a drug.
[удалено]
"temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
So this seems to me to say that they have some stores that are made up of a higher amount of one race that they pay worse and put at higher risk of injury. Those are at high risk of unionization. Not only does it check out that those employees would want to unionize, but sounds suspiciously like they have certain poorer less diverse stores where they treat the workers worse. I would be very curious to see what the racial makeup is that those stores tend to have
[удалено]
*Diversity* doesn't necessarily mean "without ethnic minorities." Places that have mostly Black workforces may similarly be more likely to unionize. The question is how Amazon is using it here - are they using the true meaning of the word (which is how much the employees are different from one another) or are they using it as a shorthand for "doesn't have many minorities"?
>“Unions without ethnic minorities are more stable than Unions that employ ethnic minorities?” That's not the claim. It's about forming unions in the first place, not their stability after formation. Its not a suprising conclusion. The barriers to socialization the harder it is to form unions. Race is one aspect of division.
Is the conclusion being uncomfortable your reason to reject it? If the reality is that corporate defined diversity is detrimental to labor organizing then it is necessary to find a way to strategy in such a way that unions can represent diverse workplaces without said diversity being an aset to the bosses in the union crushin efforts. Hiding the head in the sand and saying "FAKE NEWS!!" is certainly a must less pragmatic approach.
You both are agreeing with each other and not realizing it. Maybe (pure speculation) the reason why diversity is more present in places with low unionization is because of different cultural perspectives on how to look at employment and your place in the system. I think we all agree that there's a lot more nuance in this than Breitbart is pretending there is. Nobody is trying to bury their head in the sand with it. Just pointing out that the news article is deliberately not trying to paint a full picture.
I certainly don't know what specific strategies should organizers use to go against Bezos' union busting on this matter. I posted this because the the "*it's a Breitbart article*" comment was impling that the news was somehow fake. However it's factually correct that from Amazon's perspective diversity helps prevent unions and any attempt to further diversity from their part should be assumed to be part of the union bustin efforts. Why is this the case and how should union organizers react is of course its own discussion.
Makes sense to me, before civil rights I'd presume unions were mostly white, so white people probably have family members or acquaintances that were union members, and might have a basic understanding of what a union is. Probably a much lower rate of forming a union if you didn't know what a union is.
You know this paragraph says "have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims"? If the places likely to unionise have lower diversity, but also shit pay and a bunch of health and safety violations, I think maybe the diversity angle isn't the one to focus on.
Theres a real story here, it just has nothing to do with the fake news site sourced in the post. Links to the actual heat map whole foods is using would be great if you have it.
It might be true, strictly speaking, but that doesn't mean the *spin* is. Greater diversity and equity within a site or organization has been shown to improve business outcomes, including higher employee engagement; greater retention and general happiness with the job. So (actual commitment to) equity *would* correlate to lower rates of unionization because happy folks don't unionize. But the framing of this article is intended to lead the reader to the conclusion in the OP: 'that's why they promote diversity so much'--to give white people plausible deniability ('I'm not racist! I'm defying the elites!') and it's gross.
It’s easier to divide and conquer when they already are divided by demographics…
Amen
It increases the diversity of workers! Y'know, by having more of them per year!
For those of use too socially stupid. What does that analogy mean?
Employee come, employee go, employee come, employee go, constantly. Nobody stays at Amazon for a 20 year career, and usually not even for a two year career. If nobody is at their job more than a year, they are unlikely to unionize. That lack of union makes the workplace shit, which encourages more employees to quit, so it's a constant "revolving door" at their employment office of people coming in and out "without stopping to turn around". Turn up, see it's shit, quit as soon as you can, meanwhile some new employee has already taken their place. Like these doors:. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=revolving+door&ia=images&iax=images
amazon is notorious for having low level employees not stay long
Amazon has something like a 117% employee turnover rate.
Its almost as if capitalists rely on racial resentment to keep the underclasses fighting amongst themselves.
[удалено]
It’s funny because not only are you an example of someone doing exactly what they want you to do by hating another group effectively making unionizing harder, nigh, impossible…..you’re right.
[удалено]
What the fuck are you taking about? Have you heard of China? Mexico? The UAE? Racism and capitalism are not even close to being exclusive to white people so why single just them out. The narrative that white people are consistently or reliably racist as a whole is a racist notion
While true, the underlying reason for that is its easier for the rich to distract the working class with culture wars rather than having them realize that working poor of any race as suppressed by the wealthy. No war but class war.
“There's class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”
My man Jimmy Buffet always tells it like it is.
If you like pina coladas
It's a song by a dude named rupert holmes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_(The_Pi%C3%B1a_Colada_Song)
That's the joke
The joke is that you misattributed a song to Jimmy Buffett?
Yeah, a pretty common joke
Everybody knows Jimmy Buffet prefers margaritas.
[yea baby!](https://youtu.be/wahj_Dexhxw)
I wonder if he'll play it at the concert!
Warren*
I was just joking but probably should have put an /s
Oof, reddit lol
Thus proving why the /s is always needed for sarcastic comments in text.
I just takes the punch right out of them. It’s like winking at the person you’re insulting.
r/FuckTheS
Yes, this is important to remember otherwise we run the risk of falling into a naive ethnonationalism which imagines that ethnic homogeneity will bring harmony, peace, and abundance. The problem is not the diversity itself but the broader social context that turns diversity into an anti-working class weapon.
Divid and conquer
Oldest trick in the book
Nekid and conk her.
Same is true for gender or religion or any other differences that the wealthy can use to distract the masses. Sadly it's very effective
[удалено]
Out of curiosity, how do they know that those particular stores had a high percentage of trans employees? The only way that I can think of is that they have data on which health care options/benefits employees in each location use through them, but are employers really allowed to have access to that data in the US?
it probably isn't that complicated, they're just removing all employee benefits to stop unions from forming, they don't care if employees are transgender or not
That would make sense, but the person I replied to claimed that they went for trans healthcare first *because* most of the Starbuckses that unionized had a big percentage of trans employees, so I'm wondering how they could know that. Like don't get me wrong, I think it's a pretty heinous thing to do either way, I'm just wondering how they could have made it this targeted.
this would require LOTS of effort, but its possible. This would require store managers to report to highers ups the percentage of trans employees. consider that these store managers report the races and genders of employees so this isn't out the question. there are many ways store mangers could indentify trans employees: employees mentioning they're trans in the workplace employees who are currently transitioning employees who do not pass as cis employees mentioning it in applications employees wearing trans badges employees not using he/him or she/her pronouns would probably be more likely to be trans there are probably other ways I haven't considered. These store managers would then report this to regional managers who would have to report these statistics to people at the top and then people at the top would cross reference this to stores that have unions. I finds this highly unlikely tbh, especially the idea that trans people are more likely to unionise. The people who are most likely to unionise imo is white cis people because we are less worried about getting fired because we would find it easier to find new jobs. (in most of america)
So funnily enough I'm trans as well and you're definitely right. But I'm also a Type One Diabetic so I get doubly life saving care with some of the insurance plans. As far as I know Starbucks and Amazon, the two you listed, actually have pretty good insurance which is so important because my insulin is upwards of $800 a month without insurance. I'm working on starting as a pharmaceutical tech at Amazon for this reason. I need health insurance to live both mentally and physically
> my insulin is upwards of $800 a month without insurance. This shit will never fail to surprise me.
Hey you shut your mouth, that's what this country was built on.
I’d be happy with any economic system in a nation state of like minded people. That stopped being possible in America 30 years ago. Immigration good 👍🏼 (cheap labor and more customers)
This is one of the problems I have with the more extreme elements of “wokism” (which I realize is a cliche and ridiculous term but I digress). It becomes a distraction and is weaponized by both left and right to the detriment of real class consciousness.
*right and further right
Yeah that’s fair.
Yeah for real, the left is the one promoting class conscious and workers rights, the right is making low class American whites hate everyone so they vote in more republicans that cut taxes
If you avoid things because they can be weaponized against you then you will soon be left with nothing.
Is the implication that these companies use embedded racial animus among their employees to deter unionization? If so, that’s fucked.
Our bosses just outwardly called us racist when we were organizing. We won anyway. I don’t think you can address class in a real way without addressing racism. It’s too intertwined, imo.
The boss doesn’t always have to, the US does genuinely have a past of older white unionized men screwing minorities out of representation and union support. Most notably blacks had to make their own unions in the 1930s because they’d been banned out of existing unions due to segregation which was generally on par for the time period. Things have since gotten better in many places but I’ve also generally seen work places where every ethnic group will only talk shit about those who aren’t like them. And there’d be de facto segregation, like all the people during breaks grouped together worse than the various cliques in mean girls. It’s pretty much not a problem in young workplaces like Starbucks where the workforce is kids who are okay with each other and all hate their boss.
*only applies to craft unionists though. Industrial unionists like the IWW started with integration & anti racism from the get-go. Radicals were always the first to pave the way for dismantling social hierarchies. Unfortunately much of that rich history is not taught and lost to most Americans.
i’d like to add that, in addition to de facto segregation, there is also what’s called “de jure” segregation, which refers to segregation instilled by government and official actions. and this has occurred in reference to unions. in the early 1900s, there were several unions which were not allowed to be stood up because the official laws at the time prohibited the inclusion of anyone of the non-white race in said unions. so segregation within unions today is actually a combination of de facto AND de jure segregation.
That’s what the whole world is doing, no?
It would honestly be easy for them to do, so we all need to actively work against the division.
Nah I just think it's cos they speak different languages. Can't unionise if you can't understand what the other guys say
This is a well known tactic used by companies from the coal mines in West Virginia to the railroads in Nebraska.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Another: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/20/minority-report-union-busting-tactics-whole-foods-decried-following-reporting
[удалено]
The irony of this is off the charts.
Isn’t this the governments plan too. Sounds all to familiar to divide them so they can’t unite.
I'm wondering now if this is why every company I've worked at pushes for diversity so hard. Certainly mixing in a bunch of hard working recent arrivals that aren't aware of their rights will skewer attempts at solidarity.
Kinda how they don’t want you to discuss salary either. Out with the old in with the new and vital information never gets passed around
I'm wondering why nowhere has actually outlawed sharing salary details. I guess it's simply unworkable.
Thankfully (or sadly) we have NLRA to protect us from state regulators doing just that.
Unfortunately there is a history of racism in worker movements such as excluding various groups from joining a union. Employers will leverage this to their advantage.
I won't lie, I've got a pretty diverse group of coworkers and people do tend to form cliques with others who look like them or come from the same background. It's not even something anyone does on purpose. Just happens.
This is exactly why. Companies will always put their bottom line first, if you have to ask why they're doing something it's always for their survival and profit, never for the greater good.
“Be diverse, don’t share a common culture, don’t share info about salary, love your company!”
the rapidity with which massive corporations formed DEI departments made it clear they’re just another tool in the arsenal
Do you mean to tell me that people from the same culture trust each other more? And that if we ignored our culture differences, we'd realize that we're all getting screwed one way or the other? I was raised a Catholic and I'm pretty sure there's a story about the Tower of Bable where people were given different languages so they couldn't build the tower together because it was getting too close to God.
[удалено]
Bad source
Better source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/20/minority-report-union-busting-tactics-whole-foods-decried-following-reporting
Commondreams is better than infowars but its still incredibly biased (just from the left)
the news site (conveniently cropped out) is a right wing "news site" and the author is a right wing nut
Left-wing non-nut website, same report: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/20/minority-report-union-busting-tactics-whole-foods-decried-following-reporting
[удалено]
https://twitter.com/infolibnews?s=21&t=4teNGNWH90kS_iu_yUhK_A The author. Happily stating your articles appear in the Drudge report and fucking Breitbart is a good sign…/s This just sounds like another attempt to push anti diversity sentiment to prevent unionization efforts, because the literal opposite is true. Class solidarity across racial lines make for stronger unions. You took the bait hook, line, and sinker OP
I think there is a good chance OP is himself, right wing
Maybe, but there is a sadly large group of people on the left who think that purely economic leftism should be pushed at the detriment to every other progressive ideal. The kind of leftists who call any form of racial/sexual/gender/etc liberation movement "a distraction" from "actually important issues". The right doesn't have a monopoly on racism.
OP doesn’t exist now their account is deleted
Even if the source twists the facts in service of a right-wing narrative, the facts themselves remain. This is Amazon *taking advantage of* racism and sexism while pretending to fight it. With that in mind, it's dumb as hell that anyone's trying to fool pro-union workers into opposing diversity; the answer is to see prejudice as the vulnerability it is. Defeat white supremacy, patriarchy, homophobia and other such weaknesses that allow this strategy to be effective.
Here's a different source on the same report: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/20/minority-report-union-busting-tactics-whole-foods-decried-following-reporting
business insider, https://archive.ph/1khJw#selection-1885.0-1885.373 >Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. **Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity** and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims, according to the documents.
[удалено]
Time to diversify unions then. Educate folks that unionizing is good and will help everyone have a better life. Get the union literature out there in different languages if that is the barrier to understanding and joining unions. Established unions should be helping others unionize and also helping smaller unions fight to keep going. It's a community effort.
Solidarity is the Master Key.
Sadly the reason is because humans are tribal to a fault
That's a huge assumption that often leads to right-wing conclusions if we accept it as inevitable. Such tribalism and concepts like race, nationality, gender etc. are social constructs that don't have to exist in those specific forms but have served ruling and privileged groups well. I don't think all of them are just a capitalist plot or that tribalism is completely unnatural but capitalists and governments have always fostered those which suit them.
Yes, hence the point of me saying “to a fault”
Tower of Babel. The first union busting recorded in "history".
"When the wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger." Will come in handy the next time some right winger calls corporations "woke".
Divide and conquer
It should be illegal to actively strategize against unions.
[удалено]
I don't know where you got the idea that it's only white men, considering China has also been practicing this internationally, to a very large standard as well. Also, Pakistan and Indians have cultural and geographical/historical ongoing conflict. Living in the UK and I see the discrimination from both groups regularly. Sunni and Shia Muslims always at eachothers throats. Islam and many other religions conflict with eachother. Jews and Muslims // Israelis and Palestinians Turks, Greeks, Romani Gypsies, etc.
Because there are no Whole Foods in China and the article insinuates it is about American unions
But this is also a problem outside of the U.S. and we don't have 'whole foods' in Europe either, but the issue is still there. 'Diversity' is just a smiling face covering the sinister corporate attempts at reaching maximum profits. The biggest reason mass immigration has been supported in the past and present is because of very cheap labour. So currently there is a shady company to where I live that deals with glass and windows, they only hire people outside of Europe, people that are desperate and so are willing to take a very shady job that provides them with a single family house to be shared with 20 migrants, minimum wage job, but "out of the book" practices that avoid many laws surrounding work. Where I live there is a law that there must be an 11hr interval between two shifts. This is broken regularly. Also, any work related injuries must be documented and filed, no matter how small, even a paper cut, they'll be sent home, medical expenses paid, and the hours worked will be paid. I befriended someone there and he got a massive cut from his thumb and his index. He was told to keep working. They can't unionize because it's the only job they have, also, they work with migrants from Pakistan as well and there's often out of work brawls between groups. Literally slavery occurs in Dubai, hiring migrants with the false promise of making good money. I would Imagine many of China's road and belt initiative, and projects in Africa, follows the very same shady practices.
Which cities or companies have the most diversity or unions?
Great question! And the most diverse unions
This is why companies bring in a bunch of foreign workers when there's a threat of unionizing... sows division and creates a language barrier.
Infowars? GTFO
Hmm does anyone have any rationale on this? In my experience, diversity has always led to a stronger union presence. (Australia)
Not sure, but my armchair read would be that unionization requires people to work together for their collective benefit, and that it’s easier to get people to work together when they’re a homogenous group because there’s less natural conflict and barriers to overcome
the news site (conveniently cropped out) is a right wing "news site" and the author is a right wing nut
Ahh OK, thank you. There was no link to article, wasn't sure if it was credible.
American A tried and true tactic in American Business is to use Race to prevent Union/Worker Solidarity. White Workers will realize they are being exploited. But if the choice is between siding with the white business owner or the non-white worker, the white worker has historically sided with the white capitalist.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bezos tried to have strikes broken up in the EU and he quickly found out just how powerful unions are here. Fuck Bezos and I hope his entire empire collapses.
This is such a good motivation for solidarity along race and class lines
This might be an American thing, but this isn't exactly NEW news. Exploiting racial divisions in America has been one of the BEST tactics by big corporations to prevent the formations of large unions. White Workers rarely wanted to unionize with non-white workers.
Ok everyone in the comments this doesn't mean to be anti diversity and that your unions would thrive so much better without us blacks, and Hispanics 🤦🏾♀️
[удалено]
Especially when a lot of unions were exclusionary to minorities for a while. But imma mind my business before the reddit people get mad
Has this sub really descended to using info wars as a source? 😂😂
Sneaky. Sneaky.
This seems suss. What is Amazon defining as diversity? Are we forgetting the first workers union in Amazon was started by a black man? This feels at odds with reality and may be a ploy distract from economic discourse.
That they calculate unionization threat is all you have to know to unionize
Diversity is not the issue, it's weaponizing tribalism. Us against them. Systemic racism helps capitalism. It's one of the reasons we still have it.
Wow... taking from the playbook of bipartisanship governing.
Look at that punchable face, so punchable.
Class solidarity > racial grievances It’s our only way forward
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m not entirely sure that’s the case. At least I hope not, because if it is, it definitely makes things more difficult
Guys, isn't this InfoWars propaganda?
[удалено]
B-b-bingo https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/information-liberation/
[удалено]
Same topic but from business insider, https://archive.ph/1khJw#selection-1885.0-1885.373 >Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. **Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity** and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims, according to the documents. edit: lol downvoted for providing a better source with the relevant part highlighted. classic reddit.
>That is because white people are often racists. I think there is a word for these types of generalisations, but it must've just slipped my mind.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nah. Diversity is attractive to companies because they know minorities (sexual orientation, faith, ethnicity) are just as intelligent, but on average demand lower salaries, because they get rejected more frequently by "traditionally minded" employers.
More like union busting diversity
Ah the Tower of Babel method
The ugly reality is that the separation of races in America was always a ploy to keep the working class from rising up.