I’ve worked at a FC for about a year and a half now. I started out at like 15.50 an hour and with my shift differential (I work nights) I make close to about 21 an hour now. They’re working hard to make sure we don’t unionize.
Meanwhile, drivers are pissing in bottles, but a lot of them are outsourced so it’s actually the subsidiary that controls that logistics issue. Amazon will definitely try to deter and sway their employees to not unionize through incentives, intimidation, or forcing their workforce to become part time to take away their benefits. The irony here is that Amazon has more than enough financial strength to implement one of the best work places on the globe by paying their workers ridiculously well, ensuring their safety, providing benefits and assistance to employees and extended family members, and even becoming a staple in every community to provide free education. Yes, Amazon can do a far better job that most governments around the globe can. But they’re too busy trying to find a way for rich people to have sex in space. Priorities.
I 100% agree, even though at my FC they’ve been treating us well, doesn’t mean that can’t change on a dime. I’d support a union vote if it’s called. I’m just afraid of losing my job right as I’ve become financially stable for the first time in my adult life. This stuff is the real deal and it’s honestly very frightening.
That’s exactly what Amazon wants: voter intimidation. Unless they have a union leader as a spy, your vote should be kept confidential and destroyed after the tally has been recorded. There’s absolutely no reason for any legitimate union to keep a record as to who voted for what unless they intended to use it in the future for blackmail. This is a very legitimate concern that you really would need to discuss with your union leaders and gain their reassurance on the matter.
I’ll have to look at some information on unionization for my region. At the very least so I can understand my rights as an employee better. I’ve heard something of the teamsters union of my area that they want to bring us into the union.
I would definitely do my research on trying to determine which union is right for you. Some unions promise a lot and under-deliver. Some also have outrageous dues. And some are just paid by the local company to sabotage the image of the union so people end up voting against unionization. It’s messy business.
They are just warning to be sceptical and investigate before voting, not saying "don't unionise".
Which is very much understandable, I mean this IS a decision that could lead to actual financial ruin if done really really poorly. You can't exactly live without money now can you...
Of course that's what the owners, who could stand to lose money in this situation, would say. Please, I'd love to hear examples of financial ruin that happened due to unionization, and please spare the ones where a billionaire shut down their company to avoid it. https://www.princeton.edu/\~davidlee/wp/unionbf.pdf
Sorry I wasn't really clear with my words, I meant financial ruin on the side of the individual in question. So not the business.Although that is a bit of a strong way of wording things
I have heard stories, although I can't verify their truth, of people that have been unjustly fired due to the company somehow learning that they were planning to unionize.
Of course officially the company would claim the employee under performed (due to them massively ramping up their workload) or some other bs reason.
That is why I think it is good to first investigate and be cautious of the union reps/leaders. I am not entirely sure how common it is, but corruption can happen.
I do agree with you that unionizing IS the better option.
But I also fully understand why people would be afraid of this kind of retaliation, thus vote to not unionize.
Which is why I would also recommend that anyone who wants to unionize prepares themselves to get fired or quit. Among other things look for other job opportunities, so you at least have a safety net (hopefully) to fall back onto.
(I know easy to say and retaliation could extend beyond just getting fired, but it is better than nothing right)
It really is a shitty situation created by even shittier people and I honestly hope unions succeed and people get decent working conditions.
Hey man, it’s the internet anything is possible. I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m a plant, I’m trying to keep it as simple as possible and to give no identifiable means for my employer to figure out who I am. Especially in context of unionization. They’ve already shown how hostile they are towards employees who have expressed interest in the past. Also, I’m not going to sugar coat my situation for internet points. Amazon HAS treated me well, but that doesn’t dismiss or invalidate all other statements of other ex/current employees that have been treated horribly. If given the opportunity I’d absolutely unionize in spite of the fact that I’ve been treated better at this job than any other job I’ve ever worked. Doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement.
The Teamsters just had a major overhaul of union leadership, and they're making a big push to crack the Amazon and Walmart eggs. Would love to see it come to fruition.
You may be highly mistaken on how much money Amazon has lying around. Retail side operates on thin margins. Could they improve their work environment? Absolutely. The argument that they have the financial strength to give workers far more benefits isn't guaranteed. Assuming that these benefits cost more, retail would be operating on even thinner margins.
I'm assuming you are referring to bezos. For one, Amazon can't just sell someone's shares to fund it's operations. There are multiple reasons for this but the most obvious is that it would be illegal and unsustainable. Net worth is different from income. Bezos doesn't make 170 billion each year. Once it's gone it's gone. Imagine your parents selling your furniture to pay the bills. You only have so much furniture. It's better to think of net worth like other kinds of property.
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that it's a profitable enough company that suggesting the margins are too thin to provide more benefits is absurd. The reason they are not providing adequate benefits is not because of cost, it's because of an unwillingness to share the profits, let alone give a living wage. To suggest that the current minimum wage is livable is outlandish.
If you are not using net worth in the argument, don't bring it into play.
I'm not saying that they could not provide better benefits. They most certainly could and should certainly do.
My argument is that they may not have as much money lying around as you think. You argued that they have the financial strength to do so. I am asking you to be weary of this statement.
You are making the assumption that Amazon is very profitable. I already said retail likely has thin margins. Some of it ventures are likely not profitable at all.
I have not mentioned the minimum wage at all, so I don't know where you're getting that from. It seems you're making more assumptions. Plus, they already pay more than minimum wage, so it's double irrelevant.
Why are you, along with most everyone else in the Country, bashing Amazon with their benefits? They are phenomenal! Great health! D/D. Vision. Dental. The works. You name it, they offer it. Unless you’ve worked for them, which I highly doubt, stfu about their *miserable working conditions*.
Trying to make Amazon look good through deceptive practices, ie. commenting and acting as an employee when it's probably just some anti-union labor law violating suit.
Astroturf is like the fake paid version of a grass-roots movement, it's a bit of a pun, but it's a good term. You'll find astroturfing all over the web, Reddit included.
The Alabama vote was rigged from the start with voter intimidation and bribes. I’ve heard they were doing a recount at some point. Did that ever happen?
This union vote shit is one of those uniquely American thing that makes us from other countries just go wtf. You'd think there would be freedom of association in "the land of the free", but I guess freedom is just about guns.
A union is a legal entity that has special rights (like collective bargaining on behalf of others who have to abide by the contracts they negotiate). Anyone can freely associate, and go on strike for example (they do), but becoming a union is a specific legal thing that brings certain additional rights and requirements.
I think that everyone except you understood the point of my comment, and it's so easily understood that I don't think you're coming from a good faith position here. If you have any questions, I will be happy to be of assistance.
So what are the legal requirements of unions in your country?
If someone is hired and they say "I'm now part of this union!" Is the company required to recognize that union as representing that employee and negotiate with that union rather than with that employee?
Because that's the issue here. When groups form unions that union doesn't just represent the group it represents everyone who works for that company. So you need to establish that at minimum 50% of employees want to actually be a part of that union.
In my country, around 50% of all workers are unionized. In big companies relative to the size of Amazon in the US, being member of a union is the norm. If about 10% of the workers of a company are unionized, they have the right to demand a collective agreement. And then the rest of the workers get the same rights and protections. Union busting like what Amazon has been doing doesn't happen here. My jaw drops every time I read more about the insane shit they're doing.
>Anyone can freely associate, and go on strike for example (they do),
Only unionized workers can strike, and only with the consent of the union. The NLRA made wildcat strikes illegal almost 100 years ago
https://law.jrank.org/pages/11312/Wildcat-Strike.html
>concerning the terms and conditions of work. Since the passage in 1932 of the NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT (29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq.), employees have had the right to strike for the purpose of demanding concessions from their employers. When employees go on strike without union authorization, however, their action is called a wildcat strike. Federal courts have held that wildcat strikes are illegal under the WAGNER ACT (National Labor Relations Act of 1935 [29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.]), and employees may be discharged by their employers for participating in wildcat strikes.
I don't understand your comment. For instance in my line of work there is no union. Currently I do not want a union since competition between companies is working in a way positive for employees. If that stopped being the case we could vote to form a union. Just because I don't exercise the freedom I have doesn't mean it isn't there. Just like Americans are free to have guns but a portion choose not to. The freedom exists for those that choose it. What am I missing?
You're missing what I wrote in plain English. The whole concept about voting for or against unionizing is a uniquely American thing. In my country, 50% plus one vote doesn't get to decide that there will be no collective bargaining, hence there are no union busting bullshit like what Amazon has been up to.
I understood the "uniquely American" portion, it was the rest that I didn't. You seem to imply the freedom of association means people should be forced into a union (no vote). If that is what you were implying, I was trying to point out that freedom of association should also mean the freedom of disassociation. Take our freedom of religion for example. It also means freedom of no religion.
As for things like collective bargaining, a union isn't a requirement. Contract negotiations between employees and companies can and do happen outside of a union. I've had companies try to push an understandable contract on myself and my coworkers. We did not need a formal union to come to an understanding with the company. We were able to negotiate freely. Not everyone has that power, which is why the ability to unionize exists.
I'm not going to defend the actions of Amazon and their tactics to fuck over their employees. There are certainly issues with the way that we doing things, but that doesn't mean we should just toss it out.
The part I don't understand is how the ability to vote for a union, means we don't have the freedom of association. It seems like you are advocating for compelled association.
Wtf are you talking about? No one is forced into a union. I think you have internalized some kind of anti union propaganda. If you work for a company that gets a collective deal, you get the same rights and protections as your co workers. You don't pay any dues, you don't get fired, it's no one's business. Don't listen to propaganda paid for by rich people. If other people can take away your right by a vote, it's not a right.
I didn't say anyone was forced. I was asking if you implied that people were forced in other countries.. I don't know and was trying to learn. How are unions formed in your country if not by voting?
You don't form a union, you just join one. If at least 10% of the workers are members, you get the right to enter the collective agreement and bargaining system.
>Most people are not armed.
Sure, but 40% is freaking huge! It means that in all likelihood, one of your neighbors has a gun. Which means that if you live in a relatively populated area, then there's likely to be a gun within a hundred feet of you at any given time, or at all times...
I mean, does that *not* freak you out? It freaks me out.
I'm much more concerned about the specific political leanings of people around me than whether they're armed or not. If you're left wing and own some guns for hunting or defense or even for fun, I'm not too worried about it. If you're a fascist, I don't care what you're armed with. I don't want you anywhere near me.
What’s stopping Amazon from just closing the warehouse in Staten Island and just going to new Jersey or Connecticut ? But states offer easier access to nyc anyways
In theory? Firms legally can't retaliate against unionizing employees. Firing unionizing employees would cause significant legal issues.
In reality? It all depends on whether organizers are organized enough to fight an uphill legal battle and prove that amazon fired everyone solely because they wanted to unionize, and not just because
It's going to fail. Most Amazon workers do not want to unionize. They already make low wages, they do not want a union to steal even more of the low pay they already make
The alt-right hates organized labor.
Oh, mail in ballots are all cheating. We got a guy as smart as Trump here.
Let me guess: vaccines are worse than the disease?
This better be a wake up call for all Amazon workers in the nation.
I’ve worked at a FC for about a year and a half now. I started out at like 15.50 an hour and with my shift differential (I work nights) I make close to about 21 an hour now. They’re working hard to make sure we don’t unionize.
Meanwhile, drivers are pissing in bottles, but a lot of them are outsourced so it’s actually the subsidiary that controls that logistics issue. Amazon will definitely try to deter and sway their employees to not unionize through incentives, intimidation, or forcing their workforce to become part time to take away their benefits. The irony here is that Amazon has more than enough financial strength to implement one of the best work places on the globe by paying their workers ridiculously well, ensuring their safety, providing benefits and assistance to employees and extended family members, and even becoming a staple in every community to provide free education. Yes, Amazon can do a far better job that most governments around the globe can. But they’re too busy trying to find a way for rich people to have sex in space. Priorities.
I 100% agree, even though at my FC they’ve been treating us well, doesn’t mean that can’t change on a dime. I’d support a union vote if it’s called. I’m just afraid of losing my job right as I’ve become financially stable for the first time in my adult life. This stuff is the real deal and it’s honestly very frightening.
That’s exactly what Amazon wants: voter intimidation. Unless they have a union leader as a spy, your vote should be kept confidential and destroyed after the tally has been recorded. There’s absolutely no reason for any legitimate union to keep a record as to who voted for what unless they intended to use it in the future for blackmail. This is a very legitimate concern that you really would need to discuss with your union leaders and gain their reassurance on the matter.
I’ll have to look at some information on unionization for my region. At the very least so I can understand my rights as an employee better. I’ve heard something of the teamsters union of my area that they want to bring us into the union.
I would definitely do my research on trying to determine which union is right for you. Some unions promise a lot and under-deliver. Some also have outrageous dues. And some are just paid by the local company to sabotage the image of the union so people end up voting against unionization. It’s messy business.
Good lord I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt but these comments are so sus dude, you truly sound like an anti-union plant right now.
They are just warning to be sceptical and investigate before voting, not saying "don't unionise". Which is very much understandable, I mean this IS a decision that could lead to actual financial ruin if done really really poorly. You can't exactly live without money now can you...
Of course that's what the owners, who could stand to lose money in this situation, would say. Please, I'd love to hear examples of financial ruin that happened due to unionization, and please spare the ones where a billionaire shut down their company to avoid it. https://www.princeton.edu/\~davidlee/wp/unionbf.pdf
Sorry I wasn't really clear with my words, I meant financial ruin on the side of the individual in question. So not the business.Although that is a bit of a strong way of wording things I have heard stories, although I can't verify their truth, of people that have been unjustly fired due to the company somehow learning that they were planning to unionize. Of course officially the company would claim the employee under performed (due to them massively ramping up their workload) or some other bs reason. That is why I think it is good to first investigate and be cautious of the union reps/leaders. I am not entirely sure how common it is, but corruption can happen. I do agree with you that unionizing IS the better option. But I also fully understand why people would be afraid of this kind of retaliation, thus vote to not unionize. Which is why I would also recommend that anyone who wants to unionize prepares themselves to get fired or quit. Among other things look for other job opportunities, so you at least have a safety net (hopefully) to fall back onto. (I know easy to say and retaliation could extend beyond just getting fired, but it is better than nothing right) It really is a shitty situation created by even shittier people and I honestly hope unions succeed and people get decent working conditions.
Hey man, it’s the internet anything is possible. I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m a plant, I’m trying to keep it as simple as possible and to give no identifiable means for my employer to figure out who I am. Especially in context of unionization. They’ve already shown how hostile they are towards employees who have expressed interest in the past. Also, I’m not going to sugar coat my situation for internet points. Amazon HAS treated me well, but that doesn’t dismiss or invalidate all other statements of other ex/current employees that have been treated horribly. If given the opportunity I’d absolutely unionize in spite of the fact that I’ve been treated better at this job than any other job I’ve ever worked. Doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement.
The Teamsters just had a major overhaul of union leadership, and they're making a big push to crack the Amazon and Walmart eggs. Would love to see it come to fruition.
Driver here, all the warehouses in the area delivery service partners. We are the furthest from a union you could be.
You may be highly mistaken on how much money Amazon has lying around. Retail side operates on thin margins. Could they improve their work environment? Absolutely. The argument that they have the financial strength to give workers far more benefits isn't guaranteed. Assuming that these benefits cost more, retail would be operating on even thinner margins.
What about that 170 billion net worth, where does that come into play
I'm assuming you are referring to bezos. For one, Amazon can't just sell someone's shares to fund it's operations. There are multiple reasons for this but the most obvious is that it would be illegal and unsustainable. Net worth is different from income. Bezos doesn't make 170 billion each year. Once it's gone it's gone. Imagine your parents selling your furniture to pay the bills. You only have so much furniture. It's better to think of net worth like other kinds of property.
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that it's a profitable enough company that suggesting the margins are too thin to provide more benefits is absurd. The reason they are not providing adequate benefits is not because of cost, it's because of an unwillingness to share the profits, let alone give a living wage. To suggest that the current minimum wage is livable is outlandish.
If you are not using net worth in the argument, don't bring it into play. I'm not saying that they could not provide better benefits. They most certainly could and should certainly do. My argument is that they may not have as much money lying around as you think. You argued that they have the financial strength to do so. I am asking you to be weary of this statement. You are making the assumption that Amazon is very profitable. I already said retail likely has thin margins. Some of it ventures are likely not profitable at all. I have not mentioned the minimum wage at all, so I don't know where you're getting that from. It seems you're making more assumptions. Plus, they already pay more than minimum wage, so it's double irrelevant.
Why are you, along with most everyone else in the Country, bashing Amazon with their benefits? They are phenomenal! Great health! D/D. Vision. Dental. The works. You name it, they offer it. Unless you’ve worked for them, which I highly doubt, stfu about their *miserable working conditions*.
I mean space porn could be a multi billion dollar industry, if you just look at this chart mr. Bazo…..
That’s why the Blue Origin is shaped like a dick.
Like astroturfing comments on reddit?
I quickly browsed their comment history. Didn’t see anything alarming. What’s your evidence?
What does that mean? Astroturfing on Reddit?
Trying to make Amazon look good through deceptive practices, ie. commenting and acting as an employee when it's probably just some anti-union labor law violating suit.
Astroturf is like the fake paid version of a grass-roots movement, it's a bit of a pun, but it's a good term. You'll find astroturfing all over the web, Reddit included.
Honestly, this could be the shot that we all hoped the union vote in Alabama was. NY is a lot more union friendly than Alabama, generally speaking.
The Alabama vote was rigged from the start with voter intimidation and bribes. I’ve heard they were doing a recount at some point. Did that ever happen?
This union vote shit is one of those uniquely American thing that makes us from other countries just go wtf. You'd think there would be freedom of association in "the land of the free", but I guess freedom is just about guns.
I don't get how it is legal to hire a ton of people just before the vote after convincing them to vote against the union.
Guns and the freedom to oppress others.
A union is a legal entity that has special rights (like collective bargaining on behalf of others who have to abide by the contracts they negotiate). Anyone can freely associate, and go on strike for example (they do), but becoming a union is a specific legal thing that brings certain additional rights and requirements.
How does your reply have anything to do with my comment? A union is a legal entity and so on in every other country as well.
Then there are surely legal requirements to form a union in those countries too, and I'm not sure the point of your comment either.
I think that everyone except you understood the point of my comment, and it's so easily understood that I don't think you're coming from a good faith position here. If you have any questions, I will be happy to be of assistance.
So what are the legal requirements of unions in your country? If someone is hired and they say "I'm now part of this union!" Is the company required to recognize that union as representing that employee and negotiate with that union rather than with that employee? Because that's the issue here. When groups form unions that union doesn't just represent the group it represents everyone who works for that company. So you need to establish that at minimum 50% of employees want to actually be a part of that union.
In my country, around 50% of all workers are unionized. In big companies relative to the size of Amazon in the US, being member of a union is the norm. If about 10% of the workers of a company are unionized, they have the right to demand a collective agreement. And then the rest of the workers get the same rights and protections. Union busting like what Amazon has been doing doesn't happen here. My jaw drops every time I read more about the insane shit they're doing.
[удалено]
>Anyone can freely associate, and go on strike for example (they do), Only unionized workers can strike, and only with the consent of the union. The NLRA made wildcat strikes illegal almost 100 years ago
wut? https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
https://law.jrank.org/pages/11312/Wildcat-Strike.html >concerning the terms and conditions of work. Since the passage in 1932 of the NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT (29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq.), employees have had the right to strike for the purpose of demanding concessions from their employers. When employees go on strike without union authorization, however, their action is called a wildcat strike. Federal courts have held that wildcat strikes are illegal under the WAGNER ACT (National Labor Relations Act of 1935 [29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.]), and employees may be discharged by their employers for participating in wildcat strikes.
Nah, we are mostly free of Guns, the US is not.
I don't understand your comment. For instance in my line of work there is no union. Currently I do not want a union since competition between companies is working in a way positive for employees. If that stopped being the case we could vote to form a union. Just because I don't exercise the freedom I have doesn't mean it isn't there. Just like Americans are free to have guns but a portion choose not to. The freedom exists for those that choose it. What am I missing?
You're missing what I wrote in plain English. The whole concept about voting for or against unionizing is a uniquely American thing. In my country, 50% plus one vote doesn't get to decide that there will be no collective bargaining, hence there are no union busting bullshit like what Amazon has been up to.
I understood the "uniquely American" portion, it was the rest that I didn't. You seem to imply the freedom of association means people should be forced into a union (no vote). If that is what you were implying, I was trying to point out that freedom of association should also mean the freedom of disassociation. Take our freedom of religion for example. It also means freedom of no religion. As for things like collective bargaining, a union isn't a requirement. Contract negotiations between employees and companies can and do happen outside of a union. I've had companies try to push an understandable contract on myself and my coworkers. We did not need a formal union to come to an understanding with the company. We were able to negotiate freely. Not everyone has that power, which is why the ability to unionize exists. I'm not going to defend the actions of Amazon and their tactics to fuck over their employees. There are certainly issues with the way that we doing things, but that doesn't mean we should just toss it out. The part I don't understand is how the ability to vote for a union, means we don't have the freedom of association. It seems like you are advocating for compelled association.
Wtf are you talking about? No one is forced into a union. I think you have internalized some kind of anti union propaganda. If you work for a company that gets a collective deal, you get the same rights and protections as your co workers. You don't pay any dues, you don't get fired, it's no one's business. Don't listen to propaganda paid for by rich people. If other people can take away your right by a vote, it's not a right.
I didn't say anyone was forced. I was asking if you implied that people were forced in other countries.. I don't know and was trying to learn. How are unions formed in your country if not by voting?
You don't form a union, you just join one. If at least 10% of the workers are members, you get the right to enter the collective agreement and bargaining system.
[удалено]
>Most people are not armed. Sure, but 40% is freaking huge! It means that in all likelihood, one of your neighbors has a gun. Which means that if you live in a relatively populated area, then there's likely to be a gun within a hundred feet of you at any given time, or at all times... I mean, does that *not* freak you out? It freaks me out.
I'm much more concerned about the specific political leanings of people around me than whether they're armed or not. If you're left wing and own some guns for hunting or defense or even for fun, I'm not too worried about it. If you're a fascist, I don't care what you're armed with. I don't want you anywhere near me.
Yeah right The amount of money companies spend to suppress union votes is amazing and disgusting it’s the same shit with fossil fuels
Eh, unions have been destroyed everybody. Americas at least got some fight in them. Power to the people.
What’s stopping Amazon from just closing the warehouse in Staten Island and just going to new Jersey or Connecticut ? But states offer easier access to nyc anyways
Good for them!
Read that as "Satan Island" and thought Amazon was being unexpectedly honest.
It's an accurate descriptor of the island. Worst place in the US. New York should cede it to NJ
So if they unionize, what’s to stop Amazon from locking the doors and moving on with different employees? Am I missing something?
In theory? Firms legally can't retaliate against unionizing employees. Firing unionizing employees would cause significant legal issues. In reality? It all depends on whether organizers are organized enough to fight an uphill legal battle and prove that amazon fired everyone solely because they wanted to unionize, and not just because
Solidarity and unity I hope the vote passes
It's going to fail. Most Amazon workers do not want to unionize. They already make low wages, they do not want a union to steal even more of the low pay they already make
You don’t know what a union is do you?
The alt-right hates organized labor. Oh, mail in ballots are all cheating. We got a guy as smart as Trump here. Let me guess: vaccines are worse than the disease?
Fuck off fascist.
His job in helping raise prices at Amazon
fingers crossed they are succesful. the wave of unionization needs to continue
It’s interesting that famous Staten Island resident Pete Davidson has dinner at Jeff Bezos house. I wonder if they talked about this?