💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29393916 captured on 2021-11-30 at 20:18:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
Wow. Posting antiunion posters throughout the workplace, holding mandatory weekly antiunion meetings, and having your boss come to the floor and talk about unions is already pretty scummy before the new vote was even certain.
And those posters are just absurd. "Your dues will pay for a six figure salary for the union president" rings hollow when your labor led to Bezos' net worth.
> "Your dues will pay for a six figure salary for the union president" rings hollow when your labor led to Bezos' net worth.
This illustrates an important point:
The upper-class is using the lower-class against the middle-class.
The whole lower/middle class divide is an arbitrary distinction that only serves to split the broader working class. A white collar programmer has more in common with a janitor then with a CEO.
> A white collar programmer has more in common with a janitor than with a CEO.
As someone who grew up lower-class and now makes six figures in tech, I don't think this is true.
There's a world of difference between a janitor and a white-collar programmer. A janitor worries paycheck-to-paycheck and has to consider every purchase, constantly lives in stress of a large unexpected expense, and so on, it's just vastly different.
A programmer, like a CEO, has none of those concerns. Who cares if the CEO has earned enough for a bigger mansion or a more prestigious car?
At some point (lower than most expect), money offers diminishing returns. A difference of +$100k/year will take care of most of Maslow's hierarchy and have you set for life unless you're financially irresponsible.
I still know six figure programmer friends living paycheck to paycheck, but that mostly comes down to the market that is California. My $40K a year as an underpaid Fire Alarm Tech/Draftsman in Louisiana can't even cover his rent.
> The whole lower/middle class divide is an arbitrary distinction that only serves to split the broader working class. A
The typical drawing of the line in US discussions _within_ the working class is; the middle class _is_ a distinct economic class with distinct interests, but it is a much narrower and generally (though not entirely, because _economic class_ and _wealth_ are different though correlated things) richer group than the usual US understanding of “middle class”.
That’s assuming that someone working as janitor is representative of lower class. The median wage for a janitor is $29K. It ain’t a lot, but the 10th percentile wage in the US is $8,500. It’s a very different lifestyle when someone doesn’t have a regular paycheck and the accomplishment of a job title.
I 100% agree, but even in the 1990s and to a fault the degreed programmers were very anti-union.
Not this one.
I think it's absurd take. How many people here are unionised? Not that many but everyone has an opinion what some blue collar workers really want and these are unions.
For Euros - American unions are nothing like in Europe.
The white collar blue collar divide is much stronger than the divide between white collar employees and senior management.
Source: lived it
The programmer has far more in common and can relate (both culturally and economically) far better to the C suite crowd than to the janitor or landscaper.
In terms of cultural differences, the blue/white collar divide is definitely massive. I believe the parent comment is looking at it in more economic terms, where the worker/employer distinction is more meaningful.
I have nothing in common with the C suite class. And I have seen how reckless this class has acted given the recessions and wars. Nothing.
> The programmer has far more in common and can relate far better to the C suite crowd than to the janitor or landscaper.
That’s a matter of perspective. Yes, both are degreed and educated.
But that’s where the sameness ends. One may think they’re like the other, but have you heard the term “coding monkey”?
Without fail and by necessity every single company has fallen victim to leadership who are less technical and more business minded.
Think of Boeing and Google as two recent examples. The better ones tend to keep a strong technical person as a sidekick, but everyone else is fighting for scraps.
The rarest and “best” individuals possess both technical savvy and ruthlessness.
Yes but they think the opposite
> The upper-class is using the lower-class against the middle-class.
While true, that is not illustrated by the thing you are pointed to, which is the upper class using the working class against leadership within the working class.
The middle class (_petit bourgeoisie_) is mostly not involved in this instance.
The Greatest Trick The Rich Ever Pulled Was Convincing The Middle Class That The Poor Was To Blame.
I find it is more the 5th to 8th income/wealth deciles being temporarily embarrassed 9th decilers, and wanting to believe they will possibly join the 10th decilers someday. The bottom 5 deciles do not have much hope of getting to the top in the first place, they are aiming to get to the middle deciles.
Everyone wants to believe they are marching upward, so if they or their children are trending up (no matter that they are probabilistically not likely to get near the very top), they still do not want to lower the ceiling.
I feel like this quote summarized a lot of tribal conflict, whether it be delineated along socioeconomic class or race or whatever:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-wh...
Everyone is happy when the tide is lifting all boats, but when some are rising more relative to others, implying some are moving down relative to others, there is inevitable chafing as resources are re-allocated.
the rising tide has stopped lifting all boats decades ago.
The upper class is destroying the middle class.
The US middle class is disappearing…into the upper middle class.
https://www.aei.org/economics/the-us-middle-class-is-disappe...
If a man was making a real income of $95k in 1980, and was then knocked down to $55k, so his wife raises their 1 kid (as the example given), goes back to work and makes $100k - they have moved from middle class to upper middle class.
Interesting these charts start in 1980 as well. The average real hourly wage went down from 1972 to 1980, then began a recovery. So when you don't show things were better beforehand, it looks like a constant rise, which it was not.
Not sure I understand your comment as presumably people were staying home with their kid throughout that period?
And the entry of women in the workforce happened in the 1970’s. The start date of 1980 might be arbitrary, but you seem to ignore the trend being pointed out.
I had figured since it was the AEI the figures would be intended to mislead.
The AEI doesn't mention it, but a large part of the middle -> upper middle shift is increasing participation in the labor force by women[1]. Which is a good thing! But it doesn't support the claim that the US, as a whole, is moving middle class families into the upper middle class through positive socioeconomic shifts. It merely demonstrates that more labor means more paychecks.
[1]:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002
Is two income households _truly_ a good thing?
A different perspective is that two income households enabled housing costs to rise, rents to rise. And causes the cost of having a child increase due to childcare costs.
Overall maybe society is better having 1 parent (male or female) stay at home to raise the children. Or re think our North American living situation ideals of 1 family per house.
I think it is, at least from the perspective of human autonomy: independent income sources means freer choices among peoples. However, that opinion of mine is immaterial to this conversation.
But the women _were_ working before, they were just labouring inside the home. Society is realising that having all the women become domestic workers by default is a massive misallocation of resources and correcting course. That _is_ a positive socioeconomic shift.
All of that domestic work is being done, in addition to having two full time jobs outside the home. With roughly the same standard of living.
Hard to say that's an unalloyed positive.
This is an excellent point that I hadn't thought to make.
Yep, that's why I tried to distinguish between "workforce participation" and "labor." Women have always labored; they just haven't been paid for it historically.
And it is indeed a positive socioeconomic shift. But it isn't the kind that the AEI means to imply: they're a neoconservative foundation that's attempting to post-hoc justify deregulation and de-clawing of federal agencies under false premises.
Is it? Or is it an artifact of how economic measures are unable to capture important socioeconomic factors? Perhaps the only misallocation is the assumption that women were domestic workers and domestic workers were women.
Your chart shows that workforce participation by women was already high.
And this chart is skewed by the underlying baby boomer generation which made up a bigger percent of the population (which is why you see the downward trend recently - they retired).
While that is true to an extent, it drops some very important context.
What happened / is happening, is white and asian middle class households have continued to climb into the higher economic tiers over the last 40-50 years. In their place, hispanic households that have rapidly expanded in numbers in the US since the late 1970s are taking over an ever larger share of the middle class demographic.
When people claim the middle class has seen no economic gains in the last 40-50 years, they're either lying or painfully ignorant of what's actually occurring: a dramatic and rapid demographic shift. It takes a mere few minutes to dig up the relevant economic data and see how the middle class of ~1980 was nearly entirely white, and many of those formerly middle class whites have now shifted upward in the economic tiers (which you can spot today by looking at the median or average white household net worth vs the national median or average).
So what some of that middle class disappearing into the upper classes represents is an ongoing bifurcation by race among the classes. The US middle class will soon be overwhelmingly hispanic, in other words. That's tremendous progress in a sense, given the people it represents often came from third world countries with nothing to their names and speaking little to no English. Will they see continued progress or will their position ossify there? That's the next issue for the new, vast US hispanic middle class for the coming decades.
And what about black households over that time? They're being left behind by hispanic household net worth growth and are not seeing nearly the same progress in moving into the middle class. That is going to cause significant political ramifications as hispanic political power in the US continues to expand.
I worked at the LA Zoo in high school for The Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association doing food service. It was a teamsters shop. I was making upwards of 22 dollars an hour when minimum wage was 4.25 back in 1995 at 16 years old. I don't understand how people in lower paying positions are not seeing the value here or not jumping at the opportunity to vote.
It is pretty absurd to make the six figure claim when the boss is sitting on a 13 figure bag of money.
Organized crime and corruption are what distract. Just the word teamster sets off a chain reaction of emotions when I've used it. If I had to make a parallel, it would be to political corruption. If they view all politicians as corrupt, why would they want politicians in their workplace? Unions are thrown under a blanket of grift, and not looked at in much granularity.
The average workplace is already full of politicians and fiefdoms. Many are actively working against you behind the scenes. Entire departments are devoted to it (HR). If they choose to have a small world view, they can never be helped. As someone living in Los Angeles at the time, many union jobs are well respected (e.g. studio, trade, etc).
You were making 5x the minimum wage working in food service? Back in 1995?
Unions help the well-connected get better paying jobs, at the expense of less well-connected people who would be willing to do the job for less, but still at a rate that makes sense for them.
So the question is not “do unions help union members?” (they almost certainly do), it’s “do unions help workers like me?” - maybe the average worker is not confident that they can move to their _next_ job if the industry is unionized?
Having been in three different unions for low-payed, unskilled labor like being a warehouse picker is, I can tell you that the union was never on my side for anything and mostly served to help management pay everyone the minimum rather than based on performance.
And yes, the union reps got the best positions, the best hours and two salaries. The next best positions and best hours went to their friends.
The unions only stepped in for the most egregious cases but not in the way you might think: When Buffalo NY's Tops International Market fired their baker for literally urinating in the cake batter used to make the store cakes, the union stepped in to defend the employee because as part of the union contract employees were not supposed to be on camera to perform their duties. They fought hard to get their baker reinstated and won.
Outside of federal employment and outside of hollywood, where the strongest unions are anyway, the history of union activity in the US is quite unremarkable. It is most frequently anti-consumer and often works against the long term interests of the workers that it's supposed to represent.
Literally 99% of the time I hear somebody shouting support of unions here, they've either never been in one or they've always been the reps. Voices like mine, of those who've been in unions and got the shit end of the stick, get shouted down.
I would rather die than participate in a labor union again, for as long as I live.
> When Buffalo NY's Tops International Market fired their baker for literally urinating in the cake batter used to make the store cakes, the union stepped in to defend the employee because as part of the union contract employees were not supposed to be on camera to perform their duties. They fought hard to get their baker reinstated and won.
Do you have a source for this? It's a rather serious claim to make without any evidence and I haven't been able to find anything other than your comment when searching.
This happened in 2004 or 2005. My memory isn't good enough to land on the exact year.
> It's a rather serious claim to make without any evidence and I haven't been able to find anything other than your comment when searching.
It's also the kind of thing that every party involved would try very hard to keep on the down low. I can definitely see it not making the news since there's probably only about half a dozen people party to it and nobody is a celebrity or otherwise public personality.
Then how does this person know about it?
Without evidence, assume it's invented anti-union bullshit.
> Then how does this person know about it?
I was there when it happened.
Because it's the kind of thing that makes it around the workplace.
Nobody's gonna leak that to the news because "trashy line cook does something trashy" isn't really a story worth getting a new job over. You just joke about it with your coworkers friends and move on.
I had a similar experience in IBEW Local 58 before I left the trade to pursue a career in tech. I'm not sure why the negative experiences of those who've seen the dark side of union orgs, aren't welcome.
They tend to be "I was overqualified for my temp hustle and they didn't specifically cater to my needs." Yet they still picked union jobs, likely as it provided them better conditions than the alternatives.
And those antiunion meetings and 'direct report check ins' aren't even legal. there's a whole industry of anti-union consultants who go around giving these captive presentations. Throwing 1st amendment issues aside, I think it should be illegal. Or else require equal time to the union reps to give their pitch.
What’s the issue? A company can legally campaign against a union and it’s pretty clear that the employees rejected it by a 2 to 1 margin. I highly doubt a new election will flip the result.
The labor board issue was with the voting procedure.
There's a really obvious difference between those two things: every cent of the union's funds is actual money that is taken out of employees' paychecks and comes right out their pockets, whereas Bezos' net worth isn't. Like, not only does it not come out of employee's pay even indirectly, it's not even money - it's just shares held times the last price a single share traded at. It may be measured in the same units as actual money like paychecks and spending, but it's not and cannot be used as such. Bluntly, all the populist activists and politicans who spin Bezos' wealth as actual cash that could be spent on things like food and healthcare if he stopped hoarding it are conning people by taking advantage of their desire to have someone to blame.
Bezos's money might not be cash, but it's still relatively liquid: he owns about 10% of Amazon's shares, and could liquidate a _very small_ percentage of that to generate billions of dollars of cash on hand. And, as a matter of fact, that's precisely what he's being doing[1].
[1]:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2021/11/04/jeff-bez...
These discussions neglect a few things:
JB has enormous net worth outside of public shares. Including over 16B in cash.
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/jeffrey-p-be...
To the discussion of public shares: Yes he couldn’t cash out all 177B for cash, however a significantly large portion (i.e many billions) can be over a relatively short span of time, additionally shares still possess a barter-like function.
These are not small numbers and indeed such sums could be used to resolve some pretty significant issues (see Bill Gates who is in a similar public-share-wealthy position.)
As for taking part of their pay for union fees. This is like trying to save on toothpaste: The small cost of union fees will deliver benefits for these employees that would easily outstrip contribution costs.
Such an argument would only be valid for employees that already have good pay and benefits/ where a union wouldn’t be able to deliver significant change.
Why is it “scummy”? If the employer chooses to _pay_ their employees to attend meetings where the employer gives their point of view about unions, how is that different from a union spending their own money holding a union meeting to express _their_ views to the employees? Or do you think workers can’t be trusted to decide what’s in their best interests if exposed to both sides of an issue?
>If the employer chooses to pay their employees to attend meetings where the employer gives their point of view about unions, how is that different from a union spending their own money holding a union meeting to express their views to the employees?
With union meetings, both parties chose to be there. With the work meetings, one side is compelled to be there as part if their work duties.
And yes, they pay them to be there, but that also implies that if they don't listen to what is said at those meetings they'll stop paying them. As most work meetings are about things employees have to do or they'll be fired.
Except the employees don't pay Bezos anything...he pays them. Literally the exact opposite where the employees are paying for the union president.
Employees pay Bezos the surplus value of their labor. Their wages are what Bezos allows them to keep, not what Bezos pays them.
This seems to be predicated on the labor theory of value, which is wrong.
Put differently, if a company loses money, is it always because the employees aren’t working hard enough?
> This seems to be predicated on the labor theory of value, which is wrong.
After all, Amazon famously doesn't need the labor of their employees to sell the products and services that support their value :-)
The LTV doesn't _guarantee_ a direct relationship between _real_ labor and _realized_ value (which is a combination of market and economic value): it describes a relationship between socially necessary labor and economic value.
Isn't this the reason people put in enormous amount of hours in their startup? The idea that more labor equals more success seems to be built into our culture. The same idea is reflected in the argument that poor people stay poor because they are lazy/not willing to work.
I personally think that idea is incorrect (and labor theory of value has limited application), but I have been seeing arguments where everyone picks and chooses the idea when it is applied personally vs applied to someone else.
>if a company loses money, is it always because the employees aren’t working hard enough?
Or a company could be ordering their employees to work in an unprofitable way, or the company could be spending the money on unnecessary non-labor expenditures...
So pre-Facebook WhatsApp was the only well-run company, and the rest of them are ordering employees to work in unprofitable ways, and waste money?
A lot of the reason those companies aren't making profits is that they're buying other companies and making other investments, also known as unnecessary non-labor expenditures. And those were just two examples of ways a company could not turn a profit besides the workers not working hard enough.
If this were true wouldn't every employee take their labor somewhere more profitable?
> If this were true wouldn't every employee take their labor somewhere more profitable?
Yes, this is what happens when the labor is something that can effectively be independent, operate without massive capital investment, or be relocated easily. E.g. doctors, programmers, lawyers, plumbers.
But many kinds of labor are only useful in a coordinated context, requiring capital support and infrastructure, perhaps due to economies of scale, natural monopolies, regulatory restrictions, and the like. So that kind of worker must be embedded in a firm to be effective. Currently, policy is written to support corporate firms, and suppress cooperative organization and independent labor, so there's not really an option for most workers to depart. There's no such thing as an independent one-man freelance car manufacturer, for instance.
This is the distinction between the marxist concepts of petit-bourgeoisie and proletariat.
What you've basically said is that labor isnt the only input to production; there are other inputs required as well.
So if labor is just one of many inputs, it seems wrong to attribute all profit to labor as if it played the only part.
The delta between what he (Bezos) would have to pay them with vs without a union negotiation can be seen as a gift to his bottom line. Similarly, the cost of that union president spread over union employees is still far less than the increase in comp and benefits union shops would get with a union negotiation.
The money Bezos uses to pay them comes from selling their labor, and without the laborers neither Bezos nor the union president would get that money. Pretty similar.
It is a matter of semantics... this is like arguing that you don't have to pay credit card fees because the merchant pays them, when clearly the cost is going to be passed on to the customer.
The point is that being in a union will increase wages more than the cost of the union dues.
100k is close to middle class for someone with a family at this point. Homer Simpson makes six figures, Mr. Burns mortgage is six figures. Something like quarter million would've landed better I suspect. This is the sort of thing people in stuffy boardrooms come up with as opposed to a advertising team, lacking polish.
In the Bay, Seattle, or NY, maybe. In Bessemer, AL where the vote is being held, the median family income is $40k.
Still a ridiculous talking point.
Bessemer's middle class are poor in national terms, they are aware of other areas in the country and likely don't limit themselves to their zip code when making comparisons.
Median Value of owner occupied housing units:
National[0] - $217,500
Bessemer, AL[1] - $86,500
Median household income:
National - $62,843
Bessemer, AL - $32,301
[0]
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
[1]
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bessemercityalabama
Warehouse employees in Bessemer are not making $40k. More like $20k with minimal benefits if they're lucky. Keep in mind that's before a couple grand in income and sales taxes.
> 100k is close to middle class
If a large minority of it is derived from capital directly or the majority of it is derived from the worker’s labor applied to their own capital.
If it is derived from wage labor and is the worker’s entire income, its just relatively high-income working class, and isn’t “close to” middle class.
Agreed. There is a truly bizarre tendency for people to try to reinvent class based on income, realize it doesn't work very well, add some sort of interest or social dimension to it, and slowly reinvent the classical concept of class with the labels shuffled around. We've already had good class labels, working class, labor aristocracy, middle class, struggling capitalist class (small business owners ie petite bourgeoisie), and major capitalist.
I think it should be some kind of law of the internet. Any discussion of socioeconomic topics ends up reinventing the classic class system on a long enough time scale.
That may be true in SV or something like that, but I am guessing in Alabama, for someone making $15-$20 an hour six figures seems like quite a bit. Heck I'd consider myself upper middle class and I make low six figures.
According to
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL
, the median income is $50k so it's good but hardly lavish and
https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Alabama/Mobile/Household-...
has the 80th percentile just under $100k whereas 95th percentile is $154k.
I think it's easy to forget just how uneven things have become since the middle of the previous century: someone making more money than 95 out of every 100 Alabama residents is doing quite well compared to most of the people in the state and is still nowhere near CEO-level compensation.
Household income.
Thanks for pointing that out but I don't think it dramatically changes the broader point: if you're making $40-50k/year, someone making $100k is making a good deal more than you but their life isn't dramatically different — bigger house, nicer car, etc. but they still have to go work every day, don't have servants, etc. and they're still going to pay attention to the cost of things like daycare or college or fear the financial impact of a medical bill.
No question that it's better but it's going from average to “highest income person you know who isn't your doctor” rather than executive class income.
You're right about the data the parent is quoting, however it's worth pointing out that the national median income for a full-time (35+ hours per week) job in the US is over $50,000 (excluding benefits and other forms of compensation).
Anywhere on the western half of the US requires $100k+ to have a place to live that isn't a studio apartment or having roommates
Even in SV someone working at an Amazon warehouse is not making more than that.
I’m not sure that people in other parts of the country realize how much anti union sentiment there is in the southeast.
One of the biggest things that attracts businesses to setup shop in the south is low cost of living and lower salary requirements as a result. The same things that cause businesses to setup shop overseas.
When unions get involved with promises of higher wages, it disincentivizes the business from growing in that area because it has effectively no benefit over the higher cost areas.
I’ve witnessed this first hand in South Carolina ever since Boeing opened a location here. The union tactics have been crazy. Everybody down here is thrilled to have Boeing and all of the peripheral benefits to the area that come with them. Great jobs, supply chain effects, etc. Then union officials show up when it’s time for a new vote and start telling people how bad everything is. Around every vote there are always crazy news articles and sensationalized events that try to drum up union support and paint Boeing in a bad light. And then it stops until it’s time for a new vote.
Down here, people want businesses. They want jobs. The want corporate customers to sell services to. They want economic development and they want practices to incentivize that.
What people don’t want are practices that will slow that down, especially when the non-union work pays better than most everything else in the area already.
It gives the appearance to everyone, somewhat obviously, that the union is only interested is strengthening itself.
This sounds like an odd negotiating tactic in business (or anything): 'I'll take whatever you say, just please don't leave!'
People want to better pay and benefits, more power over what they do with their lives 40+ hours per week. You can't be afraid to push for yourself in any negotiations, and you need leverage to get as much as you can. Without a union, you have all the leverage of a lone individual.
What's crazy to me is seeing Boeing treated like a god coming down to bless the land with their beneficence, whom we must please and obey. They are a business who will use whatever leverage they have to get what they can; you need leverage too.
The workers simply have a lot less leverage than you think. Globalization and automation has made work less scarce than labor. The pandemic reduced the supply of labor, and accordingly, wages for low-skill workers have skyrocketed, which proves that the market is working as intended.
Unions don't magically create leverage out of thin air. They steal it from those outside the union by constraining the the supply of labor. The most effective unions are those that do this to the greatest extent. For example, SAG-AFTRA forces productions to give speaking roles to union members and also restricts union eligibility to those that receive these speaking roles.
> SAG-AFTRA forces productions to give speaking roles to union members and also restricts union eligibility
SAG does not force productions to do anything. The production can either use union or not use union. What they can't do is use cherry pick talent. Your best talent is going to be a SAG member. And since it's a union you either get all or none.
>SAG does not force productions to do anything
I'm merely applying the same language people use here to attack corporations.
>And since it's a union you either get all or none.
Everywhere else this would be a clear violation to antitrust.
> Everywhere else this would be a clear violation to antitrust
What?
"You either sell only laptops with intel CPU's or we will ship no CPU's to you at all!"
Sounds like a clear antitrust case to me.
Many regions in the US have been hit hard by globalization and manufacturing job loss. The choice isn't necessarily viewed as union vs non-union, but unemployment vs non-union. It seems they are choosing the jobs.
They are competing against other parts of the world in terms of labor supply. I don't know how you overcome that without either demonstrably higher productivity or protectionism.
> This sounds like an odd negotiating tactic in business (or anything): 'I'll take whatever you say, just please don't leave!'
Remember the Amazon HQ2 race to the bottom?
If it weren't Bezos I'd say it were intended as an art piece to demonstrate how bad the problem is, even between states inside a single country. That said, Virginia ended up paying about $27k per job generated while the second office in NYC was given about $75k per job generated.
So a taxpayer subsidy from everyone in the region in order to produce 25,000 jobs at the above prices. Worth it? Not really sure, it seems to me like Virginia might end up fairly well off but I have a harder time imagining that creating another 25,000 jobs in NYC is worth $75k a piece to the city given that they are already out of housing. Kind of seems like it might be better put into other things on balance.
Pitching it all as a public auction really accentuates the point that this is a race to the bottom with competition between people that should instead be natural allies. It would be brilliant if it were an intentional commentary on how much harm we are doing to ourselves by letting companies pit entire states against each other for profit.
It’s not surprising that those who directly benefit from the lack of unionization are not in support of it.
> It’s not surprising that those who directly benefit from the lack of unionization are not in support of it.
Right. But what people are missing is that "those who directly benefit from the lack of unionization" is most people who actually live in the region. The jobs are there because the unions aren't, and people want jobs.
I don't think people want jobs. I think people NEED jobs because they need to eat and a roof over their head. That's not really a good justification for fleecing your workers and paying them as little as possible - that they'd starve without you.
>I don't think people want jobs. I think people NEED jobs because they need to eat and a roof over their head.
Which is why they are anti-union. Ideology aside they lack sufficient leverage (aka they are getting a good deal sans union.)
Paying your employees an agreed upon wage, which is higher than market rate for the region, is not really "fleecing your workers". People are glad to have these jobs.
People are glad to have the income and extant economical benefits of these jobs*, not the jobs themselves.
I'm not exactly sure what the pedant in you is getting at here. Unionizing isn't going to suddenly give the workers their "income and extant economical benefits of these jobs" without working the job.
Obviously people would rather get paid and not have to work, but that's not relevant to the context.
It's north vs south cultural conflict again - New England is very pro-union and are losing out as jobs have flown to the south and gloablly.
Those kinds of arguments talk a lot about "jobs" but seldomly about the quality or compensation of those jobs.
A job is not a goal in itself (except in some puritan morality I guess) but a mean to several ends: Security, income, participation, etc.
How much of that does a business bring to the region and what guarantees that it will do so in the future?
> _Down here, people want businesses. They want jobs. They want corporate customers to sell services to._
What kind of "people" are you talking about? This sounds as if the whole region consists exclusively of solo entrepreneurs.
Where does it end? This capital flight problem has been discussed since Smith (well, at least). The reality is that there will always be somewhere labor-cheaper for capital to move to. Meanwhile laborers (being physical beings) can’t be globetrotting wizards like digital money can be.
The South-East might be cheap enough today. Until somewhere else bids lower…
The workers are still there as you say, why don't they just produce value? They could organize, create a worker led company, and just produce value without the capital class. Why don't they do that?
The US labor situation is changing on a cultural level big time and rapidly. The working force is taking back the control. Companies are going to have a tougher time exploiting people for cheap labor with no/shitty benefits.
I love it. Unions are going to be a major driving force again and it's gonna be good for the work force. As a country we have to make it tougher for companies to exploit labor unfairly. The government has failed. The people know it and are finally taking action.
A true democracy would have strict regulations on companies which guarantee good living conditions for the people that live in it. The game of capitalism must be regulated, because it's a sociopathic construct. It's only goal is to make more money... as soon as possible. Left unregulated it exploits people.
> The US labor situation is changing on a cultural level big time and rapidly. The working force is taking back the control. Companies are going to have a tougher time exploiting people for cheap labor with no/shitty benefits.
> Unions are going to be a major driving force again
All of those positive changes and benefits you cited are happening without an increased union presence, though. What makes you think unions are going to be a compelling option when the non-union alternatives are rapidly changing in response to market conditions without any need for union bargaining?
This year has already seen an increased union presence and several high profile strikes.
I think it is far-fetched to say that all of this has occurred without unions whatsoever.
Just like Lenin's "reserve army" of the unemployed keeping workers motivated to keep working, so too does the "reserve threat" from labor organization motivate many of the 20th century improvements in labor conditions.
Perfect time to double-down, go union, and strike for jugular instead of relying on a rising tide to lift all boats.
The change is only on a cultural level though. companies have a very easy time exploiting people today, ad the people are getting unhappy.
No actual change has happened yet
ah yes, the anti-union astroturfer has entered the chat. Just so you know, this was an article about Amazon, not Boeing. Is your algorithm working correctly?
It's interesting how a lot of this hinges on a mailbox which was placed under Amazon's direction and unclear to employees if Amazon could also read the ballots from it. No doubt that is shady and weird.
I really wish more would/could be done about how Amazon mandated employees watch hours of propaganda and meeting with countless managers about how unions are bad. Almost everyone claims advertisements don't work on them and that if they were bombarded with messaging they wouldn't be affected, but hey advertisement isn't a billion dollar industry for nothing, and similarly I'm sure trillion dollar companies can pay for the best knowledge on union busting.
> I'm sure trillion dollar companies can pay for the best knowledge on union busting.
Indeed, Amazon have used the Pinkerton detective agency [1] against their employees to root out union activity. For those unfamiliar, the Pinkertons have existed in the US since the 1850s, with a history fraught with violence and questionable ethics, famously the Homestead strike of 1892 [2].
[1]
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-spies-worke...
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike
I did a research paper back in college on the homestead strike and haymarket riots. Strange to see Pinkerton is still around and unchanged.
Narrowly targeted advertising to a captive audience likely works to some extent but it's rare that an advertiser is ever able to get that. Something like a sports stadium where almost everyone there is a sports fan and can't mute to Jumbotron advertising to them is the closest most advertisers get. In Amazon's case, they have not only an extremely narrowly targeted audience but also one that's extremely captive to seeing the message.
Not only that, most advertisers don't have control over their target's income and healthcare. When someone in control of your life like that tells you they really really don't want you to do something, a lot of people tend to listen.
John Oliver has a good episode on union busting on his HBO show "Last Week Tonight".
I used to think well of those John Oliver pieces until he did one about a subject I knew deeply. Now I assume everything he does is a one sided hit piece that leaves out important details that completely change the picture.
The one on the energy grid was wrong on many levels, and didn't understand fundamentally the relationship between renewables generation and transmission.
What is was specifically wrong? Can you clarify?
What subject do you know deeply and what is your specific criticism of his piece?
Hey, you managed to escape Gell-Mann Amnesia.
I wouldn't encourage anyone to learn about complex topics from John Oliver in the same way I wouldn't encourage them to learn about them from Tucker Carlson. They're both entertainers first and foremost and have little to no obligation to report on the basis of fact and instead exist largely to tell their viewers what they already believe.
Employees there were getting advertisements in both directions though, right?
The employer can make employees sit through anti-union presentations. The union does not have equivalent access to the employees. There are also borderline illegal practices like saying that unionization might lead the company to shut down the facility.Âą
⸻
1. Employers are prohibited from saying that they will fire people who vote for unionization but they are allowed to say that they might shut down a shop that votes for a union. Interestingly, while this is a frequent threat, the instances of an employer ever actually following through are vanishingly small.
> Interestingly, while this is a frequent threat, the instances of an employer ever actually following through are vanishingly small.
The more common occurrence is for the employer to let the union go on strike. Then the employer keeps the shop open by hiring new workers from outside the union and lets the union stay on strike forever. Obviously the effect on the union workers is basically the same.
There is a Seinfeld about this. Kramer learns from the paper that a strike which lasted for like decades has been 'resolved'.
He goes back to the diner/bakery to demand his job back.
Also, Colt is famous for doing this and it didn't work out so great for them :
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/01/nyregion/workers-rejoice-...
The difference in that case being that they were skilled workers.
They're also a defense contractor, so you're effectively talking about a public sector union and the dynamics of that are completely different.
Sure, if the company is of the sort that can function fine without its workers. This does not really always work out in practice, esp. in today's labor market.
If you start hiring permanent replacements, you're basically killing any chance of a successful negotiation.
That's sort of the point. Amazon can function just fine without these particular employees, the jobs they are doing don't require any special skills or training, and the already high wages make them very attractive to job seekers. For Amazon, having a union in permanent impotent limbo would be a best case scenario.
IF you don't want the union to begin with, you are OK will the union negotiation failing.
What a vague way to put it, but of course, sure, there was a unionizing effort. I think an interesting example of how powerful Amazon is is that changed traffic light timing to inhibit the unionizing effort[1]
[1]
https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287191/amazon-alabama-w...
There's a difference between putting up a flyer telling people their rights, and having them sit through hours of video as part of their actual job. Scale matters.
Only 16% voted for it the first time. Even if I consider Amazon meddling, I'm guessing there won't be enough support for it this time either. Probably just people weighing the dues versus what a union could potentially do for them. It's hard to convince someone making $15/hour that their $500/year will pan out. I personally think it would, but selling that idea is another thing.
It's not hard if you've ever been in a union. I'm in a union and while wages are important, its the peace of mind knowing my boss can't fire because she's having a bad day or force me to work unpaid overtime that I really value.
In the US overtime pay is already guaranteed by law, unless you're salaried.
Unfortunately the US has comically weak enforcement of labor laws. I've experienced and heard many examples of this from over the years including managers asking employees to clock-out and finish their work. While that is illegal, the State is completely ineffective in protecting workers who file complaints.
Amazon itself is currently being sued for failing to provide required breaks. They are infamous for making it hard to even go to the bathroom. That would never fly at my shop.
Of course, that's just one example. I also love that management can't just shift more and more responsibility onto me to save money or arbitrarily increase the complexity of my work without an increase in pay.
> While that is illegal, the State is completely ineffective in protecting workers who file complaints.
I don't know which state you're in, but this is absolutely not true where I grew up. A complaint to the state labor board brought the hammer down ASAP.
The people who enforce these things absolutely love to have something to track down.
Right, but as with many things guaranteed by law, _enforcing_ the law is another matter.
Filing a union grievance for overtime violations is a much simpler process than what you would have to do in a non-union shop. And comes with a fair amount of protection against retaliation.
Enforcement of said law is another matter entirely. The union tends to have enough negotiating power to keep the employer _honest_ about overtime.
While true, this ignores how widespread wage theft is, especially among lower-paid workers.
Here's one example of unpaid overtime wages, nearly a million dollars worth, being stolen from workers:
> After receiving a wage complaint from a worker who failed to receive any money for his work, California Labor Commissioner Julie Su’s office began investigating contractor Tadros & Youssef Construction’s work on the Highland Oaks Elementary School construction project. Su’s office discovered that nine other employees earned below the prevailing wage and were not paid for overtime hours on this same project. The resulting settlement forced Tadros & Youssef to pay $877,876.64 restitution to the 10 workers. The contracting firm is no longer in business.
From:
https://www.epi.org/publication/epidemic-wage-theft-costing-...
Or maybe people are considering things other than their personal wallet when deciding whether to support unionization or not. Some folks just don't want to be part of a union, even if there weren't any dues.
That's fair, though if I had a $15/hour job and had to pee in a jug to keep up with work quotas, I would at least be interested to hear the sales pitch.
_Only 16% voted for it the first time._
The vote, as such, as 1798 to 738, or 29 percent pro-union.
How do you get 16 percent from that?
Ah, yes, pulled from an article. 16% of all employees, 29% of those who voted...many did not vote. Seems I missed a clever Amazon spokesperson representation of the vote :)
Pushing it to a second vote is a key (and unethical) strategy for companies avoiding a union because the second vote almost always goes in management’s favor.
The first vote went in management's favor though.
That doesn't make sense. The first vote went in management's favor. There is no reason for them to want a second vote.
This time Amazon will be sure not to engage in intimidation. That you can prove.
Amazon is _certain_ to engage in the kinds of intimidation that they're legally allowed to perform: anti-union agitprop and vague gesticulation about economic uncertainty. But hopefully the threat of continued elections will make them a little more hesitant when it comes to cheeky things like "the ballot box will be in a room controlled by Amazon, with Amazon-monitored cameras pointing at you as you arrive[1]."
But only time will tell.
[1]:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/19/amazon-prevented-free-and-fa...
Amazon would be able to actually infer the votes from this type of scheme.
Both sides engage in the same information war.
Only one side is worth literal billions, and has no qualms about spending those billions to win.
Of course they do, it's a labor dispute. What's the point of this comment, other than a vague "both sides, therefore bad" statement?
If they did already engage in intimidation, there's no undoing it.
Lots of "Amazon Bad, Union Good" sentiment in these comments.
How is it that HN'ers look at entities like the UAW or various state teachers' unions and think, "Yeah, let me get some of that."?
Is there an example of increased union-ization of a U.S. company leading to better outcomes for customers?
_Lots of "Amazon Bad, Union Good" sentiment in these comments._
I think there's a difference between saying "Amazon is bad to intimidate its workers" and "Unions are good". It's totally fair to agree that Amazon have been acting very poorly intimidating its warehouse workers while also thinking those workers would be better off voting no to joining a union.
Ultimately the workers should have a free vote to determine what they want for themselves. You don't need to be pro- or anti-union to believe that.
I know that I look at how big box stores, like Office Depot, and restaurants treat their workers and go "Wow, those employees deserve LOTS of protections and a better experience", and I'm willing to consider unions as an option for that.
The poor are the most exploited people because they literally can't accept anything else for fear of death, and I want better for them. If a union can bring that, then I rejoice for their chance to try out a union and get their deserved wages.
>state teachers' unions
I'd say yes to that.
Are you very familiar with teacher's unions?
Here's an example of the great value they're delivering in the U.S.:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/31/the-rubber-roo...
the point of the union is better outcomes for the workers, not for the customers
And that there is a problem:
Even if you are in _a_ union, you are undoubtedly the customer of many unions or would-be unions.
edit: clarification 'a' refers to a singular union and isn't a comment on the quality/nature of said union(s).
ok, so what is the problem? Participate in it if it needs to change direction or join a different one if that option is available.
The problem at hand is that 100 people are forced to fend for themselves against a company when they could act as a block and have leverage. One problem at a time
collective bargaining certainly isn't better than compensation and terms that I have been able to negotiate.
what a boring argument. Also wrong. I would put a lot of money on "you didn't a/b test collective bargaining with your own negotiation" because it's simply impossible, so you don't really know if that's true.
Also most workers are not in a job with a candidate shortage (and candidate shortages don't last forever, better have a union while you have the power to make it happen then when you become a throwaway widget for your company)
I've negotiated salaries that are 2 or 3 times what my peers have made in the same position.
I've also negotiated in non-standard vacation packages, like a fixed 2 months off every year.
That simply doesn't happen in collective bargaining.
I've hardly ever been a throwaway widget in any job and even when I was working shitty jobs I was the type to get promoted quickly. The only places this never happened were my 3 union jobs. And in each case I was forced to work for the union -- I wasn't seeking it.
yeah, collective bargaining never does any good /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining
Last week tonight on union busting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8
When a union does not work or is corrupt, we fix the union, we don't give away the collective power to the opposing side of the negotiation: oh no, my lawyer is not doing my best interest he's only trying to rake up the fees! you know what? I'll let my opponent's lawyer represent me in court instead!
only because tech is one of the few industries where demand is greater than supply
better outcomes for customers...how about better outcomes for workers? I think you have missed the whole point of a union. Unions exist so that workers are not exploited for their labor. Fair wages and benefits should be a per-requisite to even HAVE customers. Otherwise, you are not a viable business in the moral or ethical sense.
In Monday's decision, the NLRB regional director said that Amazon "engaged in objectionable conduct that warrants setting aside the election."
Is there a public written NLRB decision? The OP didn't link to it or mention the specifics. Not a great article.
Or is there another way to see the specifics on what the NLRB considered to be the "objectionable conduct that warrants setting aside the election"?
It would be good to have the specifics of what the NLRB actually decided was this before diving into arguing about it, wouldn't it?
Honest question (am from Europe). Why are not unions (labor) part of the right to free association in the US? Or is it that they must comprise the whole labor force?
EDIT: Wow: thanks a lot. Unbelievably complicated to me…
I'll just copy this section of the right-to-work article on Wikipedia,[1] because I've sat here trying to explain it to myself for a while and realized there isn't a better encapsulation of it:
-
Besides the U.S. Supreme Court, other proponents of right-to-work laws also point to the Constitution and the right to freedom of association. They argue that workers should both be free to join unions or to refrain, and thus, sometimes refer to states without right-to-work laws as forced unionism states. These proponents argue that by being forced into a collective bargain, what the majoritarian unions call a fair share of collective bargaining costs, is actually financial coercion and a violation of freedom of choice. An opponent to the union bargain is forced to financially support an organization for which they did not vote in order to receive monopoly representation for which they have no choice.
[1]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Whereas Canada's decision on this topic is almost the exact opposite, using almost the same logic. "Fascinating".
>In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off and compulsory checkoff)[1] is a workplace compromise arising from jurisprudence struck between organized labour (trade unions) and employers that guarantees employers industrial stability by requiring all workers affected by a collective agreement to pay dues to the union by mandatory deduction in exchange for the union agreement to "work now, grieve later." Historically, in some workplaces, some workers refused to pay dues to the union even after benefiting from wage and benefit improvements negotiated by the union representatives, resulting in friction and violence as they were seen as 'free-loaders;' at the same time, absence of a peaceful grievance settlement mechanism created industrial instability as union members often walked off the job. The compromise was designed to ensure that no employee will opt out of the union simply to avoid dues yet reap the benefits of collective bargaining, such as higher wages or health insurance.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula
> _using almost the same logic_
This appears to be completely separate logic? A balance of interests, in the Canadian case, and an inaliable right, in the U.S. one.
The situations seem to me to be literally identical, which is why I brought it up in the first place -- if merely most of a workplace joins a union, those who do not don't have to pay dues yet reap the benefits of unionization anyway. Stripped of euphemism, the American response is "yes, that's a good thing" whereas the Canadian one is "no, that's a bad thing". It's a completely different _justification_, sure.
> _situations seem to me to be literally identical_
The situations are similar, but the logic used and conclusions reached are quite separate. Understanding the different paths taken exposes it as far from euphemism.
I think I do understand the different paths taken. Strip away the false-friend of interpreting jurisprudence as compiler-output of legal code, and its decisions will reflect the pragmatism of the society that created it. The differences in priorities are stark, both here and elsewhere: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" vs "peace, order, and good government".
There is no inalienable right to be hired. Freedom of contract is a stronger right in the US and one that "right-to-work" states put restrictions on.
How so? One of the big perks of right to work states is that non-compete agreements are virtually unenforceable because no agreement can prevent you from earning a living to provide for yourself and your family.
No? In fact, the correlation goes the other way - most states which ban unions security clauses in contracts have legally enforceable non-competes whereas California (for instance) which has no such ban on voluntary contract does not allow for non-competes.
Regardless, "right to work" is more about banning certain union contracts than about providing some "right" to have a job or anything like that.
"Right to work" has absolutely nothing to do with noncompetes.
Edited for precision in response to whimsicalism's reply:
The extent of right to work laws is that union contracts (or I guess any contract) cannot require all employees to pay union fees as part of the union contract. That's it. There's no further restrictions on employers, only this particular restriction on employer-union contracts.
The attorneys I’ve spoken to would disagree with you.
Note, I'm not an attorney, but you should talk to better attorney than the ones you've been talking to, because they're flatly wrong.
Here's the right to work laws by state:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-...
Here's a (pdf warning) list of noncompete laws by state:
https://faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/No...
Note that only 3 states (California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota) ban non-competes (and I'd quibble with this, California and ND afaik ban noncompetes about poaching customers/clients, while Oklahoma allows you ban employees from poaching client, so CA and ND have the strongest noncompete protection, and one is right to work and one isn't). Of these, North and South Dakota are Right-to-Work, and California is not. It's also hard to draw particular conclusions about trends among (I think the only real one I see is that non-right to work states have salary minimums before you can be subject to a noncompete, but so much of the specifics comes down to how courts have interpreted things). What is pretty clear is that there isn't a strong correlation between right to work laws and noncompete laws.
And further, if you look at the right to work statues (for example Alabama's constitutional amendment:
https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(...
, or Oklahoma's :
https://www.findlaw.com/state/oklahoma-law/oklahoma-right-to...
as examples), you'll find that they're tailored specifically to prohibit requirements about union dues. They have nothing to do with noncompetes.
So the text of the statutes are unrelated, and its not even clear that there's a general trend of states with right to work laws having more noncompete protection.
I sort of expect you or your lawyer is extrapolating from one state (probably North Dakota, if I had to guess).
What I was told by 2 different attorneys in SC is that a a non-compete cannot be enforced if it prevents you from earning a living. It cannot force you to move out of the area to obtain a job.
Reasonableness is key to enforcement, meaning a reasonable radius, time and field. Any agreement that prevents you from working in your field is defacto-unenforceable specifically because it’s unreasonable.
Both of these attorneys had been practicing in the state for 20 years at the time of the conversation. One graduated from Georgetown and the other from University of South Carolina’s law school.
My understanding from them was that right to work was interpreted as ensuring you actually have “the right to work” via case law with noncompete agreements.
IANAL
What your lawyers said sounds believable. It has absolutely nothing to do with "right to work" laws, which are a particular legal concept that have to do with union fee requirements. A quick google search suggests that there was a South Carolina supreme court ruling about noncompetes that addresses "the right of a person to use his talents to earn a living", so I can see what your confusion might stem from, but this is distinct from "right to work", which is a sort of political/legal shorthand for something specific to union contracts.
Fair enough. Maybe that was the point of confusion.
There is a restriction on employers - they are prohibited from entering into such a contract.
> _There is a restriction on employers - they are prohibited from entering into such a contract_
No, they are not.
Employers are prohibited from altering employment contracts _ex post facto_. But employers are free to make offers conditional on joining a union. Given most employers have wide latitude to alter terms of employment under threat of termination, practically any employer who wants to unionize can trivially do so.
But that is a straw man. In practice, a fraction of employees want to unionize and the employer (with some employees) does not. The argument against unionization is that the first group can't force the second groups into a union contract. The argument for is that they can, provided they represent a majority of the employees.
> But employers are free to make offers conditional on joining a union.
Here's Alabama's Right to Work amendment, which is broadly representative:
https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(...
Key passages are
> (c) No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment.
> (e) An employer may not require a person, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to pay dues, fees, or other charges of any kind to any labor union or labor organization.
The employer is not allowed to make union membership or dues a condition of employment, whether due to a union contract or out of their own volition.
Interestingly, if you want to look at my other post where I discuss noncompetes vs. Right to Work, you'll find that a number of states, when dealing with noncompetes, consider continued employment "sufficient consideration" for the noncompete. This means that in practice, they're allowed to change your employment contract (w.r.t. a noncompete, and presumably other things), and continuing to employ you is enough to make the contract valid, they don't need to offer you anything additional.
Georgia and Florida are two (but there are more) "right to work" states, where the employer is fully within their rights to change your employment contract ex-post-facto, except in regards to union membership.
Thank you, I was incorrect.
You're saying because an employer is not able to enter into a contract with a union that requires a 3rd party (the worker) to pay dues to the union, this is a violation of freedom of association? That doesn't even really sound like a contract, more like a coercive scheme.
Right to work laws do not prevent union members from entering a contract with the union to pay it dues because they think it will benefit them. That's how contracts should work. I think you're just trying to play leftist word games to confuse the issue.
Yes, the actions of two unrelated third parties can impact your job. For instance, if the company you work at is bought by a private equity firm that fires all of the workers, the sale of the company was still legal - even if it infringes on your "right to work." Likewise, employers can enter into contracts with other third parties that require them to change their contract with other employees. This is basic freedom of contract & association. Right-to-work laws make it so that companies are banned from voluntarily agreeing to such contracts with unions. The contract with the private equity firm remains legal.
In my view, the word games are around the phrase "right to work." Freedom of contract and association is quite unambiguous.
Yes, right to work states limit the freedom of association by making it illegal for private businesses to agree to certain contracts that are legal in the rest of the US.
I'm downvoted, but that is literally what right-to-work is.
_Former IBEW Local 58 member here_
That take seems very myopic and lacks nuance. There were entire jobsites (which had multiple crews from different companies) that we couldn't work on unless we were members. That's illegal in right-to-work states. It doesn't limit the freedom of association - I suggest it prevents discrimination by association.
Yes, entering into a contract limiting a jobsite to union workers is prohibited by right-to-work, ie. an abridgement of freedom of contract.
I am curious how this works with agency fees though - it shouldn't be legal to require union membership, but it might be legal to require agency fees paid to a union.
Freedom of association broadly implies both the freedom to associate with whom you choose, and the freedom to refuse to associate with whom you choose. If the law requires you to associate with people, that's a restriction on freedom (and yes, this argument extends to things like civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, but the consensus seems to be that discrimination based on protected classes trumps freedom of association, although this can get murky in some situations, e.g. private golf clubs or where religious freedom gets involved).
So it absolutely limits freedom of association by preventing organizations from choosing whom they associate with. Requiring you to employ someone can hardly be seen as a "freedom". Whether such a restriction is ethical or not, and whether such a restriction is constitutional or not are two different questions (and those two questions, and the question of whether it is a restriction on freedom of association may have different answers!).
Right to work laws in no way limit who can or can not be hired. Everyone is still free to associate, or not associate, with whomever they want. All it means is that non-union members can't be forced to pay union fees as part of their employment contract. An organization can still restrict its association to only union members, but if it chooses to associate with non-union members, it can't penalize them by charging them a fee to remain non-union members.
> Right to work laws in no way limit who can or can not be hired.
I don't think I said they did.
> Everyone is still free to associate, or not associate, with whomever they want.
But are limited in the ways they can associate: certain contract terms are prohibited. Again, whether or not this is _good_ is a distinct question. Minimum wage laws prohibit certain contract terms that I consider predatory (but in a sense the government is simply collectively bargaining on behalf of all workers in setting a minimum wage). Conversely, a government setting a maximum wage would probably be considered problematic. But all three, a minimum wage, a maximum wage, and "right to work" laws, limit how you can associate.
Well no one is arguing that freedom of association gives you the right to do whatever you want while associated. I can go to the bank with whomever I want, but I can't rob a bank with whomever I want. Forbidding me from being a getaway driver doesn't impinge on my freedom of association.
Freedom of association is the right to join or to leave groups voluntarily. You still need to respect peoples other rights, and follow other applicable laws while associated. There are some laws like child labor laws which do restrict people from being able to voluntarily join or leave a group, but right to work and minimum wage laws are not such cases.
Do you not see the difference between robbing a bank and a voluntary contractual agreement not to associate with someone?
It literally is a restriction on the ways in which you can associate with other groups or individuals.
You can sign an agreement to use only a particular supplier for a product, unless that product is labor and the supplier is a union.
(American here) This is not about a right to unionize - of course workers have a right to unionize. This is about laws which _force_ employees to join a union if they want to work in a particular business or industry. There are many laws in many parts of our country which restrict my ability to work in a given job or industry unless I join a union.
As an employee, I prefer to have the right to choose whether to join a union or not, but many folks don't want me to have that choice.
As an example, if this warehouse votes to unionize, will I still be able to work there without joining the union if I don't want to? No, I will be forced to join or leave.
> This is about laws which force employees to join a union
There are no laws forcing employees to join a union.
Some businesses might enter into contracts with their employees. Right-to-work states attempt to put restrictions on that freedom of contract by making certain contracts illegal for businesses to accept.
There is no right to employment, businesses can fire you for reason outside of any explicitly encoded wrongful termination reason.
IANAL, but it seems that until Janus V. AFSCME three years ago, it was legal to "require bargaining unit employees to pay union dues or an agency fee". So while those employees could decline to join the union they still had to pay for it. They were not forced to join but that just meant that they didn't get a vote yet were still bound by the result.
Yes, but you've got the framing wrong: The issue is that employees who don't join the union are essentially "benefit freeloaders." The union employs people to negotiates wages and benefits and manage the union itself on behalf of all the employees, even those who aren't paying union dues. If everyone can opt out of paying for the union, then the union can't sustain itself.
Having a unionized workplace is a bit like having a democratic government – in the U.S., we're born and become citizens of the U.S. government and all that comes with that. We can't "opt out" unless we move out of the country and renounce our citizenship. We still have to pay taxes and we get all the benefits of our government (safety, education, roads, etc.) even if we don't want to – you can't just not pay taxes, right?
If you don't want to join a union workplace, just find a non-union workplace. If you don't want to join a new union, vote against it and find another job if they accept the union? That's more choice than you get with being a citizen of a country where you pay taxes! (And usually, union dues are less than the negotiated benefit/wage increases anyway.)
None of this negates what the parent said.
They are saying that non-union workers are bound by the union's decision and have to pay into it.
You are saying that this is a good thing.
> And usually, union dues are less than the negotiated benefit/wage increases anyway
Almost always as a rule they are. You are not going to get people to vote for a union security clause that decreases net pay.
Yes, it is legal for employers to enter into a voluntary contract requiring their employees to join a union or pay agency fees.
Right-to-work proposes to ban private businesses from proposing or entering into such a contract. But there is no law requiring employees to join a union.
> There are no laws forcing employees to join a union.
There absolutely are states where certain trades must be performed by union employees. My company almost got into an expensive legal battle because the locale we were working in required union contractors for electrical work. The union claimed our payroll staff (IT) violated local union laws because the union saw them running ethernet cables which constituted "low voltage" work, something the union was supposed to do. This shutdown the jobsite for our staff while the union and our company sorted things out.
>> There are no laws forcing employees to join a union.
There are actually lots of legally binding agreements that do just this, so the fact that the law is used to enforce an agreement vs. the law directly stating it doesn't really have much material difference.
First - they would only have to pay agency fees.
Second - employment is at-will, if you no longer agree with the contract you are free to quit at any time.
The law is not forcing employees to join a union, the private business entered into a contract with a security clause. "Right-to-work" is around banning businesses from entering into certain voluntary agreements. It has nothing to do with laws requiring employees to join a union, as no such law exists.
There are also lots of legally binding agreements that require that I pay more than $1500 per month in rent. The law can be used to enforce these agreements. Even still, the claim that "This is about laws which force [tenants to pay a minimum rent if they want to live in a particular location]" would be silly. I think the metaphor holds and GGPs claim is equally silly.
> There are many laws in many parts of our country which restrict my ability to work in a given job or industry unless I join a union.
This law is called basic contract law. A company can agree to only hire via a union just like a university can agree to only sell Pepsi products.
> I prefer to have the right to choose whether to join a union or not
I prefer to have the right to choose whether I am under my management structure or not. I suppose someone could say one can go somewhere else, but that would apply to a company with an exclusive union contract as well.
In the US, you are _never_ forced to join a union. The Taft-Hartley act of 1947 banned so-called "closed shops" at the federal level.
> The Taft–Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947. The union shop was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States
They might be banned but they certainly exist.
As a supermarket cashier I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to join the union as a condition of employment. No union, no job.
Because the supermarket decided to contract with the union and the two sides negotiated that provision. The company made that decision. Not the legislature.
The legislature made the decision that the supermarket is required to bargain (in good faith) with the union. Not doing so would be "unfair labor practices". This includes a lot of practices, including not being able to "Lock out employees over a permissive subject of bargaining" or "[...] require agreement on a permissive subject as a precondition to further bargaining" -
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba...
So you can be forced to pay dues but you don't have to be approved by the union.
With the important caveat that you can be charged agency fees.
In some states.
Employees are free to form unions under the freedom of association, but employers are likewise free to fire those employees. These votes are all about forming a union under the rules established by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") which prohibits terminating employees for unionizing.
> Employees are free to form unions under the freedom of association, but employers are likewise free to fire those employees.
It's illegal in the US to fire an employee _chiefly_ for attempting to unionize their workplace. That can be difficult to prove, but it's one of the explicit protections provided by the NLRA and, when proven, is usually sufficient grounds for unconditional reinstatement[1].
So, to be clear: labor rights in the US are more than just "free association" rights. You have an _exceptional_ right, under federal labor law, to expend time and space within your workplace with the goal of unionizing. It is _illegal_ for your employer to retaliate against your organization under the guise of either "free association" on their behalf or at-will employment.
[1]:
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/olms/regs/compliance/...
If you have a pseudo-not law enshrined union and you try to go on strike it is legal for your employer to fire you.
That said, this is what unions originally started out as and they were still successful. If anything, the post-legal enshrinement of unions has coincided with their weakening.
I am curious if this period of tight labor markets will bring a new chapter in union history.
Yes, because that wouldn't be a union under federal law.
The NLR{A,B} is very precise about what it considers to be a legitimate form of organized labor, the fact of which does not detract from it being illegal for an employer to fire you for _attempting_ to organize in a form recognized under the NLRA.
Sure. The NLRB can be as precise as it wishes. My point is only that a "union" is not merely what the NLRB deigns to be the state-sanctioned form of worker organizing. There were clearly recognizable unions in the 19th century that were not sanctioned by law. That does not make them any less of a union.
It is only illegal to fire an employ for attempting to form a union of the NLRB sanctioned structure. An organization of workers that undertakes a wildcat strike can be legally fired.
Okay, I see what you mean now. Yeah, the protections are not as encompassing as a non-NLRB-approved use of the word "union" might lead people to believe.
That's precisely the point I was trying to make in my OP. In theory freedom of association affords one the ability to form a union in any manner they please, but a union which does not conform to the requirements of the NLRA is not entitled to the special legal protections granted by that act.
My apologies, I misread your point!
The employees (or any group of them, even less than half) are free to join a union and attempt to negotiate with Amazon. However, Amazon would just ignore them.
Union votes like the one described here are about triggering protections of US law that will require Amazon to negotiate with the union.
Unions lost popular support among the American public when it became illegal for them to discriminate by race.
That environment has been great for pro-business interests to push laws that weaken union power in many states.
You're downvoted, but this is well-studied. White majority shops are at highest risk of labor organizing and increase workplace diversity is well correlated with less organization risk.
You can bet companies (especially Amazon) are aware of this fact.
If it's real-talk, I expect it will get downvoted.
It's more palatable to back-rationalize things as being the way they are for some exceptional reason.
Oh, really?
This is certainly terrible. Man, what a mess.
Thanks.
Many institutions the US was known for has suffered the same fate in the last fifty-something years. "Make America Great Again" refers to how beloved our institutions were. They see Civil Rights as our nation's weakness, holding us back from greatness.
> "Make America Great Again"
That is just patently wrong. It was a reaction to the previous administration's foreign policy strategy, which was to position America as less of a world leader and more of a partner.
Conservatives frequently criticized one of President Obama's early trips as an "apology tour", and were incensed when he appeared to bow to the Saudi king.
Also, they disliked the domestic policies which had a socialized feel.
It literally had nothing to do with the civil rights movement.
> Why are not unions (labor) part of the right to free association in the US?
They are - you can already form a union whenever you want with whoever you want (some exceptions like armed forces.)
This vote is about forcing the employer to talk to your union.
It's not enough to say they are allowed, but determining what constitutes sabotage or impeding this right when voting to unionize with a company, is the issue the USLB addressed.
How do you ensure that your unionizing vote (which includes details of how the union will operate, since they each have their own charter), is fair? You have to get the parent company involved, otherwise you might be disenfranchising eligible voters/members and/or involving outside parties.
This is where it gets ugly because the company (usually) has a vested interest in observing that the vote fails.
>> part of the right to free association in the US?
Not American but interestingly there is no freedom of association defined in the First Amendment but rather recognized by the courts as a fundamental right. Part of the challenge when it comes to unions is that it goes both ways, including the freedom to join AND the freedom to leave. This makes something like labour organization tougher to define without coming down to heavy on one side or the other. There are a bunch of aspects and this is only one; it's incredibly complex in any jurisdiction, but especially in one that prioritizes the individual.
Not quite.
It's an implicit right (whether fundamental or not), and the courts recognized freedom of association as being _implicitly_ necessary to fully exercise the rights _explicitly_ recognized in the first amendment.
It's not freedom to join vs freedom to leave, but whether a contractual agreement can limit this right; can a contractual agreement exclude a party from associating with other parties.
Exclusive labor contracts are one example (presuming the company's agreement to exclusivity was truly voluntarily, which is debatable), but what about other contracts?
Given that every purchase is a contractual agreement, could Sony put a clause in the sales agreement that says the buyer can never buy another brand of TV? What if it was only while you owned and used the Sony TV? What if your Sony TV discovers another brand TV on your home network and bricks itself until you get rid of other TV?
The right to a secret vote is equally implicit in the constitution, but we wouldn't hold a contract that forfeits that right to be valid, just as a contract requiring someone to vote a certain way would be illegal.
The historical answer to that is it was restricted in Europe originally, and by the 1948 eastern Europe was under control of communist parties and western Europe was on the verge of communists being elected to power in Italy and France with militant labor unions existing (with the Labour government in the UK nationalizing much of the country). Compromise on wages, organization etc. was the watchword.
The US history was separated and a little different. The New Deal compromise was from 1933 to the 1970s, and has been somewhat rolled back since then. The average inflation-adjusted hourly wage has fallen in the US since the early 70s, so the average US worker is worse off in that respect than they were a half century ago.
It’s conventional for American unions to have what we call “exclusive representation”, where the labor force within a determined “bargaining unit” picks them by majority vote and they then represent everyone in that unit. Non-exclusive unions exist and are protected (you may remember the news that a couple hundred Google workers formed one), but they’re generally not very powerful.
AAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!
This begins to make much more sense.
I worked as a labor organizer in the US and this response is closest to the correct understanding of the law. Workers have a right to engage in "concerted activity" for the purposes of improving working conditions. However, when workers organize a union it needs to be certified as having a right to negotiate terms and conditions of employment on behalf of the workers, which is almost always done through a union election.
In the U.S. this is an exclusive right—a "unit" of workers can only have one certified bargaining agent, and that union must represent all workers in the bargaining unit. It's also illegal for the employer to negotiate with any party other than the recognized union.
To my understanding, this is different from Europe and can seem strange to Europeans. Understanding how this framework came about historically can be useful. Before the National Labor Relations Act, workers would strike in order to gain recognition and the right for the union to negotiate on their behalf. The NLRA election framework was an attempt to bring about "labor peace" by introducing orderly elections instead.
This was generally supported by a certain segment of capital who could afford it and saw the cost-benefit as worth it, especially finance capital who were much more favorable to New Deal politics, and opposed by others. On the workers' side, this has undoubtedly made it easier to win recognition from the employer, but some see it as having sapped workers' militancy over the long run by trading away pitched battles that revealed sharp class antagonisms for a more orderly bureaucratic process.
They are, but corporations also have that right by extension of being made up of people.
So the company, being a private entity, can say that you can't talk about the union while at work. It can show you "training videos" and other anti-union materials without repercussion.
And it's mostly the union that wants it to be all or nothing, because that's the only way it really works. If 5 guys are in the union, but the other 95 are not, then the company doesn't really have to negotiate with the union.
Collective bargaining only has power when it represents the entire collective. Or at least most. But if it is in such a position that it can start negotiating, I'm sure one of the things it will negotiate is that anyone working at the company must be a union member. Which is there, yes, to protect the union, but also the workers in the union. Because if the company can hire non-union members, it can slowly replace the entire workforce with non-union labor and eventually soft-terminate the union.
The entire situation is complicated and there are lots of places where people can be taken advantage of from every angle.
It's because a European union is NOT the same as a US one. In a European union there are many unions and the employee to is free to chose whichever he likes.
In the US version there is a single union for a particular employer, and the employee is forced to join that particular one. (Barring certain laws that complicate this picture a bit.)
This is also why unions work in Europe: There is competition among them, and the employee chooses. In contrast in the US because there is a single one for an employer the unions are frequently corrupt and don't actually do anything helpful for the employee.
The employee also does not have to be a union member and doesn't pay union dues unless they are a member.
In my experience in the UK and Norway I was treated just the same by both my employers and the unions even though I have never been a union member.
The decision pointed to moves by the company encouraging staff to vote via a mailbox it had the Postal Service install at its warehouse, surrounding the mailbox with its campaign slogan and locating it where workers may have thought Amazon was surveilling them.
I do not understand this, and also don't understand why this is just glossed over in a single sentence in this article and not unpacked more.
Generic cynicism aside, since when can a private company just "have the Postal Service" install a mailbox on its property? This makes it sound like the USPS is at corporate beck and call.
This makes it sound like a company can call up the postal service, say 'setup an official mailbox on our private property', and the post office responds with 'sure, we'll be right over'.
This is amazon. They also had the red light on the public road you turn off to enter the warehouse shortened so that Union advocates would have less time to speak to workers stuck in traffic.
Source?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287191/amazon-alabama-w...
This just says:
> More Perfect Union confirmed with Jefferson County officials that last year, Amazon notified the county of traffic delays during shift changes and asked for the light to be changed.
And then the unsubstantiated speculation is that this was done as a form of union busting, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence presented (like internal meeting notes, emails, any kind of evidence, really) that this was actually the case.
Correct. Amazon did not literally admit in writing to violating the law.
I mean...then it's just speculation. That's the difference between a smoking gun and opinion. Far be it for me to come off as defending Amazon, but claiming that light patterns were altered to shave seconds off organizers engaging with cars at a traffic light seems like a reach. It's nothing I'd put past Amazon goons doing, sure, but it's also not something I'd believe without any actual proof.
Your original post was:
> They also had the red light on the public road you turn off to enter the warehouse shortened so that Union advocates would have less time to speak to workers stuck in traffic.
But the only available evidence is that the former happened, not the latter 'so that..'.
I think you need to consider it within the whole context. There's evidence of Amazon doing many other similar things to restrict unionizing, as the nrlb found. Given all that, I don't think it's reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt in this sort of situation.
I get it, which is why I said I definitely wouldn't put it past Amazon to do something like that. But I also think that this kind of talk can actively hurt organizing efforts.
If I were someone on the fence about unionizing, and someone told me "you know Amazon changed the stoplight to prevent us from being able to talk to you", and I were to then look into it and find that while Amazon did change the stoplight speed, there's no evidence that they did it specifically to mess with organizing efforts, then I'd be pretty annoyed and write off the organizer as being full of shit. We need to stick to verifiable acts of union busting, especially because as you said, there are plenty of them to choose from, without rattling off speculation that can't be substantiated as if it were fact.
>Generic cynicism aside, since when can a private company just "have the Postal Service" install a mailbox on its property?.
Is this drastically different from apartment buildings paying to have mailboxes installed? I bet if you called them and said you had some reason to expect a massive increase in letters sent from your front lawn they'd quote you a price to install a mailbox.
Aren’t unions why the USA has no auto industry?
No auto industry? Who is producing the ~10M cars a year, then?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198518/us-motor-vehicle-...
For comparison with other countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_veh...
Literally only China makes more cars that the US. US beats Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Germany...
Cars are made in the us due to import tariffs on non domestic cars.
In that case we can probably include the cars made in Canada and Mexico as counting towards the US total.
It's a pity that chart doesn't also show per capita production.
Japan, South Korea, and Germany make more per capita than both the US and China. Even Canada does.
Per capita seems mostly irrelevant? And of course the auto workers in Canada, Germany, South Korea and Japan are all unionized...
No.
Worth noting that (a) The USA does have an auto industry and (2) the decline of union membership correlates perfectly to the stagnation of middle-class wages and the increase of corporate revenues going to the wealthy.
Unions didn't waste 20 years designing fins on big-block engines that broke down on the regular.
A bit of background. Biden moved Robb (former GC) out, is going for the more explicit pro-union approach in NLRB.
Obama did same thing in being explicitly pro-union.
Basically the GC's then took pretty aggressive positions
" Solomon pushed a case against Boeing in 2011 for trying to open a factory in right-to-work South Carolina. He argued this was retaliation against unionized workers in Washington state even though none had been laid off. He demanded Boeing abandon a $2 billion investment and move all production to Washington state."
Here's the letter from the Former GC - who was forcefully removed - so the agency is a bit less independent from the administration than one would think from the act itself.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aboutbl...
What is interesting is that even Trump allowed the (dem) GC to serve out their term, so this Biden approach is a bit new.
I mention just because a lot of posts are mention the NLRB is a "neutral" govt agency. Biden has promised that it will be the most "pro-union" ever, and has taken steps to make that happen.
Remember when Amazon stole delivery workers' tips?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/2/22262294/amazon-flex-wage-...
Can any company randomly decide they want the USPS to install an official mailbox where ever the company wants one?
Yes, you don't need to be nearly Amazon's size. USPS mail drop box locations are the responsibility of the local postmaster. It's basically a matter of asking politely and there being enough mail to somewhat justify it. It's not uncommon for large commercial real estate developments (like a new strip mall or an office park) to arrange to have one installed when the facility opens.
They can ask, and if they have a good reason, the USPS should comply. Seems pretty straight forward.
On what legal grounds? (The article requires you to register to read the whole thing)
Keep re-voting until you get the results you want lol.
Indeed, Amazon very clearly used their weight to unfairly influence the vote. But unionizing that warehouse would be an uphill battle in any case due to the high turnover rate (150% per year according to first google result). Why bother with a union and risk marring the facade of friendliness with management when you'll be gone in a few months anyway? Getting this to work will probably require a broader effort involving not just current employees, but getting the entire workforce in Bessamir inoculated against Amazon's anti-union propaganda. I hope RWDSU leadership understands this.
Duplicate with a different source:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29391641
Their conduct already changed the vote. How does a re-vote change their minds?
Continually redoing votes erodes trust in the voting process. How can anyone buy the left's haranguing of Trump's lies about voter fraud when they so forcefully say Stacy Abrams had her vote stolen? When you claim fraud you destroy more trust in the whole system.
The NLRB is not related to the FEC or any other entities responsible for managing federal elections in the United States.
Apart from both managing (completely different types of) elections, it's not clear why the NLRB's order to redo a union vote would or wouldn't erode trust in the general electoral process in the US.
.
The presumable use is in having the NLRB officially state that it considers the previous election to be irregular.
.
The media coverage _is_ certainly a benefit! But I don't know if it's the "real" one: the NLRB seemingly agrees that Amazon's manipulation efforts had a real effect on the previous vote. Even if the vote fails again, a change in the percentages is an important outcome.
.
I agree that it isn't an especially big punishment. But I don't think it's intended to be one: the NLRB is charged with issuing a decision regarding the validity of the previous election, not determining the viability of any future election. In other words, _if_ it's a mistake to perform the election again, it's the union's mistake to make. But I, for one, think it's a sound strategy on their part.
The elections will continue until the Party wins. Then, they will end.
Please stop with the re-heated McCarthyism. It isn't helping the discussion.
Kind of like Amazon forcing a redo of the JEDI government cloud computing contract that they lost. Or Blue Origin trying to force a redo of the NASA lunar lander contract.
Yes, exactly. These are all examples of organizations acting in bad faith - including the union here in this case.
Such things should not be allowed.
The order here is from the NLRB, which is an independent agency of the US Government, not the union. You can grumble as much as you'd like about their order, but it's not clear where the "bad faith" on the NLRB's part is.
I know the HN guidelines recommend against asking about one's reading of the article, but how about the headline at the top of the page? Can we at least expect _that_ much to have been read? Hell, I'm in the reply box, and I can still see at the top: _"US labor board official orders..."_, with no mention of union action at all. I don't think it's the union making the bad faith argument here.
The NLRB order is in response to requests from the union.
Requests that, under federal law, the union is perfectly entitled to make. The NLRB is neither an arm of nor subservient to the union; it's discharging its responsibilities as required by law.
The point is that it is not acting in bad faith to take a grievance to a government agency and have it rule in their favor.
Sure, not saying it is. I was just disagreeing with the assertion that there was no union action involved.
The assertion was, and I quote myself, "with no _mention_ of union action at all". (referring to the headline, and emphasis mine) Of course, at some point in the process there was "union action"; kinda thought that would go with saying, but...
Your statement reads like you're saying:
'I can still see at the top: "US labor board official orders...", with no mention of union action at all [and the omission implies there was none]. I don't think it's the union [because they are unmentioned, rather I think it is some other entity] making the bad faith argument here'
...or atleast they will continue until independent observers view them as fairly conducted.