It's possible that if every Amazon warehouse were run as well, those organizers would not have arisen, but it's Amazon nastiness toward them that's most alarming.
To pretend that unions (leadership) haven't become just as obsessed with growth and power as corporations are, misses a huge part of the various incentives at play here.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Anecdotal evidence will not suffice here. Calling this a 'huge' factor demands empirical evidence.
So what justifies this assertion?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/amazo...
https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment...
And the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon
It goes on to give tips to managers for spotting union activity. “Make it a point to regularly talk to associates in the break room. This will help protect you from accusations that you were only in the break room to spy on pro union associates,” the video says.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/how-amazon-is-fighting-back-...
On internal company email lists and chat groups on Thursday and Friday that Recode viewed, Amazon white-collar workers expressed dismay over a report from Vice News that the company’s top lawyer had referred to a recently fired warehouse worker as “not smart, or articulate” and implied that executives should use that to help squelch worker unionization efforts.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/5/21206385/amazon-fired-wa...
You literally are the reason why poor publications like Vox get a free pass. Here, if you don't believe me, read this thread and check yourself (https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1228447944287932416?s=20). And don't tell me now that Balaji is not trustworthy. He is 100x more trustworthy than a random HN user like you.
He mentions petitions with thousands of signatures. Are all of those people just…I mean, what?
If they were lying, then Amazon could easily come out and say, "They're asking for regular breaks every four hours and we literally give them that. They ask for PPE and every employee is given X, Y, Z. They want us to reduce our carbon footprint by 10%, here is an independent audit showing 12% reduction." (etc.)
In situations of extreme power imbalance, it's not unreasonable to default trust the person not in power who is taking far greater risk.
Sometimes you'll be wrong! But the burden of proof is on people in power.
Warehouse stocking is not a career. Most of these people are hourly workers with little to lose. You can't apply the same standards to white, blue, and no collar workers because the nature of both the work, the people, and the culture are totally different.
If that statement shocks or offends you, I encourage you to take a temporary job at a place like Walmart or visit an oil rig and experience the differences yourself.
Corporations are at least some kind of good. Otherwise, we would need to all form our own little businesses, and have everyone redo a whole lot of common tasks. Corporations are the economy's approach to DRY.
The signatory names and titles are available publicly: https://medium.com/@amazonemployeesclimatejustice/public-let...
Definitely not a corporation mistreating its employees. I don't know why this is portrayed as such. If employees want to force their employer to follow some agenda the employer does not agree with, I don't see a problem with the corporation firing the employees.
Since we're not talking about somebody adrift in interstellar space, your argument makes less sense. Instead you have to argue some variant on a) not everybody deserves a reasonably safe job, or b) people do deserve that but we as a society can't afford it.
(I don't think either of those is true, but at least they'd make sense.)
Even having a society does not make wonders: we don't have a cure for cancer, we don't have a vaccine for Covid, having a functional society does not mean you can obtain everything, including safe jobs and decent lives, especially when the definitions of safe and decent are moving targets: versus 200 years ago we are living an utopia of safe jobs and decent lives. Just think logical, not only emotional.
I think that's wrong. We of course can't afford everything, and I never said otherwise. But what we're talking about is "a safe (as possible) job". There's no particular reason to think that if Amazon takes proper worker safety precautions, suddenly they'll be out of business. Might Bezos be marginally less rich? Sure. Might Amazon customers pay a smidgen more? Sure. Will society collapse? No. Will some other workers suddenly not have a safe workplace? Also no.
We can afford it.
I don't care about how rich is Bezos, it is not my problem (or, more exactly, not a problem for me), but the blanket statements like "everyone deserves X" and "we can afford Y" are a problem: we don't simply deserve and we cannot afford most things.
But would it not be nice if it were society, us humans, who would provide the right to a safe job and dignified life?
That's not an argument against a safety net, just the opposing force that makes the correct (and possible) solution somewhere in between [UBI, euthanization), and different for each grouping of people.
By the way, I find the notion comical that in a capitalist system, you are not compelled to labor for others. In practice, that is.
And why, if organizers are lying, can't Amazon just disprove them by showing to the public their perfect working conditions?
Finally, isn't it a natural instinct to side with the weaker element in a fight?
Does Amazon really need your support, or are the workers one paycheck away from homelessness in need of it?
Union representation and improved compensation and employment benefits.
Not to say either party is being honest or being dishonest. But it's clear there's plenty to gain on both sides by, on the one hand, painting organizers ad bad employees, and on the other hand, painting working conditions as worse than they are.
Software engineers at Google were fired (allegedly) for attempting to unionize (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/06/ex-goog...). Google jobs are some of the best jobs in the industry, in terms of benefits, base salary, and stock compensation.
Unionization isn't always about jobs being good enough. It's also about being able to set up a collective front for the workers to negotiate their arrangement with company owners. That's something every employee can want and can benefit from.
> Union representation and improved compensation and employment benefits.
Getting union representation requires, in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, at least a 50% buy-in from other employees. You're not going to get that by lying to them about their own working conditions. This kind of dishonesty can attract some fist-shakers on the internet, but they don't get a vote.
Pay raises, more time off, better benefits. A newly hired employee has very little to lose by supporting unionization.
>And why, if organizers are lying, can't Amazon just disprove them by showing to the public their perfect working conditions?
Because when Amazon shows good conditions, everyone says that it's a manufactured scenario or just an anecdote.
>Finally, isn't it a natural instinct to side with the weaker element in a fight?
Which is precisely what organizers want to exploit with publicity that could very easily be taking things out of context. A union organizer has almost nothing to lose by massively exaggerating.
>Does Amazon really need your support, or are the workers one paycheck away from homelessness in need of it?
Depends on whether or not you care about being manipulated into supporting something that could be a lie. It's not even "support" of Amazon, it's just questioning of the accounting of one side of a debate.
And those are bad because?
> A newly hired employee has very little to lose by supporting unionization.
And yet, most don't. The mind boggles.
I'm not against these things for warehouse workers at all, but just to answer your question, potential downsides include:
1. The money has to come from somewhere. Since Amazon keeps fairly small profit, this would likely come from passing costs on to consumers, and reducing Amazon's investment in future growth, which ultimately costs their future consumers. This increases cost of living for non-Amazon workers, and since Amazon is a good source of cheap items, it may disproportionately burden poorer people.
2. Where I am, Indeed.com says Amazon warehouse workers are paid slightly above average ($16/hour). If they were paid significantly above average, it can make it hard for small businesses to keep their workers.
> And those are bad because?
They're not bad. But them being good for workers is not an argument for why workers should receive them.
Both sides face similar issues related to terminating their mutually agreed to relationship.
They promised the earth on privacy and after a few month suddenly pulled a bait and switch on that.
For me that was such dishonest behavior that I pulled my business from them and never, ever ordered anything else.
A fulfilled, satisfying life is not dependent on being an Amazon customer.
Yes.
As an example:
> We’re already seeing devastating climate impacts: unprecedented flooding in India and Mozambique, dry water wells in Africa, coastal displacement in Asia, wildfires and floods in North America, and crop failure in Latin America
That is so far removed from a company that provides web hosting and handles shipping logistics.
What does transporting a cardboard box have anything to do with flooding in Mozambique?
While it's unfortunate catastrophes happen. Let's be generous and assume those events are due to lax environmental regulations (0.001% to 90%).
Amazon is just 1% of whatever that is. So, if these activists wish came true - and ultimately a drop in the bucket.
A competitor without the hindrance could likely make up for any pollution they don't create.
If you want to shape ecology, you do it through regulations (statutes). And all countries need to be on board with it.
I'm going to have to go with management on this one - the exaggeration of Amazon's impact on the issue really hurts their credibility. Nothing wrong with climate change - but really against disrupting organizations needlessly.
25% of the US's carbon emissions are from transportation.
> Amazon is just 1% of whatever that is.
Everybody works somewhere. Workers have more power over their own companies than they do over others. It's great that Amazon workers are trying to use that power for good.
> If you want to shape ecology, you do it through regulations (statutes).
That's one place to push. And you know who'd be good at pushing for regulatory change? Organized workers. Large companies that have decided to minimize ecological impact. Industry organizations made up of those companies.
But that's not the only way change happens. It's a big problem with many fronts. If you think you can best use your time and money by calling up your reps, go to it. However, these people have decided differently. I'm willing to trust that they know best how to achieve their goals.
And the burden of proof rests on the organizers to prove why this is worthy of prioritization above other problems.
While I like the sentiment and aesthetic of being courteous, I don't see anything demonstrating a binding rule or contract could come out of it. And what's the benefit again? If Amazon followed through, would the flooding and droughts cited in the original post stop?
The problem is - it just seems contradictory to me. I can't put my finger on why. I think supporter's heart is in the right place. But people are struggling a lot in life and this world in various ways, is this really the most optimal way to alleviate suffering?
Why not save the pay check and put it into lobbying, or NGO type stuff to advocate the cause? Or maybe even into studies or stuff more urgent that climate. For climate stuff to work, people in society have to have more harmony / generosity / collectivism universally.
Until people start getting along and addressing universal human needs and fixing those, it's really hard to do cooperative endeavors like this at scale. Just my opinion! :)