One of the biggest issues seems the problem with bathroom breaks and time lost doing so.
Why does Amazon not put more bathrooms in the warehouses, so it doesnt take 10 minutes just to walk there and back? That's like a distance of more then half a mile...
Not drinking any water during ones shift doesn't seem a healthy solution.
Yet again we see that the true cost not the listed price is. I wonder who approves these conditions in the company, or whether it is just some general company management culture embedded in the system.
It's not even the culture, it's 100% intentional. Everyone up to Jeff Bezos is fully aware of all of this and makes the decision to maintain these conditions in order to slightly raise profits.
Fulfillment center employees also searched for theft after their shift every day. Not only is this dehumanizing, but they don't hire enough security people. This results in 20+ minute lines. The employees are unpaid while waiting. There was a lawsuit about this that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and Amazon won.
In that case the results should be one hour worth of wages should be deducted from every government employee’s paycheck including the Supreme Courts Justices until private market employees are paid for their time standing in line at the end of the day.
If working at Amazon means your time is free for corporations, then it should apply to everyone until it’s fixed.
Wow, I had to look it up, but this is all true. I guess companies can hold you on premises as long as they like without pay, so long as you’re not working.
Strange. I’m not totally sure what it is about waiting in a security line that makes it “not working”. Supposedly cleaning chemicals from the plant off your body does count as work. But participating in a workplace compliance process like a security line is not work. But I assume the screeners are getting paid? I guess it’s because screening is part of their job description.
I guess I’d have to read the opinions to find out where that line is. It’s not obvious to me.
“Am I free to go” would seem like a more obvious line... although then the chemical showers wouldn’t be billable. Since you’re free to leave dirty. I can see the legal dilemma.
All of this isn’t really any constitutional issue though, it’s just federal employment regulations. So good regulators in the executive could fix it.
>Strange. I’m not totally sure what it is about waiting in a security line that makes it “not working”.
They've already clocked out, but not yet left the premises. Technically speaking, they're choosing to wait in the security line on their own free time.
Because it's often about the "piece of paper" cost. What I mean by this is explicit costs and savings are preferred by management: they can point to their bosses, wave a sheet of paper, and say, "See, I saved twenty-six dollars here!" In reality, it may have cost fifty dollars, but that doesn't matter. It's the same reason why we have open offices, "hot desks", and improper tools: the incentive structure is wrong.
At this one company, the developers have pretty decent HP desktop machines on Windows with Intel eighth generation processors, 8 GB RAM, ... and a $19 500GB hard disk drive. Why? I am sure someone somewhere got a pat in the back for saving the company money while every single npm operation takes at least an order of magnitude of time more.
>Why does Amazon not put more bathrooms in the warehouses, so it doesnt take 10 minutes just to walk there and back? That's like a distance of more then half a mile...
Amazon reduces costs by only having the minimum number of bathrooms legally required regardless of the size of the warehouse.
It's so typical I'm almost laughing. Every workplace I've seen makes it just too hard to work at peak efficiency and invent all the wrong answers to the simplest of problems. Let's not buy pens, let's not buy a table, ...
Is there a formula for non adversarial job structures ?
The reddit AMA author seems to have worked at a ‘traditional’ FC where there are miles of bookshelf or pallet style storage. In this layout it is difficult to place optimized restrooms as one pick worker may cover half of a million sqft building in a shift.
Newer, robotized FCs have much more tightly packed, human-inaccessible storage zones and have restrooms a reasonable distance from static pick workstations.
> Why does Amazon not put more bathrooms in the warehouses, so it doesnt take 10 minutes just to walk there and back?
Not my industry, but I wonder if building code requirements for contracted facilities construction has anything to do with this. Would be interesting to hear perspective of civil engineers on this, in particular, those involved with standing up fulfillment centers.
For example, a few observations from the 2017 Florida Building Code[1]:
Minimum 1 lavatory per 100 and 1 drinking fountain per 1,000 in occupancies classified for storage (per Table 2902.1). Natural inquiry that arises in my mind is what the specified occupancy of the fulfillment center in question is.
In occupancies other than malls, lavatories normally located not more than 1 story above/below the target space, path of travel not to exceed 500 feet (per 2902.3.2). However, there's a possible exception for factory and industrial occupancies which allow this requirement to be waived with approval. I wonder if Amazon has pursued this exemption when contracting the construction of their fulfillment centers.
Just as the means of production have evolved so too have the means of oppression and control. Not that I'm putting words in OP's mouth, but I'm sure they are not making a direct comparison of "this is just like that," more a "This is the modern version of that."
It’s not the modern version of slavery though. The modern version of slavery is indentured workers in Dubai, prisoners is the U.S., sex trafficking victims.
There's no "Company Store" where you get deeper in debt to your employeer. No indentured servitude. No one forcing you to work there (quit anytime for a better job). Etc.
I don't like what I hear about working conditions and agree it should be improved, and I also agree this is not slavery.
I don’t disagree but only on the concept of chattel slavery, there are other forms of slavery. The idea that there are better jobs for every single employee there isn’t true. Amazon knows that, you know that, the parent knows that. And since people have to work to survive, it is a bit of a trap or a form of wage slavery.
But then if you sit around on welfare, you’re demonized less than a worker that undoubtably contributes to society. If you ask for a pay raise and a union, the propaganda goes in full affect.
Resistance to improving working conditions seems to be almost as strong as resistance to ending slavery in the south as well.
Regardless of the use of the word slavery, I’m all for supporting the people who actually work on the bottom rung. Wage competition between union and salary jobs are the main reason things are as good as they even are in the US today.
The thing is, their is a reason they say "modern day slavery" and not "slavery." The implication here is that just because there are no actual whips, no literal rape, and no families torn apart forever doesn't mean we should think this is acceptable. It's the modern equivalent of slavery. No, it's not slavery with whips and rape. It's a different type of slavery. Hence the qualifier.
Anyways, I did you the service of explaining why you would get voted down. If you aren't going to read something, and you have nothing useful to add, don't bother commenting. Comments like yours don't contribute anything useful and only harm HN.
If your choice is unemployment and not being able to afford the basic necessities, what choice do you have?
I mean, sure, you could quit and give up those those things. But then by that line of thinking, slaves could technically stop being slaves if they wanted to.
In both cases, the individuals are worse off. But I don't think that's the bar we should be shooting for.
I guess the real question is: are you okay with conditions Amazon has for it's Fulfillment center employees? Or are you just wasting people's time whining about the word "slavery?"
The choice would be looking for another job. A choice that slaves didn't have. By your definition, everybody is a slave, who is not so rich that they can afford to stop working.
As for Amazon's Fulfillment centers, I'd like to read a statement by their operators before making a judgement. I suspect it is not as easy to make unskilled workers do useful work as many people think.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply with why you believe the other poster is wrong. Too many people just downvote and move on without giving the opportunity to let others learn.
However, I think you're wrong. There is slavery today with rape, murder, physical control, etc. When I see "Modern day slavery" or the "modern equivalent" is still just "slavery".
There is indeed slavery today with rape, murder and physical control - so I don't think the term "modern day slavery" is accurate save for some explanation as to what the "modern day" part means. Language doesn't necessarily work in a linear way - it's entirely possible for "slavery", "modern slavery" and "modern day slavery" to all refer to different concepts. Someone else in this same comment thread even uses the term "old-school slavery". Nevertheless, the term "wage slavery" has gained increasing usage, and comparisons of the wage system to slavery go back a long time, even when the plight of slaves was evident at the time. Keep in mind that the author of this quote was an ardent abolitionist too:
>The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class.
One obvious example of modern day slavery in the United States is prison labor. It's not rare, and it's still disproportionately black people because of our racist "justice" system.
Is your argument that all demographics commit crime at the same rate? For example the vast majority of those incarcerated are in for violent crime, and a significant number of those involve killing.
Modern-day slavery looks like someone kidnapping you and forcing you to work in a brick kiln because they showed you the equivalent of $200 USD before taking it away from you and so now you "owe them money".
Amazon employees are voluntary and by definition would rather have the job than not. It's nothing like slavery. Saying it is waters the concept down and is incredibly disrespectful to those who were actual slaves.
That doesn't mean the job shouldn't be improved, but anyone equating it to slavery loses all credibility and can't be taken seriously.
Modern days slavery is still slavery... Blood diamond harvesting, US prisoners used as unpaid work force, sex workers, sweat shops in foreign countries.
Amazon work conditions suck, but not modern day slavery bad.
Why do hourly employees care how long your lunch break is? At least in the US it's usually not counted as work time. Assuming people clock out for the lunch break, I don't see why they'd care if it's 30m or 2hr, since people could just make up the hours by working later. Although I suppose it depends on the type of work being done.
>Why do hourly employees care how long your lunch break is
Because you have a ten hour shift of difficult labor and twenty minutes of your thirty minute break is taken up with walking. And if you're in a FC with robots the time it takes for the Kivas to arrive at your station counts against you because you're expected to start working thirty minutes after your break starts, so on top of everything else you have to end your break early to make that time up.
>I don't see why they'd care if it's 30m or 2hr, since people could just make up the hours by working later.
I'm not aware of any business that allows its employees to take arbitrarily long breaks or to work arbitrary extra hours to "make it up." If such a company exists, Amazon is definitely not one of them.
Many employees are evaluated by "scan to scan," which is a literal count of the rate at which they physically scan ASINs and bin codes in sequence, so any activity other than that (including bathroom breaks) counts as a penalty against their rate.
Of course they also have multiple quotas for items per hour, based on item size and expected daily volume, etc.
Anyone who says unions are no longer necessary should go and work in an Amazon warehouse for a year. Until the workforce organizes, this is going to keep happening.
>I don't see any mystery in why employees would band together in situations like these. They'd be fools not to.
If they're Americans, it's because they've been raised to believe that unions are for lazy degenerate communists who don't want to earn an honest living.
Fair enough. There are parts of the country for which it is definitely true, though. I'm part of a number of Amazon employee groups on Facebook and the recent news of strikes by Amazon employees over Prime day was met with almost universal derision there - by FC employees, not even managers or tech workers.
That is a good point but wages from labor are not a profit. It’s a trade. Your time and effort for the money.
So it’s even worse than you portray. Companies maximizing profits is not a trade that they suffer for. It could simply be theft out of the employee’s pocket, or in the form of harm done to the environment.
To better understand antipathy towards unions in the US, do a google search for "new york rubber room". Tens of millions of dollars a year spent on salaries for teachers who had to be pulled from classrooms but couldn't be fired. Due to the backlog of arbiters, they sit around doing nothing at all. It's bad for them, bad for the schools, and bad for the public.
It's an extreme example, to be sure, but it is also one that had gotten a fair amount of media attention. No-one wants to work hard when they see someone else taking it easy, knowing that their next pay raise is more closely tied to seniority than it is to on the job performance.
Another example is the number of states where unions arranged "votes" to force "home health care workers" to unionize. That is, if you are taking care of a family member who recieves certain kinds of disability welfare, you are automatically deemed a union member, and the dues are taken from the welfare payments.
It was nothing more than a blatant money grab when it happened where I lived, and I can assure you that these peope got far less from their "representation" than they got in dues, since they were never technically employees in the first place and no bargaining or contact to begin with.
Yes, there are better ways that unions can operate. There are some good unions out there. There is also plenty to criticise too, and pretending that they are a universal good isn't helping anyone.
Edit: perhaps the biggest complaint is that the unions are too powerful. Even leaving is hard; the New Haven firefighters had to file a lawsuit to stop the former parent union fron sending their members to collections agencies for their dues after they left. https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/New-Haven-firefighte...
Sure, unions can be corrupt and work against the interests of their members, but businesses and lawmakers can also be corrupt and collude to exploit their workers and constituents. Collective action is a necessary counterbalance to the bias in capitalist societies towards the ownership class at the expense of the labor class.
I don't think unions are universally good or bad, but they are the reason employees get paid in legal tender rather than company scrip, get weekends off rather than working seven day shifts, and why labor laws even exist. An attitude of antipathy towards unions doesn't offer a better alternative to them, as much as wish businesses and governments could just be left alone to treat labor as they please.
You've highlighted a common union-busting tactic with the New York teachers example. The employer won't fund sufficient resources for arbitration, and so innocent and guilty alike languish for ages, and somehow this is the union's fault, as if denying the accused a fair hearing was a reasonable option.
Between you, me, and the internet, I agree the seniority system is horrible, but if you don't like it, you are free to elect representatives that will abolish it. Unless of course you're in a non-union workplace, in which case you can either put up with it or quit.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that teachers unions- esp. in NY of all places- are going to be "busted", at least not by this. I also don't see how the administration benefits at all from paying 10-20 million a year in salaries to teachers who arent teaching; it'd surely be cheaper to speed up arbitration and get on with it.
As for the seniority system, unfortunately, the tyranny of the marjority is how it stays in place. First in, last out, best perks. The nature and structure of unions enables this far more readily than any merit based system. Vote all you want, but it won't change that both the company and the union are trying to screw you over. At least, that's the mentality among anti-union types in the US.
Unions are a universal good, because all they are in essence is collective bargaining.
Just because bad things happen within and around all human organizations has no bearing on the concept of collective bargaining or working class unity, which itself is sorely lacking in the US specifically. Which means your examples amount to propaganda in favor of the investment class in the end.
It seems that the US union law favors so called enterprise bargaining or worksite-level bargaining. Companies and workplaces either unionize or not. That kind of system pits unions against companies. If the workplace unionizes, non-unionized companies get an advantage. Whoever fucks their workers hardest gets competitive advantage.
My experience of unions comes as an entrepreneur in countries with sectoral bargaining. Companies representing the whole sector negotiate against unions representing most or all workers in that sector. There may be company level deals also, but they are just a side show dealing with local issues. When the deal is made, everyone is at the same level of pain and gain. If company in retail business must allow their workers to pee, so does their competitor. You don't get competitive advantage if you fuck with your workers.
This isn’t true. Plenty of construction, plumbing and electricians are unionized. They work on roads, big public or corporate projects and do just fine. The lower end, residential tend to be non-union. Many trades folk want to be in a union. You can also go hang your own shingle too.
The whole let's run workers like machines idea because they are poor and they have no bargaining power is very closely akin to slavery and yet is tolerated... and not thought of as completely immoral. I mean how the fuck do you get away with limiting the ability of people to use the restroom.
OK first the Restroom issue...Can we Please LET THIS GO!!! There is NO RULE saying that I have a limit or restrictions on Restroom use. I can use the Restroom as much/often as I need. I have Never peed in a bottle or trash can Nor have I seen anyone does that either!! I have never gotten written up or in trouble for using the restroom. Really this rumor needs to be put to rest!! Its tired and old.
The last time I checked Slaves do not have Freedom and I have freedom to come and go as I please, Slaves do not get paid and I Get Paid VERY Well and get pay raises. Slaves do not get benefits and I get FULL Benefits with all the bells and whistles. I am NOT A Slave. There are no shackles over here.
That, or universal basic income. No need for unions if workers can simply say no to a job and live humbly instead. Amazon simply wouldn't find anyone willing to work for them until they improved.
At least. Robots will (and are) reducing the number of employees, but humans are incredibly flexible components to stick in your pipeline. Fully eliminating the use of them will take a long time unless there is a large external motivator (i.e. politics/unionization making it untenable to continue hiring humans for the tasks).
(Personal opinion, I have no special experience in the field)
Amazon Warehouse jobs have been well above minimum wage for quite some time. They are difficult, but warehouse jobs are not easy. I feel like there is a generational gap where people are expecting a comfortable office job.
It's hardly slavery. It's a choice. You an always go somewhere else to work. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on low-skilled labor jobs.
I've known plenty of people that have worked in an Amazon Warehouse (in different states/locations) and they don't have to piss in bottles.
This mode of thinking makes a dangerous assumption - that any issue can be resolved simply by an individual action. It assumes that because one person is making the complaint, then the issue which the complaint attempts to access must therefore be individual. It's an anti-political stance; politics isn't only about individuals, it's about creating a better society at large.
Let's say that it really is such an easy choice as you're describing. It's implausible that it's the case for every worker who feels mistreated there. Therefore your solution means to them we say "tough shit". This is one consequence of the divorce of economy and politics. In no political situation is it viable in rhetoric or otherwise to say "tough shit" to a group of people. But it's fine to say that in economic circumstances. The examples go on - most of us are in favour of democracy in the political sphere, because we believe we should have a say over our lives, but in the anarchic economic sphere in which pressures arise which are extremely compelling (so compelling that there are even markets for selling one's own organs) we balk at the idea of democracy.
This is why I'm in favour of economic democracy - to stop statements like "It's a choice. You can go somewhere else." from being the end of these discussions, and to take away their logical basis which falsely assumes democracy should be relegated to politics.
There are norms that already prevent (non-military) hired workers from e.g. working more than 168 h/no, or prescribe at least 2 weeks of paid leave a year.
I think these norms can be used / extended as needed.
Within the capitalist system, of course - that's how it works. The capitalist fights to increase the working day (either in time- or piece-wages) while workers fight to decrease the working day. It's an endless tug of war between capital and labour. Ultimately, though, I don't think it solves much. The whole logical system and ideological analysis goes beyond simple adjustments to various quantities.
Other Amazon employees have commented on the thread saying that their working conditions don't match the picture the OP described - so either practices differ between warehouses, or there's something else going on.
Even if Amazon were to be brought in line, the situation won't get much better, it would simply move to smaller no-name contractor companies that would do the same, the only difference being that there will be too many and too small to ever get the focal point attention that Amazon is getting.
The fundamental problem here is there are too many low skilled people for the number of low skill jobs available. Considering the birthrates in this country are already low, this looks like that that problem is solving itself and yet apparently we need to increase the immigration numbers for low skilled immigrants, to keep exacerbating the situation?
Greenspan, in his testimony, then suggests technological change and international competition as possible reasons for worker insecurity, before noting that "suppressed wage cost growth as a consequence of job insecurity can be carried only so far. At some point, the tradeoff of subdued wage growth for job security has to come to an end. In other words, the relatively modest wage gains we have experienced are a temporary rather than a lasting phenomenon because there is a limit to the value of additional job security people are willing to acquire in exchange for lesser increases in living standards.
If automation improves productivity by two times, it means that people have to work half as much. Simple math. Why is this not happening with the glorious free market capitalism?
I once brought up the idea of automation tax and UBI here and was downvoted to oblivion by the HN conservatives. But that’s obviously the only way to avoid modern day slavery or else we end up in a local equilibrium where the owners of capital automate away every thing that gives the masses their edge and we put the final nail in the coffin of democracy. (Not that we are too far from that with the media, legislation, election laws and enforcement being massively biased towards capital controlled by a small minority)
92 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 167 ms ] threadWhy does Amazon not put more bathrooms in the warehouses, so it doesnt take 10 minutes just to walk there and back? That's like a distance of more then half a mile...
Not drinking any water during ones shift doesn't seem a healthy solution.
Fulfillment center employees also searched for theft after their shift every day. Not only is this dehumanizing, but they don't hire enough security people. This results in 20+ minute lines. The employees are unpaid while waiting. There was a lawsuit about this that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and Amazon won.
If working at Amazon means your time is free for corporations, then it should apply to everyone until it’s fixed.
Strange. I’m not totally sure what it is about waiting in a security line that makes it “not working”. Supposedly cleaning chemicals from the plant off your body does count as work. But participating in a workplace compliance process like a security line is not work. But I assume the screeners are getting paid? I guess it’s because screening is part of their job description.
I guess I’d have to read the opinions to find out where that line is. It’s not obvious to me.
“Am I free to go” would seem like a more obvious line... although then the chemical showers wouldn’t be billable. Since you’re free to leave dirty. I can see the legal dilemma.
All of this isn’t really any constitutional issue though, it’s just federal employment regulations. So good regulators in the executive could fix it.
They've already clocked out, but not yet left the premises. Technically speaking, they're choosing to wait in the security line on their own free time.
Amazon reduces costs by only having the minimum number of bathrooms legally required regardless of the size of the warehouse.
Is there a formula for non adversarial job structures ?
Newer, robotized FCs have much more tightly packed, human-inaccessible storage zones and have restrooms a reasonable distance from static pick workstations.
Not my industry, but I wonder if building code requirements for contracted facilities construction has anything to do with this. Would be interesting to hear perspective of civil engineers on this, in particular, those involved with standing up fulfillment centers.
For example, a few observations from the 2017 Florida Building Code[1]:
Minimum 1 lavatory per 100 and 1 drinking fountain per 1,000 in occupancies classified for storage (per Table 2902.1). Natural inquiry that arises in my mind is what the specified occupancy of the fulfillment center in question is.
In occupancies other than malls, lavatories normally located not more than 1 story above/below the target space, path of travel not to exceed 500 feet (per 2902.3.2). However, there's a possible exception for factory and industrial occupancies which allow this requirement to be waived with approval. I wonder if Amazon has pursued this exemption when contracting the construction of their fulfillment centers.
[1] https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/FBC2017/chapter-29-plumbin...
I don't like what I hear about working conditions and agree it should be improved, and I also agree this is not slavery.
But then if you sit around on welfare, you’re demonized less than a worker that undoubtably contributes to society. If you ask for a pay raise and a union, the propaganda goes in full affect.
Resistance to improving working conditions seems to be almost as strong as resistance to ending slavery in the south as well.
Regardless of the use of the word slavery, I’m all for supporting the people who actually work on the bottom rung. Wage competition between union and salary jobs are the main reason things are as good as they even are in the US today.
Anyways, I did you the service of explaining why you would get voted down. If you aren't going to read something, and you have nothing useful to add, don't bother commenting. Comments like yours don't contribute anything useful and only harm HN.
I mean, sure, you could quit and give up those those things. But then by that line of thinking, slaves could technically stop being slaves if they wanted to.
In both cases, the individuals are worse off. But I don't think that's the bar we should be shooting for.
I guess the real question is: are you okay with conditions Amazon has for it's Fulfillment center employees? Or are you just wasting people's time whining about the word "slavery?"
As for Amazon's Fulfillment centers, I'd like to read a statement by their operators before making a judgement. I suspect it is not as easy to make unskilled workers do useful work as many people think.
However, I think you're wrong. There is slavery today with rape, murder, physical control, etc. When I see "Modern day slavery" or the "modern equivalent" is still just "slavery".
>The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class.
Yes, there is. That's slavery.
> When I see "Modern day slavery" or the "modern equivalent" is still just "slavery".
I don't understand. It seems like you missed a word, and however I try, I cannot figure out what you mean.
What to call it when US Ivy League graduates are shocked to discover that they share a country with blue collar workers, I don't know...
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27486450
Amazon employees are voluntary and by definition would rather have the job than not. It's nothing like slavery. Saying it is waters the concept down and is incredibly disrespectful to those who were actual slaves.
That doesn't mean the job shouldn't be improved, but anyone equating it to slavery loses all credibility and can't be taken seriously.
You stopped reading because there were no practices of old school slavery in the so called modern day slavery?
Amazon work conditions suck, but not modern day slavery bad.
Because you have a ten hour shift of difficult labor and twenty minutes of your thirty minute break is taken up with walking. And if you're in a FC with robots the time it takes for the Kivas to arrive at your station counts against you because you're expected to start working thirty minutes after your break starts, so on top of everything else you have to end your break early to make that time up.
>I don't see why they'd care if it's 30m or 2hr, since people could just make up the hours by working later.
I'm not aware of any business that allows its employees to take arbitrarily long breaks or to work arbitrary extra hours to "make it up." If such a company exists, Amazon is definitely not one of them.
Of course they also have multiple quotas for items per hour, based on item size and expected daily volume, etc.
I don't see any mystery in why employees would band together in situations like these. They'd be fools not to.
If they're Americans, it's because they've been raised to believe that unions are for lazy degenerate communists who don't want to earn an honest living.
If a worker does the same, it is lazy.
So it’s even worse than you portray. Companies maximizing profits is not a trade that they suffer for. It could simply be theft out of the employee’s pocket, or in the form of harm done to the environment.
It's an extreme example, to be sure, but it is also one that had gotten a fair amount of media attention. No-one wants to work hard when they see someone else taking it easy, knowing that their next pay raise is more closely tied to seniority than it is to on the job performance.
Another example is the number of states where unions arranged "votes" to force "home health care workers" to unionize. That is, if you are taking care of a family member who recieves certain kinds of disability welfare, you are automatically deemed a union member, and the dues are taken from the welfare payments.
It was nothing more than a blatant money grab when it happened where I lived, and I can assure you that these peope got far less from their "representation" than they got in dues, since they were never technically employees in the first place and no bargaining or contact to begin with.
Yes, there are better ways that unions can operate. There are some good unions out there. There is also plenty to criticise too, and pretending that they are a universal good isn't helping anyone.
Edit: perhaps the biggest complaint is that the unions are too powerful. Even leaving is hard; the New Haven firefighters had to file a lawsuit to stop the former parent union fron sending their members to collections agencies for their dues after they left. https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/New-Haven-firefighte...
I don't think unions are universally good or bad, but they are the reason employees get paid in legal tender rather than company scrip, get weekends off rather than working seven day shifts, and why labor laws even exist. An attitude of antipathy towards unions doesn't offer a better alternative to them, as much as wish businesses and governments could just be left alone to treat labor as they please.
Between you, me, and the internet, I agree the seniority system is horrible, but if you don't like it, you are free to elect representatives that will abolish it. Unless of course you're in a non-union workplace, in which case you can either put up with it or quit.
As for the seniority system, unfortunately, the tyranny of the marjority is how it stays in place. First in, last out, best perks. The nature and structure of unions enables this far more readily than any merit based system. Vote all you want, but it won't change that both the company and the union are trying to screw you over. At least, that's the mentality among anti-union types in the US.
Just because bad things happen within and around all human organizations has no bearing on the concept of collective bargaining or working class unity, which itself is sorely lacking in the US specifically. Which means your examples amount to propaganda in favor of the investment class in the end.
My experience of unions comes as an entrepreneur in countries with sectoral bargaining. Companies representing the whole sector negotiate against unions representing most or all workers in that sector. There may be company level deals also, but they are just a side show dealing with local issues. When the deal is made, everyone is at the same level of pain and gain. If company in retail business must allow their workers to pee, so does their competitor. You don't get competitive advantage if you fuck with your workers.
It's really just matter of arranging incentives.
In Canada, we have some sectoral organization but I wouldn't expect it to complete.
The last time I checked Slaves do not have Freedom and I have freedom to come and go as I please, Slaves do not get paid and I Get Paid VERY Well and get pay raises. Slaves do not get benefits and I get FULL Benefits with all the bells and whistles. I am NOT A Slave. There are no shackles over here.
Rachel-Amazon FC Ambassador
https://www.newsweek.com/amazon-employee-allegedly-fired-ove...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5004230/amazon-warehouse-worki...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amazon-fired-7-pregnant-wareh...
https://amazonemancipatory.com/bathroom-breaks
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-workers-sha...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/01/amazon-fu...
https://brobible.com/culture/article/amazon-employee-suing-c...
This is true, but companies that don’t fuck their employees also have a competitive advantage.
So it’s kind of not true. It really depends on the details which advantage is bigger.
(Personal opinion, I have no special experience in the field)
You can also lay them off during a downturn and substantially cut costs. That is a big deal.
It's hardly slavery. It's a choice. You an always go somewhere else to work. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on low-skilled labor jobs.
I've known plenty of people that have worked in an Amazon Warehouse (in different states/locations) and they don't have to piss in bottles.
I did a few in my post-graduation days (as the joke goes, "do you want fries with that?"). There's nothing notably hard about them.
> have been well above minimum wage for quite some time
be lovely if you could give some figures, ta
This mode of thinking makes a dangerous assumption - that any issue can be resolved simply by an individual action. It assumes that because one person is making the complaint, then the issue which the complaint attempts to access must therefore be individual. It's an anti-political stance; politics isn't only about individuals, it's about creating a better society at large.
Let's say that it really is such an easy choice as you're describing. It's implausible that it's the case for every worker who feels mistreated there. Therefore your solution means to them we say "tough shit". This is one consequence of the divorce of economy and politics. In no political situation is it viable in rhetoric or otherwise to say "tough shit" to a group of people. But it's fine to say that in economic circumstances. The examples go on - most of us are in favour of democracy in the political sphere, because we believe we should have a say over our lives, but in the anarchic economic sphere in which pressures arise which are extremely compelling (so compelling that there are even markets for selling one's own organs) we balk at the idea of democracy.
This is why I'm in favour of economic democracy - to stop statements like "It's a choice. You can go somewhere else." from being the end of these discussions, and to take away their logical basis which falsely assumes democracy should be relegated to politics.
I think these norms can be used / extended as needed.
Would be nice to have a warehouse operator for an AMA some time.
The fundamental problem here is there are too many low skilled people for the number of low skill jobs available. Considering the birthrates in this country are already low, this looks like that that problem is solving itself and yet apparently we need to increase the immigration numbers for low skilled immigrants, to keep exacerbating the situation?
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul...
I once brought up the idea of automation tax and UBI here and was downvoted to oblivion by the HN conservatives. But that’s obviously the only way to avoid modern day slavery or else we end up in a local equilibrium where the owners of capital automate away every thing that gives the masses their edge and we put the final nail in the coffin of democracy. (Not that we are too far from that with the media, legislation, election laws and enforcement being massively biased towards capital controlled by a small minority)
https://quillette.com/2019/07/19/the-problem-with-tourist-jo...
Discussed here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20486348